Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

web.eecs.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#91

Post by lostlogin »

manfredo wrote: post #87
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”. So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billi…

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe. Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in…

If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military?

Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#93

Post by lostlogin »

gaius wrote: post #76

I am genuinely curious as to the author’s proposed non-violent means of settling with Al Queda et al, but he doesn’t go into any details. If you listened to OBL’s speech after 9/11 what he was most upset about was the downfall of the Caliphate in Turkey some 80 years previous. Similarly ISIS mission was to provoke a war with “Rome” to fulfill the prophecy of the 13th Imam (I may be hazy on the details). There’s liter…

Where does this argument factor in a century of the civilised west bombing the region and arming some of the worst governments in the modern world.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#94

Post by manfredo »

lostlogin wrote: post #91
manfredo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe. Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in…

If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military? Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

It could be, that's part of why Trump flirted with the idea of making NATO's 2% of GDP military spending target a requirement rather than a general guideline.

However, the fact that the US is the main component of NATO gives the US a lot of leverage over those other countries which is valuable in its own right.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#95

Post by gaius »

lostlogin wrote: post #93
gaius wrote: post #76

I am genuinely curious as to the author’s proposed non-violent means of settling with Al Queda et al, but he doesn’t go into any details. If you listened to OBL’s speech after 9/11 what he was most upset about was the downfall of the Caliphate in Turkey some 80 years previous. Similarly ISIS mission was to provoke a war with “Rome” to fulfill the prophecy of the 13th Imam (I may be hazy on the details). There’s liter…

Where does this argument factor in a century of the civilised west bombing the region and arming some of the worst governments in the modern world.

Umm, because there is no such thing as a time machine? Any serious proposals have to start with the state of the world as it presently is.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#96

Post by randcraw »

kazinator wrote: post #65

I suspect you have to read between the lines here. Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) yo…

Kuipers states directly that he believes solving disagreements through violence is ineffective and wrong. He is not talking about other countries, only about the possible sources of funding for his research, namely the US military (and possibly their intelligence agencies).

As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on foreign soil (but never seems todo so), I think he sees his duty as extending to the practicality of violent solutions, not just the philosophical bases, as you suggest.

I'd agree with him on this point. I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#98

Post by porpoisely »

manfredo wrote: post #62
orf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than…

The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia, or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.

Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?

We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?

Pride goeth before a fall. I'm afraid our hubris is going to cost us big one of these days.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#100

Post by yason »

manfredo wrote: post #87
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”. So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billi…

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe. Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in…

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil.

It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend. USA seems to be doing the defending anywhere but on their own soil.

Post reply on HN