7 ms·
> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste, than being s
by stogot 2y ago
> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste, than being spent on the military (which, by the way means that the big defense contractors in the US are _subsidized by tax payers_).
We all would, but given that Russia, Iran, China, and NK are aggressive states and all actively claim that the US is the enemy, and that the relative world order expired in 2022, we cannot have nice things. The peace dividend expired years ago
- jfim 2y agoI fail to see how the cuts as being implemented actually make US citizens safer from Russia, Iran, China, and NK. Can you elaborate on how they do that?
- akoboldfrying 2y agoNot OP, but I don't think the cuts will do that. I think the additional defence spending might, though, at least w.r.t. Russia and China.
- KerrAvon 2y agoThe only thing that we _need_ is ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which we already have plenty of. The rest of it is essentially optional. Even conceding the need for a large conventional military force (soldiers/tanks/boats/aircraft/drones/etc), the US military is way overfunded, and significant budget cuts would actually be on the table if DOGE were a sincere effort to reduce government spending.
- aftbit 2y agoClearly false. Nukes are just not that useful in about anything except the end of the world. If you're fighting a Ukraine-style war, nukes are worthless.
- jquery 2y agoUkraine is only fighting an Ukraine-style war because it lacked nukes to begin with. Which, btw, they lack because we agreed to defend them from Russia if they agreed to not develop nukes.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- ArnoVW 2y agoEven better than that: the deal was that they should get rid of the ones they had.
- slaw 2y agoThere is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum about defend from Russia.
- darthrupert 2y agoYeah. In fact Russia was one of the nations that promised to protect Ukraine from attacks. But back then it didn't look like Russia was the primary risk to the free countries of this planet.
- kelipso 2y agoYes it did, the Cold War had just ended but Russia and USSR was still seen as the enemy by the US. It’s not that different from now. The difference is Ukraine was basically considered to be a part of Russia back then.
- crucialfelix 2y agoNobody can use Nuclear bombs without serious repercussions. Putin considered using new, smaller tactical nukes on Ukraine and that set off huge international opposition. The mere mention of nukes is extremely counter productive to whatever a state is trying to accomplish. By some estimates Israel dropped 4 Hiroshimas worth of explosives on Gaza. https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction-of-gaza-overshadows-hiroshima-tragedy-18192320 https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction... The US dropped far more destruction on Bagdad in 2003 than on Hiroshima. Modern conventional bombing is far more effective and just as hideous.
- notpushkin 2y agoI think governments are afraid of nukes not because of the destructive power. Nukes are the only weapons that put the actual people in charge in danger, not just the civilians or the military. People in charge are afraid for their lives, not for the people they are supposed to protect. It’s a simplisic view, I know.
- westmeal 2y agoThe senators and president will be OK, they have plans to evac to a huge bunker with everything they need. I don't know about you but I don't seem to have a taxpayer funded mega bunker.
- asvitkine 2y agoFor some definition of OK. It would be a big negative change to their lifestyles even if they're still alive. Also, it assumes they can get to those locations in time from wherever they happen to be.
- kelipso 2y agoA lot of their families and friends are not going to be in the bunkers.
- dworkr 2y agoThey'll have no one left to pander to.
- watwut 2y agoTrump supports Russia now. They are allies
- zimpenfish 2y ago> Trump supports Russia now. If the rumours are true, he's had no option but to support Russia since the 80s.
- prawn 2y agoCan you define "no option" here?
- jalk 2y agoI would not be surprised if that "no option" list involves videos of Trump from FSB bugged hotel rooms.
- prawn 2y agoSure, but my point is that "suffering personal shame for the good of millions of other people" is an option. Not very Trumpy, but a feasible option available to him. Worst case, it'd be a little reminiscent of the very first Black Mirror episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_(Black_Mir...
- zimpenfish 2y ago> Not very Trumpy, but a feasible option available to him. For someone who is (I would suggest) a malignant narcissist / borderline sociopath like Trump, "suffering personal shame for someone else's benefit" is not an option because it just wouldn't occur to them. Even if you sat down and patiently explained it, the concept just doesn't make sense to them, like, eg., the concept of a flat earth doesn't make sense to non-lunatics.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
- consteval 2y agoRight, and how does this square up with the administration explicitly siding with Russia?
- khana 2y ago[dead]
- SecretDreams 2y agoI don't think the current admin codes Russian or NK as hostile states.
- sheeshkebab 2y agoThey won’t have any choice soon enough - all that wishy washy they are not our enemy bullshit goes out the window with the first missile/shell/drone flying over.
- jquery 2y agoWhy would Russia/NK attack their wannabe ally?
- raverbashing 2y agoSomething something the frog and the scorpion
- rbanffy 2y agoIf you remember Putin is a spy by training, and a damn good one at that, you must consider spies really don’t want to change things when they are advantageous to them. Right now he knows very well what levers to pull to make things happen the way he wants. He won’t change that.
- codedokode 2y agoWell they both are across the large ocean and it's difficult to invade US from their location (especially for NK which probably doesn't even have ships). US is surrounded by weak, peaceful countries and separated by oceans from not-so-peaceful ones. It could cut the military spending completely and still be safe.
- reciprocity 2y agoYou're not accounting for the fact that it is in America's best interests to have allies, most of whom are across those same oceans. And vice versa.
- curseofcasandra 2y ago[flagged]
- rat87 2y agoGenerally I think most american military/state department people dont want China as an enemy but see a high chance of conflict if they invade Taiwan. Though under Trump I'm not sure we would defend Taiwan, we seem to be betraying Ukraine and other european allies
- VBprogrammer 2y agoAmerican needs an enemy. Drugs, communism, terrorism, China. I guess without something to fear it would be hard to justify spending trillions on their military.
- bregma 2y agoWe have always been at war with Eastasia.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoyou could cut the US military budget substantially and it would still be the largest military power in the world and well able to defend itself it might not longer be able to be the "undisputed global power" but, as someone who has lived abroad most of my life and seen American foreign policy from the other side, I don't know that's a bad thing
- roenxi 2y agoAlthough it is worth noting that the war spending the US does do also doesn't translate into being an undisputed global power. They burned a trillion or few in Afghanistan and I doubt that impressed anyone in particular. They didn't achieve anything. Challengers to the global hegemony multiplied in the aftermath. If they hadn't wasted the resources they'd just be better off with no downsides.
- DrillShopper 2y agoThe US spent more than twice (and almost three times) what Russia, China, and Iran spent on their military combined in 2023. If we can't match up with them by spending twice as much as them then maybe the military is the first place we should be looking for inefficency.