6 ms·
Even if WWIII is not a consequence of all this senseless and reckless militarization, each and every penny spent on it will end up missing dearly for fighting h
by c0l0 2y ago
Even if WWIII is not a consequence of all this senseless and reckless militarization, each and every penny spent on it will end up missing dearly for fighting human civilization's real fight of this century: combatting climate change. It's even worse, since this kind of spending will make it even worse.
I'm afraid humanity is blowing it for good with this.
- hansvm 2y agoThe plot twist of the century would be if climate change is the driving force behind our bluster about annexing Canada and Greenland. He can't admit it publicly without alienating his base, so he's forced to come up with increasingly ludicrous ruses to justify his attempts to save America from its real threats.
- dudefeliciano 2y agoIn a way it is his very openly stated goal. He has mentioned that it's a national security issue, since Russian and Chinese ships are passing through the arctic route, and as the ice melts greenland and canada will become increasingly important.
- AlecSchueler 2y agoAs the ice melts most of the issues we're talking about will become distant memories.
- more_corn 2y agoWe don’t need to invest a shit ton of money to stop climate change. We just need to decide to do it. There are cost-effective ways to do it. What we’ve been lacking is the consensus to do it.
- jupp0r 2y agoWe need to invest a lot of money to stop climate change. Renewable energy projects are very capital intensive compared to fossil fuel equivalents.
- permo-w 2y agothe simplest way to stop climate change would be a massive transition to nuclear power, ideally fusion, but until the technology is there for fusion, fission. nuclear power, great though it is, costs money, huge amounts of money
- evolve2k 2y agoThis is now a falacy. We’ve burnt through the time we had to do this. Nuclear solutions now cost much more comparatively. Solar won and it’s the storage of cheaply generated power than now needs maximum investment and support. Nuclear continues to be discussed mainly because it reverses the decentralisation of energy reliance that’s occurring as solar spreads.
- tirant 2y agoFirst we just need to decide if it’s worth it, or how much is worth it. The costs of remaining at +2C are several orders of magnitude higher than going back to +1C. And in all cases the most impacted ones due to climate change effects or climate change fight expenses are the ones at the bottom.
- tmoravec 2y agoIf Germany is conquered by Russia, there's exactly nothing done to combat climate change. Warding them off gives at least a chance to work on that and some progress.
- jajko 2y agoIts much worse, just look at the map. Global warming would be massively beneficial to russia - north sea would be better used by navy (whatever remains out of it) and shipping lanes, permafrost disappearing makes much more land usable. They have massive oil and gas reserves that they need to sell, half of their economy runs off this.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoMolten permafrost is unlikely to be arable soil 'just so'. Tends to be rather acidic, and teems with nasty insects. Who knows what else it thawing up, too. Yay for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis !
- AlecSchueler 2y agoAnd if we collapse the jet stream they will be living deep under ice. Global warming != Everywhere gets sunny
- navane 2y agoIf Europe gets conquered by russia and we too go back to drawing donkey carts with cowshit, we might actually slow down climate change.
- AlecSchueler 2y agoThere's a latent conspiracy theorist deep inside me that says they've figured out the only way to stop the warming is the complete collapse of all post-conflict industrial society and start building again.
- yodsanklai 2y agoIronically, Trump plunging the world into a recession could help reduce CO2 emissions (the same way covid did).
- Herring 2y agoLook up the Keeling curve. Covid didn't even make a dent on the trend. You can't see any difference at all.
- yodsanklai 2y ago7% drop in CO2 emissions in 2020 [1]. I think we'd need one extra covid per year if we wanted to reach Paris agreement. [1] https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020 https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-caus...
- netsharc 2y agoOnce a year huh? Let me call the Wuhan Virology Lab...
- jsbisviewtiful 2y agoResearchers and analysts tend to agree humanity already blew it. We waited way too long to start mitigation practices and what little we’ve done has already started to be rolled back. Even if we restarted efforts it would take too long to ramp up given the snowball effect already in play. We are cooked.
- jupp0r 2y agoThis ironically applies both to climate change and being a decade too late to react to Russia's expansionist actions.
- alwa 2y agoSo… maybe, but to my mind counterfactuals don’t really help clarify thinking about this kind of thing. The range of futures available to us today doesn’t really depend too much on alternate futures that may have been available had we done things differently in the past. I understand the political necessity of setting a concrete 1.5 degC warming target and messaging it as an all-or-nothing kind of goal, but “we missed it” isn’t an absolute. It’s not the line between “hellfire and brimstone” and “salvation”: there’s still a range of outcomes and behavior still matters. The fatalism strikes me as counterproductive and paralyzing: people can and will continue to try to survive, even if there are wildfires now, or hurricanes, or heat waves, or worse. Better, it seems to me, to focus on what actually is changing, how people are responding, and how to mitigate and adapt.
- jsbisviewtiful 2y agoIt's okay to have a differing opinion, but ultimately the oceans are warming much faster than simulations created by experts predicted. The runaway greenhouse effect has always been front and center of the "oh no" part of humanity warming the planet and so far it appears "runaway warming" describes the state of the ocean - which is very not good.
- WinstonSmith84 2y agoIf Europe had taken seriously: 1- in 2008 the invasion of Georgia 2- in 2014 the first invasion of Ukraine 3- in 2016 the shift in American politics and its disinterest in Europe then a small re-militarization would have been more than enough to avoid the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and all what has unfolded. Instead, Europe is now fighting for its survival and is reacting rather than acting - in such desperate times, climate change can wait ...
- hackinthebochs 2y ago>Europe is now fighting for its survival What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful? The EU is explicitly called out as an enemy of Russia and America by its ruling parties’ elites.
- marsovo 2y ago[dead]
- surgical_fire 2y agoHyperbole? The current US president already threatened annexation of Greenland, which is a Danish territory, not to mention the ongoing trade war. There's no hyperbole there.
- jfengel 2y agoEurope has plenty of time for its militarization. If it had done it before then they wouldn't have to be doing it now, but it wouldn't have deterred any of those events. Delaying was a reasonable choice given the information at the time, hoping that Putin was not a moron and that he would not take control of the US. They are reacting adequately, at a deliberate but not reckless pace, in response to the new information.
- johnea 2y ago
- jupp0r 2y agoYou're being overly dramatic. Germany has been spending low amounts of money on its military for two and a half decades. Circumstances changed and spending needs to be increased to adjust to the new situation. This is not militarization, it's the state fulfilling fundamental purpose of providing external security for its citizens. Spending is going to be less (relative to GDP) than in the 70s and 80s.
- okr 2y agoThe agenda after WW2 was to not allow germany to militarize itself again and to keep the soviets out. Now it seems that germany is allowed to take it's safety in it's own hands again. Maybe there is more trust (western values?), maybe americans want to pull out? I still find it an astounding development. Maybe because it is an european project. Becoming adult. And the US has a bigger fish to fry.
- cjblomqvist 2y agoI believe it's fine now because there's been another, better, solution that doesn't rely on spending so many $$$ on it; the EU. USA is probably not at all as worried about Germany as a country going crazy again. Ironically, Hitler wanted to establish a third Reich - basically a new Roman empire that spanned all of... Europe. Funny how these things goes. Old wine in new bottles.
- watwut 2y agoThere is definitely more trust toward Germany then toward USA or Russia now. Wither way, even if there was less trust, it does nit matter. Russia is very active threat and America is hostile toward Europe, threatens annexation of part of it ... while being friendly to Russia and other authoritarian regimes. So, it is nor like there would be another choice. German is at least teaching about own atrocities as about atrocities. Other countries have massively bigger problem to admit their past might have been ugly.
- fasbiner 2y agohttps://www.dw.com/en/germans-trust-in-state-institutions-hits-new-low/a-66570660 https://www.dw.com/en/germans-trust-in-state-institutions-hi... https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/01/31/germany-s-bundestag-debates-banning-far-right-afd-party_6737637_4.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/01/31/g... https://rmc.bfmtv.com/actualites/international/on-l-a-fait-en-roumanie-thierry-breton-reagit-aux-ingerences-de-musk-en-allemagne-avec-l-afd_AN-202501090232.html https://rmc.bfmtv.com/actualites/international/on-l-a-fait-e... The historical german inability to correctly read geopolitical currents, anticipate their domestic dynamics, or understand international perceptions of Germany seems to be intact. It's true that The Atlantic Council and other US cultural-state entities aren't making it easier, but this is egregious. No one looks to Germany for leadership on rule of law, or human rights, least of all Germans.
- dragonwriter 2y agoThe militarization is a response to the fact that a world war is already underway, and a key ally of those accelerating militarization is either bowing out or actually switching sides. A world war will not be the result of the militarization, just like it wasn't a result of the militarization Britain undertook after the 1938 Munich crisis.
- krona 2y ago> bowing out or actually switching sides. Isn't the opposite actually the case? Hegseth has called it a "division of labor." [0] Ultimately when war breaks out with China, and a year in to that conflagration Russia (ever the opportunist) decides to take a few bites out of the Baltic states, who's going to defend Europe? The US military isn't omnipotent. [0] https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/%204064113/opening-remarks-by-secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-at-ukraine-defense-contact/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/%204064...
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Isn't the opposite actually the case? The opposite? You mean, the United States is increasing its integration with and support for its allies in the global conflict against the aggression of the Russian-centered alignment? No, that's 100% not what is happening. > Hegseth has called it a "division of labor." Probably a lot more useful to look at concrete policy actions than Hegseth’s vague, content-free characterizations. And it concrete reality, the US is cutting support for those who have been on the same side as it has, in some cases threatening them with violence and annexation, and provide aid and comfort to the aggressor that is the opponent that it had been working with others to defend against.
- krona 2y agoYou're confusing tactics for strategy (as is the media, which is entirely necessary for the strategy to work). I could point you at the policy papers, but if you think the US can upend 70 years of foreign policy in the blink of an eye and without a fight, you can believe anything.
- hackandthink 2y agoIt is a gigantic waste. Fear of Russia in Germany is pure hysteria. Russia is also paranoid, but at least it has historical reasons.
- fabian2k 2y agoRussia might not be able to invade Germany in the near future, but the much more likely and concerning scenario would be Russia nibbling away at EU countries in the east like the baltic states. If that happens and the NATO/EU states hesitate to defend that would almost certainly shatter these alliances and bring a much more uncertain future.
- ossobuco 2y ago> much more likely and concerning scenario Based on what data? Or is this just speculation as usual?
- fabian2k 2y agoBased on previous actions by Russia, like the 2014 Invasion in Ukraine. But mostly I took this scenario from what one expert wrote (Carlo Masala), but it is just that, one scenario. But this is similar to what other expert say, that the more concerning weak point in NATO is political. And if Russia could successfully drive a wedge between the NATO states it becomes vulnerable even if the total conventional military of its members is superior to Russian forces.
- ossobuco 2y agoThere's plenty of other experts saying that peaceful cooperation with Russia is possible. Wouldn't that be preferable to war to the last man, or a new decades long cold war? I don't understand why don't we talk more about achieving that, instead of blindly preparing for WWIII. NATO shouldn't even exist since the URSS collapsed.
- 2y ago
- ossobuco 2y agoI don’t have the exact numbers, but for every billion not invested in healthcare, infrastructure, or clean energy, countless people will end up suffering or dying unnecessarily. Take this study[0] as an example: austerity measures in Greece led to 10,000 avoidable infant deaths. Plenty of other studies show similar results, cutting social spending costs lives. So how many deaths will come from shifting €800 billion from social programs to military budgets? It’s a sure thing that this will cause suffering and death, while the idea that we need all that money for defense is just speculation, especially when the EU’s combined military budget is already far bigger than Russia’s. - [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17084 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17084
- surgical_fire 2y ago> EU’s combined military budget is already far bigger than Russia’s. But it is much smaller than the US' military spending, who is at this point a hostile foreign nation.
- ossobuco 2y agoI would even agree on this, but I wonder why do I never hear anyone requesting for the EU leadership to be held accountable for pursuing a policy of blind dependence on the US? We've cut ties with anyone the US disliked, only to be left alone all of a sudden, why aren't we looking for those responsible for this? I can tell you, many of them are currently in a position of power within the EU. Right now we have top diplomats like Kallas saying publicly that we need to find a way to beat China, all while we already have problems with Russia and the USA. They are putting us in a corner against the rest of the world, and for what? Who has to benefit from this?
- surgical_fire 2y ago> I wonder why do I never hear anyone requesting for the EU leadership to be held accountable for pursuing a policy of blind dependence on the US? The EU is a democratic institution. Its leaders are elected (or appointed by those who are elected). The way to hold them accountable is during elections. I don't think that anyone campaigning on a platform to spend money on defense in EU would have been very successful prior to 2025. Things likely changed now.
- j1elo 2y agoEurope has been benefiting from being friends with the US, which allowed not spending so much money in its own defense capabilities. Money that could then be destined to welfare. Now that US threatens to cut such good terms in their relationship, EU finds itself with decades of accumulated underinvestment, and the need to get up to speed in that front for yesterday. We're still not behaving collectively as much hogher than idiotic monkeys fighting in a cage. Defense from our neighbors is still a primary concern. We'll all die burnt with a heat wave.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoEurope was also principally buying American weapons. That’s now changing.
- michh 2y agoThe “benefitting from being friends with the US” is exactly the frame Trump would love for you to use. It’s a little more nuanced than that imo. After WW2 the US wanted the European powers under its wings rather than rebuilding their own militaries to the level of a global power. There were to be two powers: the US and the Soviets. It suited the US interests to force Europe in a dependent position. Partly for good reasons like preventing us fighting amongst ourselves starting another war. Which we’d just done twice, so fair enough. But also to stop us from coming under communist influence voluntarily. And, just for imperialist reasons. They were just more modern and subtle about it than the empires they replaced, most notably the British Empire. The almost-century of western Europe being effectively part of an US empire culturally, financially and militarily is now coming to an end. How we’re gonna deal with that? No idea. It’s going to be pretty damn hard in a lot of ways.
- netsharc 2y agoHonestly the response to climate change has been "We need to secure water and food for ourselves. Who has them and what's our invasion plan?". Or "We have water and food. What's our defense plan?" Having less mouths to feed is a positive (if viewed from this selfish point of view) side-effect.
- wg0 2y agoName and shame. Blame Trump. The most corrupt greedy lunatic ever in power. It's his doing. Germany isn't arming up for nothing. And then maybe Putin.
- jsiepkes 2y agoEuropean countries are going to "wait and see what happens". You think Poland, who are only free from Russian occupation for about 30 years, is going to wait and see if they are going to be occupied by Russia for another half a decade? Putin has proven time and time again he will exploit any perceived weakness. He did so in 2014 with Crimea and when Europe (and the US) failed to react it provoked him to try it again in 2022. There is zero evidence Putin is going to wind down after Ukraine. He has stated multiple times publicly he thinks the biggest tragedie of the last century was the collapse of the large Russian empire.
- riedel 2y agoThe reason to lift the debt limit is actually, so at current times it becomes not an either or option. Unfortunately, Russia seems a very real threat to many European countries (particularly those with Russian minority population). Germany needs this this money e.g. to actually setup a NATO brigade in Lithuania. While all this military spending indeed is lost money, it seems that cost would need to be split and this is not even consensus inside the EU. Germany has already become the target as its physical and digital infrastructure is under constant attack while feeling unable to defend ourselves. This is not about WWIII, but actually to prevent it happening.
- api 2y agoI’ve thought for over a decade that we need to plan for climate change as a certainty. Even if the US and Europe made huge emission cuts, the rest of the world will not. I’m sure developing nations will stay poor if we ask nicely. “Hey Africa. We know about the three centuries of exploitation and colonialism but hey… could you do us a favor now and stay poor to fix the problem we mostly created? Thanks!” There is no chance of this happening. There’s only one realistic solution. If renewable plus storage or some other non carbon based source can actually be cheaper and easier to deploy than coal and gas, it might replace them. As it stands coal and gas remain the cheapest sources of power (though the gap has narrowed) in most regions. They are also easy to deploy with a global market in both generation equipment and fuel and a huge global talent pool of people who know how to do it.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y agoWar is the consequence of a lack of defense, not the opposite. Nothing could illustrates that more than the period since 1947 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Never has the world been so heavily armed. We have nukes that can wipe each other out at the press of a button. The result? A period of peace unprecedented in human history. Putin invaded Ukraine because he thought he could win easily. Countries don't risk their existence in that way unless lead by madmen.
- giardini 2y agoWould keeping a few nukes have protected Ukraine from Russia? Likely a prolonged period of espionage and subterfuge by the Russians to gain control of those nukes would have ensued. Maintaining control would be difficult especially in Eastern Ukraine where the Russian language predominates. Putin wants to recreate the military conquests of previous Russian leaders. He thinks he's Peter the Great but his situation is more akin to Don Quixote de la Mancha in his later years: I imagine that he sees all those nukes, regrets how much they cost to make and maintain and that he hasn't launched them (each launch moving a line item from a debit column to a credit column). He may not yet realize that the fuel from one nuclear warhead in a nuclear reactor could supply a small city with electrical power for years. IOW he's sitting on a fortune and doesn't know it. Sad. Did you know that for the past two decades, 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warheads? https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawat... Also: https://interestingengineering.com/energy/us-nuclear-warheads-haleu-modular-reactor-fuel?group=test_b https://interestingengineering.com/energy/us-nuclear-warhead... Russia is enormous geographically, has wonderful resources and people who are bright and creative. A shame they're getting killed in Ukraine. The only good news is that there will be more women for each young man and, once they return from war, each will be tasked with the need to create a new generation of Russians. Good work, if you can get it. If they don't, the Chinese will move in from the east (probably will anyway, already doing it de facto).