3 ms·

> The approved 2019 Department of Defense discretionary budget is $686.1 billion.[34] It has also been described as "$617 billion for the base budget and anothe

> The approved 2019 Department of Defense discretionary budget is $686.1 billion.[34] It has also been described as "$617 billion for the base budget and another $69 billion for war funding." You don't think it possible the US military could be any smaller and still defend its nation? Invading Iraq hasn't really had any fruitful outcomes, but absorbed more than a trillion of dollars of tax payer funds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Aftermath_of_the_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Aftermat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

thehappypm 6y ago
The US military is designed to defend 2 continents at once since Europe has shown zero interest in actually paying for its own military. Of course that’s going to be expensive as hell.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  The US military is under no obligation to do so. Edit: People are getting caught on semantics here. Change 'is under no obligation' to 'not required' if you please. There's no pressure for the US to remain (see comment to reply for examples of the US breaking treaties). Perhaps there are incentives to stay that are privy to policy-makers, but are those incentives what the average tax-payer wishes for?
  - labster 6y ago
    Yes, the US military is obligated to defend Europe under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      Techinically, you are right, but as with the treaty with Iran[0], or the Paris Agreement[1], etc. the US can leave. The US can basically do what it wants, and the political consequences are relatively minor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_from_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_fro...
      - creddit 6y ago
        This interpretation of this "obligation" is true of any "obligation". "Obligations" are inherently a social capital forcing function conception. They can always be violated so this point is pretty moot.
        h0l0cube 6y ago
        You're getting caught on semantics rather than understanding my argument. See my edit on the original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004980
        creddit 6y ago
        Your edit is just as useless. Leaving NATO is not an inconsequential action nor do I see abandoning "The West" to be something likely to be well received by US voters. No one got caught up in meaningless semantics. It's just that your point doesn't carry much weight.
        h0l0cube 6y ago
        > Leaving NATO is not an inconsequential action 'consequences are relatively minor' != 'inconsequential'. > nor do I see abandoning "The West" to be something likely to be well received by US voters Opinion. May be right, may be wrong. Trump did in fact try this at one point, but it was shot down by the house. Doesn't really reveal how many voters would support it, though. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/23/us-house-votes-overwhelmingly-to-bar-us-exit-from-nato/ https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/23/us-house-vot... > It's just that your point doesn't carry much weight. That's a baseless assertion until you explain why. Why shouldn't the US polity reconsider it's attachment to NATO? What are the bad outcomes? Bad for whom? And what are the good outcomes for citizens? (eg. say, for instance, but not exclusively, less taxes, or money spent better else where) What does it mean to the people? That is the central question of democracy. And my ultimate point is that's what should be driving whether the US continues with NATO. And I think that carries weight with anyone who believes the US should be a democracy
kaitai 6y ago
My sibling commenter will be happy to know that Finland takes defense against Russia very seriously. Might be interested in this article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/finland-army-russia-little-green-men/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/finland-army-russia-lit...

thehappypm 6y ago

The US military is designed to defend 2 continents at once since Europe has shown zero interest in actually paying for its own military. Of course that’s going to be expensive as hell.

h0l0cube 6y ago
The US military is under no obligation to do so. Edit: People are getting caught on semantics here. Change 'is under no obligation' to 'not required' if you please. There's no pressure for the US to remain (see comment to reply for examples of the US breaking treaties). Perhaps there are incentives to stay that are privy to policy-makers, but are those incentives what the average tax-payer wishes for?
- labster 6y ago
  Yes, the US military is obligated to defend Europe under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    Techinically, you are right, but as with the treaty with Iran[0], or the Paris Agreement[1], etc. the US can leave. The US can basically do what it wants, and the political consequences are relatively minor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_from_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_fro...
    - creddit 6y ago
      This interpretation of this "obligation" is true of any "obligation". "Obligations" are inherently a social capital forcing function conception. They can always be violated so this point is pretty moot.
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        You're getting caught on semantics rather than understanding my argument. See my edit on the original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004980
        creddit 6y ago
        Your edit is just as useless. Leaving NATO is not an inconsequential action nor do I see abandoning "The West" to be something likely to be well received by US voters. No one got caught up in meaningless semantics. It's just that your point doesn't carry much weight.
        h0l0cube 6y ago
        > Leaving NATO is not an inconsequential action 'consequences are relatively minor' != 'inconsequential'. > nor do I see abandoning "The West" to be something likely to be well received by US voters Opinion. May be right, may be wrong. Trump did in fact try this at one point, but it was shot down by the house. Doesn't really reveal how many voters would support it, though. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/23/us-house-votes-overwhelmingly-to-bar-us-exit-from-nato/ https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/23/us-house-vot... > It's just that your point doesn't carry much weight. That's a baseless assertion until you explain why. Why shouldn't the US polity reconsider it's attachment to NATO? What are the bad outcomes? Bad for whom? And what are the good outcomes for citizens? (eg. say, for instance, but not exclusively, less taxes, or money spent better else where) What does it mean to the people? That is the central question of democracy. And my ultimate point is that's what should be driving whether the US continues with NATO. And I think that carries weight with anyone who believes the US should be a democracy

kaitai 6y ago

My sibling commenter will be happy to know that Finland takes defense against Russia very seriously. Might be interested in this article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/finland-army-russia-little-green-men/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/finland-army-russia-lit...