Considering the amount of money budgeted to military spending, this isn't too surprising.
US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
221–230 of 243 posts
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#222Earlier 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...
There are a significant number of Canadians (notably, the entire Conservative party, the official opposition) who feel that Canada underfunds their military.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Who would attack Canada? Polar bears?
You joke, but Canada has disputes with Russia over arctic territorial claims.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#224Earlier 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 doesn't make sense post 2016 because the war Russia is waging on the US is one with Information (fake news, Facebook)
And what do you think their endgame is with this information war?
They aren't pumping out the disinformation for shits and giggles, it's for a very clear distinct foreign policy reason when you consider Georgia, Ukraine, etc
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
" We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals. " So eternal arms race then?
Nope, reciprocal disarmament.
Unviable from a game-theoretic standpoint. If someone chooses to break that reciprocity, what can you do about it now that you've disarmed? Literally nothing, you are in a weaker position than before.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
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..
Swiss Neutrality did not save them in WW2 either, only German strategic calculus and the idea within the German high command that a mountain campaign would be too costly in military terms. It wasn't their neutrality that saved them, it was military deterrence. Push did NOT come to shove for them.
You cannot seriously assert that if Germany beats the UK and Russia, they will decide to simply leave Switzerland alone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum#Nazi_atti...
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#227Earlier 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...
Not magical at all, there's a basic geographic explanation for why very few countries could invade Canada and a NATO alliance that explains why anyone who could, won't.
And magically... a lot of countries that aren't Canada still get attacked. Funny how that works.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#228I always liked this Clickhole piece on military/environmental issues: 5 Ways ISIS Can Reduce Its Carbon Footprint "As ISIS continues to expand its operations in the Middle East, it is more urgent than ever for this group to enact sustainable policies that will have the least impact on our environment. Here are some expert tips to help the Islamic State go green! Requiring cars to stop at a military checkpoint leads t…
The Onion did it better in 2008:
"North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world, but they save consumption by simply not feeding them"
"Truly elegant in its simplicity"
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asia and Africa are just following what Europe and America did years ago.
Yeah, and their only choice is to stop, because the US and Europe alone cannot solve global warming.
Its not a realistic choice for them. Large parts of developing nations still have absolute poverty problems with their population dying due to the lack of basic necessities. Having them remain on that level of poverty, or worse, reducing their standard of living further is not an option. Its up to the West to solve global warming globally and that includes providing at least India and Africa, but likely every developing Nation, including China, with climate neutral ways of development equivalent to the potential these region shouldnt take in the form of polluting development options.
This is going to be very expensive and not something governments alone can stem. I dont see how this could be achievable in our current market structures.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who would attack Canada? Polar bears?
You joke, but Canada has disputes with Russia over arctic territorial claims.
And that dispute is being resolved [0] on the basis of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [1].
Interestingly, this convention is signed and ratified basically by the whole world, but not by the US.
[0] https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/04/russia-scor...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...