Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

211–220 of 243 posts

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

#211
post #122

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.

If you feel that your dainty American lifestyle needs moral justification, I have bad news for you.

Personally, I'll settle for having it over not having it.

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

#212

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…

> "...our miliitary budget is just another cold war era echo..." - No, it's more complicated than that. You're ignoring all current geopolitics.

> "...the ignorant notion that our public officials are moral actors..." - Yes good point. Politicians are inherently evil. We should just let Walmart run the country.

> "We have to be brave and fight back or else..." - Gotta love militant pacifism.

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

#213
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WW2 was about conquest and they were invaded by the Russians. Being neutral didn't really save them from the attack.

When push comes to shove, neutral countries eventually need to pick sides or they will be taken over.

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak … it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever. NATO is not required for the Ukraine. Under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, 1994 - the USA, UK, and others committed to defend the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for them giving up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal. Then you didn't. Why would NATO be different - under an actual…

Ukraine had the 3rd largest global nuclear arsenal? Presumably inherited from USSR?

They also produced lots of military goods for Russia. Thus it was no good idea trying to bring them into EU and as second step into NATO. They could have been a perfect neutral state serving both sides. But every side wanted their own oligarch.

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

#215
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WW2 was about conquest and they were invaded by the Russians. Being neutral didn't really save them from the attack. When push comes to shove, neutral countries eventually need to pick sides or they will be taken over.

The Swiss would disagree. Neutral by constitution..

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

#216
post #133
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source? Last year I was more afraid of Regime Change Attempts in Ukraine at least fueled by NATO/EU. Victoria (Fuck the EU) Nuland was pretty clear the US does not give a shit if Europe burns..

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

#217
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WW2 was about conquest and they were invaded by the Russians. Being neutral didn't really save them from the attack. When push comes to shove, neutral countries eventually need to pick sides or they will be taken over.

You are misinformed, Finland wasn't neutral before WW2 and it wasn't neutral before the Winter War.

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

#218
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Europe endures and prospers at the expense of the US military forces.

On the other hand, we take the refugees produced by US military and foreign politics. And our countries are the first to crumble into dust if there is another Dr. Strangelove.

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

#219

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…

well, comparing an active force, mecanized, a large part of it being airborne or seaborne to a whole country, which includes children, retirees, unemployed etc. it's not even that bad.

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other countries with large armies tend to throw poorly trained, and in the case of NK, poorly fed conscripts at the problem. This is a strange mischaracterization of Israel's and South Korea's militaries, which are two of the largest in proportion to population in the world. Other countries with large armies don't have to pay for the enormous logistical tail the US uses to deploy worldwide, and the unique readiness…

Israel is not in the top 20 active duty, South Korea is. A good friend of mine was forced to go back "home" to do military service after we graduated high school, from what he told me after basic training he basically served his time doing nothing near the dmz. Sounded like they didn't know what to do with the conscripts they were being served up by the system. Maybe he was unique or maybe he exaggerated.

> Israel is not in the top 20 active duty

Well yeah, it's a tiny country. In terms of active duty personnel per capita, it's fourth in the world (2.1% of population, as opposed to 1.2% for South Korea and 0.4% for the USA).

> from what he told me after basic training he basically served his time doing nothing near the dmz.

The security strategy of Israel and South Korea is:

* Be able to call an army of ~10% of the population into being within 48-72 hours

* Have an active-duty military with the latest and most up-to-date equipment and training to hold the line until that enormous reserve is ready

* Have intelligence services capable of giving advance warning so the active-duty military doesn't need to hold out as long

So yes of course someone drafted into the ROK army will be trained for combat, and then spend several years on equipment maintenance and training waiting for The Big One to roll around.

Israel is a bit different in that, in addition to its preparations for high-intensity conventional war, its active-duty army is also involved in low-intensity conflict continuously. This is a major concern for the army, as it needs to make a tradeoff between levels of force to apply to the daily grind in the West Bank and the Gaza border areas, and the level of readiness for high-intensity conflict - Israel's poor performance in the 2006 Lebanon War was widely attributed within the Israeli military establishment to the reduced training for conventional warfare while the army was caught up in the counterinsurgency work of the Second Intifadah.

Post reply on HN