3 ms·

It's interesting to see all these comments about finally the Europeans are defending themselves and comparisons to the US. The US has used their forces pretty m

It's interesting to see all these comments about finally the Europeans are defending themselves and comparisons to the US. The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades. Even if the US would be reducing to their capabilities to only defend themselves and their allies they could likely cut military spending in half (this has become a bit more complex because how the US is using its military has caused China to massively expand their spending as well), but that would mean they could not enforce their economic interests everywhere in the world.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades. You may have that impression from news articles, but in reality it doesn't make any sense. The US military has operations in the Middle East, but that involves virtually none of their ships, planes, bases, silos or troops. The primary purpose of the US military is to continue the post-WW2 Marshall Plan, which is maintaining global peace. Notice how there hasn't been any major wars since 1945? That's what American taxpayers paid for.
- mclightning 6y ago
  ftfy: "there hasn't been any major wars since 1945 in countries where we care about death toll."
  - float4 6y ago
    Comparison of WWII and largest war since in terms of casualties[0]: WWII: 56,125,000–85,000,000 casualties. Second Congo War: 2,500,000–5,400,000 casualties. The difference is over an order of magnitude (although I'd absolutely call the Second Congo War a major war). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
    - mclightning 6y ago
      WW2 is a special event in human history on its own. Taking that as a reference point to evaluate our sense of peace, is pretty damning. Industrial and technological development prior to WW1 and WW2 enabled mass killing at an unprecedented level. You might say, if we don't take it as a reference point to avoid in our spectrum of peace. But then again, I am not sure there will be much of human history to talk about with another WW level conflict. So that makes the whole point of using that as a reference pretty mute. Because then it is just accepting we are living in verge of armageddon. Pretty low standards of peace if you ask me.
      - float4 6y ago
        > mass killing at an unprecedented level There've been many wars that came a lot closer to WWII in terms of casualties than the Second Congo War did. Look at that wikipedia page I linked to in my previous comment. - Three Kingdoms War: 184-280, 36,000,000–40,000,000 casualties. - Mongol conquests: 1206–1368, 30,000,000–40,000,000 casualties. - An Lushan Rebellion: 755–763, 13,000,000–36,000,000 casualties. - Conquests of Timur: 1370–1405, 8,000,000–20,000,000 casualties. - Taiping Rebellion: 1850–1864, 20,000,000–30,000,000 casualties. - Dungan Revolt: 1862–1877, 8,000,000–20,000,000 casualties. As you can see, what's mainly special about WW1/2 is the casualties/year ratio. The total death tolls are not that unprecedented. It's indeed silly to say that there's been global peace since WW2, but I do believe that there is a difference between the wars we've seen in the last 75 years, and the wars I listed above. I'd still call the Second Congo War a major war, but I do think there's a distinction to be made here. The word "major" just isn't it, and I think we both agree on that.
- unionpivo 6y ago
  over 1M people died in vietnam, how does that not count as a major war ? Thats more than the civil war Or do only WW level fuckups count ?
- cycomanic 6y ago
  The Marshall plan was largely an economic stimulus package not a military strategy. Regarding military strategy the current US military policy objectives (wikipedia) are: to (1) assure allies and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary. Now you could argue that these objectives are meant ensure global piece, but then you need to show that. In particular do you need to show how US starting several wars (including the ones that were not called wars for political reasons), largely based on economic reasons, does maintain global peace.
apexalpha 6y ago
This is what always gets me about the "NATO doesn't pay their fair share" debate. First of all, they're not talking about NATO's budget, they are talking about each countries share of defense spending compared to the total defense spending of all NATO countries. But that's kind of pointless, because NATO was for defending Europe from the Soviet Union. While the US has 800 military bases and had 2 land wars at once for basically 15 years. On top of the entire Navy. Of course it's defense spending is going to be higher. Every American seems to forget that if they want a better balance in defense spending within NATO that the US could also lower its spending, in stead of Europe raising it.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> The US has used their forces pretty much exclusively for offensive means in the last decades. You may have that impression from news articles, but in reality it doesn't make any sense. The US military has operations in the Middle East, but that involves virtually none of their ships, planes, bases, silos or troops. The primary purpose of the US military is to continue the post-WW2 Marshall Plan, which is maintaining global peace. Notice how there hasn't been any major wars since 1945? That's what American taxpayers paid for.

mclightning 6y ago
ftfy: "there hasn't been any major wars since 1945 in countries where we care about death toll."
- float4 6y ago
  Comparison of WWII and largest war since in terms of casualties[0]: WWII: 56,125,000–85,000,000 casualties. Second Congo War: 2,500,000–5,400,000 casualties. The difference is over an order of magnitude (although I'd absolutely call the Second Congo War a major war). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
  - mclightning 6y ago
    WW2 is a special event in human history on its own. Taking that as a reference point to evaluate our sense of peace, is pretty damning. Industrial and technological development prior to WW1 and WW2 enabled mass killing at an unprecedented level. You might say, if we don't take it as a reference point to avoid in our spectrum of peace. But then again, I am not sure there will be much of human history to talk about with another WW level conflict. So that makes the whole point of using that as a reference pretty mute. Because then it is just accepting we are living in verge of armageddon. Pretty low standards of peace if you ask me.
    - float4 6y ago
      > mass killing at an unprecedented level There've been many wars that came a lot closer to WWII in terms of casualties than the Second Congo War did. Look at that wikipedia page I linked to in my previous comment. - Three Kingdoms War: 184-280, 36,000,000–40,000,000 casualties. - Mongol conquests: 1206–1368, 30,000,000–40,000,000 casualties. - An Lushan Rebellion: 755–763, 13,000,000–36,000,000 casualties. - Conquests of Timur: 1370–1405, 8,000,000–20,000,000 casualties. - Taiping Rebellion: 1850–1864, 20,000,000–30,000,000 casualties. - Dungan Revolt: 1862–1877, 8,000,000–20,000,000 casualties. As you can see, what's mainly special about WW1/2 is the casualties/year ratio. The total death tolls are not that unprecedented. It's indeed silly to say that there's been global peace since WW2, but I do believe that there is a difference between the wars we've seen in the last 75 years, and the wars I listed above. I'd still call the Second Congo War a major war, but I do think there's a distinction to be made here. The word "major" just isn't it, and I think we both agree on that.
unionpivo 6y ago
over 1M people died in vietnam, how does that not count as a major war ? Thats more than the civil war Or do only WW level fuckups count ?
cycomanic 6y ago
The Marshall plan was largely an economic stimulus package not a military strategy. Regarding military strategy the current US military policy objectives (wikipedia) are: to (1) assure allies and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary. Now you could argue that these objectives are meant ensure global piece, but then you need to show that. In particular do you need to show how US starting several wars (including the ones that were not called wars for political reasons), largely based on economic reasons, does maintain global peace.

apexalpha 6y ago

This is what always gets me about the "NATO doesn't pay their fair share" debate. First of all, they're not talking about NATO's budget, they are talking about each countries share of defense spending compared to the total defense spending of all NATO countries. But that's kind of pointless, because NATO was for defending Europe from the Soviet Union. While the US has 800 military bases and had 2 land wars at once for basically 15 years. On top of the entire Navy. Of course it's defense spending is going to be higher. Every American seems to forget that if they want a better balance in defense spending within NATO that the US could also lower its spending, in stead of Europe raising it.