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

#171

Post by pinkfoot » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #161

pinkfoot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … 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?

Yes.

In a moment of touching naiveté they agreed to give it all up and accept the word of other nuclear powers (who got to keep their nukes) that they could rely on said others for protection.

One invaded them and the others had a sudden case of acute testicular fortitude failure.

Unsuprisingly, South Africa politely refused Obama's repeated, kind-hearted offers to let the USA take their weapons-grade uranium in exchange for (wait for it) a whopping $5 million worth of nuclear fuel.

A lesson to all.

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

#172

Post by the_af » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

flyinglizard wrote: post #167

the_af wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA

No. When you or your loved ones are tortured and murdered, it's not better if done in the name of the interests of the US.

There's nothing magical about the US that torture in the name of their interests is somehow "better", and I'm sorry -- and horrified -- that you think there is.

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

#173

Post by tim333 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

ssijak wrote: post #113

tim333 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No I wasn't comparing them, just pointing out China is active in military aggression trying to grab areas of Vietnam and the Philippine's territories that it feels it should have.

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

#174

Post by zug_zug » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #149

alexandercrohde wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

The truth is we live in a post-war era. This is a statistically indisputable fact [1]. My question is who all these odd people are who seem to have some deep emotional need for the world to operate like a game of risk, as opposed to 7 billion apes who don't know each other and don't care.

[1] http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ (Skip to the 14 minute mark if you're impatient)

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

#175

Post by fuzz4lyfe » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #174

freeone3000 wrote: post #149

Earlier 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.

The truth is we live in a post-war era. This is a statistically indisputable fact [1]. My question is who all these odd people are who seem to have some deep emotional need for the world to operate like a game of risk, as opposed to 7 billion apes who don't know each other and don't care. [1] http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ (Skip to the 14 minute mark if you're impatient)

The "War to end wars" was won and now it will never happen again.

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

#176

Post by atoav » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

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…

It would be a wise strategic move to take 75% of your military spending and put it into education, infrastructure, health and reducing social inequality.

I am not an expert, but my feeling is that overwhelming military power is not the only thing that contributes to the survival of an empire (which the US de facto is).

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

#177

Post by rdlecler1 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

This isn’t surprising. The US military has 1.3 million people that are engaging in a lot of transportation.

If we look at list of countries by population, 140 countries have less that 10m people (90 have more than 10 million). So on a per capita basis, the US pollutes maybe 7x as much per capita but again, because the military is using so much transportation it’s not surprising. I would bet CEOs have a bigger per capita carbon footprint.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #136

hwillis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget would be a wise strategic move ? The budget is essentially unchanged[1]. The value of that budget has increased exponentially because the value of Chinese currency has increased. China has not directed any more of its resources to its military. Even more foolish is acting like the Chinese military is capab…

China is already nearly spending as much as the US is on its military once you adjust for the difference in the cost of personnel (which is half of US military spending), ie adjust for PPP. The US has the best paid soldiers in the world for any major military, which matches up with the US having among the highest median pay of any nation. When China's economy is another 50% larger, matching where US GDP is at today,…

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by wil421 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #176

bsaul wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be a wise strategic move to take 75% of your military spending and put it into education, infrastructure, health and reducing social inequality. I am not an expert, but my feeling is that overwhelming military power is not the only thing that contributes to the survival of an empire (which the US de facto is).

Why not do both? Split it down the middle and make military conscription mandatory for 2 years. After 2 years you get free college. Have an option for non combat roles and places for people with minor health problems. Work with government contractors to have a manufacturing or trade track instead of college.

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

#180

Post by ryantgtg » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

griffinkelly wrote: post #61

I think it's worth noting that many of the vehicles, ships, airplanes used now by the US military were designed in the 80s, and the last thing on the mind of the engineers were carbon emissions. Hopefully, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman etc. start thinking about this stuff in the future. Interestingly at one point, the US Navy wanted to go all nuclear. That would have helped carbon emissions. https://www.wearethem…

There are also some extreme double standards within these organizations. On the one hand, the Navy has ambitious and impressive sustainability goals. And on the other hand, the Navy reportedly (I've heard this anecdotally from friends in the Navy) straight up dumps all the trash from their air craft carriers and ships into the ocean.

Also anecdotally - but maybe someone with closer knowledge can corroborate - army divisions (?) want to maintain their budgets from cycle to cycle, and to do so they need to prove that they _need_ that money. I have heard that the Air Force, as an example, will rapidly spend down their budgets at the end of a budget cycle by dropping jet fuel and firing off missiles willy nilly.