US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries • Hacker News Board

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#131

Post by gravy » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

ssijak wrote: post #35

mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?

I think you are living inside a big bubble. When was the last time China showed military aggresion outside its borders, especialy on the other side of the world? US doing the “checking” around the world left countless people dead for nothing, and a lot of countries ruined. Not to mention trillions od dollars spent on financing that. US complain about Russia meddling with US elections (through 150k worth of Facebook a…

I think a) we may have different definitions of "military aggression" and b) China and the US have different "priorities" when it comes to the military.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#132

Post by whatok » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #122

jjoonathan wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. I'm surrounded by people who take our position in the world for granted and don't see any problem with gutting our military, though.

If the US only holds its economic ground at gunpoint I don't feel justified living my dainty American lifestyle thanks to boots to the throat of peoples around the world. Europe endures and prospers without threat of violence or economic imperialism by bomb across the globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#133

Post by Nahmag » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #122

jjoonathan wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. I'm surrounded by people who take our position in the world for granted and don't see any problem with gutting our military, though.

If the US only holds its economic ground at gunpoint I don't feel justified living my dainty American lifestyle thanks to boots to the throat of peoples around the world. Europe endures and prospers without threat of violence or economic imperialism by bomb across the globe.

East-European states certainly do not think that they can survive without the help of the US.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#134

Post by ThomPete » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

dashundchen wrote: post #52

ThomPete wrote: post #27

One thing that is always missing from these discussions is the whole picture. You have to factor the pros and the cons in any situation. This kind of headlines and focus only focuses on the negatives with regards but forget to ask why we have a military, to begin with and what the cost would be if we didn't. A much healthier approach IMO is to look at how we can improve energy production in general as that's at the h…

> Our relatively wealthy, safe, modern lives with all the bells and whistles and freedoms we in the west take for granted, only is possible because it ultimately sits on top of military dominance that allows us to secure acccess to the proper resources and gives us negotiation power. This belief astounds me. Do you really think your material condition requires the constant death, destruction and turmoil inflicted by…

No but the treath of it does. Name me on other superpower that doesent rely on strong military.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#135

Post by the_af » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

flyinglizard wrote: post #127

the_af wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere" No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does no…

You conveniently forgot to mention that the "Cold War playground" was between USA and USSR, it wasn't USA's alone.

No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world".

Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#136

Post by adventured » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

hwillis wrote: post #121

bsaul wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s funny how most people forget that every single american president since georges bush junior has been elected on the promise of reducing us’s involvment into foreign countries ( i’m old enough to remember people accused him of being isolationist), but have all been prevented to so by external events. With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget wou…

> With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget would be a wise strategic move ? The budget is essentially unchanged[1]. The value of that budget has increased exponentially because the value of Chinese currency has increased. China has not directed any more of its resources to its military. Even more foolish is acting like the Chinese military is capab…

China is already nearly spending as much as the US is on its military once you adjust for the difference in the cost of personnel (which is half of US military spending), ie adjust for PPP. The US has the best paid soldiers in the world for any major military, which matches up with the US having among the highest median pay of any nation.

When China's economy is another 50% larger, matching where US GDP is at today, you can expect China's real military spending to considerably exceed the US today.

Thanks to drastically lower salaries & benefits, the personnel costs for the Chinese military is a far smaller portion of its total military spending as compared to the US share.

Adjusted PPP comparison: https://i.imgur.com/SY22Whj.png

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#137

Post by hutzlibu » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #56

brlewis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world You are absolutely right. This statement is as true as saying you have to balance eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week against letting your children starve. Completely true. However, if you're currently eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week, the direction you need to go in toward balance is obvious. Would you support redu…

If it were me, I think we need to be able to fend off the largest rivals convincingly. If Russia and China were to enter the fold and be good world citizens and share a common vision and cooperate, then yeah. We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.

" We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals. "

So eternal arms race then?

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#138

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

flexie wrote: post #74

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #38

US Military is a bigger insert topic here than as many as insert large number here countries. Whether that topic is economics, or employees, or technology, or any other metric you want to analyze...the US military is large. Edit: It would be more interesting to compare pollution from the military vs other countries or other militaries as a function of their size. Similar problems often arise when comparing states - i…

Actually, I find it surprisingly small when considering how powerful it is. In terms of men (2.2M active and reserve), combat tanks (6,300), artillery (1,700), war ships (130), submarines (70) and fighter planes (2,400) it’s dwarfed by militaries of the past. Of course the firepower is much larger nowadays and nuclear weapons also make conventional military play a different role, and the US military - although engage…

Interesting observation, though it becomes fairly readily explained on several points.

The militaries of WWII were fighting an active, unrestricted, war. The US military of today is active, yes, but highly resstrained. aRather than occupy and subdue, its primary role is to project power -- think "gunboat diplomacy" for an earlier example, rather than exercise it. The nuclear arsenal as a prime example.

Where the US does exercise force, it is typically highly focused and targeted. It is not unreasonable for foreign journalists to repprt on ongoing air raids from exposed locations within the cities directly targeted (see Bagdad, in both gulf wars, in ways that reporting from a firebombed Tokyo or Dresden would not have been. Murrow's rooftop reporting of the London Blitz was notable specifically for its daring.

Several authors have noted (some, such as Robert J. Gordon apparently unconciously) of the near le=inear relationship between energy input per worker and productivity, particularly in the case of factory manufacturing of the 1st half ofvthe 20th century. Whether measured in mechanical horsepower or kilowatts, the relation holds. The US military brings a tremendous amount of energy (itself largely responsible for the pollution mention in TFA) per soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. That includes embodied energy in vehicles, arms, and structures, as well as motive and destri]uctive power, again with the nuclear arsenal as its apex.

To wrap my examples: the military is also a highly-tuned logistics system. Much of the task of a military is package delivery -- parking hot lead, dU, HE, or other actives, where they will have a desired effect. Getting the parts and support where and when needed is complex, and the DoD is a masterwork of central planning efficiency. Result: fewer workers -- combatants -- required.

As a parallel to the role of mechanisation and automation in general employment, there are multiple lessons to draw.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#139

Post by flyinglizard » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #135

flyinglizard wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the "Cold War playground" was between USA and USSR, it wasn't USA's alone.

No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interest…

We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#140

Post by bsaul » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #124

bsaul wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s funny how most people forget that every single american president since georges bush junior has been elected on the promise of reducing us’s involvment into foreign countries ( i’m old enough to remember people accused him of being isolationist), but have all been prevented to so by external events. With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget wou…

The answer to an aggressive and militant China would be the same answer to any upstart nuclear power threatening the world - we have already seen how effective sanctioning Russia has been in the wake of their aggressive imperialism stints in the past decade. So successful as to inspire them to try undermining US elections to get an apologetic administration in place to remove said sanctions. Sanctioning China economi…

You can only impose economical sanctions if you also have the mean to at least contain any military aggression the sanctioned country could take as a reaction.