6 ms·

The US could spend 2 times less on military and still be the biggest one in the world. And it as allies everywhere.

by jylam 4y ago

worker_person 4y ago
Last president pushed hard for NATO counties to up their military spending to agreed levels. Everyone laughed. Russia has been an excellent motivator for our allies to get serious on defense spending. Our absurdly oversized military has prevented a lot of serious wars.
- z9znz 4y ago
  The same guy who thinks NATO should have been abolished and who fawned over Putin? The guys like him and Putin are ignorant little boys who will thankfully die off soon. We must try to find a different path.
  - worker_person 4y ago
    Just drinking the Hillary kool-aid I see.
    - z9znz 4y ago
      If I were going to drink any politician's kool-aid, it would have been Bernie's. Hillary Clinton was part of the problem, just as most other sitting politicians are part of the problem.
- myko 4y ago
  This is revisionist/wrong. Obama also pushed for more spending in NATO - and got commitments to do so as % of GDP. Growth was generally higher but spending was moving towards the % committed to. What the last guy did was tried to piss out allies off and destroy NATO. Even then most in the US generally agreed w.r.t defense spending, just thought he was going about getting our allies to do it counter productively and not recognizing the fact that they were spending more (mostly from commitments made during Obama's 2 terms). Folks who worked with trump claim he was planning on pulling the US out of NATO in his second term: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-s... https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-warns-nato-allies-to-share-defense-burden-we-can-t-do-it-alone/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-warns... https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-tru... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
epicureanideal 4y ago
There’s a paper I read recently that adjusts for specifically military related purchasing power parity, in which case China was spending about 50% and Russia about 30% of the US. And of course in their region that might mean a locally more capable military, or the inability of the US to fight multiple wars simultaneously while maintaining global freedom of navigation for shipping, etc.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  At the point that you're talking about being able to simultaneously fight the next two military powers right in their respective backyards, you're no longer talking about defense. As for freedom of navigation, China is also in favor of that. It's their lifeblood.
  - deepdriver 4y ago
    >As for freedom of navigation, China is also in favor of that. Sorta-kinda. It’s complicated. Vietnam, the US, the Philippines and others have clashed with China over the “Nine Dash Line.” China— and Taiwan, oddly enough— refuses to respect the ruling of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Tribunal on this matter. They’ve harassed other countries’ fishing vessels and maritime police in the region, sinking at least one. There are ongoing tensions in the area between China and other countries’ navies. China asserts sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, while other countries and the UNCLOS disagree and assert their right to freedom of navigation for military vessels. This has implications for customs and maritime law enforcement. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/chinese-vietnamese-vessels-clash-south-china-sea https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/chinese-vietna... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
    - SllX 4y ago
      Not so odd in the case of Taiwan: I like them, they’re the China as far as I’m concerned the UN and State Department be damned on this front, but it’s worth remembering that Taiwan officially does not see themselves as just an island nation off the coast of China. They claim the mainland, and all the island territories held by the mainland, and even Mongolia and some other land that the PRC has given up its claims to to settle border disputes. They’re not likely to back down on any of their claims no matter how small. Some people in Taiwan might be willing to give that up in exchange for a guarantee of independence but as far as I know this is not at all a settled matter for them. It’s very much like North Korea/South Korea.
tablespoon 4y ago
> The US could spend 2 times less on military and still be the biggest one in the world. And it as allies everywhere. I don't think it's that simple: stuff costs more in the US vs other big military spenders, large != effective, etc. If the US cut its military budget, it would have to give up capabilities, and that will have bitter consequences (e.g. the liberal order will shrink even further (e.g. goodbye Ukraine, Taiwan, Baltics), China owns the seas, etc.).
willhslade 4y ago
Can I just sidetrack this conversation? I've seen this new neologism "2 times less", which I infer from context means "half as much", and I don't like it.
- Jaruzel 4y ago
  Surely '2 times less' is minus 100% less, if the amount originally spent is '1 times'? It's an illogical phrase to be sure.
  - nodespace 4y ago
    I think its like saying: "2 times (but instead of mutiplying do the oposite thing that makes it smaller)" Is where the "logic" comes from. Hm, I bet this parses as well: "An hour is .5 times more then a half hour." Although not quite as well.
- elpatoisthebest 4y ago
  Unfortunately this is far from new. I tried fighting it for years and just gave up. Save yourself the grief. We already lost.
- 867-5309 4y ago
  it is bad grammar: you cannot use comparative adjectives on uncountable nouns that said, when I read it I did not notice. my brain automagically converted the phrase to half. the context was not lost but it is murky territory
minhazm 4y ago
I wonder if this is actually true in practice. I think many of these countries, especially China & India are incentivized to understate how much they actually spend on their defense. Another factor is the cost of labor and goods is so different that even though the US is spending far more actual dollars, the actual output might not be as big of a difference as these articles might have you believe.
- akiselev 4y ago
  Historically, countries almost never understate the strength of their armed forces because that would invite pointless conflicts with weaker adversaries. Unless the former is looking for some casus belli to invade the latter, it leads to the most pointless loss of life where the latter never stood a chance anyway but the former has to waste resources on the defense. I don't know how that calculus changes in the context of modern superpowers or China's ambitions for Taiwan but that's the reasoning historically.
  - signatoremo 4y ago
    How can you possibly know how much a country spent on military to conclude they almost never understate their funding? A perfect reason a country may understate their military spending is to hide their capabilities. For that matter, they may overstate their spending as well.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
      You have to ask yourself why a country would want to hide (as in demote) their capabilities. Overstating their capabilities is perfectly understandable.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 4y ago
Given how some think the lessening of US Navy projection of power and securing shipping lanes around the world is what's leading to global instability, and global stability has been very good for US economics the last 50+ years, a case can probably be made that at least some of that military spending in the past was extremely effective and useful. The theory is new to me, so I don't know enough about it to know how much I buy into it, but it's an interesting one.
- magicalist 4y ago
  > lessening of US Navy projection of power While they continue to have more money allocated to them, operational mishaps occur more often, and navies look increasingly vulnerable in a real fight (see for instance the Moskva). Clearly "at least some of that military spending in the past was extremely effective and useful" isn't sufficient guidance on how to continue spending money.

The US could spend 2 times less on military and still be the biggest one in the world. And it as allies everywhere.

by jylam 4y ago

The US could spend 2 times less on military and still be the biggest one in the world. And it as allies everywhere.

Last president pushed hard for NATO counties to up their military spending to agreed levels. Everyone laughed. Russia has been an excellent motivator for our allies to get serious on defense spending. Our absurdly oversized military has prevented a lot of serious wars.

z9znz 4y ago
The same guy who thinks NATO should have been abolished and who fawned over Putin? The guys like him and Putin are ignorant little boys who will thankfully die off soon. We must try to find a different path.
- worker_person 4y ago
  Just drinking the Hillary kool-aid I see.
  - z9znz 4y ago
    If I were going to drink any politician's kool-aid, it would have been Bernie's. Hillary Clinton was part of the problem, just as most other sitting politicians are part of the problem.
myko 4y ago
This is revisionist/wrong. Obama also pushed for more spending in NATO - and got commitments to do so as % of GDP. Growth was generally higher but spending was moving towards the % committed to. What the last guy did was tried to piss out allies off and destroy NATO. Even then most in the US generally agreed w.r.t defense spending, just thought he was going about getting our allies to do it counter productively and not recognizing the fact that they were spending more (mostly from commitments made during Obama's 2 terms). Folks who worked with trump claim he was planning on pulling the US out of NATO in his second term: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-s... https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-warns-nato-allies-to-share-defense-burden-we-can-t-do-it-alone/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-warns... https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-tru... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

epicureanideal 4y ago

There’s a paper I read recently that adjusts for specifically military related purchasing power parity, in which case China was spending about 50% and Russia about 30% of the US. And of course in their region that might mean a locally more capable military, or the inability of the US to fight multiple wars simultaneously while maintaining global freedom of navigation for shipping, etc.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
At the point that you're talking about being able to simultaneously fight the next two military powers right in their respective backyards, you're no longer talking about defense. As for freedom of navigation, China is also in favor of that. It's their lifeblood.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  >As for freedom of navigation, China is also in favor of that. Sorta-kinda. It’s complicated. Vietnam, the US, the Philippines and others have clashed with China over the “Nine Dash Line.” China— and Taiwan, oddly enough— refuses to respect the ruling of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Tribunal on this matter. They’ve harassed other countries’ fishing vessels and maritime police in the region, sinking at least one. There are ongoing tensions in the area between China and other countries’ navies. China asserts sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, while other countries and the UNCLOS disagree and assert their right to freedom of navigation for military vessels. This has implications for customs and maritime law enforcement. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/chinese-vietnamese-vessels-clash-south-china-sea https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/chinese-vietna... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
  - SllX 4y ago
    Not so odd in the case of Taiwan: I like them, they’re the China as far as I’m concerned the UN and State Department be damned on this front, but it’s worth remembering that Taiwan officially does not see themselves as just an island nation off the coast of China. They claim the mainland, and all the island territories held by the mainland, and even Mongolia and some other land that the PRC has given up its claims to to settle border disputes. They’re not likely to back down on any of their claims no matter how small. Some people in Taiwan might be willing to give that up in exchange for a guarantee of independence but as far as I know this is not at all a settled matter for them. It’s very much like North Korea/South Korea.

tablespoon 4y ago

> The US could spend 2 times less on military and still be the biggest one in the world. And it as allies everywhere. I don't think it's that simple: stuff costs more in the US vs other big military spenders, large != effective, etc. If the US cut its military budget, it would have to give up capabilities, and that will have bitter consequences (e.g. the liberal order will shrink even further (e.g. goodbye Ukraine, Taiwan, Baltics), China owns the seas, etc.).

willhslade 4y ago

Can I just sidetrack this conversation? I've seen this new neologism "2 times less", which I infer from context means "half as much", and I don't like it.

Jaruzel 4y ago
Surely '2 times less' is minus 100% less, if the amount originally spent is '1 times'? It's an illogical phrase to be sure.
- nodespace 4y ago
  I think its like saying: "2 times (but instead of mutiplying do the oposite thing that makes it smaller)" Is where the "logic" comes from. Hm, I bet this parses as well: "An hour is .5 times more then a half hour." Although not quite as well.
elpatoisthebest 4y ago
Unfortunately this is far from new. I tried fighting it for years and just gave up. Save yourself the grief. We already lost.
867-5309 4y ago
it is bad grammar: you cannot use comparative adjectives on uncountable nouns that said, when I read it I did not notice. my brain automagically converted the phrase to half. the context was not lost but it is murky territory

minhazm 4y ago

I wonder if this is actually true in practice. I think many of these countries, especially China & India are incentivized to understate how much they actually spend on their defense. Another factor is the cost of labor and goods is so different that even though the US is spending far more actual dollars, the actual output might not be as big of a difference as these articles might have you believe.

akiselev 4y ago
Historically, countries almost never understate the strength of their armed forces because that would invite pointless conflicts with weaker adversaries. Unless the former is looking for some casus belli to invade the latter, it leads to the most pointless loss of life where the latter never stood a chance anyway but the former has to waste resources on the defense. I don't know how that calculus changes in the context of modern superpowers or China's ambitions for Taiwan but that's the reasoning historically.
- signatoremo 4y ago
  How can you possibly know how much a country spent on military to conclude they almost never understate their funding? A perfect reason a country may understate their military spending is to hide their capabilities. For that matter, they may overstate their spending as well.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    You have to ask yourself why a country would want to hide (as in demote) their capabilities. Overstating their capabilities is perfectly understandable.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kbenson 4y ago

Given how some think the lessening of US Navy projection of power and securing shipping lanes around the world is what's leading to global instability, and global stability has been very good for US economics the last 50+ years, a case can probably be made that at least some of that military spending in the past was extremely effective and useful. The theory is new to me, so I don't know enough about it to know how much I buy into it, but it's an interesting one.

magicalist 4y ago
> lessening of US Navy projection of power While they continue to have more money allocated to them, operational mishaps occur more often, and navies look increasingly vulnerable in a real fight (see for instance the Moskva). Clearly "at least some of that military spending in the past was extremely effective and useful" isn't sufficient guidance on how to continue spending money.