4 ms·

> I think Americans over estimate how much investment in defense is needed. I don't think you understand the concept of risk, particularly as it pertains to th

by tharne 4y ago

> I think Americans over estimate how much investment in defense is needed. I don't think you understand the concept of risk, particularly as it pertains to things like war and armed conflict. Defense spending always looks excessive and unnecessary until you need it. Saying a country overestimates how much defense spending they need is like saying you don't need car insurance because you've never been in an accident. Wars are similar to car accidents. We're really bad at predicting when we're going to get into one and it can be a whole lot worse than we ever could have imagined. Additionally for most western countries, the U.S. military acts as a fail-safe of sorts. If Belgium, for instance, underestimates their defense needs they know at some point the U.S. will jump in to help them if need be, which is largely what's happening in Ukraine right now. By contrast, if the U.S. underestimates its defense needs and suddenly finds itself under attack, say by the Chinese, who exactly would come and save them?

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I understand that the USA has chosen a strategy of global imperialism as a plan for maintaining control of world affairs. Our military occupies or encircles nearly every country on Earth. This is obviously an extremely expensive strategy, and one that no other country has ever chosen. But all this talk of military spending is orthogonal to my original comment. I am saying we would be better off if washing machines were open source, and the workers at the washing machine factory would be better off if the organization was cooperatively owned and managed. I never suggested abolishing the state. The comment mentioning the military was in error if they thought I was talking about making my own country. You can do what I propose inside the USA, and the government can keep taxing exchanges to fund the largest military the world has ever seen. I have opinions on that, but those opinions don't relate to the idea that non-military technology should be open source. Obviously militaries prefer secrets. I will say, it is interesting that you say I don't understand risk. The USA does not have the largest army humanity has ever seen in order to manage risk. The USA has this army to maintain power over other countries. Belgium as you mention relies on the USA for some extra defense protection. But this also means that Belgium cannot oppose us. We have covered the globe in US military bases so that we can maintain control. This strategy goes far beyond managing risk. If we merely wanted to manage risk, we could have avoided treating every country south of our border like shit, fostered healthy relationships with them, and after decades of healthy relationships formed a military alliance with them. Then that organization would defend the Americas against foreign invaders, not the USA.

by tharne 4y ago

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

I understand that the USA has chosen a strategy of global imperialism as a plan for maintaining control of world affairs. Our military occupies or encircles nearly every country on Earth. This is obviously an extremely expensive strategy, and one that no other country has ever chosen. But all this talk of military spending is orthogonal to my original comment. I am saying we would be better off if washing machines were open source, and the workers at the washing machine factory would be better off if the organization was cooperatively owned and managed. I never suggested abolishing the state. The comment mentioning the military was in error if they thought I was talking about making my own country. You can do what I propose inside the USA, and the government can keep taxing exchanges to fund the largest military the world has ever seen. I have opinions on that, but those opinions don't relate to the idea that non-military technology should be open source. Obviously militaries prefer secrets. I will say, it is interesting that you say I don't understand risk. The USA does not have the largest army humanity has ever seen in order to manage risk. The USA has this army to maintain power over other countries. Belgium as you mention relies on the USA for some extra defense protection. But this also means that Belgium cannot oppose us. We have covered the globe in US military bases so that we can maintain control. This strategy goes far beyond managing risk. If we merely wanted to manage risk, we could have avoided treating every country south of our border like shit, fostered healthy relationships with them, and after decades of healthy relationships formed a military alliance with them. Then that organization would defend the Americas against foreign invaders, not the USA.