4 ms·

I used to roll my eyes at US military spending as well, but the last few years have honestly made me grateful for it

laidoffamazon 3y ago
Absolutely. The world is better off because Putin is being resisted. We (as the US) had a golden opportunity to reinvest our peace dividend after 1991 but we squandered it in a useless war for nearly 20 years after 9/11. But we have no choice but to reinvest in defense now.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Why worth it to create democratic state in Ukraine but not in Iraq? In both cases, the democracies created are flawed, but certainly more democratic than what came before.
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    Ukraine is already a democratic state, Iraq was never a democratic state.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Iraq is a democratic state now and arguably has been one for longer than Ukraine. Ukraine has only recently become a democratic state (last 15 years) and still has issues.
  - kiba 3y ago
    The loss of goodwill and fatigue limits our actions for more necessary circumstances. Perhaps Iraq wouldn't be a democracy, but our support of Ukraine would be more full-throated, and maybe our political circumstance would be better off.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Trading democracy for the 43 million people in Iraq for more full-throated support for the 45 million people of Ukraine seems like a bad trade given our current level of support is still preserving democracy in Ukraine.
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    Ukraine is a special case. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Ukraine was left with the world’s 3rd largest nuclear weapons arsenal. They gave up every single one of them in exchange for a promise from the western world to help them defend themselves from aggression. If we don’t live up to that promise, how can we ever hope to limit nuclear weapons proliferation anywhere else?
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Ukraine did not have the codes to operate the weapons it gave up - so this was essentially costless. Moreso, most people did not consider Ukraine a true democracy in the 90s thru to Euromaidan Nonetheless I do think the non-proliferation argument is a good one for distinguishing the two cases, thanks.
      - Kon-Peki 3y ago
        Had Ukraine kept them they probably would have eventually gained control. And we don’t have a legal obligation to their security, only a promise. But that makes what we are doing even more powerful, IMO
      - philipkglass 3y ago
        There were 1,240 Soviet nuclear warheads stationed on Ukrainian territory when it gained independence in 1991 [1]. At the very least, these weapons could have been salvaged for their fissile materials (highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium). Obtaining such fissile materials is about 90% of the effort of building nuclear weapons, and preventing the acquisition of them is about 90% of anti-proliferation efforts. I think that Ukraine could have easily deployed a nuclear deterrent in the 2010s if they had warehoused all those Soviet warheads in the 1990s. [1] https://www.nti.org/countries/ukraine/ https://www.nti.org/countries/ukraine/
      - stouset 3y ago
        > Ukraine did not have the codes to operate the weapons it gave up - so this was essentially costless. This analysis seems a little thin. The codes to operate those weapons only really control the detonation sequence. At the end of the day, making new detonators from existing bombs is much less hard than collecting the fissile materials needed and assembling bombs from scratch.
the-chitmonger 3y ago
Yep - plus it also helps that we have the Atlantic and a lot of Europe between us and a potential invasion.

Absolutely. The world is better off because Putin is being resisted. We (as the US) had a golden opportunity to reinvest our peace dividend after 1991 but we squandered it in a useless war for nearly 20 years after 9/11. But we have no choice but to reinvest in defense now.

whimsicalism 3y ago
Why worth it to create democratic state in Ukraine but not in Iraq? In both cases, the democracies created are flawed, but certainly more democratic than what came before.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  Ukraine is already a democratic state, Iraq was never a democratic state.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Iraq is a democratic state now and arguably has been one for longer than Ukraine. Ukraine has only recently become a democratic state (last 15 years) and still has issues.
- kiba 3y ago
  The loss of goodwill and fatigue limits our actions for more necessary circumstances. Perhaps Iraq wouldn't be a democracy, but our support of Ukraine would be more full-throated, and maybe our political circumstance would be better off.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Trading democracy for the 43 million people in Iraq for more full-throated support for the 45 million people of Ukraine seems like a bad trade given our current level of support is still preserving democracy in Ukraine.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  Ukraine is a special case. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Ukraine was left with the world’s 3rd largest nuclear weapons arsenal. They gave up every single one of them in exchange for a promise from the western world to help them defend themselves from aggression. If we don’t live up to that promise, how can we ever hope to limit nuclear weapons proliferation anywhere else?
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Ukraine did not have the codes to operate the weapons it gave up - so this was essentially costless. Moreso, most people did not consider Ukraine a true democracy in the 90s thru to Euromaidan Nonetheless I do think the non-proliferation argument is a good one for distinguishing the two cases, thanks.
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      Had Ukraine kept them they probably would have eventually gained control. And we don’t have a legal obligation to their security, only a promise. But that makes what we are doing even more powerful, IMO
    - philipkglass 3y ago
      There were 1,240 Soviet nuclear warheads stationed on Ukrainian territory when it gained independence in 1991 [1]. At the very least, these weapons could have been salvaged for their fissile materials (highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium). Obtaining such fissile materials is about 90% of the effort of building nuclear weapons, and preventing the acquisition of them is about 90% of anti-proliferation efforts. I think that Ukraine could have easily deployed a nuclear deterrent in the 2010s if they had warehoused all those Soviet warheads in the 1990s. [1] https://www.nti.org/countries/ukraine/ https://www.nti.org/countries/ukraine/
    - stouset 3y ago
      > Ukraine did not have the codes to operate the weapons it gave up - so this was essentially costless. This analysis seems a little thin. The codes to operate those weapons only really control the detonation sequence. At the end of the day, making new detonators from existing bombs is much less hard than collecting the fissile materials needed and assembling bombs from scratch.

the-chitmonger 3y ago

Yep - plus it also helps that we have the Atlantic and a lot of Europe between us and a potential invasion.