Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is no good reason for the U.S. to maintain such a military so giant that it requires massive, counterproductive subsidies to maintain just in-case we need to engage in a massive war. Investing in the military is nothing like buying more computing capacity on AWS. It's not as flexible as you imagine it to be. By the time war begins, it can be too late. Afghanistan may have been a mistake but other wars were no…
> By the time war begins, it can be too late. What war? The U.S. is invulnerable to invasion. The only conflicts that the U.S. would possibly need such a massive global military for would be foreign wars to maintain its world dominance (e.g. containing China, proxy wars, etc.), which I contend are pointless and destructive. I disagree with your implicit premise that the U.S. has to be the global hegemon - it does not…
The Titanic is unsinkable!
>The only conflicts that the U.S. would possibly need such a massive global military for would be foreign wars to maintain its world dominance (e.g. containing China, proxy wars, etc.), which I contend are pointless and destructive.
Pointless and destructive won't stop them.
>I disagree with your implicit premise that the U.S. has to be the global hegemon
It doesn't have to be but someone will take it's place and they'll do so with all the same fossil fuel powered war machine because that's the best way to maintain power.
>Who is “top dog” and how their military is going to fuel their tanks doesn’t matter when the entire world is facing environmental catastrophe.
You're letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is nothing that the US (or anyone) can do to stop the manufacture and usage of the most advanced weapons of war available which have a massive carbon footprint.
The sooner you come to the conclusion that _somebody_ is going to do it the sooner you can ask the real question of who would you rather it be.