3 ms·

>and yet they're never prepared Of course not, how could we be prepared unless we continuously invest? In what other sphere does life continue to flourish in t

>and yet they're never prepared Of course not, how could we be prepared unless we continuously invest? In what other sphere does life continue to flourish in the face of evolving threats without continuous co-evolution? As an American I am not an at all concerned about the total amount spent. I am highly concerned that it gets spent effectively. > to the detriment of their health and education The US is starting to realize that Europe has neglected its own defense in favor of social projects, while relying on US taxpayer defense spending. >It's a sad state of affairs. Agreed.

wkat4242 2y ago
> The US is starting to realize that Europe has neglected its own defense in favor of social projects, while relying on US taxpayer defense spending. It's not that simple. Our social programs matter more to our citizens. The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex, including waging totally unnecessary and inconsequential wars like the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. As soon as they pull out after wasting trillions, things are back the way they were. And in the case of Iraq a lot worse (ISIS). The money for those wars would have been better spent on health and education, and less lives would be lost as well. What is most important for our safety against countries like Russia is the nuclear umbrella. And the US doesn't want to see more than France and Britain have nuclear capabilities.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  >Our social programs matter more to our citizens Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense. Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security. >And the US doesn't want to see Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella. >The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex 100% agree. We waste a simply breathtaking amount of money. But again, I am less concerned about the total spend and more concerned with the effectiveness of the spend. I agree that we don't always spend effectively.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    > they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security. You could argue that at some point the "security" is the main threat against your security. It is like if I had some armed guard at a post outside my front door. The risk of him shooting me, or my drunk kids crawling through the bushes to avoid discovery, by mistake or at will due to some dispute surely out weight him protecting me from a 1/100 000 risk or what ever of lethal home invasion.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Sure, if your threat model is 1 incident per 100,000 days (274 years), your analogy holds. 274 years ago to Present time includes a lot of European wars. Claude AI gives me the following: 7 years war, Napoleonic wars, Crimean war, Franco-Prussian war, WWI, WWII, Ukraine-Russia So I would argue that your analogy is built on bad data and isn't exactly useful for real world.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    > Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense. > Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security. It's just that we don't really have a serious security problem. A bit more so now since Russian agression. But military is not about showing muscle, it's about having sufficient to do the job and not more. Having a military is a prerequisite of freedom but not an end goal in itself. In the US it does seem to be like that. > Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella. This is the thing about the US. It's always about money and war. Not about quality of life. In Europe we don't care as much about having a powerful military because we're not looking to march all over the world protecting our interests. It just needs to be powerful enough to protect our borders and meet NATO commitments (which it does now). Don't forget the US offered us to join NATO, partly in an attempt to prevent us from aligning with other geopolitical entities. If we hadn't had that, we would have built more.

wkat4242 2y ago

> The US is starting to realize that Europe has neglected its own defense in favor of social projects, while relying on US taxpayer defense spending. It's not that simple. Our social programs matter more to our citizens. The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex, including waging totally unnecessary and inconsequential wars like the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. As soon as they pull out after wasting trillions, things are back the way they were. And in the case of Iraq a lot worse (ISIS). The money for those wars would have been better spent on health and education, and less lives would be lost as well. What is most important for our safety against countries like Russia is the nuclear umbrella. And the US doesn't want to see more than France and Britain have nuclear capabilities.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
>Our social programs matter more to our citizens Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense. Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security. >And the US doesn't want to see Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella. >The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex 100% agree. We waste a simply breathtaking amount of money. But again, I am less concerned about the total spend and more concerned with the effectiveness of the spend. I agree that we don't always spend effectively.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security. You could argue that at some point the "security" is the main threat against your security. It is like if I had some armed guard at a post outside my front door. The risk of him shooting me, or my drunk kids crawling through the bushes to avoid discovery, by mistake or at will due to some dispute surely out weight him protecting me from a 1/100 000 risk or what ever of lethal home invasion.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Sure, if your threat model is 1 incident per 100,000 days (274 years), your analogy holds. 274 years ago to Present time includes a lot of European wars. Claude AI gives me the following: 7 years war, Napoleonic wars, Crimean war, Franco-Prussian war, WWI, WWII, Ukraine-Russia So I would argue that your analogy is built on bad data and isn't exactly useful for real world.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  > Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense. > Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security. It's just that we don't really have a serious security problem. A bit more so now since Russian agression. But military is not about showing muscle, it's about having sufficient to do the job and not more. Having a military is a prerequisite of freedom but not an end goal in itself. In the US it does seem to be like that. > Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella. This is the thing about the US. It's always about money and war. Not about quality of life. In Europe we don't care as much about having a powerful military because we're not looking to march all over the world protecting our interests. It just needs to be powerful enough to protect our borders and meet NATO commitments (which it does now). Don't forget the US offered us to join NATO, partly in an attempt to prevent us from aligning with other geopolitical entities. If we hadn't had that, we would have built more.