5 ms·

US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries (2019)

24 points by ivanvas 5y ago

Bostonian 5y ago
The U.S. military provides the security of dozens of countries around the world. If the U.S. shrunk its military and exited its alliances, the countries we are protecting, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, would expand their militaries and pollute more. Ukraine is not protected by a U.S. alliance. The invasion of Ukraine, in addition to killing and maiming many people, must also be harming the environment in Ukraine. The one-sided article does not mention any possible downsides of scaling back the U.S. military.
- hulitu 5y ago
  > The U.S. military provides the security of dozens of countries around the world. The U.S. military provides the security of american companies. It is a pity that those countries feel safe with the US military.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    A pity? Cut the “America is a terrible imperial country. They invaded Iraq and police the world blah blah blah” BS. Feel free to point out all the shortcomings, but you should indeed be grateful. The world is lucky to have at least one military superpower that actually has some regard for the rights of other nations and peoples. You’re not going to get that from Russia or China.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Russia and China have a lot better track record in the last 30 years with respect to imperialism than the US. Just look at the numbers of countries invaded, civilian deaths, and refugees.
- goatsneez 5y ago
  What you say is certainly true. It is also true that since WW2 USA bombed dozens of countries back to stone age, equipped and enabled brutal dictators, punished people with sanctions which killed 100s of thousands, destabilize governments, maintain 600+ military bases to enforce corporate and political interests, etc Both of these points are besides the subject of the article in question. It is focusing exclusively on the CO2 footprint of the US war machine, which is never accounted in the US national emissions (therefore skews any discussion on curbing emissions). (...cumulatively US is by orders of magnitude in energy demands for its military over all others combined (averaged over past 30 years)). Effects of possible downsizing of US military is yet a separate question with its own multiple levels of analysis.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - YATA0 5y ago
    >It is also true that since WW2 USA bombed dozens of countries back to stone age Many of those countries were already in the stone age. >It is focusing exclusively on the CO2 footprint of the US war machine, which is never accounted in the US national emissions (therefore skews any discussion on curbing emissions). Citation needed. The US military is mostly stationed in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan wars are over.
    - fakedang 5y ago
      Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq and Syria are some countries which would like to disagree with your "stone age" assessment. Or if your assessment was correct, then in spite of such a large budget, the US has managed to get beaten by a handful of Stone Age countries.
      - YATA0 5y ago
        >Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq and Syria are some countries which would like to disagree with your "stone age" assessment. ISIS, gays being thrown off buildings... Press F to doubt. Grenada was barely bombed at all. >Or if your assessment was correct, then in spite of such a large budget, the US has managed to get beaten by a handful of Stone Age countries. Name any large engagements or battles where the US "got beaten" in Iraq, Syria, Grenada, Afghanistan, etc. Even the biggest "loss" in Vietnam (Tet Offensive) was a huge tactical failure for the North Vietnamese. Nonetheless, it ended up being a strategic failure for the US because it turned the public tide against the war.
mrep 5y ago
The US DOD had a budget of $753.5 billion [0] which would make it the 23rd largest country by gdp if it was a country [1] or greater than 196 countries so that does not surprise me. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_FY2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
mrep 5y ago
It's interesting reading the comments about the US military spending from when this originally came out [0 (230 comments)]. I wonder if anyones changed their opinions in light of the invasion of Ukraine. Here is an interesting thread [1] from it about Canadas military budget which ends with the comment "Look at the map, find Russia, see how large it is. Do you really think it needs more territory?" Apparently, they indeed think they do! [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303029 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20305555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20305555
- thehappypm 5y ago
  This comment in particular aged like milk: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20306320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20306320
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I think their point is that if you graph the number of people killed in wars, then it's dropping over time (which is illustrated on the site they link to). Unless Ukraine starts WWIII that's still going to be the case, even with Yemen and Syria etc. We just used to have a lot more wars.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      The point may be valid but the overly strong wording is hilariously wrong in hindsight.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Hot take: Without massive Department of Defense spending we wouldn't be having a crisis in Ukraine today
  - mrep 5y ago
    Why? Russia has so many nukes it just needs one sub to launch a MIRV nuclear second strike to make it 1000x more costly to NATO. Do you honestly believe NATO would ever first strike Russia??? NATO is a defense pack and we have way more to lose as our economies are on top.
NotAnEnemy 5y ago

24 points by ivanvas 5y ago

The U.S. military provides the security of dozens of countries around the world. If the U.S. shrunk its military and exited its alliances, the countries we are protecting, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, would expand their militaries and pollute more. Ukraine is not protected by a U.S. alliance. The invasion of Ukraine, in addition to killing and maiming many people, must also be harming the environment in Ukraine. The one-sided article does not mention any possible downsides of scaling back the U.S. military.

hulitu 5y ago
> The U.S. military provides the security of dozens of countries around the world. The U.S. military provides the security of american companies. It is a pity that those countries feel safe with the US military.
- bequanna 5y ago
  A pity? Cut the “America is a terrible imperial country. They invaded Iraq and police the world blah blah blah” BS. Feel free to point out all the shortcomings, but you should indeed be grateful. The world is lucky to have at least one military superpower that actually has some regard for the rights of other nations and peoples. You’re not going to get that from Russia or China.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Russia and China have a lot better track record in the last 30 years with respect to imperialism than the US. Just look at the numbers of countries invaded, civilian deaths, and refugees.
goatsneez 5y ago
What you say is certainly true. It is also true that since WW2 USA bombed dozens of countries back to stone age, equipped and enabled brutal dictators, punished people with sanctions which killed 100s of thousands, destabilize governments, maintain 600+ military bases to enforce corporate and political interests, etc Both of these points are besides the subject of the article in question. It is focusing exclusively on the CO2 footprint of the US war machine, which is never accounted in the US national emissions (therefore skews any discussion on curbing emissions). (...cumulatively US is by orders of magnitude in energy demands for its military over all others combined (averaged over past 30 years)). Effects of possible downsizing of US military is yet a separate question with its own multiple levels of analysis.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- YATA0 5y ago
  >It is also true that since WW2 USA bombed dozens of countries back to stone age Many of those countries were already in the stone age. >It is focusing exclusively on the CO2 footprint of the US war machine, which is never accounted in the US national emissions (therefore skews any discussion on curbing emissions). Citation needed. The US military is mostly stationed in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan wars are over.
  - fakedang 5y ago
    Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq and Syria are some countries which would like to disagree with your "stone age" assessment. Or if your assessment was correct, then in spite of such a large budget, the US has managed to get beaten by a handful of Stone Age countries.
    - YATA0 5y ago
      >Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq and Syria are some countries which would like to disagree with your "stone age" assessment. ISIS, gays being thrown off buildings... Press F to doubt. Grenada was barely bombed at all. >Or if your assessment was correct, then in spite of such a large budget, the US has managed to get beaten by a handful of Stone Age countries. Name any large engagements or battles where the US "got beaten" in Iraq, Syria, Grenada, Afghanistan, etc. Even the biggest "loss" in Vietnam (Tet Offensive) was a huge tactical failure for the North Vietnamese. Nonetheless, it ended up being a strategic failure for the US because it turned the public tide against the war.

mrep 5y ago

The US DOD had a budget of $753.5 billion [0] which would make it the 23rd largest country by gdp if it was a country [1] or greater than 196 countries so that does not surprise me. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_FY2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

mrep 5y ago

It's interesting reading the comments about the US military spending from when this originally came out [0 (230 comments)]. I wonder if anyones changed their opinions in light of the invasion of Ukraine. Here is an interesting thread [1] from it about Canadas military budget which ends with the comment "Look at the map, find Russia, see how large it is. Do you really think it needs more territory?" Apparently, they indeed think they do! [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303029 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20305555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20305555

thehappypm 5y ago
This comment in particular aged like milk: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20306320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20306320
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I think their point is that if you graph the number of people killed in wars, then it's dropping over time (which is illustrated on the site they link to). Unless Ukraine starts WWIII that's still going to be the case, even with Yemen and Syria etc. We just used to have a lot more wars.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    The point may be valid but the overly strong wording is hilariously wrong in hindsight.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Hot take: Without massive Department of Defense spending we wouldn't be having a crisis in Ukraine today
- mrep 5y ago
  Why? Russia has so many nukes it just needs one sub to launch a MIRV nuclear second strike to make it 1000x more costly to NATO. Do you honestly believe NATO would ever first strike Russia??? NATO is a defense pack and we have way more to lose as our economies are on top.

NotAnEnemy 5y ago