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

161–170 of 243 posts

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

#161

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pinkfoot wrote: post #98
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…

> … 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?

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

#162

Post by sureaboutthis »

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…

Is this on topic to the subject at hand?

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

#163

Post by flyinglizard »

Vraxx wrote: post #151
flyinglizard wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization is simply an extension of the US global policy. Democracy and free trade are rewarded. It’s not a coincidence that globalization speaks English and builds on American infrastructure (such as the very internet).

The US supports plenty of undemocratic regimes and has toppled democratic ones. US global policy rewards subservience to the US economy more than anything (which I'd hardly call "free" trade).

That’s mostly true in countries where proper long lasting institutional democracy has no societal feasibility (Saudi Arabia for example).

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

#164

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #142
xwdv wrote: post #125

Earlier 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...

Canada does have a military, and yes, the US is a nuclear deterrent. Also of note is that the US has a lot more enemies- especially among groups that hate freedom, how morally weird we are, or how we butter our toast.

Want to scare the world and become known? Canada probably isn't the place to do so, the US is way bigger, has more news outlets, and enough targets that you can probably hit at least one of them.

Want to show the world how cruel you can be, and inspire revenge? Attack Canada out of the blue- the stereotype of Canadians being super chill and apologizing is international, and attacking them will get everyone and their dog angry at you.

Want to do a lot of damage? US.

Want to show that your country is capable of going toe-to-toe with a first-world country? The USA is your best bet.

As alluded to by other commenters, Canada is also protected because its physical barriers touch the United States', and anything major that affects Canada will also affect the US, too.

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

#165

Post by EGreg »

Something1234 wrote: post #109
beobab wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s the first part of the game ;-)

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

#166

Post by mc32 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #137
mc32 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were me, I think we need to be able to fend off the largest rivals convincingly. If Russia and China were to enter the fold and be good world citizens and share a common vision and cooperate, then yeah. We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.

" We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals. " So eternal arms race then?

Nope, reciprocal disarmament.

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

#167

Post by flyinglizard »

the_af wrote: post #153
flyinglizard wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.

I'm sure you understand this would have been highly theoretical to the students and pregnant mothers tortured, murdered and disappeared by US-sponsored dictatorships. For their own good. "Fighting against Communism" is not a good reason to torture and murder civilians, or to topple elected governments.

... US supported dictatorships that displaced or prevented other, potentially more harmful dictatorships. Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA and allies than those that are hostile. See Egypt as a recent example.

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

#168

Post by ThomPete »

archgoon wrote: post #92
ladyattis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I take away from these discussions is that the military is covering for a greater failing of our own civilian governments which constantly refuse to do their job in terms of diplomacy. Instead, we just build bigger sticks in place of more cleverly employed carrots as it were. If we were rational actors we'd employ economic measures which would be many times more effective than an atomic bomb. But as I said,…

Europe mostly plays the good cop to the United States bad cop; the main problem arises when the US doesn't understand this.

Europe plays good cop because the US allows it to by playing the bad cop.

The problem is Europe not the US.

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

#169

Post by andonisus »

zanny wrote: post #122
jjoonathan wrote: post #97

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.

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

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

#170

Post by andreshb »

the_af wrote: post #157
adventured wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent. Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its e…

> It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez Only for Venezuelans. It was none of the US business. > Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine For debatable values of "doing fine". > The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations Not really. > The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America. It…

"It was none of the US business." When China and Russia are propping up a hostile regime, it's a threat to US interests in the region. The US has made it its business to fight refugees and drugs, what happens in Venezuela impacts its Business.

"For debatable values of "doing fine"." It's doing better politically, and economically than most countries in Latin America. Almost any value that you evaluate it by, its doing fine compared to most countries in the Americas.

Post reply on HN