28 ms·

It also has most of the free world as its customer and if it didn’t exist then China or Russia would be determining what you can post on here.

Santosh83 5y ago
I would say the less authoritarian world. No place is truly free until all of us are free. We still have a long way to go.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  I’m definitely free and my immigrant parents and grandparents who fled to the USA from an authoritarian Soviet Union shithole are also free. So no, I will go ahead and boldly and proudly say it’s the free world. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Don't let good be the enemy of great.
fsflover 5y ago
> if it didn’t exist then China or Russia would be determining what you can post on here. This is FUD and strawman. US military could probably be decreased by >50% without any negative consequences.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  According to who? You? I’ll go ahead and defer to the generals and admirals and the elected officials to determine true budgeting needs for the dangers abroad.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    Do you also let the bear tell you how big your honey stockpile should be?
    - wait_a_minute 5y ago
      You have no argument.
      - kajecounterhack 5y ago
        Uh this is actually a really good argument. Put another way, do you let kids decide how much candy they get to eat? These things are analogous. The way organizations like the military are set up, they always will want more money, more expansion, more autonomy. Hell, give me one example of an organization that won't ask for more money every year given the opportunity. Usually you have to provide value for money, but the military gets away with handwaving about security. Another analogous situation is infosec. I used to work in that space, and a big problem companies have is trying to figure out how much money to sink into their infosec teams. Good orgs invest in infosec, but they also don't just give all their profits to those teams. The value proposition of security in general is just hard to measure; that said organizations have a tendency to either massively overinvest (because fear, and it's hard to measure) or underinvest (because you don't need it until something goes wrong). A lot of times they start out underinvested, something bad happens, and then suddenly they're overinvested because they are afraid of bad thing happening again. I think this last description is very apt for the US.
        wait_a_minute 5y ago
        Reasoning by analogy rather than by principles means someone has no argument. The analogy just restates the original premise without actually contending for the premise.
        kajecounterhack 5y ago
        That's not correct. Analogies are a good way to help someone you're talking to understand where you're coming from. The post that originally drew the analogy for you was succinctly explaining why unequivocal support for an organization's budget, particularly one like the US military, is not a good idea. It was quite successful at conveying that point, you're just calling it invalid. Doesn't make it so.
  - becquerel 5y ago
    So you would trust the military to tell you that the military is important and should be given more money? To put it bluntly, trusting the government seems naive.
    - wait_a_minute 5y ago
      Yes, I do trust the elected officials and the military officers to make this determination. And if they say they need more funding, I’ll believe them. Doesn’t take an Einstein to see the news abroad.
      - kajecounterhack 5y ago
        Doesn't take an Einstein to see that the US created a lot of messes it's on the hook for, and in addition to that, the US Military is not very efficient with money. (Source: my brother is a navy seal.) Similarly doesn't take an Einstein to look at US Military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs: with just proportionally small portions of the military budget, we could change education and healthcare dramatically. A healthy well educated populace is actually really important for global competitiveness. If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension.
        wait_a_minute 5y ago
        "created a lot of messes" "not very efficient" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word "Source: brother" This is not a source. "look at US military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs" The opportunity costs of China or Russia telling everyone what to do? Have you not looked at any news recently? If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension. We have military dominance by far across the entire planet. That sure seems like a great metric to me. And we'll maintain it and use the money better with time, and raise more if we need it.
  - nexuist 5y ago
    Eh, to claim the military is spending efficiently at this point is to claim that there is no money wasted anywhere within the DoD, which frankly is not only an unpopular position but I don't think you yourself even believe it to be the case. 50% is perhaps too high, at least to start, but I think everyone can agree that the budget should be getting smaller rather than bigger as we continue to live in peace time. I personally believe we could cut 25% of the budget with no real hit to our readiness (consider 1/7th of the budget goes to R&D[1], which while obviously important, would not stop us from being effective at peacekeeping tomorrow). I think if it came down to it, bean counters would magically find areas of waste to expel in order to preserve their expected budgets. [1] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2079489/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2021-budget-proposal/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/20...
    - wait_a_minute 5y ago
      There is money wasted in all parts of the gov because of inefficiencies everywhere. That doesn't mean we stunt the budgeting. That means we make sure the money is being spent to its maximal potential so that American military dominance in the world is never meaningfully contested. And if more is needed to guarantee that, then there's more capital that can be raised. You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget. I also don't care what you personally believe about "cut 25% of the budget with no real hit to our readiness." Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe about cutting 25%? lol. Looking at your site in your profile, you're hardly even old enough to drink. You're just a kid and you're talking about stuff you don't understand. Go read the news about Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Koreas, Ukraine, and the general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion and get back to me.
      - nexuist 5y ago
        > You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget You don't solve them by throwing more money at the fire either. The budget has consistently risen YoY pretty much as long as I've been alive. > money is being spent to its maximal potential Historically countries that prioritize military (ex. North Korea) over education and other domestic programs do not succeed against countries with more balanced budgets. We will have to compete with brain drain if academics and entrepreneurs realize they can live better lives elsewhere. We have to be able to offer a country worth defending in order to convince people with good ideas that they should be defending us. > then there's more capital that can be raised. By raising taxes? Who would willingly want to pay more taxes to a government that isn't competent enough to safely defend its own land with the largest military in known history? > Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe An American citizen who can vote which qualifies me just as much as the next guy. > hardly even old enough to drink. Old enough to serve, old enough to pay taxes, and old enough to be drafted, which qualifies me to have a say even more. Unless you want to argue that I should be able to choose whether my tax money goes to inefficient institutions, in which case I would certainly agree in having that choice. But I think you would agree that everyone should get a say in where their money is spent. > general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion If China was serious about challenging the US any time soon it would be making serious strides to decouple its economy from the Western world, which so far has not happened and doesn't appear to be on the horizon. In fact I would argue the US's trade war is the closest we've come to forcing a division, but it appears that things are just going to go back to normal now, and China is willing to continue having the US as its largest customer. China is obviously undergoing large scale economic growth and citizens everywhere are climbing up the poverty ladder, but that's not a sign of war nor should it be a pretense for one. Get back to me when Chinese aircraft carriers (when they build more, anyways) are sitting off the coast of NYC. Until then, this is just strongman bluffing. Every country in that region has a history of human rights abuses. Why is China the only one that we think will force us to conform to their ideals?
  - thinkcontext 5y ago
    The Pentagon would like to reduce the size of the military but are thwarted from doing so by elected officials. They would like to close bases, reduce the number of aircraft carrier groups, retire obsolete weapons systems, etc but Congress intervenes.
- alexfromapex 5y ago
  The military should not be playing world police but having a large enough military to counter rivals is the only thing maintaining the sovereignty of the U.S. and other free nations.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    It’s really by necessity, because we all saw what happened to Hong Kong and Ukraine and what they’d like to happen to Taiwan and south Korea and basically as much territory as possible. If the US military vanished today, Russia or China would be the world police.
    - wruza 5y ago
      I see why China, but Russia spends amounts similar to many nations. Why do you focus on Russia and not Saudi, India or a potential France/Germany union? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar...
      - scoopertrooper 5y ago
        Because Russia just recently launched a war of territorial aggression against Ukraine?
        fsflover 5y ago
        But does it mean that the US needs a huge army to fight them?
        scoopertrooper 5y ago
        Russia actually has a pretty huge army still and they're rapidly modernising. They could get pretty deep into Europe if they set their minds to it. The raw reported spending numbers are a bit misleading because the Russian state is somewhat opaque and you need to adjust for purchasing power.
- orange_joe 5y ago
  not exactly FUD when China already actively exerts control over out TV and Movies without military supremacy. Also the majority of the military budget goes to salary, so you couldn't reduce budget by 50% without serious consequences to our capability. The Russians and the Chinese barely spend any money at all on salaries comparatively. with each soldier costing a fraction of a single US private. [1]. Moreover, the Chinese defense budget is increasing faster than their GDP, around 8-9% per year. https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-chinas-2021-defense-budget https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-chinas-2021-defe...
ashtonkem 5y ago
That’s a good theory, now see what happens if your democratically elected government tries to loosen copyright restrictions. The US regularly flexes it’s might over friend and neutral country alike in order to protect its perceived economic interests. This means that you’re only free in so much as you’re already aligned with what the US wants. Better than China, sure. But not great.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  I must have forgotten about that time America sent its gun boats in to depose a democratically elected government over a disagreement about copyright law.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Don’t be silly; there are multiple ways to strong arm another country well and short of full invasion. My point is more a response to the world being free because of America. America acts like an imperial power over the rest of the world. It strong arms allies into complying with its economic wishes, and it regularly overthrows weaker neutral governments for similar reasons. Someone in South America would openly laugh at the idea that they’re free because of America, given how many democratically elected governments we’ve overthrown down there.
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      The only time America really throws its economic weight around these days is when it enforces sanctions. The countries targeted by these sanctions are not generally regarded as beacons of freedom. > regularly overthrows weaker neutral governments for similar reasons. Name one neutral democratically elected government deposed by America since the conclusion of the cold war. > Someone in South America would openly laugh at the idea that they’re free because of America, given how many democratically elected governments we’ve overthrown down there. South America has had many leftist governments with a hostile foreign policy towards America over the past several decades. They generally seem to be getting on okay. Edit: down vote if you must, but counter arguments would be welcome!

Santosh83 5y ago

I would say the less authoritarian world. No place is truly free until all of us are free. We still have a long way to go.

wait_a_minute 5y ago
I’m definitely free and my immigrant parents and grandparents who fled to the USA from an authoritarian Soviet Union shithole are also free. So no, I will go ahead and boldly and proudly say it’s the free world. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Don't let good be the enemy of great.

fsflover 5y ago

> if it didn’t exist then China or Russia would be determining what you can post on here. This is FUD and strawman. US military could probably be decreased by >50% without any negative consequences.

wait_a_minute 5y ago
According to who? You? I’ll go ahead and defer to the generals and admirals and the elected officials to determine true budgeting needs for the dangers abroad.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Do you also let the bear tell you how big your honey stockpile should be?
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    You have no argument.
    - kajecounterhack 5y ago
      Uh this is actually a really good argument. Put another way, do you let kids decide how much candy they get to eat? These things are analogous. The way organizations like the military are set up, they always will want more money, more expansion, more autonomy. Hell, give me one example of an organization that won't ask for more money every year given the opportunity. Usually you have to provide value for money, but the military gets away with handwaving about security. Another analogous situation is infosec. I used to work in that space, and a big problem companies have is trying to figure out how much money to sink into their infosec teams. Good orgs invest in infosec, but they also don't just give all their profits to those teams. The value proposition of security in general is just hard to measure; that said organizations have a tendency to either massively overinvest (because fear, and it's hard to measure) or underinvest (because you don't need it until something goes wrong). A lot of times they start out underinvested, something bad happens, and then suddenly they're overinvested because they are afraid of bad thing happening again. I think this last description is very apt for the US.
      - wait_a_minute 5y ago
        Reasoning by analogy rather than by principles means someone has no argument. The analogy just restates the original premise without actually contending for the premise.
        kajecounterhack 5y ago
        That's not correct. Analogies are a good way to help someone you're talking to understand where you're coming from. The post that originally drew the analogy for you was succinctly explaining why unequivocal support for an organization's budget, particularly one like the US military, is not a good idea. It was quite successful at conveying that point, you're just calling it invalid. Doesn't make it so.
- becquerel 5y ago
  So you would trust the military to tell you that the military is important and should be given more money? To put it bluntly, trusting the government seems naive.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    Yes, I do trust the elected officials and the military officers to make this determination. And if they say they need more funding, I’ll believe them. Doesn’t take an Einstein to see the news abroad.
    - kajecounterhack 5y ago
      Doesn't take an Einstein to see that the US created a lot of messes it's on the hook for, and in addition to that, the US Military is not very efficient with money. (Source: my brother is a navy seal.) Similarly doesn't take an Einstein to look at US Military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs: with just proportionally small portions of the military budget, we could change education and healthcare dramatically. A healthy well educated populace is actually really important for global competitiveness. If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension.
      - wait_a_minute 5y ago
        "created a lot of messes" "not very efficient" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word "Source: brother" This is not a source. "look at US military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs" The opportunity costs of China or Russia telling everyone what to do? Have you not looked at any news recently? If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension. We have military dominance by far across the entire planet. That sure seems like a great metric to me. And we'll maintain it and use the money better with time, and raise more if we need it.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Eh, to claim the military is spending efficiently at this point is to claim that there is no money wasted anywhere within the DoD, which frankly is not only an unpopular position but I don't think you yourself even believe it to be the case. 50% is perhaps too high, at least to start, but I think everyone can agree that the budget should be getting smaller rather than bigger as we continue to live in peace time. I personally believe we could cut 25% of the budget with no real hit to our readiness (consider 1/7th of the budget goes to R&D[1], which while obviously important, would not stop us from being effective at peacekeeping tomorrow). I think if it came down to it, bean counters would magically find areas of waste to expel in order to preserve their expected budgets. [1] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2079489/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2021-budget-proposal/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/20...
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    There is money wasted in all parts of the gov because of inefficiencies everywhere. That doesn't mean we stunt the budgeting. That means we make sure the money is being spent to its maximal potential so that American military dominance in the world is never meaningfully contested. And if more is needed to guarantee that, then there's more capital that can be raised. You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget. I also don't care what you personally believe about "cut 25% of the budget with no real hit to our readiness." Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe about cutting 25%? lol. Looking at your site in your profile, you're hardly even old enough to drink. You're just a kid and you're talking about stuff you don't understand. Go read the news about Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Koreas, Ukraine, and the general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion and get back to me.
    - nexuist 5y ago
      > You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget You don't solve them by throwing more money at the fire either. The budget has consistently risen YoY pretty much as long as I've been alive. > money is being spent to its maximal potential Historically countries that prioritize military (ex. North Korea) over education and other domestic programs do not succeed against countries with more balanced budgets. We will have to compete with brain drain if academics and entrepreneurs realize they can live better lives elsewhere. We have to be able to offer a country worth defending in order to convince people with good ideas that they should be defending us. > then there's more capital that can be raised. By raising taxes? Who would willingly want to pay more taxes to a government that isn't competent enough to safely defend its own land with the largest military in known history? > Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe An American citizen who can vote which qualifies me just as much as the next guy. > hardly even old enough to drink. Old enough to serve, old enough to pay taxes, and old enough to be drafted, which qualifies me to have a say even more. Unless you want to argue that I should be able to choose whether my tax money goes to inefficient institutions, in which case I would certainly agree in having that choice. But I think you would agree that everyone should get a say in where their money is spent. > general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion If China was serious about challenging the US any time soon it would be making serious strides to decouple its economy from the Western world, which so far has not happened and doesn't appear to be on the horizon. In fact I would argue the US's trade war is the closest we've come to forcing a division, but it appears that things are just going to go back to normal now, and China is willing to continue having the US as its largest customer. China is obviously undergoing large scale economic growth and citizens everywhere are climbing up the poverty ladder, but that's not a sign of war nor should it be a pretense for one. Get back to me when Chinese aircraft carriers (when they build more, anyways) are sitting off the coast of NYC. Until then, this is just strongman bluffing. Every country in that region has a history of human rights abuses. Why is China the only one that we think will force us to conform to their ideals?
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  The Pentagon would like to reduce the size of the military but are thwarted from doing so by elected officials. They would like to close bases, reduce the number of aircraft carrier groups, retire obsolete weapons systems, etc but Congress intervenes.
alexfromapex 5y ago
The military should not be playing world police but having a large enough military to counter rivals is the only thing maintaining the sovereignty of the U.S. and other free nations.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  It’s really by necessity, because we all saw what happened to Hong Kong and Ukraine and what they’d like to happen to Taiwan and south Korea and basically as much territory as possible. If the US military vanished today, Russia or China would be the world police.
  - wruza 5y ago
    I see why China, but Russia spends amounts similar to many nations. Why do you focus on Russia and not Saudi, India or a potential France/Germany union? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar...
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      Because Russia just recently launched a war of territorial aggression against Ukraine?
      - fsflover 5y ago
        But does it mean that the US needs a huge army to fight them?
        scoopertrooper 5y ago
        Russia actually has a pretty huge army still and they're rapidly modernising. They could get pretty deep into Europe if they set their minds to it. The raw reported spending numbers are a bit misleading because the Russian state is somewhat opaque and you need to adjust for purchasing power.
orange_joe 5y ago
not exactly FUD when China already actively exerts control over out TV and Movies without military supremacy. Also the majority of the military budget goes to salary, so you couldn't reduce budget by 50% without serious consequences to our capability. The Russians and the Chinese barely spend any money at all on salaries comparatively. with each soldier costing a fraction of a single US private. [1]. Moreover, the Chinese defense budget is increasing faster than their GDP, around 8-9% per year. https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-chinas-2021-defense-budget https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-chinas-2021-defe...

ashtonkem 5y ago

That’s a good theory, now see what happens if your democratically elected government tries to loosen copyright restrictions. The US regularly flexes it’s might over friend and neutral country alike in order to protect its perceived economic interests. This means that you’re only free in so much as you’re already aligned with what the US wants. Better than China, sure. But not great.

scoopertrooper 5y ago
I must have forgotten about that time America sent its gun boats in to depose a democratically elected government over a disagreement about copyright law.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Don’t be silly; there are multiple ways to strong arm another country well and short of full invasion. My point is more a response to the world being free because of America. America acts like an imperial power over the rest of the world. It strong arms allies into complying with its economic wishes, and it regularly overthrows weaker neutral governments for similar reasons. Someone in South America would openly laugh at the idea that they’re free because of America, given how many democratically elected governments we’ve overthrown down there.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    The only time America really throws its economic weight around these days is when it enforces sanctions. The countries targeted by these sanctions are not generally regarded as beacons of freedom. > regularly overthrows weaker neutral governments for similar reasons. Name one neutral democratically elected government deposed by America since the conclusion of the cold war. > Someone in South America would openly laugh at the idea that they’re free because of America, given how many democratically elected governments we’ve overthrown down there. South America has had many leftist governments with a hostile foreign policy towards America over the past several decades. They generally seem to be getting on okay. Edit: down vote if you must, but counter arguments would be welcome!