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

111–120 of 243 posts

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

#111

Post by azernik »

steve19 wrote: post #108
flexie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 levels and naval/air capabilities required to do so on reasonable notice.

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

#112

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #100

This could be a poster child for how you can be telling the truth, but obviously are biased. Wikipedia lists 186 countries GDP [1]. The 46th (186-46=140) listed country is Romania, with a GDP of $239 billion. In 2018, the U.S defense budget was just under $700 billion. Spending more money, and especially on a Navy at that, will obviously lead to more pollution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_G…

Right. Normalize the data or get lost.

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

#113

Post by ssijak »

tim333 wrote: post #55
ssijak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are living inside a big bubble. When was the last time China showed military aggresion outside its borders, especialy on the other side of the world? US doing the “checking” around the world left countless people dead for nothing, and a lot of countries ruined. Not to mention trillions od dollars spent on financing that. US complain about Russia meddling with US elections (through 150k worth of Facebook a…

Spring / summer 2019 I'd say: >In March, Hanoi lodged a protest with Beijing after a Vietnamese fishing vessel crashed and sank after it was chased by a Chinese maritime surveillance vessel in disputed waters. https://www.inkstonenews.com/politics/once-bitter-rivals-us-...

You are comparing one vessel incident in the disputtes waters close to China to countless wars US initiated? I mean you cant be serious. Or if you want to compare incidents... Let me give you just one because Iran is in the news lately. What did the commander of USS Vincennes that downed civilian plane Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 people including 66 children in 1988 got as punishment? He got Legion of Merit “for exceptionally meritious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer...” and the air-warfare coordinator for that day got Navy Commendation Medal. That is just one out of countless exampless..

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

#115

Post by cf141q5325 »

refurb wrote: post #71
rat9988 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure countries' citizen as Lybia, Afghanistan, Syria, Irak would be way better without the US.

Maybe in Iraq, but Lybia, Afghanistan and Syria would be even worse without foreign intervention.

Have you looked at any of the countries you listed recently? Everyone has had a substantial ISIS presence as the result of the involvement, that alone says it all. They are also all still active warzones.

Lybia is still a country in a bloody civil war with local warlords and militias fighting for power. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is still growing yearly, with a ever increasing opium production and the Afghan National Police is also far from upholding law and order. And have you looked at Syria? Its a bloody proxy war with barely enough involvement to keep the conflict going at the cost of the civilian population. Not to mention the groups being supported by weapon shipments are fundamentalist Islamist, most notably splinter groups of Al Quaida. I am having a hard time as seeing it as anything else then a Afghanistan revival with the support of jihadist groups to keep the soviets busy.

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

#116

Post by steve19 »

azernik wrote: post #111
steve19 wrote: post #108

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

> 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.

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

#117

Post by ssijak »

refurb wrote: post #71
rat9988 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure countries' citizen as Lybia, Afghanistan, Syria, Irak would be way better without the US.

Maybe in Iraq, but Lybia, Afghanistan and Syria would be even worse without foreign intervention.

My soul hurts a bit when I see people from a privileged position of power write this and judging the world in simplistic terms. You say Lybia is better now, destroyed and torn by war, with no real government in sight, with ISIS there and civil war, thousands dead and economy destroyed is better than with Gadaffi and with biggest economy by far in Africa and with law and order (however that law and order is achived)? War destroyed Syria is better than before? And dont give me that "Asad used poison gas on his people" dumb excuse as a reason why US got into that war. Because US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases, or when he used it on Kurd civilians, where US even supplied it to him.

I just hope US never experience this types of logic on their soil if in some future US loses world dominance and some other power decides that US "needs liberation".

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

#118

Post by the_af »

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…

> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere"

No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does not require democracy at all, was of course involved).

Not for those in Vietnam who got to "enjoy" the lasting effects of Agent Orange.

And not in many other parts of the world, either.

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

#119

Post by Emma_Goldman »

bsaul wrote: post #94
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…

it’s funny how most people forget that every single american president since georges bush junior has been elected on the promise of reducing us’s involvment into foreign countries ( i’m old enough to remember people accused him of being isolationist), but have all been prevented to so by external events. With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget wou…

America's strategic position is far stronger than China's because its cumulative military spending over recent decades places it in an entirely different category from any other power, and because it is part of a powerful trans-Atlantic alliance with Europe. China's military budget is relatively modest compared to the US, and it cannot call upon an ally as powerful as itself. Indeed, the closest peer competitor to China - India - is part of the West's strategic balancing against China.

In any case, the crux of the US-China competition is that the US has a presumption of global primacy, and feels that it cannot even allow a regional power like China to establish itself. All of the problems in the relationship do not disappear if you drop that presumption, but many of them do - and certainly the idea that we should prepare for World War Three does, which in any event, would almost certainly lead to a global nuclear holocaust.

Also, US Presidents have not been 'prevented' from drawing back from the world stage by 'external events'. Events happened, and they responded as such. There was nothing foreordained or deterministic about it. They could have chosen differently.

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

#120

Post by jwillie »

chrisseaton wrote: post #11
ecmascript wrote: post #3

I always have wondered how people calculate pollution from countries. I mean, that must be from data gathered from the government? For countries/governments that doesn't even have or have a very limited garbage disposal, that must mean they pollute very little on paper when in reality people just throw stuff into the ground / ocean etc. I don't really believe this article. It seems like a typical clickbait shit artic…

> I mean, that must be from data gathered from the government? I'm going to take the wild stretch of imagination that the people who are professionally interested in pollution and study it full-time have also considered this and are doing something a little more sophisticated to measure it.

Therefor you are making an assumption that compounds/reinforces your confirmation bias as opposed to actually seeking further further information to determine whether the article is correct? Is that a close-minded approach or a knowledge seeking approach? To what other "professionally interested" group do you also automatically give the benefit of doubt?
Post reply on HN