I always liked this Clickhole piece on military/environmental issues:
5 Ways ISIS Can Reduce Its Carbon Footprint
"As ISIS continues to expand its operations in the Middle East, it is more urgent than ever for this group to enact sustainable policies that will have the least impact on our environment. Here are some expert tips to help the Islamic State go green!
Requiring cars to stop at a military checkpoint leads to fuel inefficiency and idling engines, especially if an ISIS agent has to search the vehicle. Limiting checkpoints to one every 20 miles provides similar security with significantly lower emissions!"
US 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...
Actually, I find it surprisingly small when considering how powerful it is.
In terms of men (2.2M active and reserve), combat tanks (6,300), artillery (1,700), war ships (130), submarines (70) and fighter planes (2,400) it’s dwarfed by militaries of the past.
Of course the firepower is much larger nowadays and nuclear weapons also make conventional military play a different role, and the US military - although engaged in several conflicts around the world - is mostly a peace time force, but I still find it amazing that the armies of the WWII era were so much larger.
The mass conscription armies of the early 20th century were truly enormous, and survive today only in massively dictatorial states like Eritrea and North Korea or in democratic "fortress states" under extreme security pressure like Israel and South Korea. So for example, with about a sixth of the population of the US, South Korea has half as many tanks and and a larger combined active + reserve force. This is while spending a tenth of the US military budget.
This last figure illustrates the real character of the US military - it is an imperial/expeditionary force, with enormous amounts of cash spent both on maintaining an overseas presence and on the logistical capabilities required to deploy the remainder overseas on short notice. Most other countries build their militaries to fight in or near their own territories, and so get much more combat power per dollar.
Interesting observation, though it becomes fairly readily explained on several points.
The militaries of WWII were fighting an active, unrestricted, war. The US military of today is active, yes, but highly resstrained. aRather than occupy and subdue, its primary role is to project power -- think "gunboat diplomacy" for an earlier example, rather than exercise it. The nuclear arsenal as a prime example.
Where the US does exercise force, it is typically highly focused and targeted. It is not unreasonable for foreign journalists to repprt on ongoing air raids from exposed locations within the cities directly targeted (see Bagdad, in both gulf wars, in ways that reporting from a firebombed Tokyo or Dresden would not have been. Murrow's rooftop reporting of the London Blitz was notable specifically for its daring.
Several authors have noted (some, such as Robert J. Gordon apparently unconciously) of the near le=inear relationship between energy input per worker and productivity, particularly in the case of factory manufacturing of the 1st half ofvthe 20th century. Whether measured in mechanical horsepower or kilowatts, the relation holds. The US military brings a tremendous amount of energy (itself largely responsible for the pollution mention in TFA) per soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. That includes embodied energy in vehicles, arms, and structures, as well as motive and destri]uctive power, again with the nuclear arsenal as its apex.
To wrap my examples: the military is also a highly-tuned logistics system. Much of the task of a military is package delivery -- parking hot lead, dU, HE, or other actives, where they will have a desired effect. Getting the parts and support where and when needed is complex, and the DoD is a masterwork of central planning efficiency. Result: fewer workers -- combatants -- required.
As a parallel to the role of mechanisation and automation in general employment, there are multiple lessons to draw.
> Other countries with large armies tend to throw poorly trained, and in the case of NK, poorly fed conscripts at the problem.
This is a strange mischaracterization of Israel's and South Korea's militaries, which are two of the largest in proportion to population in the world.
Other countries with large armies don't have to pay for the enormous logistical tail the US uses to deploy worldwide, and the unique readiness levels and naval/air capabilities required to do so on reasonable notice.
Israel is not in the top 20 active duty, South Korea is. A good friend of mine was forced to go back "home" to do military service after we graduated high school, from what he told me after basic training he basically served his time doing nothing near the dmz.
Sounded like they didn't know what to do with the conscripts they were being served up by the system.
Well yeah, it's a tiny country. In terms of active duty personnel per capita, it's fourth in the world (2.1% of population, as opposed to 1.2% for South Korea and 0.4% for the USA).
> from what he told me after basic training he basically served his time doing nothing near the dmz.
The security strategy of Israel and South Korea is:
* Be able to call an army of ~10% of the population into being within 48-72 hours
* Have an active-duty military with the latest and most up-to-date equipment and training to hold the line until that enormous reserve is ready
* Have intelligence services capable of giving advance warning so the active-duty military doesn't need to hold out as long
So yes of course someone drafted into the ROK army will be trained for combat, and then spend several years on equipment maintenance and training waiting for The Big One to roll around.
Israel is a bit different in that, in addition to its preparations for high-intensity conventional war, its active-duty army is also involved in low-intensity conflict continuously. This is a major concern for the army, as it needs to make a tradeoff between levels of force to apply to the daily grind in the West Bank and the Gaza border areas, and the level of readiness for high-intensity conflict - Israel's poor performance in the 2006 Lebanon War was widely attributed within the Israeli military establishment to the reduced training for conventional warfare while the army was caught up in the counterinsurgency work of the Second Intifadah.
well, comparing an active force, mecanized, a large part of it being airborne or seaborne to a whole country, which includes children, retirees, unemployed etc. it's not even that bad.
This could be a poster child for how you can be telling the truth, but obviously are biased.
Wikipedia lists 186 countries GDP [1]. The 46th (186-46=140) listed country is Romania, with a GDP of $239 billion. In 2018, the U.S defense budget was just under $700 billion. Spending more money, and especially on a Navy at that, will obviously lead to more pollution.
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 article actually. Pollution is not only how much CO2 you release into the air, just look at some rivers in India which are incredibly polluted or countries in Africa where people simply burn metal in hunt for rare metals which they can sell. That pollution is probably not included in this statistic which makes me call bullshit on this claim.
> I mean, that must be from data gathered from the government?
I'm going to take the wild stretch of imagination that the people who are professionally interested in pollution and study it full-time have also considered this and are doing something a little more sophisticated to measure it.
Therefor you are making an assumption that compounds/reinforces your confirmation bias as opposed to actually seeking further further information to determine whether the article is correct? Is that a close-minded approach or a knowledge seeking approach? To what other "professionally interested" group do you also automatically give the benefit of doubt?
Lol, I did open the article but it doesn't say how it calculates the carbon footprint or whats included.
And my point was literally that there is several countries that simply cannot measure their carbon footprint since they barely have a functional government.
And even if the article only talks about CO2, it is still very, very misleading and the title is even worse. Like I said, a clickbait article.
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.
Loss of biodiversity is in big part caused by global warming (temperature rising, ocean acidification etc.)
Global warming is not caused by loss of biodiversity.
On top of that, many of things that need to be done to reduce global warming will directly positively affect biodiversity, such as reducing deforestation and thus habitat loss.
So no, fixing global warming is more important since its a prerequisite to stopping loss of biodiversity.
The problem is we're making the single world we can live in poisonous unstable and dead through short term unsustainable growth, violence and greed.
Maybe we can spare a few murder machines for the Imperial army until we figure out how to stop choking the planet to our collective toxic, entirely preventable deaths?
Its not a realistic choice for them. Large parts of developing nations still have absolute poverty problems with their population dying due to the lack of basic necessities. Having them remain on that level of poverty, or worse, reducing their standard of living further is not an option. Its up to the West to solve global warming globally and that includes providing at least India and Africa, but likely every developing Nation, including China, with climate neutral ways of development equivalent to the potential these region shouldnt take in the form of polluting development options.
This is going to be very expensive and not something governments alone can stem. I dont see how this could be achievable in our current market structures.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
Wow, 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.
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?
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.
There truly are few ways to waste taxpayer dollars more thoroughly than on the military.
Social security goes from taxpayer to retiree often to be spent immediately at market for goods and services useful to many fellow countrymen.
Medicare removes the burden of caring for your elderly from the lives of millions. Its a huge economic boom to not have your parents retirements costing you your time and productivity.
The military, the third largest expense, has three principle benefits - its a direct jobs program for ~3 million people (the enlisted proper military and their tertiary federal contractors supporting them). It keeps in business a dozen or so arms corporations that use their revenue to lobby congress to spend more on the military to make themselves and their investors more money. And it projects American power abroad to use gunpoint as a weapon of trade negotiation and to "maintain the peace" (even through ideological warfare) in our zones of trade globally.
The first two are obviously awful for what purpose they fulfill in a vacuum - you could much more cheaply just house 3-5 million people and give billionaires free money instead for a fraction of the actual cost of maintaining the US armed forces. And as a US citizen the idea that my tax money goes to maintain peace in the world for the benefit of all of mankind might be passably acceptable if there were no other choice, but organizations like UN peacekeepers exist (though palpably suck at) fulfilling a similar role except without the bias towards US economic interests. Perhaps without this one nation acting as world police collaborative organizations could fill the role, but probably not.
So it comes down to a moralistic argument - is it worth it to waste the time of millions of Americans to perpetuate a theater show dick waving competition with hostile dictatorships like Russia and China around the world for the express purpose of maintaining US economic imperialism. Because its really up to you - we slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents in deserts and huts the world over but in exchange few nations have the spine to try engaging in organized warfare amongst their neighbors for fear of US intervention. There are benefits, its just if the costs we pay, and continue to pay and more each year, especially when any benefit that could generally be perceived as of universal benefit are things I would at least more generally like to see all of humanity not only pay but participate in the management of are worth it.
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 industrial complex is so large, it's ours. So long as we continue to sheepishly abide by the ignorant notion that our public officials are moral actors whose ambitions and initiatives are driven and monitored by their superb ethical standards we are doomed.
We have to hold the women and men in office accountable not only for their actions but for our agenda. We have to stop living under the yoke of fear and distraction pumped out by the media machine. We have to be brave and fight back or else, when the shit hits the fan, we can only blame ourselves.
In case anyone thought that was real vaccination, it's a method to present the typical fake news tactics in an attempt to help you to recognize them for what they are.
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 would be a wise strategic move ?
> 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 capable of threatening the US any time soon. Like fuck, at least we still kind of fight proxy wars with Russia; we do nothing of the kind with China. China is totally incapable of force projection outside tiny pacific islands. China is the only nuclear country that has a "no first use" policy on nukes. They have a single aircraft carrier, compared to the US' eleven. The US has as many carriers (which are the single dominant mode of force projection) as the rest of the world combined.
The US military is so absurdly oversized that we would benefit strategically by spending the money on R&D or the economy instead. Until such a time as the US expects to literally fight China, Russia, and the EU at the same time, the military is massively excessive.
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, you can expect China's real military spending to considerably exceed the US today.
Thanks to drastically lower salaries & benefits, the personnel costs for the Chinese military is a far smaller portion of its total military spending as compared to the US share.
As much as I like carriers, in an actual war against a true world power, they seem irrelevant to 21st century warfare. They would be so easy to take out with any type of guided weapon, much less the hypersonics that are coming online.
I used to get enraged by people who simply want to gut the military, but after a while I find it’s hard to blame them.
We have lived under the protection of the US Military for so long that most have forgotten what a world would be like without it. Eventually you begin to believe that if the military was simply gone things might still be the same, or perhaps even more peaceful.
But they’d be wrong. They simply have no idea what others will do for power.
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.
Russia's other recent international seizure was Crimea, which was for sure NOT done in accordance with the International Law of the Sea. Canada has, in fact, enacted sanctions against Russia. I posit that if Canada were a softer target, Russia would simply seize the territories, the way they did from the Ukraine.
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.
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?
That's a bit more complicated don't you think? 70+ years with America as a superpower (20+ where it is almost the only one in its class) makes it easy to forget that things could have been massively different. Imagine a case where the Soviet Union did not dissolve, but stabilized as a military and economic equal to the US. Would you say that Canada's peace and prosperity would be guaranteed in this alternative universe? What about other countries in eastern Europe or the Middle East?
To give you an couple examples in the current real world, imagine if South Korea or Taiwan didn't have such good relations with America in the post-WW2 peace. It is not that far fetched to think that there could be a single communist Korea, Taiwan could have been swallowed up by mainland China.
I don't think that Canada in your alternative universe would've been worse off than Finland in this one. Finland's neutrality kept it safe ever since the WW2.
Swiss Neutrality did not save them in WW2 either, only German strategic calculus and the idea within the German high command that a mountain campaign would be too costly in military terms. It wasn't their neutrality that saved them, it was military deterrence. Push did NOT come to shove for them.
You cannot seriously assert that if Germany beats the UK and Russia, they will decide to simply leave Switzerland alone?
Not magical at all, there's a basic geographic explanation for why very few countries could invade Canada and a NATO alliance that explains why anyone who could, won't.
And magically... a lot of countries that aren't Canada still get attacked. Funny how that works.
Canada does have a military, and yes, the US is a nuclear deterrent. Also of note is that the US has a lot more enemies- especially among groups that hate freedom, how morally weird we are, or how we butter our toast.
Want to scare the world and become known? Canada probably isn't the place to do so, the US is way bigger, has more news outlets, and enough targets that you can probably hit at least one of them.
Want to show the world how cruel you can be, and inspire revenge? Attack Canada out of the blue- the stereotype of Canadians being super chill and apologizing is international, and attacking them will get everyone and their dog angry at you.
Want to do a lot of damage? US.
Want to show that your country is capable of going toe-to-toe with a first-world country? The USA is your best bet.
As alluded to by other commenters, Canada is also protected because its physical barriers touch the United States', and anything major that affects Canada will also affect the US, too.
There are a significant number of Canadians (notably, the entire Conservative party, the official opposition) who feel that Canada underfunds their military.
If the US only holds its economic ground at gunpoint I don't feel justified living my dainty American lifestyle thanks to boots to the throat of peoples around the world.
Europe endures and prospers without threat of violence or economic imperialism by bomb across the globe.
Source? Last year I was more afraid of Regime Change Attempts in Ukraine at least fueled by NATO/EU. Victoria (Fuck the EU) Nuland was pretty clear the US does not give a shit if Europe burns..
On the other hand, we take the refugees produced by US military and foreign politics. And our countries are the first to crumble into dust if there is another Dr. Strangelove.
The U.S. ensures the safe maritime trade of goods and services around the world. Many European counties do not need to (heavily) invest in their own armed forces because the U.S. is able to provide the necessary protection. These reasons are why I made my previous claim.
Right. Just leave those refugees to cook under the sun in an overcrowded, broken down boat in the Mediterranean until they drown. Or be like Hungary: raise a fence on the border, with armed personnel at checkpoints, and hope that shooting people on sight becomes ethically accepted.
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 economically though is a moralistic move. It has real absolute costs to the US economy, and such sanctions would need the broad consensus support the Russian ones did - if you don't punish aggression unilaterally and in global unison then the aggressor still has inroads into the global economy to ease any impact.
It is never a solution to spend several hundred billion more dollars on weapons of war that are wholly irrelevant to any legitimate threat of conflict with any other nuclear power. They only serve as a dick measuring contest of how much of your economic productivity you can wholly waste before your economy collapses. That is pretty much exactly how the Soviets fell, and the US is too egocentric to realize its going down that road too.
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]
You can only impose economical sanctions if you also have the mean to at least contain any military aggression the sanctioned country could take as a reaction.
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.
America's strategic position is far stronger than China's because its cumulative military spending over recent decades places it in an entirely different category from any other power, and because it is part of a powerful trans-Atlantic alliance with Europe. China's military budget is relatively modest compared to the US, and it cannot call upon an ally as powerful as itself. Indeed, the closest peer competitor to China - India - is part of the West's strategic balancing against China.
In any case, the crux of the US-China competition is that the US has a presumption of global primacy, and feels that it cannot even allow a regional power like China to establish itself. All of the problems in the relationship do not disappear if you drop that presumption, but many of them do - and certainly the idea that we should prepare for World War Three does, which in any event, would almost certainly lead to a global nuclear holocaust.
Also, US Presidents have not been 'prevented' from drawing back from the world stage by 'external events'. Events happened, and they responded as such. There was nothing foreordained or deterministic about it. They could have chosen differently.
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.
The US GDP is orders of magnitude bigger than the other countries, and also has no land borders to defend so it's "defense" spending should really not be as big as most other countries.
Of course "defense" is a joke here, because US Military Defense spending is mostly "Offense" - power projection. Patrolling the international waters, and flying air missions to ensure the entire world knows the US is in charge.
Whether this has value in the world today is subjective. It's a pretty deep divide between the left ("why can't we all just get along?") and the right ("i'm afraid of anyone with a shade of skin darker than a mango, so i want an F16 flying around their country's borders 24-7 and an aircraft carrier parked outside their front door")
It didn't make much sense for most of the 90's, once russia collapsed.
It didn't make sense post 9/11 where the enemy was no longer a state, and too ephemeral to be affected by aircraft carriers.
It doesn't make sense post 2016 because the war Russia is waging on the US is one with Information (fake news, Facebook), and by compromising one of the two major political parties.
Hilariously, like a broken clock, the US is about to be right again, because it WILL make sense again over the next decade as China enters it's own "World Police" ambitions.
And as evil and self-centered the US government and international policy is, I'd rather have them in charge than China (Because while they are bastards, they are my bastards, and I, as a westerner, reap the benefits of their policies).
> It didn't make much sense for most of the 90's, once russia collapsed
You're right. Which is why we went from spending 12.5% of our GDP on defense to less than 4% after the end of th cold war. That's literally a 3-4x reduction.
>It doesn't make sense post 2016 because the war Russia is waging on the US is one with Information (fake news, Facebook)
And what do you think their endgame is with this information war?
They aren't pumping out the disinformation for shits and giggles, it's for a very clear distinct foreign policy reason when you consider Georgia, Ukraine, etc
without taking into account the changes in purchasing power/inflation, actual budget amount, and changes in GDP, those stats are not really comparing apples to apples.
Quite the opposite, almost all experts use percentage of GDP as a measure of how much a country is developing its military. Purchasing power and inflation means that $100 billion today is totally different than $100 billion 20 years before or later. Not to mention, the total inflation adjusted amount of wealth in the country has gone up considerably, so even increases in inflation adjusted spending could still mean that the country is dedicating less of it's overall economic output to the military. Percentage of GDP is a much more effective measurement.
I can recommend The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade by Andrew Feinstein - mind you I found it quite depressing as the levels of corruption and cynicism that it describes are quite remarkable.
The US military is an extension of its corporations and economic interests. It has nothing to do with the people which are sheepishly manipulated each time to suit whatever agenda the elite need pushed. The complex is a beast that rarely responds to the public unless there is massive pressure usually in response to some price like forced recruitment that the people have to pay to meet its needs.
> "...our miliitary budget is just another cold war era echo..." - No, it's more complicated than that. You're ignoring all current geopolitics.
> "...the ignorant notion that our public officials are moral actors..." - Yes good point. Politicians are inherently evil. We should just let Walmart run the country.
> "We have to be brave and fight back or else..." - Gotta love militant pacifism.
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 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.
Similarly, the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" is a stopped clock that always tells the same time. They are up in arms that the U.S. is adding a "super fuse" to our warheads that will increase their effectiveness against hard targets (e.g. enemy missile silos.) Where are they when Russia and China are developing greatly upgraded missiles, hypersonic weapons, etc?
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.
Heavenly is a large simplification. It has been heavenly for America and American companies and somewhat less terrible than other alternatives for its allies.
Yes, the NATO has been very convenient for Europe. At the same time, it has meant being economically and politically subjected to the US will. For other less developed countries it has meant, sometimes, existence as de facto American puppet states. For countries which happened to be of strategic importance to the US or in disagreement with its model, it has meant downright destruction, war and catastrophes.
Any time you call the US imperialism "heavenly", remember how it has begun, with two atomic bombs being thrown on two cities. Remember all the needless and actually lost wars the US have involved themselves and the world in. Remember the political meddling with local political affairs that the US has practised (the disaster that South America has been; plans like GLADIO and similia in Europe).
I much prefer democracy to autocracy. I also see the convenience of NATO. But sorry, I refuse to call American imperialism heavenly. It has been bloody, violent and with very little care for actual democracy and self-determination of nations.
Sorry, but the use of atomic bombs here is a red herring; there have been just as many casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and many more casualties in conventional bombing of cities in Europe. Such is the nature of an all-out war, and the atomic bombs prevented an all-out incursion into Japan which would have turned them into rubble.
Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of historical reference I've been talking about in my previous post. In any historical comparison, it's been a period of unprecedented peace, quiet and prosperity; that aside, most of the conflicts of the post WWII 20th century have been supported encouraged by USSR on the other side. It's not just USA unilaterally attacking sovereign nations.
> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere"
No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does not require democracy at all, was of course involved).
Not for those in Vietnam who got to "enjoy" the lasting effects of Agent Orange.
No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US.
In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world".
Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!
The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent.
Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its economy in ~15 years (inflation adjusted). Colombia looks like it has a very bright future.
The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations. It's why there are no giant wars between Latin American nations, with rampant annexations, et al. They all know the US would intervene and whichever side the US was on, that side would likely win, so nobody wants to risk it. The US has also guaranteed the lack of foreign power conquering via the Monroe Doctrine, for more than a century, which is a rather sensitive concern given the history of Latin America.
The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America. It easily could do so. What other superpowers throughout history have ever behaved that way?
Only for Venezuelans. It was none of the US business.
> Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine
For debatable values of "doing fine".
> The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations
Not really.
> The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America.
It hasn't used overt military power (except in limited cases, like their own CIA-backed agents going rogue on them). It has meddled in Latin America democracies to often terrible results. In many cases, it has abetted bloodshed.
"It was none of the US business." When China and Russia are propping up a hostile regime, it's a threat to US interests in the region. The US has made it its business to fight refugees and drugs, what happens in Venezuela impacts its Business.
"For debatable values of "doing fine"." It's doing better politically, and economically than most countries in Latin America. Almost any value that you evaluate it by, its doing fine compared to most countries in the Americas.
We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.
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.
The broader issue is that, while most would consider the alternative power vacuum bad, American imperialism and projection is obviously not the optimal way to organize global society.
The UN is wholly inept and incapable with a security council that overrules decisions and is composed of both democracies and dictatorships, but in theory you would want to have organizations akin to it that could maintain nation state power balance and avoid the propagation of further empire or subjugation between states. Having this one nation beholden largely not even to its people but to its richest dictate global morals and ethics between societies is an oppression of its own, even if the alternative is recognizably worse in the current state of affairs.
> … 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 peer-level invasion?
The Budapest Memorandum contains no such commitment (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi...). It states the parties' commitment "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", not to go to war if others violate those.
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.
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.
They also produced lots of military goods for Russia. Thus it was no good idea trying to bring them into EU and as second step into NATO. They could have been a perfect neutral state serving both sides. But every side wanted their own oligarch.
"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.
When was the last time the "people" were asked if they agree with the size of their country's army ?
EDIT: we agree to disagree but my impression is that when it comes to army and security services the tail is wagging the dog almost everywhere - not only in US. Any congressman can be presented with classified information which with the right interpretation can justify basically anything and the said congressman will simply ignore the public will.
How is this different than any other topic? People get asked their opinion on this every time they are asked to go to vote. Support candidate that aren't promoting an isolationist and/or world police agenda for example.
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.
In a defacto two party system with both parties agreeing in general that a large military is needed and see interventions to topple governments as a time honored tradition.
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.
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?
First 2 items are about their borders - not that I agree with the actions, but these are completely understandable.
The Africa still isn't a proper comparison - building few bases where you invest tons of money and extract crutial resources isn't the point here, bloody invasions that destroy whole region for generations and kill millions innocent are. And this is something specific to US, even Russia didn't do anything comparable.
Anything after WWII, maybe but just maybe including Korea is actively adding evil to this world. But I suspect not many americans are willing to accept truth here
Ask anyone in Taiwan, they’d have a strong difference of opinion on Taiwan being apart of any piece of China, or within the borders.
As for countries being militarily aggressive, and causing direct conflict since WW2, sure the US, but there have been numerous wars since. A few at the top of mind —-First Afghanistan War ( Russia), Battle of Falkland Islands (Argentina), Iran vs Iraq War
Soviet Russia annexing the Baltics and setting up Eastern Europe and Central Asia as client states as well as destabilization in South East Asia, Africa, Latin America & Caribbean you say is in no way similar? Ok!
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 exceptionally meritious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer...” and the air-warfare coordinator for that day got Navy Commendation Medal. That is just one out of countless exampless..
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.
I think a) we may have different definitions of "military aggression" and b) China and the US have different "priorities" when it comes to the military.
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 stems from energy mostly coming from fossil fuels. The US just happened to get first dibs on the resources, but I doubt it would be any different with others. The societies have a tendency to grow and the only real backpressure is resource exhaustion (manifesting as cost).
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).
The US supports plenty of undemocratic regimes and has toppled democratic ones. US global policy rewards subservience to the US economy more than anything (which I'd hardly call "free" trade).
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.
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...)
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.
I hear you. But I just want to add one more perspective, when there is an intervention, the intervening party (US in this case) technically aligns with someone from the conflict. That might be a political oppositional force, it might be a national majority, it might be a region which is or is not a part of a country. Usually there is already some kind of conflict going on. I don't have any data, but from my own experience, a lot of people are not with either side, and they suffer greatly. It might be because of the sheer despair of the situation or the "oppressing" or "opposing" force. And don't be led to think that the force supported by the US plays nicely without war crimes, offence and with pure motives. Sometimes the party supported by the US has it's own agenda which aligns with the US and it is just beneficial to be supported. I guess that it makes sense and the great US wouldn't be the US without that kind of strategy.
This went political, and the topic was ecology. As this wasn't bad enough, this all goes with a huge ecological toll which impacts a broader number of people than those involved in conflict.
> All those repressed military desires by your actors are everywhere suddenly given a green light.
Too bad there is no one to repress the military desires by your American actors that are given green light to start arbitrary wars around the world, right?
It’s so odd. Watching the debates, it’s unfathomable that we have candidates calling for intervention in Honduras.... Democrat candidates... one could be forgiven for thinking this was Bush’s war-hawk party...
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)?
War destroyed Syria is better than before?
And dont give me that "Asad used poison gas on his people" dumb excuse as a reason why US got into that war. Because US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases, or when he used it on Kurd civilians, where US even supplied it to him.
I just hope US never experience this types of logic on their soil if in some future US loses world dominance and some other power decides that US "needs liberation".
I didn’t say it’s better now. What I said was that a lot of those places have a tumultuous history of instability (Afghanistan) or are run by dictators where a violent power struggle is a certain eventuality (Libya, Syria).
Gadaffi was going to lose power eventually (through death is certain) and the power struggle that results is going to be ugly.
> 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.
Have you looked at any of the countries you listed recently? Everyone has had a substantial ISIS presence as the result of the involvement, that alone says it all. They are also all still active warzones.
Lybia is still a country in a bloody civil war with local warlords and militias fighting for power. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is still growing yearly, with a ever increasing opium production and the Afghan National Police is also far from upholding law and order. And have you looked at Syria? Its a bloody proxy war with barely enough involvement to keep the conflict going at the cost of the civilian population. Not to mention the groups being supported by weapon shipments are fundamentalist Islamist, most notably splinter groups of Al Quaida. I am having a hard time as seeing it as anything else then a Afghanistan revival with the support of jihadist groups to keep the soviets busy.
NATO didn't attack anyone. The USSR fell on its own, Eastern Europe became free from within.
Defending a country with a set of borders is very different to the capability of the U.S. military, and relying on a country you have no say in for your defence is never a one way deal.
I wouldn't say "let things go" but let's face facts: The US has bases all over the world. We occupy dozens of countries for nebulous reasons. If global security is that fragile, when is it ever going to not be?
My second thought is that the US MIC is out for itself. It would be one thing if we had a defense system like the Swiss which I look at as pretty sensibly invested civil defense infrastructure (which, btw, the Swiss are rapidly losing as they forget the lessons of the past). Instead, we spend billions on expensive, fancy technical weapons systems that don't necessarily measure up. For example, the Littoral Combat Ship that has an aluminum hull that cracks in cold water. Or the F35 which has to be one of the biggest aeronautical boondoggles in history. We just keep pouring billions down rat holes because of corporatism. I currently work in the health insurance biz and it's the same tune--billions going in all kinds of odd directions in order to make money but outcomes haven't changed or have gotten worse. But our stock price is great!
>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 reducing U.S. military spending from 2-3x that of China (the 2nd highest spender), to 1.5x?
>Would you support reducing U.S. military spending from 2-3x that of China (the 2nd highest spender), to 1.5x?
China is currently constructing 2 new aircraft carriers (they have 1) with as many as 3 more planned by 2030 based on intel out there.
From 2001-2006 they built at least a dozen new classes of ships, putting 60 more into the water.
They have at least 10 known new ships/subs coming online with some being constructed, some seeing sea trials and some being fitted out.
Etc.
My point is, China is very much building up their military
>China's military salary structure is similar to other countries’. In terms of salary level, China’s level is comparatively low. "For example, a U.S. colonel who has served in the military for 30 years will have a monthly salary of $10,000. However, the salary of a Chinese who has served in the military for 30 years is just 8,000 or 9,000 yuan,” said Zhang.
It's also worth noting China has state owned oil wells, state owned oil refineries, state owned natural gas companies, state owned fuel companies etc which all likely keeps their fuel costs artificially low.
I'm guessing they also don't provide things like the GI Bill to their military personnel and similar benefits that we give to our military personnel.
Or could it be in response to them being very effective platforms for patrolling territorial waters and even providing cover for coastal regions? And because China has 9,010 miles of coast?
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.
If it were me, I think we need to be able to fend off the largest rivals convincingly.
If Russia and China were to enter the fold and be good world citizens and share a common vision and cooperate, then yeah. We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.
Unviable from a game-theoretic standpoint. If someone chooses to break that reciprocity, what can you do about it now that you've disarmed? Literally nothing, you are in a weaker position than before.
Yes, true. But my point is sometimes we think in idealist terms where there are no negative effects to completely pulling out from international involvement.
Deterrence is good. Running roughshod like Bush and Obama resigned himself to is not good. But completely shutting it down is worse than even that.
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.
It's as if people don't consider Generals Smedley D. Butler and Dwight D. Eisenhower as authorities on the subject when they warned against the racket of the military-industrial complex.
It's depressing and utterly pathetic that we refuse to listen to wise words because our primitive monkey feelings don't jive with the advice they gave.
Because it prevents foreign troops from attempting to land on U.S. soil and attack us, it also gives us means to take most air and ocean-based attacks out long before they get near the continental United States. With the exception of 9/11 (which wasn't actually military but does seem to have been state-sponsored to some degree), we've gone the better part of 2 centuries without hostile military action on the continental United States.
Because it has provided jobs for many of us and our families. My mother retired from DoD, I have no less than 2-dozen friends that served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and many more that are/were guard/reserve, my aunt's husband retired from the USAF and then went to work as a contractor for them, one of my half-brothers was in the Navy and even served on a sub, one of my aunts was USCG reserve, from my grandfathers (Army Air Corp, Navy) back we've fought in every single war since the War of Independence, my godfather was Navy UDT, the guy I owe my sobriety to is a purple heart carrying 18D. Several members of my Lodge are veterans, several members of my Ward are members, several people in my office are veterans or are married to them, the founder of my company that employs 425k people is a Vietnam-vet Marine and a lot of our pilots are former military. Several of my friends were able to get college educations thanks to the military, my mother's father had multiple heart surgeries over the years thanks to the VA, etc etc.
Because space exploration, GPS and literally every other type of satellite our civilization relies upon, effectively all nuclear technologies (power, medicine), advanced prosthetics, handheld radios, RADAR, airliners, digital photography, the internet, etc etc so on and so forth are all direct results of technologies developed by various branches of the U.S., and foreign, military branches?
I mean, without the U.S. military, you wouldn't even have safe and reliable ocean shipping. The United States Navy and United States Coast Guard patrol international shipping lanes and are the largest deterrent to piracy (which is a multi-billion dollar economic loss annually)
Depends on what you mean by "foreign", it's research done by UK scientists. If you want to play that card, the IPCC itself is funded by "foreign governments", so you can go right ahead and denounce all climate science as a foreign influence operation.
Honestly, I find the continued denial of the climate crisis very depressing (obviously I refer in part to your post Bucephalus355).
IPCC is a governmental lobby indeed that's why governmental reviewers have the final word on what appears in the report (Article 11 of IPCC legal statuses).
Your post confused me. I though you were saying that this report was to be suspicious because is coming from an organization that maybe have ties to China.
But it seems this report have nothing to do with that organization, but with some European universities.
So, what are you saying? that the report is right but 'maybe' it was funded by another country because you don't like it?
The US is the third most populous country in the world, and it's GDP is comparable to the entire EU, and almost twice China. And it only spends ~2% of that on defense. Do you understand the relative scales here? Military spending per capita per area is quite comparable to other nation's spending. With the amount of shipping and money that flows through the US, it would be absurd to leave it inadequately defended.
>it's considered above-sacred to allow this military machine to do literally anything it wishes to do
It doesn't do anything it wishes to do, it does what politicians wish it to do, and what it does is "protect US interests", which is exactly the same thing every other military force on the planet does for its host nation.
>is now a good time to mention the Bikini atoll?
No, you're probably 60 years too late to bring that up.
One 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 heart of things here. And once we look at that we will quickly realize that we are already looking at that but finding out it's not as easy to improve the way we currently use energy as people might want it to be.
But then again that wouldn't create as many clicks.
Somehow that underlying reality is lost on a surprising amount of people.
Our relatively wealthy, safe, modern lives with all the bells and whistles and freedoms we in the west take for granted, only is possible because it ultimately sits on top of military dominance that allows us to secure acccess to the proper resources and gives us negotiation power.
> Our relatively wealthy, safe, modern lives with all the bells and whistles and freedoms we in the west take for granted, only is possible because it ultimately sits on top of military dominance that allows us to secure acccess to the proper resources and gives us negotiation power.
This belief astounds me. Do you really think your material condition requires the constant death, destruction and turmoil inflicted by the US military around the globe?
We should ask the 1 million dead Iraqis and Afghanis what the pros and cons of the past 20 years of American military policy. How about asking the average Libyan, Syrian or Yemini if our actions were worth it for "access to the proper resources"?
Or ask your children, who will be saddled with tens of trillions of dollars of debt spent on the military industrial complex for decades to come - money that could have been spent on improving health and welfare domestically for them.
Being aggressive and hateful to the entire world at once will tend to requires substantial bodyguard resources, and will eventually fail.
Peace based upon respect and respect for hard-won rules and structures is the right road.
Switzerland learned this lesson through bloodshed, after a disastrous campaign in which nationals supporting the Duke of Milan got caught in reprisals from his foes, thus beginning the great Swiss tradition of neutrality in foreign conflict.
While I won't argue about the relative morality involved in World War 2, I will argue that all ensuing wars the USA has been involved in have ultimately undermined it's prospects for future peace.
It seems like many of my fellow Americans need a history lesson vis-a-vis Iran.
The USA and UK conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh, as he threatened to nationalize (their own) oil, which Standard Oil, among others, didn't like very much (Shades of United Fruit and Guatemala anywone?)
We then attempted to install the Shah (we knocked down their democracy because it was too lefty, then we put a king back on the throne.)
The 1979 revolution was a direct reaction to this, and could have been seen coming from a decade before.
This was initially a real revolution, but of course, they purged the lefties and students out and installed a right wing religious government, rather like many Republicans want for America.
And we have the nerve to hammer on them for desiring self-actualization... incredible.
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.
You are welcome to reject it, the reality is that you haven't mentioned which superpower isn't based on their military might. Until then no amount of indignant postering is going to change that fact.
5 Ways ISIS Can Reduce Its Carbon Footprint
"As ISIS continues to expand its operations in the Middle East, it is more urgent than ever for this group to enact sustainable policies that will have the least impact on our environment. Here are some expert tips to help the Islamic State go green!
Requiring cars to stop at a military checkpoint leads to fuel inefficiency and idling engines, especially if an ISIS agent has to search the vehicle. Limiting checkpoints to one every 20 miles provides similar security with significantly lower emissions!"
https://news.clickhole.com/5-ways-isis-can-reduce-its-carbon...