3 ms·

>Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now? Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni

>Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now? Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... The administration has expressed a desire to destroy several other countries over the last year. Iran, Denmark's autonomous territory Greenland and Canada stand out for being explicitly named, and China for being a career target of important advisors. Iran out of all these is singled out by congressional support and a history of military action in the region. In conclusion, the administration most likely wants to invade Iran. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombing-if-iran-does-not-make-nuclear-deal-2025-03-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombi...

zahlman 1y ago
>...expressed a desire to destroy several other countries... Canada stand out for being explicitly named A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold". I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw. Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else). Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering. All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare. > Not as a percentage of GDP. Right, so by your own source: * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term); * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term); * If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .) Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that. I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Bombing isn't a contradiction to invasion. It's a step forward on the scale of escalation.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke He has stated repeatedly that it is not a joke. I’m not sure what it’ll take to get you to believe him. > This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life Previous Presidents have not repeatedly expressed the desire to make Canada a state.

zahlman 1y ago

>...expressed a desire to destroy several other countries... Canada stand out for being explicitly named A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold". I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw. Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else). Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering. All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare. > Not as a percentage of GDP. Right, so by your own source: * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term); * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term); * If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .) Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that. I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.

whatshisface 1y ago
Bombing isn't a contradiction to invasion. It's a step forward on the scale of escalation.
mcphage 1y ago
> Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke He has stated repeatedly that it is not a joke. I’m not sure what it’ll take to get you to believe him. > This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life Previous Presidents have not repeatedly expressed the desire to make Canada a state.