Yeah, and still the fact is that if US GHG emissions drop to 0, it won't do much for global warming. It was good that Biden brought up in last night's debate that the US produces 15% of global GHG emissions. Which is disproportionate to their population, but also small enough that unilateral actions by the US will not solve the problem.
US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
181–190 of 243 posts
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#182Wow, this thread makes me want to delete my account. People of the US are way too scary for my liking, makes me never want to land in your country. For me, if US doesnt stop playing the world cop position the worse this world will get.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#183Earlier 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…
The answer to an aggressive and militant China would be the same answer to any upstart nuclear power threatening the world - we have already seen how effective sanctioning Russia has been in the wake of their aggressive imperialism stints in the past decade. So successful as to inspire them to try undermining US elections to get an apologetic administration in place to remove said sanctions. Sanctioning China economi…
"aggressive imperialism stints"
Nope, just regrettable but necessary reaction to the NATO expansion. Your words, however, perfectly describe the American illegal adventures in Iraq in 2003.
"to try undermining US elections"
If that is what you say Russia was doing, what would you call the American meddling in Russian elections? [0]
[0] 'Yanks to the rescue. The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win.' http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)?…
> US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases
And that was in the past? The US had no problem segregating schools at one point. It's not compelling to bringing up an ancient relationship, where not a single person involved in the whataboutism, is still in power.
We have the internet and extremely timely war coverage now. That no longer flies.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#185Our 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…
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…
"Green Party activist Howie Hawkins, for instance, goes to rallies where they want to see NATO demolished but when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak and where trouble is spilling out of Africa and the Middle East into Europe it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever. I told him that."
The funny thing is that the only reason for Russia to intervene in Ukraine is the NATO expansion to Russian borders and specifically the intention to expand to the Ukraine.
Now you, the righteous one, see Russia's reaction to NATO's actions as justification for the existence of NATO. NATO is a corrupt jobless firefighter turned arsonist hoping to become relevant again.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#186I 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 di…
>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.
This is true for all large organizations in existence, both on the military and civilian sides of government and in large corporations.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 exch…
"In a moment of touching naiveté"
Maintaining nuclear arsenal is quite expensive. The Ukrainian elites at that time thought they were just being extremely clever by getting 'guaranteed' security without paying for it. Their successors were dumb enough to threaten Russia's own security by inviting NATO to expand to the Ukraine.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#188Earlier 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.
Who would attack Canada? Polar bears?
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#189Earlier 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, like many other countries around the world, enjoys the luxury of being protected by the US and doesn't have to spend as much money on defense. During WWII, do you think appeasement would have worked? The reason many evil countries aren't bombing the US and Canada is because they know they would be obliterated by the US military due to past campaigns.
"the luxury of being protected by the US"
Protected from what? From the White Walkers?
Who is there to attack Canada (besides the US itself)? The Great Britain is trying to return the lost colony? France is thinking about taking over the Quebec?
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#190Our 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…
In the 1960s, defense spending accounted for over 12% of GDP. Today it's between 3-4%. We're not still fighting the cold war, and our defense spending has been reduced by a factor of 3 to 4. It's not very far off from other countries. The UK's is around 2.2% to 2.5%. Russia's is over 4% since the Ukrainian conflict.