Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 243 posts

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

#201

Post by justaaron »

ThomPete wrote: post #168
archgoon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe mostly plays the good cop to the United States bad cop; the main problem arises when the US doesn't understand this.

Europe plays good cop because the US allows it to by playing the bad cop. The problem is Europe not the US.

No, once again, I reject the notion that our financial prosperity is in any way linked to the evil protection racket that only protects SOME (evil) businesses as the expense of

1) world peace 2) our limited political capital and limited good will

Our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia are as bad as any regime we denounce, and our much vaunted "security umbrella" is a lie.

We have more in common with China and Russia than with Switzerland, as such large nations are basically just giant bullies that make-up whatever nice-sounding rationale for any unilateral action they feel like and no one can do anything about it.

We are a force for evil in this world, since World War 2. That must be aknowledged, or I shall give you a history lesson.

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

#202

Post by deanCommie »

manfredo wrote: post #190
Circuits wrote: post #70

Our military (US) and military budget is just another cold war era echo which has been propagating for far too long. There are so many alarmist media outlets in this country who 'make their steak' off of fear mongering (looking at you FOX news) and what's more unfortunate is the general public's seeming endless supply of naive assent too their ideals and tactics. It isn't the US governments fault the military industr…

In the 1960s, defense spending accounted for over 12% of GDP. Today it's between 3-4%. We're not still fighting the cold war, and our defense spending has been reduced by a factor of 3 to 4. It's not very far off from other countries. The UK's is around 2.2% to 2.5%. Russia's is over 4% since the Ukrainian conflict.

Difference in magnitude is different in like.

The US GDP is orders of magnitude bigger than the other countries, and also has no land borders to defend so it's "defense" spending should really not be as big as most other countries.

Of course "defense" is a joke here, because US Military Defense spending is mostly "Offense" - power projection. Patrolling the international waters, and flying air missions to ensure the entire world knows the US is in charge.

Whether this has value in the world today is subjective. It's a pretty deep divide between the left ("why can't we all just get along?") and the right ("i'm afraid of anyone with a shade of skin darker than a mango, so i want an F16 flying around their country's borders 24-7 and an aircraft carrier parked outside their front door")

It didn't make much sense for most of the 90's, once russia collapsed.

It didn't make sense post 9/11 where the enemy was no longer a state, and too ephemeral to be affected by aircraft carriers.

It doesn't make sense post 2016 because the war Russia is waging on the US is one with Information (fake news, Facebook), and by compromising one of the two major political parties.

Hilariously, like a broken clock, the US is about to be right again, because it WILL make sense again over the next decade as China enters it's own "World Police" ambitions.

And as evil and self-centered the US government and international policy is, I'd rather have them in charge than China (Because while they are bastards, they are my bastards, and I, as a westerner, reap the benefits of their policies).

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

#203

Post by manfredo »

yazan94 wrote: post #191
manfredo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1960s, defense spending accounted for over 12% of GDP. Today it's between 3-4%. We're not still fighting the cold war, and our defense spending has been reduced by a factor of 3 to 4. It's not very far off from other countries. The UK's is around 2.2% to 2.5%. Russia's is over 4% since the Ukrainian conflict.

without taking into account the changes in purchasing power/inflation, actual budget amount, and changes in GDP, those stats are not really comparing apples to apples.

Quite the opposite, almost all experts use percentage of GDP as a measure of how much a country is developing its military. Purchasing power and inflation means that $100 billion today is totally different than $100 billion 20 years before or later. Not to mention, the total inflation adjusted amount of wealth in the country has gone up considerably, so even increases in inflation adjusted spending could still mean that the country is dedicating less of it's overall economic output to the military. Percentage of GDP is a much more effective measurement.

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

#204

Post by Retra »

justaaron wrote: post #194
justaaron wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unilateralism is literally only followed by a singular large country. The entirety of the rest of the world, real-politik-inclusive as it may be (like we aren't LOL) accepts a multi-polar world as a reality. It's very ironic that this same nation has ANYTHING to say about anyone else, not that we need to bring up Egypt or Saudi Arabia or our unusual orange king that loves Duterte more than Trudeau...

So, this "more pollution than 140 nations" description encapsulates 2 fundamental truths, IMNVHO 1) That the USA spends more than the entire rest of the world combined in it's "defense" budget, as having more than 700 bases in more than 80 countries has a price. 2) That it's considered above-sacred to allow this military machine to do literally anything it wishes to do, including treating the ocean as it's dumping gr…

The US is the third most populous country in the world, and it's GDP is comparable to the entire EU, and almost twice China. And it only spends ~2% of that on defense. Do you understand the relative scales here? Military spending per capita per area is quite comparable to other nation's spending. With the amount of shipping and money that flows through the US, it would be absurd to leave it inadequately defended.

>it's considered above-sacred to allow this military machine to do literally anything it wishes to do

It doesn't do anything it wishes to do, it does what politicians wish it to do, and what it does is "protect US interests", which is exactly the same thing every other military force on the planet does for its host nation.

>is now a good time to mention the Bikini atoll?

No, you're probably 60 years too late to bring that up.

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

#205

Post by gdy »

yazan94 wrote: post #199
gdy wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the luxury of being protected by the US" Protected from what? From the White Walkers? Who is there to attack Canada (besides the US itself)? The Great Britain is trying to return the lost colony? France is thinking about taking over the Quebec?

That's a bit more complicated don't you think? 70+ years with America as a superpower (20+ where it is almost the only one in its class) makes it easy to forget that things could have been massively different. Imagine a case where the Soviet Union did not dissolve, but stabilized as a military and economic equal to the US. Would you say that Canada's peace and prosperity would be guaranteed in this alternative univer…

It surely is.

I don't think that Canada in your alternative universe would've been worse off than Finland in this one. Finland's neutrality kept it safe ever since the WW2.

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

#206

Post by gerytu »

flyinglizard wrote: post #101
dantondwa wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heavenly is a large simplification. It has been heavenly for America and American companies and somewhat less terrible than other alternatives for its allies. Yes, the NATO has been very convenient for Europe. At the same time, it has meant being economically and politically subjected to the US will. For other less developed countries it has meant, sometimes, existence as de facto American puppet states. For countrie…

Sorry, but the use of atomic bombs here is a red herring; there have been just as many casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and many more casualties in conventional bombing of cities in Europe. Such is the nature of an all-out war, and the atomic bombs prevented an all-out incursion into Japan which would have turned them into rubble. Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of…

I can hardly believe that a well-reasoned person would suggest that the US waging perpetual war (sorry, "regime change") in all corners of the world based on lies and false flag terror should be considered a period of "unprecedented peace".

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

#207

Post by manfredo »

deanCommie wrote: post #202
manfredo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1960s, defense spending accounted for over 12% of GDP. Today it's between 3-4%. We're not still fighting the cold war, and our defense spending has been reduced by a factor of 3 to 4. It's not very far off from other countries. The UK's is around 2.2% to 2.5%. Russia's is over 4% since the Ukrainian conflict.

Difference in magnitude is different in like. The US GDP is orders of magnitude bigger than the other countries, and also has no land borders to defend so it's "defense" spending should really not be as big as most other countries. Of course "defense" is a joke here, because US Military Defense spending is mostly "Offense" - power projection. Patrolling the international waters, and flying air missions to ensure the…

> It didn't make much sense for most of the 90's, once russia collapsed

You're right. Which is why we went from spending 12.5% of our GDP on defense to less than 4% after the end of th cold war. That's literally a 3-4x reduction.

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

#208

Post by gerytu »

Roxo wrote: post #2

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

Our true enemies are our governments. They exist because we give them power. We give them power because they teach us to fear.

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

#209

Post by ThomPete »

_iiu1 wrote: post #200
ThomPete wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Being aggressive and hateful to the entire world at once will tend to requires substantial bodyguard resources, and will eventually fail. Peace based upon respect and respect for hard-won rules and structures is the right road. Switzerland learned this lesson through bloodshed, after a disastrous campaign in which nationals supporting the Duke of Milan got caught in reprisals from his foes, thus beginning the great S…

CH is not a superpower and in fact helped superpowers. You are confusing what would be nice with what is a reality.

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

#210

Post by ThomPete »

justaaron wrote: post #201
ThomPete wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe plays good cop because the US allows it to by playing the bad cop. The problem is Europe not the US.

No, once again, I reject the notion that our financial prosperity is in any way linked to the evil protection racket that only protects SOME (evil) businesses as the expense of 1) world peace 2) our limited political capital and limited good will Our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia are as bad as any regime we denounce, and our much vaunted "security umbrella" is a lie. We have more in common with China and Russia…

You are welcome to reject it, the reality is that you haven't mentioned which superpower isn't based on their military might. Until then no amount of indignant postering is going to change that fact.
Post reply on HN