Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

141–150 of 243 posts

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

#141
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time the "people" were asked if they agree with the size of their country's army ? EDIT: we agree to disagree but my impression is that when it comes to army and security services the tail is wagging the dog almost everywhere - not only in US. Any congressman can be presented with classified information which with the right interpretation can justify basically anything and the said congressman will…

Every election when they choose to support candidates who have stated policies regarding the military, really.

Spoken as if the establishment doesn't actively pick which candidates the people get to "choose" from.

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

#142
post #125

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.

I used to get enraged by people who simply want to gut the military, but after a while I find it’s hard to blame them. We have lived under the protection of the US Military for so long that most have forgotten what a world would be like without it. Eventually you begin to believe that if the military was simply gone things might still be the same, or perhaps even more peaceful. But they’d be wrong. They simply have n…

So... there's this place right next to America, called Canada. And instead of attacking Vietnam, trying to overthrow South American Governments, going deep into debt over nonexistent WMDs, they just don't do military budget.

And magically... they don't get attacked. Funny how that works...

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

#143
post #2

Surprise, surprise, the military-industrial complex is destroying our planet. How people can still support this is beyond me.

It's as if people don't consider Generals Smedley D. Butler and Dwight D. Eisenhower as authorities on the subject when they warned against the racket of the military-industrial complex.

It's depressing and utterly pathetic that we refuse to listen to wise words because our primitive monkey feelings don't jive with the advice they gave.

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

#144

but we get taxed more :D and then they spend our pollution taxes on more pollution. What a wonderful world.. :D

There truly are few ways to waste taxpayer dollars more thoroughly than on the military.

Social security goes from taxpayer to retiree often to be spent immediately at market for goods and services useful to many fellow countrymen.

Medicare removes the burden of caring for your elderly from the lives of millions. Its a huge economic boom to not have your parents retirements costing you your time and productivity.

The military, the third largest expense, has three principle benefits - its a direct jobs program for ~3 million people (the enlisted proper military and their tertiary federal contractors supporting them). It keeps in business a dozen or so arms corporations that use their revenue to lobby congress to spend more on the military to make themselves and their investors more money. And it projects American power abroad to use gunpoint as a weapon of trade negotiation and to "maintain the peace" (even through ideological warfare) in our zones of trade globally.

The first two are obviously awful for what purpose they fulfill in a vacuum - you could much more cheaply just house 3-5 million people and give billionaires free money instead for a fraction of the actual cost of maintaining the US armed forces. And as a US citizen the idea that my tax money goes to maintain peace in the world for the benefit of all of mankind might be passably acceptable if there were no other choice, but organizations like UN peacekeepers exist (though palpably suck at) fulfilling a similar role except without the bias towards US economic interests. Perhaps without this one nation acting as world police collaborative organizations could fill the role, but probably not.

So it comes down to a moralistic argument - is it worth it to waste the time of millions of Americans to perpetuate a theater show dick waving competition with hostile dictatorships like Russia and China around the world for the express purpose of maintaining US economic imperialism. Because its really up to you - we slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents in deserts and huts the world over but in exchange few nations have the spine to try engaging in organized warfare amongst their neighbors for fear of US intervention. There are benefits, its just if the costs we pay, and continue to pay and more each year, especially when any benefit that could generally be perceived as of universal benefit are things I would at least more generally like to see all of humanity not only pay but participate in the management of are worth it.

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

#146
post #67
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being on the side "kept in check", believe me, we were better off on ourselves. Dictators fall one way or another, 3rd party military intervention is rarely selective and not a bit subtle with the collaterals.

That’s a difficult position to be in. It’s lose-lose. Dictators can last generations and drive countries needlessly into the ground (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) Interventions are blunt instruments (interestingly some US Democrat candidates put forth the idea of intervening in Honduras... Democrats...)

I hear you. But I just want to add one more perspective, when there is an intervention, the intervening party (US in this case) technically aligns with someone from the conflict. That might be a political oppositional force, it might be a national majority, it might be a region which is or is not a part of a country. Usually there is already some kind of conflict going on. I don't have any data, but from my own experience, a lot of people are not with either side, and they suffer greatly. It might be because of the sheer despair of the situation or the "oppressing" or "opposing" force. And don't be led to think that the force supported by the US plays nicely without war crimes, offence and with pure motives. Sometimes the party supported by the US has it's own agenda which aligns with the US and it is just beneficial to be supported. I guess that it makes sense and the great US wouldn't be the US without that kind of strategy.

This went political, and the topic was ecology. As this wasn't bad enough, this all goes with a huge ecological toll which impacts a broader number of people than those involved in conflict.

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

#147
post #135

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…

The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent.

Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its economy in ~15 years (inflation adjusted). Colombia looks like it has a very bright future.

The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations. It's why there are no giant wars between Latin American nations, with rampant annexations, et al. They all know the US would intervene and whichever side the US was on, that side would likely win, so nobody wants to risk it. The US has also guaranteed the lack of foreign power conquering via the Monroe Doctrine, for more than a century, which is a rather sensitive concern given the history of Latin America.

The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America. It easily could do so. What other superpowers throughout history have ever behaved that way?

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

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is showing force against Taiwan: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3004049/tai... China is building islands all around the South China Sea: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/21... China now has a presence in Africa too: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/africa/pentagon-accuses-chinese...

First 2 items are about their borders - not that I agree with the actions, but these are completely understandable. The Africa still isn't a proper comparison - building few bases where you invest tons of money and extract crutial resources isn't the point here, bloody invasions that destroy whole region for generations and kill millions innocent are. And this is something specific to US, even Russia didn't do anythi…

Soviet Russia annexing the Baltics and setting up Eastern Europe and Central Asia as client states as well as destabilization in South East Asia, Africa, Latin America & Caribbean you say is in no way similar? Ok!

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

#149
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to get enraged by people who simply want to gut the military, but after a while I find it’s hard to blame them. We have lived under the protection of the US Military for so long that most have forgotten what a world would be like without it. Eventually you begin to believe that if the military was simply gone things might still be the same, or perhaps even more peaceful. But they’d be wrong. They simply have n…

So... there's this place right next to America, called Canada. And instead of attacking Vietnam, trying to overthrow South American Governments, going deep into debt over nonexistent WMDs, they just don't do military budget. And magically... they don't get attacked. Funny how that works...

Canada is in NATO, and attacking Canada would automatically put you at war with the USA. You cannot consider Canada's defense policy independent of the USA.

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

#150
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN