4 ms·

Reducing the number of military veterans period would be a good place to start. The USA does not need a massive standing peacetime army/navy/airforce. There's a

by 23iofj 6y ago

Reducing the number of military veterans period would be a good place to start. The USA does not need a massive standing peacetime army/navy/airforce. There's a real human cost too -- we kill more of our own soldiers in accidents than in actual combat. Cut personnel in each branch by half, significantly consolidate bases, and modestly increase pay for the people who remain. Then, redirect the enormous savings to actually useful jobs programs. Build roads instead of running around in circles in rural Alabama/North Carolina for four years.

treeman79 6y ago
How is your Chinese / Russian? Remove the military, and another one will replace it. Ukraine gave up its nukes and lost a lot of the country for it.
- oblio 6y ago
  There is a middle ground between "military budget equal to that of the next 10 countries combined" and "0 military".
zachrose 6y ago
Active military suicides are also more common than combat deaths. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/14/169364733/u-s-militarys-suicide-rate-surpassed-combat-deaths-in-2012 https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/14/169364733...
vlozko 6y ago
If not the US, then who? Trump, for all his faults, was spot on about the Europe's lack of fiscal participation in NATO. They were enjoying the privileges of what you described without ever worrying about the need for protecting it because the US was footing the bill. If it wasn't for NATO, do you really think the Baltic States would still be free from Russia today? And what about the Pacific islands? Nobody is stepping up to the plate to protect the sovereignty of those countries, something they themselves aren't capable of doing against a force like China.
- vkou 6y ago
  Europe's 'lack of fiscal participation' in NATO only looks anemic when compared to the United States, which alone outspends the entire rest of the world, combined, on its military. Europe's not going to afford to carry out a successful land invasion of Russia anytime soon, but if that's the level of defense spending Trump was looking for, I'm glad he was told to pound sand.
  - vlozko 6y ago
    NATO was never about invading another country. It's purely intended to be a defensive pact (the whole Kosovo incident in the 90s notwithstanding). And that wasn't exactly Europe's response to Trump. Defense spending by European nations had been increasing since 2014 but a number of countries still did not meet their internal agreed-upon goal of 2% of GDP.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Most of Europe was already on track to hit 2%. Trump wanted to raise it to 4%.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    the United States, which alone outspends the entire rest of the world, combined, on its military. Not true. The popular comparison is the US spends about as much as the next 10 countries combined. US is ~38% of the world's defense spending. https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... As a percentage of GDP US defense spending is near its post WW II low.
    - 23iofj 6y ago
      > Not true. The popular comparison is the US spends about as much as the next 10 countries combined. US is ~38% of the world's defense spending. In other words 4% of the world's population and 40% of its defense spending. Fucking jesus these feel like silly numbers to discuss -- the USA's military dumbassery puts Rome to shame. The latter collapsed because of its over-reach (well, unless you attended a conservative seminary, in which case it was clearly the "lack of morality on display in the Roman bath houses" or some such similar Very Serious Sociology/"Church History" That's Definitely Not Just USA Christian Nationalist Ur-Fascism.)

by 23iofj 6y ago

treeman79 6y ago

How is your Chinese / Russian? Remove the military, and another one will replace it. Ukraine gave up its nukes and lost a lot of the country for it.

oblio 6y ago
There is a middle ground between "military budget equal to that of the next 10 countries combined" and "0 military".

zachrose 6y ago

Active military suicides are also more common than combat deaths. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/14/169364733/u-s-militarys-suicide-rate-surpassed-combat-deaths-in-2012 https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/14/169364733...

vlozko 6y ago

If not the US, then who? Trump, for all his faults, was spot on about the Europe's lack of fiscal participation in NATO. They were enjoying the privileges of what you described without ever worrying about the need for protecting it because the US was footing the bill. If it wasn't for NATO, do you really think the Baltic States would still be free from Russia today? And what about the Pacific islands? Nobody is stepping up to the plate to protect the sovereignty of those countries, something they themselves aren't capable of doing against a force like China.

vkou 6y ago
Europe's 'lack of fiscal participation' in NATO only looks anemic when compared to the United States, which alone outspends the entire rest of the world, combined, on its military. Europe's not going to afford to carry out a successful land invasion of Russia anytime soon, but if that's the level of defense spending Trump was looking for, I'm glad he was told to pound sand.
- vlozko 6y ago
  NATO was never about invading another country. It's purely intended to be a defensive pact (the whole Kosovo incident in the 90s notwithstanding). And that wasn't exactly Europe's response to Trump. Defense spending by European nations had been increasing since 2014 but a number of countries still did not meet their internal agreed-upon goal of 2% of GDP.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Most of Europe was already on track to hit 2%. Trump wanted to raise it to 4%.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  the United States, which alone outspends the entire rest of the world, combined, on its military. Not true. The popular comparison is the US spends about as much as the next 10 countries combined. US is ~38% of the world's defense spending. https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... As a percentage of GDP US defense spending is near its post WW II low.
  - 23iofj 6y ago
    > Not true. The popular comparison is the US spends about as much as the next 10 countries combined. US is ~38% of the world's defense spending. In other words 4% of the world's population and 40% of its defense spending. Fucking jesus these feel like silly numbers to discuss -- the USA's military dumbassery puts Rome to shame. The latter collapsed because of its over-reach (well, unless you attended a conservative seminary, in which case it was clearly the "lack of morality on display in the Roman bath houses" or some such similar Very Serious Sociology/"Church History" That's Definitely Not Just USA Christian Nationalist Ur-Fascism.)