US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by flyinglizard » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

dantondwa wrote: post #99

flyinglizard wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing special about 2019 though. For Americans, the US war machine was always something vague and remote that sucks in money and spits out veterans who need to be taken of. However for many of those who live outside of USA, overseas where the US military operates, we understand that power vacuums are very potent and if not for US, some other country will fill the void, with soft or hard power. It’s not jus…

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Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of historical reference I've been talking about in my previous post. In any historical comparison, it's been a period of unprecedented peace, quiet and prosperity; that aside, most of the conflicts of the post WWII 20th century have been supported encouraged by USSR on the other side. It's not just USA unilaterally attacking sovereign nations.

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

#102

Post by cf141q5325 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #12

leaveyou wrote: 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.

In a defacto two party system with both parties agreeing in general that a large military is needed and see interventions to topple governments as a time honored tradition.

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

#103

Post by jbay808 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

flyinglizard wrote: post #85

PaulHoule wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be a fan of Noam Chomsky and think that the U.S. was a negative force in the world. I can point to plenty of kneecapping and bad policies. However in 2019 I see the rise of authoritarian states such as China, Russia and their "fellow travelers" and I think that freedom is very much at risk. Green Party activist Howie Hawkins, for instance, goes to rallies where they want to see NATO demolished but when Russ…

There is nothing special about 2019 though. For Americans, the US war machine was always something vague and remote that sucks in money and spits out veterans who need to be taken of. However for many of those who live outside of USA, overseas where the US military operates, we understand that power vacuums are very potent and if not for US, some other country will fill the void, with soft or hard power. It’s not jus…

> Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere,

Well, sort of. Depends on whether or not you elect a government that the CIA approves of.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3...

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

#104

Post by glogla » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #34

isostatic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the world's instability has been caused by the US being unchecked and doing whatever it wanted

And you can’t think of what would happen if we just let things happen out there? Yes we’re made monumental mistakes like Arab spring and gulf war II. But those would pale compared to what would happen if we just let things go. All those repressed military desires by dictators everywhere suddenly given a green light.

As someone from Eastern Europe who would be Russian subject by now if it weren't for NATO, you have my thanks.

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

#105

Post by isostatic » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #67

salex89 wrote: 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...)

Cuba and Venezuela are both products of U.S. interference

North Korea is Soviet (and later China) interference, but the U.S. was involved

Zimbabwes problem dates back to Brtitish interference, and now like the rest of Africa is starting to fall under China's influence.

Once you interfere, it can take generations to recover

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

#106

Post by dashundchen » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #69

Fjolsvith wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hey. The current administration is pulling the US out of areas and treating your countries like sovereigns now.

It’s so odd. Watching the debates, it’s unfathomable that we have candidates calling for intervention in Honduras.... Democrat candidates... one could be forgiven for thinking this was Bush’s war-hawk party...

Who was calling for military intervention? I only watched the first debate which had calls for increased humanitarian aid.

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

#107

Post by isostatic » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

glogla wrote: post #104

mc32 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can’t think of what would happen if we just let things happen out there? Yes we’re made monumental mistakes like Arab spring and gulf war II. But those would pale compared to what would happen if we just let things go. All those repressed military desires by dictators everywhere suddenly given a green light.

As someone from Eastern Europe who would be Russian subject by now if it weren't for NATO, you have my thanks.

NATO didn't attack anyone. The USSR fell on its own, Eastern Europe became free from within.

Defending a country with a set of borders is very different to the capability of the U.S. military, and relying on a country you have no say in for your defence is never a one way deal.

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

#108

Post by steve19 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

flexie wrote: post #74

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #38

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…

Actually, I find it surprisingly small when considering how powerful it is. In terms of men (2.2M active and reserve), combat tanks (6,300), artillery (1,700), war ships (130), submarines (70) and fighter planes (2,400) it’s dwarfed by militaries of the past. Of course the firepower is much larger nowadays and nuclear weapons also make conventional military play a different role, and the US military - although engage…

Other countries with large armies tend to throw poorly trained, and in the case of NK, poorly fed conscripts at the problem.

The US regularly fights wars so the troops are not only well trained but there is a lot of individual and institutional experience.

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

#109

Post by Something1234 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

beobab wrote: post #93

brlewis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> stop living under the yoke of fear and distraction pumped out by the media machine If you have a solution that scales up to the population at large I'm all ears.

Get everyone "vaccinated"? https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/fake-news-vaccine-works-...

It's already become neigh impossible to find the game when it's been buried under all the fake news.

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

#110

Post by azernik » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

flexie wrote: post #74

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #38

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…

Actually, I find it surprisingly small when considering how powerful it is. In terms of men (2.2M active and reserve), combat tanks (6,300), artillery (1,700), war ships (130), submarines (70) and fighter planes (2,400) it’s dwarfed by militaries of the past. Of course the firepower is much larger nowadays and nuclear weapons also make conventional military play a different role, and the US military - although engage…

The mass conscription armies of the early 20th century were truly enormous, and survive today only in massively dictatorial states like Eritrea and North Korea or in democratic "fortress states" under extreme security pressure like Israel and South Korea. So for example, with about a sixth of the population of the US, South Korea has half as many tanks and and a larger combined active + reserve force. This is while spending a tenth of the US military budget.

This last figure illustrates the real character of the US military - it is an imperial/expeditionary force, with enormous amounts of cash spent both on maintaining an overseas presence and on the logistical capabilities required to deploy the remainder overseas on short notice. Most other countries build their militaries to fight in or near their own territories, and so get much more combat power per dollar.