6 ms·

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 int

by bsaul 7y ago

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 ?

jjoonathan 7y ago
I don't. I'm surrounded by people who take our position in the world for granted and don't see any problem with gutting our military, though.
- zanny 7y ago
  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.
  - whatok 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
  - Nahmag 7y ago
    East-European states certainly do not think that they can survive without the help of the US.
    - hn23 7y ago
      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..
  - andonisus 7y ago
    Europe endures and prospers at the expense of the US military forces.
    - hn23 7y ago
      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.
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        The US Military didn't force you to take them.
        oAlbe 7y ago
        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. What's wrong with you people.
        Fjolsvith 7y ago
        What's wrong with the refugees? Why can't they fix their own country instead of messing up other ones?
      - andonisus 7y ago
        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.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    If you feel that your dainty American lifestyle needs moral justification, I have bad news for you. Personally, I'll settle for having it over not having it.
- xwdv 7y ago
  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.
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    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...
    - freeone3000 7y ago
      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.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - alexandercrohde 7y ago
        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. [1] http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ (Skip to the 14 minute mark if you're impatient)
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        The "War to end wars" was won and now it will never happen again.
Emma_Goldman 7y ago
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.
hwillis 7y ago
> 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. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China#/media/File:China_published_military_budget_by_percent_of_GNP.tiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China#/medi...
- arcticfox 7y ago
  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.
- adventured 7y ago
  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. Adjusted PPP comparison: https://i.imgur.com/SY22Whj.png https://i.imgur.com/SY22Whj.png
zanny 7y ago
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.
- bsaul 7y ago
  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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- gdy 7y ago
  "aggressive imperialism stints" Nope, just regrettable but necessary reaction to the NATO expansion. Your words, however, perfectly describe the American illegal adventures in Iraq in 2003. "to try undermining US elections" If that is what you say Russia was doing, what would you call the American meddling in Russian elections? [0] [0] 'Yanks to the rescue. The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win.' http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
atoav 7y ago
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).
- wil421 7y ago
  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.

by bsaul 7y ago

jjoonathan 7y ago

I don't. I'm surrounded by people who take our position in the world for granted and don't see any problem with gutting our military, though.

zanny 7y ago
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.
- whatok 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
- Nahmag 7y ago
  East-European states certainly do not think that they can survive without the help of the US.
  - hn23 7y ago
    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..
- andonisus 7y ago
  Europe endures and prospers at the expense of the US military forces.
  - hn23 7y ago
    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.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      The US Military didn't force you to take them.
      - oAlbe 7y ago
        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. What's wrong with you people.
        Fjolsvith 7y ago
        What's wrong with the refugees? Why can't they fix their own country instead of messing up other ones?
    - andonisus 7y ago
      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.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  If you feel that your dainty American lifestyle needs moral justification, I have bad news for you. Personally, I'll settle for having it over not having it.
xwdv 7y ago
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.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  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...
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    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.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - alexandercrohde 7y ago
      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. [1] http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ (Skip to the 14 minute mark if you're impatient)
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        The "War to end wars" was won and now it will never happen again.

Emma_Goldman 7y ago

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.

hwillis 7y ago

> 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. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China#/media/File:China_published_military_budget_by_percent_of_GNP.tiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China#/medi...

arcticfox 7y ago
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.
adventured 7y ago
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. Adjusted PPP comparison: https://i.imgur.com/SY22Whj.png https://i.imgur.com/SY22Whj.png

zanny 7y ago

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.

bsaul 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gdy 7y ago
"aggressive imperialism stints" Nope, just regrettable but necessary reaction to the NATO expansion. Your words, however, perfectly describe the American illegal adventures in Iraq in 2003. "to try undermining US elections" If that is what you say Russia was doing, what would you call the American meddling in Russian elections? [0] [0] 'Yanks to the rescue. The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win.' http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

atoav 7y ago

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).

wil421 7y ago
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.