3 ms·

And the rest of the Western world, like it or not, is able to spend less on defense precisely because -- thanks to some unique events in the 20th century -- the

by ims 13y ago

And the rest of the Western world, like it or not, is able to spend less on defense precisely because -- thanks to some unique events in the 20th century -- the US is effectively providing a defense subsidy for all of its allies. I'm not advocating, just saying. Perhaps European countries would have to spend more if the US did not concern itself with the rest of the world? Food for thought.

justin66 13y ago
> the US is effectively providing a defense subsidy for all of its allies. Not to mention the defense industry.
pionar 13y ago
This. Also, if you live anywhere and think your taxes don't go to defense spending, you're delusional.
- fasouto 13y ago
  Obviously. Every country in the world spend money in defense, the difference is the percentage of the GDP spent.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Obviously. Every country in the world spend money in defense, the difference is the percentage of the GDP spent. Kind of like healthcare. Where, germane to other arguments made in the thread, the US also spends a larger share of its GDP than other developed countries, so, no, other developed countries aren't able to provide universal healthcare through public spending because of a "security subsidy" from the US; there able to do so because their mostly-public healthcare systems are more efficient than the US system which splits costs between public and private systems nearly evenly (with a slight private bias.)
rza 13y ago
This may have been true in the Cold War, but that war has long been over. To say that US defense spending now is benefiting anyone in any way now is laughable, except for maybe South Korea and Taiwan. If anything, our meddling has raised security concerns for all our European allies due to the displacement and disruption of life by our actions in the Middle East.
jrochkind1 13y ago
The US is in fact providing a defense subsidy to it's allies AND to it's enemies. EVERYONE gets their weaponry from the US (they bought it back when they were allies, now their enemies), and/or gets weaponry developed with US military R&D. It's certainly good for the US defense industry. You've got to buy more better weapons cause your enemy has bought more better weapons, and both sides buy em from the US defense industry. When the US gives another country military aid (or actually most any kind of aid), 100% of the funds 'donated' need to be used buying military goods from US companies. So military aid goes right to US defense companies too. (I think Israel is the one special exception, who for some reason only have to spend 50% of their military aid on US goods, and can spend the other half on Israeli-made goods). The US spends more on the military than every other country _combined_. So, yeah, I'm not sure this state of affairs could really be described as the US keeping the planet _safe_ by spending so much on military. But it is true that the US equips the entire rest of the world militarily.
- ims 13y ago
  You're mistaking what I mean by subsidy. I'm talking game theory, not short term shuffling of monies. You are correct in that there are transfers of money and arms, the individual value and long term wisdom of which are always debatable. What I am talking about is a de facto subsidy, based on the fact that many other countries have in effect outsourced much of their security apparatus to the United States because they know that the US would step in for any existential crisis caused by mutual enemies. Think of it this way. It costs billions to construct a single aircraft carrier. Many seafaring nations currently build smaller navies than they would if the United States were not filling a large portion of this role for them. When buying aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, etc, an allied country only has to build those assets marginally necessary to create a comfortable excess over and above the security already seen as inevitably provided by the US. That constitutes an indirect subsidy.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    > many other countries have in effect outsourced much of their security apparatus to the United States If any country had defense centered on such silly premise I think it migrated away from this since release of US cables that clearly show that US only cares about US and treats other countries not as venerable allies but as monkeys in their circus.
scotty79 13y ago
US is not doing any defense charity. It's present in Europe only because US commanders think it's in the best interest of US. Europe spends on its military half of what US does. I don't believe that Europe would spend significantly more on military. Europeans after carrying two world wars on their soil seem little bit resilient to threats of war and to actual violence. When it comes to Americans it seems that goat fart spontaneously combusting on the other side of the planet constitutes experimental discharge of pyrochemical weapon potentially of mass destruction that ought to be carefully monitored by swiftly dispatched fleet of surveillance drones.

by ims 13y ago

justin66 13y ago

> the US is effectively providing a defense subsidy for all of its allies. Not to mention the defense industry.

pionar 13y ago

This. Also, if you live anywhere and think your taxes don't go to defense spending, you're delusional.

fasouto 13y ago
Obviously. Every country in the world spend money in defense, the difference is the percentage of the GDP spent.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Obviously. Every country in the world spend money in defense, the difference is the percentage of the GDP spent. Kind of like healthcare. Where, germane to other arguments made in the thread, the US also spends a larger share of its GDP than other developed countries, so, no, other developed countries aren't able to provide universal healthcare through public spending because of a "security subsidy" from the US; there able to do so because their mostly-public healthcare systems are more efficient than the US system which splits costs between public and private systems nearly evenly (with a slight private bias.)

rza 13y ago

This may have been true in the Cold War, but that war has long been over. To say that US defense spending now is benefiting anyone in any way now is laughable, except for maybe South Korea and Taiwan. If anything, our meddling has raised security concerns for all our European allies due to the displacement and disruption of life by our actions in the Middle East.

jrochkind1 13y ago

The US is in fact providing a defense subsidy to it's allies AND to it's enemies. EVERYONE gets their weaponry from the US (they bought it back when they were allies, now their enemies), and/or gets weaponry developed with US military R&D. It's certainly good for the US defense industry. You've got to buy more better weapons cause your enemy has bought more better weapons, and both sides buy em from the US defense industry. When the US gives another country military aid (or actually most any kind of aid), 100% of the funds 'donated' need to be used buying military goods from US companies. So military aid goes right to US defense companies too. (I think Israel is the one special exception, who for some reason only have to spend 50% of their military aid on US goods, and can spend the other half on Israeli-made goods). The US spends more on the military than every other country _combined_. So, yeah, I'm not sure this state of affairs could really be described as the US keeping the planet _safe_ by spending so much on military. But it is true that the US equips the entire rest of the world militarily.

ims 13y ago
You're mistaking what I mean by subsidy. I'm talking game theory, not short term shuffling of monies. You are correct in that there are transfers of money and arms, the individual value and long term wisdom of which are always debatable. What I am talking about is a de facto subsidy, based on the fact that many other countries have in effect outsourced much of their security apparatus to the United States because they know that the US would step in for any existential crisis caused by mutual enemies. Think of it this way. It costs billions to construct a single aircraft carrier. Many seafaring nations currently build smaller navies than they would if the United States were not filling a large portion of this role for them. When buying aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, etc, an allied country only has to build those assets marginally necessary to create a comfortable excess over and above the security already seen as inevitably provided by the US. That constitutes an indirect subsidy.
- scotty79 13y ago
  > many other countries have in effect outsourced much of their security apparatus to the United States If any country had defense centered on such silly premise I think it migrated away from this since release of US cables that clearly show that US only cares about US and treats other countries not as venerable allies but as monkeys in their circus.

scotty79 13y ago

US is not doing any defense charity. It's present in Europe only because US commanders think it's in the best interest of US. Europe spends on its military half of what US does. I don't believe that Europe would spend significantly more on military. Europeans after carrying two world wars on their soil seem little bit resilient to threats of war and to actual violence. When it comes to Americans it seems that goat fart spontaneously combusting on the other side of the planet constitutes experimental discharge of pyrochemical weapon potentially of mass destruction that ought to be carefully monitored by swiftly dispatched fleet of surveillance drones.