5 ms·

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

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.
  - fit2rule 5y ago

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.
- fit2rule 5y ago