3 ms·

Watching the events over the past several years and thinking we need to reduce military spending is a wild take. Even the EU and Japan have massive increased a

Watching the events over the past several years and thinking we need to reduce military spending is a wild take. Even the EU and Japan have massive increased amount of additional spend into military. The free world is under WW2 levels of threat. Hundreds of millions of people are going to perish unless deterence works.

kjellsbells 1y ago
Wanting to reduce spending does not automatically mean reduced force capability, nor reduced deterrence. The challenge is that the next war wont look like the last one or the one before that. So you might decide that instead of sinking a gazillion dollars on a 25-year project to build some fighter jets or littoral ships, you spend half a gazillion dollars on cyber and drones. Problem is that states and their leaders (politicians, business, resident voices) find it emotionally and politically hard to pivot from building X in state A to building Y in state B. Right now, everyone is studying the lessons of the Ukraine war. That certainly should be looked at and learned from (build drones at mass scale, say) but it would also be possible to draw entirely incorrect conclusions for the next war. As a land war in Europe, Ukraine shows us the importance of essentially 1900s-style tools: shells and ordnance by the million. Tanks. Etc. If (god forbid) someone got into a hot war with China, the needs would be entirely different.
- johnsmith1840 1y ago
  I don't disagree but clearly not what the op was trying to say. To your points. Isreal just leveled iran without a single plane shot down, tech still dominates. The F35 is a terrifying weapon and Irans drone and missle attacks were ineffective. Ukraine shows us what two poor and land locked countries fight like.
- noir_lord 1y ago
  It’s always tempting to look at the Russian assault on Ukraine and “learn lessons” but you also have to remember that NATO countries aren’t Ukraine and Russia isn’t China. The use of drones by both sides is in part because neither side could get air superiority, Ukraine because it barely had an air force and Russia because..well decades of corruption. If the US had invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would have lost in under a month, the insurgency would be horrific and make Iraq look mild but militarily Russia was a complete basket case. The lesson we should take is that ammunition stockpiles evaporate faster than you expect always in a full scale war, this has been true all the way back to the invention of the bow though.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
The free world is under WW2 levels of threat? Listen to yourself. You’re brainwashed. Is China slaughtering Jews like the holocaust? Is China trying to wage war against the world and build an empire? Nobody actually wants war. In fact if war happens it will be the US getting into the whole Taiwan and China conflict that is none of its fucking business in the first place. The world is building military defense against a threat that will never materialize. That’s one half the story. The other half of the story is a big economic dick measuring contest where the country with the most military might (that they will never use) is the better country.
- johnsmith1840 1y ago
  China is rapidly building an army at a pace larger than germany or the US in WW2. They actively threaten their neighbor and openly say force is being considered while also designing specialized equipment to enable this. China actively is trying to expand territory and have plans to expand to the different island chains by certain years. US military analyst have been warning for nearly a decade that china is planning for war between 2025-2030. All recent US actions under Biden and Trump both correlate with senior US officials taking this seriously. Even JAPAN a openly pacifist country is increasing military spending. Europe just made a plan for like 800B$ of military spend. Even a conservative viewer should see this as pretty clear sign that the world is preparing for war no?
AngryData 1y ago
Part of that is because they can't trust the US, which outspends China 3x over and outspends Russia 7x over, and outspends dozens of other countries combined. The US is the biggest military threat the world has ever known, and our government is acting crazy right now. Nobody should trust the US, a single country with 37% of the world's entire military budget with only 4% of the people, that is ridiculous and dangerous. The only reason for the US to continue its military spending is to enforce its will upon the world by force or going on conquests for land, neither of which is a good or righteous cause that nobody should be supporting.
- hollerith 1y ago
  That's a little harsh. Many countries that in actuality do not have nukes would have obtained nukes if the US hadn't made security guarantees to them. Those guarantees would not have been as persuasive (in getting countries to forgo getting nukes) if the US military wasn't as strong as it actually was. And the world is a safer place because only 9 countries have nukes. Also, before now there's never has been an 80-year-long period without a major war between European powers. If the US military had been less strong, then the major powers of Europe would have felt the need to spend more on their militaries (at first to deter the Soviets / Russia, but then also to deter each other) which would have increased the probability of a war between European powers.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    If I was in a country without nukes im not sure I would consider myself safer and would likely be an advocate for my government to gain nukes if there was any threat at all of someone attacking or invading in order to prevent it, especially if the US could be a potential enemy as only nukes would be an actual deterrent from meddling or invading.
- johnsmith1840 1y ago
  It's not an unfair argument to say the US is a global superpower with questionable intent. But it's not hard to prefer Pax Americana to WW3. Super power gonna super power. Wether it is Romans/Arabs/British/US or maybe future China. None of them play nice and there's generally always one. I'd prefer to live in the peak power of these countries over the total chaos in between their collapse. The entire world has gotten insanely rich and healthy under US dominance I don't think wanting that to continue is an immoral desire. History will remember the US as the empire to bring about the modern era much like the british brought about industrialization and global trade.

kjellsbells 1y ago

Wanting to reduce spending does not automatically mean reduced force capability, nor reduced deterrence. The challenge is that the next war wont look like the last one or the one before that. So you might decide that instead of sinking a gazillion dollars on a 25-year project to build some fighter jets or littoral ships, you spend half a gazillion dollars on cyber and drones. Problem is that states and their leaders (politicians, business, resident voices) find it emotionally and politically hard to pivot from building X in state A to building Y in state B. Right now, everyone is studying the lessons of the Ukraine war. That certainly should be looked at and learned from (build drones at mass scale, say) but it would also be possible to draw entirely incorrect conclusions for the next war. As a land war in Europe, Ukraine shows us the importance of essentially 1900s-style tools: shells and ordnance by the million. Tanks. Etc. If (god forbid) someone got into a hot war with China, the needs would be entirely different.

johnsmith1840 1y ago
I don't disagree but clearly not what the op was trying to say. To your points. Isreal just leveled iran without a single plane shot down, tech still dominates. The F35 is a terrifying weapon and Irans drone and missle attacks were ineffective. Ukraine shows us what two poor and land locked countries fight like.
noir_lord 1y ago
It’s always tempting to look at the Russian assault on Ukraine and “learn lessons” but you also have to remember that NATO countries aren’t Ukraine and Russia isn’t China. The use of drones by both sides is in part because neither side could get air superiority, Ukraine because it barely had an air force and Russia because..well decades of corruption. If the US had invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would have lost in under a month, the insurgency would be horrific and make Iraq look mild but militarily Russia was a complete basket case. The lesson we should take is that ammunition stockpiles evaporate faster than you expect always in a full scale war, this has been true all the way back to the invention of the bow though.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

The free world is under WW2 levels of threat? Listen to yourself. You’re brainwashed. Is China slaughtering Jews like the holocaust? Is China trying to wage war against the world and build an empire? Nobody actually wants war. In fact if war happens it will be the US getting into the whole Taiwan and China conflict that is none of its fucking business in the first place. The world is building military defense against a threat that will never materialize. That’s one half the story. The other half of the story is a big economic dick measuring contest where the country with the most military might (that they will never use) is the better country.

johnsmith1840 1y ago
China is rapidly building an army at a pace larger than germany or the US in WW2. They actively threaten their neighbor and openly say force is being considered while also designing specialized equipment to enable this. China actively is trying to expand territory and have plans to expand to the different island chains by certain years. US military analyst have been warning for nearly a decade that china is planning for war between 2025-2030. All recent US actions under Biden and Trump both correlate with senior US officials taking this seriously. Even JAPAN a openly pacifist country is increasing military spending. Europe just made a plan for like 800B$ of military spend. Even a conservative viewer should see this as pretty clear sign that the world is preparing for war no?

AngryData 1y ago

Part of that is because they can't trust the US, which outspends China 3x over and outspends Russia 7x over, and outspends dozens of other countries combined. The US is the biggest military threat the world has ever known, and our government is acting crazy right now. Nobody should trust the US, a single country with 37% of the world's entire military budget with only 4% of the people, that is ridiculous and dangerous. The only reason for the US to continue its military spending is to enforce its will upon the world by force or going on conquests for land, neither of which is a good or righteous cause that nobody should be supporting.

hollerith 1y ago
That's a little harsh. Many countries that in actuality do not have nukes would have obtained nukes if the US hadn't made security guarantees to them. Those guarantees would not have been as persuasive (in getting countries to forgo getting nukes) if the US military wasn't as strong as it actually was. And the world is a safer place because only 9 countries have nukes. Also, before now there's never has been an 80-year-long period without a major war between European powers. If the US military had been less strong, then the major powers of Europe would have felt the need to spend more on their militaries (at first to deter the Soviets / Russia, but then also to deter each other) which would have increased the probability of a war between European powers.
- AngryData 1y ago
  If I was in a country without nukes im not sure I would consider myself safer and would likely be an advocate for my government to gain nukes if there was any threat at all of someone attacking or invading in order to prevent it, especially if the US could be a potential enemy as only nukes would be an actual deterrent from meddling or invading.
johnsmith1840 1y ago
It's not an unfair argument to say the US is a global superpower with questionable intent. But it's not hard to prefer Pax Americana to WW3. Super power gonna super power. Wether it is Romans/Arabs/British/US or maybe future China. None of them play nice and there's generally always one. I'd prefer to live in the peak power of these countries over the total chaos in between their collapse. The entire world has gotten insanely rich and healthy under US dominance I don't think wanting that to continue is an immoral desire. History will remember the US as the empire to bring about the modern era much like the british brought about industrialization and global trade.