We should go and force them to reduce it /s
US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
31–40 of 243 posts
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#32"If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal."
Hmm. Not quite as attention grabbing as the headline. There couldn't be an ulterior motive for this article now could there..?
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#33One thing that is always missing from these discussions is the whole picture. You have to factor the pros and the cons in any situation. This kind of headlines and focus only focuses on the negatives with regards but forget to ask why we have a military, to begin with and what the cost would be if we didn't. A much healthier approach IMO is to look at how we can improve energy production in general as that's at the h…
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, that's assuming we were rational actors.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?
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.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#35Surprise, surprise, the military-industrial complex is destroying our planet. How people can still support this is beyond me.
I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?
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 ads lol) but then proceeds to overturn number of democratically elected governments around the world. Hipocracry much?
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#36Surprise, surprise, the military-industrial complex is destroying our planet. How people can still support this is beyond me.
I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?
Not true. The Trump administration has increased the military budget. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/10/pentagon-eyes-windfall-... No one is asking "you" to be world police. Just paying "your" UN membership fees would be plenty.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#37Surprise, surprise, the military-industrial complex is destroying our planet. How people can still support this is beyond me.
There are still a few questionable non democratic countries out there that may make it worth keeping a military so as to keep them in check. Russia, China, Iran and the like.
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#38US 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 - it's unsurprising when California is the largest and Wyoming is the smallest; please normalize your data! For example, the US military budget of ~$650B is comparable to the GDP of Switzerland or Saudi Arabia, or alternatively comparable to the GDP of the ~80 smallest countries. That 80 country GDP vs 140 country pollution difference is already more illuminating to me...
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#39Surprise, surprise, the military-industrial complex is destroying our planet. How people can still support this is beyond me.
There are still a few questionable non democratic countries out there that may make it worth keeping a military so as to keep them in check. Russia, China, Iran and the like.
And destroying the whole planet with pollution of the most expensive army in the world is going to help this how?
Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?
Not true. The Trump administration has increased the military budget. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/10/pentagon-eyes-windfall-... No one is asking "you" to be world police. Just paying "your" UN membership fees would be plenty.
Are there more of fewer involvements we’re in?
Increasing budget can mean active wars or it can mean preparation (modernizing).
The UN is a political org, it doesn’t achieve much. It makes a whole bunch of corrupt officials rich.