7 ms·

I was brought up in a household that was anti military. Only as an adult was I able to form my own opinion. Without a strong military in the past we would cer

I was brought up in a household that was anti military. Only as an adult was I able to form my own opinion. Without a strong military in the past we would certainly not be here today and without a strong military now, who knows what other nation might decide to attack our sovereignty. It's childish to be anti military - it shows you do not understand the interconnectedness of our society - good and bad.

macintux 3y ago
This is a complex topic: I’m a firm believer that Pax Americana has been good for the world as a whole, but there are also no shortage of terrible crimes, and no small number of people who are worse off (including many members of the military itself). I don’t believe it’s “childish” to have serious concerns about the military.
- FactKnower69 3y ago
  Operation Condor wasn't very pax for anyone living in Pinochet's Chile, or really anywhere in South or Latin America, but I'm sure your family did just fine.
  - kridsdale1 3y ago
    America has historically been racist. The pax was for the sake of the northern hemisphere.
amrocha 3y ago
I could make literally the opposite argument. Other countries antagonize the US because of its military interventionism. If the US had lower military spending, other countries wouldn't feel the need to be aggressive. It's childish to be pro military. It shows you think arbitrary lines on a map determine who's good or bad.
- scottLobster 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure Russia and China would be far less aggressive if the US had lower military spending. What you're suggesting is the geopolitical equivalent of "ignore the bully and they'll get bored and go away". And you call others childish?
  - amrocha 3y ago
    No, we just have a different perspective. USA is the bully, not the rest of the world. Any country that grows powerful enough to get in the eye of the USA needs a strong military, because the USA has a military and a record of interventionism that can't be ignored.
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > No, we just have a different perspective. USA is the bully, not the rest of the world. There is no question that the US has acted like a bully in Southern America, but you ignore that other countries have acted the same way in other parts of the world[1], and with far more disastrous results[2]. If you want to dig into records, then the ground under my feet has seen a Russian invasion roughly every 50 years for as long as written records go, that is, every generation has had to resist a Russian attack and suffer the consequences. The war in Ukraine is like a replay of so many wars before, from its artificial justifications to the incredible violence against victims. When kids study history in school, one of the sources they have to analyze and put into context is a letter from a Russian nobleman to the czar after another successful conquest. In the letter, he boasts that when he was travelling from one city to another on the way back to Russia, he didn't see a single living person left. They had successfully burned everything down and killed everyone. Centuries have passed, but nothing has changed. Russians use the same tactic in Ukraine, massive artillery walls slowly crawling forward, reducing entire cities to total rubble as if they had been hit with a nuclear bomb[3]. Pax Americana is currently the only thing preventing me and hundreds of millions of other Europeans from sharing the same fate. Russians do not dare to invade as long as they don't know if Americans would press the nuclear button or not. My freedom to live in peace and unharmed, speak my language and practice my culture, directly depends on the missile silos tucked away somewhere between the cornfields of Iowa. How about that for a perspective? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide [3] https://www.rferl.org/a/maryinka-aerial-shattered-landscape/32408454.html https://www.rferl.org/a/maryinka-aerial-shattered-landscape/...
kevingadd 3y ago
So you're in favor of every US government agency, no matter how flawed or harmful, as long as it theoretically serves some important purpose? Marijuana criminalization is necessary and it's childish to criticize it, because without drug controls, cocaine would flood the streets. Life imprisonment without chance of parole is necessary and it's childish to criticize any use of it, because some specific criminals merit it. Government censorship of any kind of speaker for any kind of content is necessary and it's childish to criticize it, because specific types of information (classified national security information, for example) require it. Even worse than taking this kind of children's storybook view of the world is applying it to the US military among all militaries, with an incredibly long undeniable track record of incompetence and war crimes.
beambot 3y ago
Note: There's a big difference between "military" and "military industrial complex", and even Dwight Eisenhower cautioned against the latter...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
marcus_holmes 3y ago
The USA has a larger military than the next 5 nations combined. The USA is not under threat from anyone. This would still be true if the US military was a tiny fraction of its current size. The USA does, however, use its vast military to attack other countries without provocation, seemingly to protect commercial interests. I don't think it's "childish" to be suspicious of the US Military. I worry about the mentality in the USA that everyone needs to protect themselves all the time with firearms. I don't understand why everyone seems to be scared that someone else is going to do bad things to them if they're not armed to the teeth. I suspect this is projection.
- repler 3y ago
  > The USA is not under threat from anyone. That is demonstrably false. In fact, should Texas ever actually secede from the Union they would very quickly find out exactly how much our enemies dislike us. Hard to believe someone actually typed that sentence.
  - quesera 3y ago
    I agree with your headline premise, but ... > In fact, should Texas ever actually secede from the Union they would very quickly find out exactly how much our enemies dislike us. Go on...?
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    Ok, I'll bite. Who is threatening the USA, or would if the USA's military was the same size as Canada's?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
a257 3y ago
Is it possible for the military to be too "strong"? Each warship, fighter jet, tank, and soldier costs time, money, and effort to produce and maintain. That a military is necessary for ensuring the security and continuing stability of the US is of little importance when the real issue is based on a tradeoff, an equilibrium. What are we gaining and what are we losing? The current situation of the military industrial complex is complicated, but it is nevertheless clear that is is extremely inefficient (and thats by design). I'm not sure if incorporating AI tech into the military is going to change this, when the fundamental incentives remain the same.
licebmi__at__ 3y ago
Wow, rethoric is certainly returning to post 9/11 levels lately.

macintux 3y ago

This is a complex topic: I’m a firm believer that Pax Americana has been good for the world as a whole, but there are also no shortage of terrible crimes, and no small number of people who are worse off (including many members of the military itself). I don’t believe it’s “childish” to have serious concerns about the military.

FactKnower69 3y ago
Operation Condor wasn't very pax for anyone living in Pinochet's Chile, or really anywhere in South or Latin America, but I'm sure your family did just fine.
- kridsdale1 3y ago
  America has historically been racist. The pax was for the sake of the northern hemisphere.

amrocha 3y ago

I could make literally the opposite argument. Other countries antagonize the US because of its military interventionism. If the US had lower military spending, other countries wouldn't feel the need to be aggressive. It's childish to be pro military. It shows you think arbitrary lines on a map determine who's good or bad.

scottLobster 3y ago
Yeah, I'm sure Russia and China would be far less aggressive if the US had lower military spending. What you're suggesting is the geopolitical equivalent of "ignore the bully and they'll get bored and go away". And you call others childish?
- amrocha 3y ago
  No, we just have a different perspective. USA is the bully, not the rest of the world. Any country that grows powerful enough to get in the eye of the USA needs a strong military, because the USA has a military and a record of interventionism that can't be ignored.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > No, we just have a different perspective. USA is the bully, not the rest of the world. There is no question that the US has acted like a bully in Southern America, but you ignore that other countries have acted the same way in other parts of the world[1], and with far more disastrous results[2]. If you want to dig into records, then the ground under my feet has seen a Russian invasion roughly every 50 years for as long as written records go, that is, every generation has had to resist a Russian attack and suffer the consequences. The war in Ukraine is like a replay of so many wars before, from its artificial justifications to the incredible violence against victims. When kids study history in school, one of the sources they have to analyze and put into context is a letter from a Russian nobleman to the czar after another successful conquest. In the letter, he boasts that when he was travelling from one city to another on the way back to Russia, he didn't see a single living person left. They had successfully burned everything down and killed everyone. Centuries have passed, but nothing has changed. Russians use the same tactic in Ukraine, massive artillery walls slowly crawling forward, reducing entire cities to total rubble as if they had been hit with a nuclear bomb[3]. Pax Americana is currently the only thing preventing me and hundreds of millions of other Europeans from sharing the same fate. Russians do not dare to invade as long as they don't know if Americans would press the nuclear button or not. My freedom to live in peace and unharmed, speak my language and practice my culture, directly depends on the missile silos tucked away somewhere between the cornfields of Iowa. How about that for a perspective? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide [3] https://www.rferl.org/a/maryinka-aerial-shattered-landscape/32408454.html https://www.rferl.org/a/maryinka-aerial-shattered-landscape/...

kevingadd 3y ago

So you're in favor of every US government agency, no matter how flawed or harmful, as long as it theoretically serves some important purpose? Marijuana criminalization is necessary and it's childish to criticize it, because without drug controls, cocaine would flood the streets. Life imprisonment without chance of parole is necessary and it's childish to criticize any use of it, because some specific criminals merit it. Government censorship of any kind of speaker for any kind of content is necessary and it's childish to criticize it, because specific types of information (classified national security information, for example) require it. Even worse than taking this kind of children's storybook view of the world is applying it to the US military among all militaries, with an incredibly long undeniable track record of incompetence and war crimes.

beambot 3y ago

Note: There's a big difference between "military" and "military industrial complex", and even Dwight Eisenhower cautioned against the latter...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

marcus_holmes 3y ago

The USA has a larger military than the next 5 nations combined. The USA is not under threat from anyone. This would still be true if the US military was a tiny fraction of its current size. The USA does, however, use its vast military to attack other countries without provocation, seemingly to protect commercial interests. I don't think it's "childish" to be suspicious of the US Military. I worry about the mentality in the USA that everyone needs to protect themselves all the time with firearms. I don't understand why everyone seems to be scared that someone else is going to do bad things to them if they're not armed to the teeth. I suspect this is projection.

repler 3y ago
> The USA is not under threat from anyone. That is demonstrably false. In fact, should Texas ever actually secede from the Union they would very quickly find out exactly how much our enemies dislike us. Hard to believe someone actually typed that sentence.
- quesera 3y ago
  I agree with your headline premise, but ... > In fact, should Texas ever actually secede from the Union they would very quickly find out exactly how much our enemies dislike us. Go on...?
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  Ok, I'll bite. Who is threatening the USA, or would if the USA's military was the same size as Canada's?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

a257 3y ago

Is it possible for the military to be too "strong"? Each warship, fighter jet, tank, and soldier costs time, money, and effort to produce and maintain. That a military is necessary for ensuring the security and continuing stability of the US is of little importance when the real issue is based on a tradeoff, an equilibrium. What are we gaining and what are we losing? The current situation of the military industrial complex is complicated, but it is nevertheless clear that is is extremely inefficient (and thats by design). I'm not sure if incorporating AI tech into the military is going to change this, when the fundamental incentives remain the same.

licebmi__at__ 3y ago

Wow, rethoric is certainly returning to post 9/11 levels lately.