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

81–90 of 243 posts

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

#81

Post by adrianN »

foobarian wrote: post #62
isostatic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the world's instability has been caused by the US being unchecked and doing whatever it wanted

Just look to WW1 and WW2 to see what real world instability looks like. I don't think anyone would prefer that kind of bloodletting to status quo. Now you can argue that nuclear weapons are the root cause for current stability, and ask if a world with nuclear weapons but less aggressive US would be better off. Bottom line, the first world's prosperity is based on an efficiency in terms of work done per person, which…

You can also argue that globalization is the root cause for the current stability.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by [deleted] »

maxxxxx wrote: post #29
antoineMoPa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dirty rivers suck, but humanity's big problem right now is global warming.

Let’s not make this a one or the other thing. Dirty rivers are at least as bad as global warming. We can’t focus on one environmental threat while forgetting all the others.

[deleted]

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

#84

Post by zip1234 »

brlewis wrote: post #45
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier 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?

>you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world You are absolutely right. This statement is as true as saying you have to balance eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week against letting your children starve. Completely true. However, if you're currently eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week, the direction you need to go in toward balance is obvious. Would you support redu…

I think the US military budget could be cut and still retain most of the capability. Ask a general which bases to cut and they will tell you stateside bases that are in expensive areas. The most useful bases are the ones that are overseas. The conflict of interest comes as congress is responsible for budgets and no senator or rep will ever willingly part with a base in their state.

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

#85

Post by flyinglizard »

PaulHoule wrote: post #80
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…

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 just China and Russia; its also Turkey and Iran, for example.

We don’t have much for a frame of reference, but I’ll tell you that the this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere, and under the US military umbrella and peace keeping, many nations were able to divert resources into developing their societies, not worried that they’ll be plundered by some aspiring empire.

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

#86

Post by zip1234 »

brlewis wrote: post #57
bkohlmann wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, every 2 years. Congress funds the military and determines its size.

Just to close the loop on this and connect back to "the people": Congress funds the military. The military funds large corporations. Large corporations fund congressional election campaigns. And "the people" base their votes off of campaigns.

Congress wants to fund the military, especially when their are bases in their own state. That means lots of dollars taken from elsewhere in the country and spent in their state.

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

#87

Post by flyinglizard »

adrianN wrote: post #81
foobarian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look to WW1 and WW2 to see what real world instability looks like. I don't think anyone would prefer that kind of bloodletting to status quo. Now you can argue that nuclear weapons are the root cause for current stability, and ask if a world with nuclear weapons but less aggressive US would be better off. Bottom line, the first world's prosperity is based on an efficiency in terms of work done per person, which…

You can also argue that globalization is the root cause for the current stability.

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).

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

#88

Post by aasasd »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #59
easymodex wrote: post #54

How about the USA rather starts a military intervention in whichever country is destroying the environment the most. Fighting for a habitable planet for all mankind sounds like a better idea than fighting for oil, no?

By the looks of it, it would probably be in India or China. [1] 1. https://waqi.info/

From what I've heard, container ships with their super shitty fuel may dwarf the pollution of the entire automotive fleet and probably plenty of industries.

Then, a good bet would be to assail the country that contributes the most to consumerism.

As a bonus, this would take out a large portion of the Southeast Asia pollution.

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

#89

Post by luckylion »

mc32 wrote: post #67
salex89 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being on the side "kept in check", believe me, we were better off on ourselves. Dictators fall one way or another, 3rd party military intervention is rarely selective and not a bit subtle with the collaterals.

That’s a difficult position to be in. It’s lose-lose. Dictators can last generations and drive countries needlessly into the ground (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) Interventions are blunt instruments (interestingly some US Democrat candidates put forth the idea of intervening in Honduras... Democrats...)

> It’s lose-lose.

The size of the losses aren't the same, though. Saddam was by no means a benevolent Dictator, and he had plenty of people disappear, tortured and executed. But not nearly anywhere close to the number of people that died because of the Regime Change campaign.

And don't forget: a dictator usually keeps order. A civil war, ISIS roaming through the no-mans-land etc is much worse than a cruel strongman.

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

#90

Post by saiya-jin »

easymodex wrote: post #46
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier 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?

In my opinion USA is the one that needs to be kept in check, being the self proclaimed world police has left only destruction in it's wake. Covert operations, intelligence gathering is totally fine, but having several military bases in every country with an oil resource and forcing your will on innocent people thousands of miles away from your country is not. You are the aggressor and don't delude yourself otherwise.

Although what you say is true, don't expect any change of mindset from US citizens. There is just too much glorification of the evils of the past and present, be it hollywood, most news or basically any mainstream source of information. For every piece of information telling about horrors of war, PTSD, seeing kids/women blown to pieces / doing it yourself, there is 10 pieces talking about proud veterans, patriots, camaraderie etc.

I think this behavior is common among us all, us vs the rest. Its jsut that this is so much more obvious if you see it from outside of the bubble. Look at former colonial powers, many citizens of western europe still consider enslaving and raping whole nations for hundreds of years an enlightened period ("but... we build them rails!" or similar is a phrase I heard more than once on this topic).

But since we don't have time machine, its hard to say whether US was/is overall the force of good vs evil. Somebody would have to fill up power vacuum otherwise, and trust me, you wouldn't want the communist USSR earlier chinese to run the whole show.

Post reply on HN