Who the hell is going to attack us before we can mount a response?! We lost a mere 3000 people and launched into 20 years of madness and insanity, all because we were unwilling to blame a president and a political party who was asleep at the wheel, who didn't even bother to pay attention to the terrorist attacks just a few years earlier. And then we let them overreact and waste how many more lives, for nothing? For absolute nothing?
I'm sorry, but your comment makes me absolute furious. It's so completely thoughtless and ignorant and exists only to service those who get wealthy off the blood of our soldiers.
We have lost more than a half million Americans to a pandemic that--given our prior leadership in the area--shouldn't have taken more than a few thousands, where the hell is our response to stop that tragedy again?
We need to cut the military to a tiny time fraction of its current level, almost nothing. Certainly no more than any other country. Redirect allll that spending into something productive.
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
This is so far beyond overkill it's sickening.
I'm not sure how well the federal government reflects the will of the people, given how campaigns are funded here, using means which are illegal in most other countries. Not to mention the gerrymandering, where politicians are choosing voters instead of the other way around. I don't know if the federal government was originally meant to be responsive to the people. That's why there's no facility for the people to directly propose amendments or vote on referendums at the federal level, like there is in other more democratic countries. For a long time state legislators elected members of congress and the president, not the people.
You mentioned U.S. voters... Perhaps it is a good idea to have a national referendum before launching a war. Democracy is a good thing, right? I believe other countries would do this, Switzerland for example. Maybe even go one better, and have a GoFundMe to pay for it. And volunteer soldiers to fight. It would then be interesting to see how many people want to waste their money and lives halfway across the world killing people who just want to be left alone, but are in the way of someone over here making more money.
Yes, referendums etc.. could be a reasonable propose, things evolve so maybe one day we will have something of this sort in the US as well. Time will show!
Actually you don't need US's level of spending if you are not "actively" into wars like ones in the middle east.
That's your believe but sorry, I don't want to take this claim on the face value. Maybe you're right, maybe not, I believe that's a complicated issue for sure...
One could claim you would need to spend much more were you not involved in these conflicts... each war has it's own reason and own goals and the decision to enter a war is weighted in geopolitically economically etc..and then the elected president makes this decision. Now, what I do have an evidence for, is that politically, the votes are probably split since there is pretty much status quo on that for many years and many administrations...
I think we agree.
"China Outspends the U.S. on Defense? Here’s the Math."
"Factoring in purchasing power and personnel costs leads to a surprising conclusion."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-25/china-...
Let's assume for a second that there is a dollar amount to "underwriting global free trade" (spurious to begin with). What actually is that dollar amount? Is it 3x more than what we're spending? 10x less? How could we ever know?
As it turns out, whatever we are currently spending, that's the amount required. We could double the number of aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, jet fighters, missiles, spy satellites, military bases; we could start another war, another engagement, another "peacekeeping mission," do another few "surgical strikes"... And yep, that would be exactly what's required for freedom.
Setting that aside, to put it in HN terms: imagine nontechnical people at your company comparing the wildly disproportionate relative costs of two IT projects, but without comparing the relative scopes of said projects. That would make for a poor foundation from which to either justify or criticize existing budget allocations.
That's what happens on HN every single time the subject arises.
'American military budgets are bigger than everyone else's' ergo 'American military budgets are far too big.' But it doesn't logically follow.
Power projection is exponentially more difficult and complex than homeland defense.
Yes, there's waste, and yes, it could be run more efficiently and at a lower cost, but it's worth noting that the other points of comparison (other nations) also contain no shortage of waste, and in some cases proportionally more. And slashing overhead to the absolute bare minimum possible is not the kind of risk management one would prioritize first in a system with an incredibly damaging failure state. (Disclaimer so it's more difficult to misstate my position: I believe that waste that is illegal should be punished criminally, and all other bad-faith waste that is political should be punished politically, and we should consider enacting laws to make such bad-faith waste illegal.)
Meaningful conclusions can't be reached by virtue of looking at relative costs while wrongly assuming you have a working knowledge of what they respectively achieve. This is what non-technical people do to technical people all the time, HN laments it, and then turns around and does it in many other spheres.
The military budgets of most nations are to provide some degree of homeland security, sometimes a little regional policing, and sometimes whatever extra is required to satisfy the political needs of their alliance leader. And tthat's about it.
Nobody else comes remotely close to being able to guarantee that an oil tanker can transit the Strait of Hormuz and sell barrels across the globe to multiple nations which have hated each other for centuries (or longer), and worse: to multiple nations which have competing and conflicting geopolitical imperatives. And it's not just oil, this applies to virtually all (non-sanctioned) nations and goods that aren't manufactured in their nation of consumption, using domestically-sourced materials and processes.
It simply isn't comparable.
It's worth remembering what the world looked like when countries which depended heavily on raw materials and trade developed their military capabilities precisely to secure those things, because without it their survival was in jeopardy. When a nation depends on those things for mere survival, its use of force doctrines eventually evolve resemble those of a cornered animal.
With the notable (and now obsolete) exception of securing an oil supply and the thread of the Soviet Union, the US does not depend on anyone else for its survival.
I think that we have a lot of people either unaware of how things worked prior to 1944, or holding the mistaken assumption that the underpinnings of our global framework exist either by happenstance or as the result of some kind of global enlightenment, as if human nature has finally changed for once.
There's also an implicit assumption made that one merely spends more money to beat other countries at shooting wars, countries which spent less and were therefore ill-equipped to compete. That assumption is reasonable in that it's based on millennia of recorded history, but faulty in that it ignores how the world has worked since 1944.
Yes, the United States has required countries to develop their military capacity sufficient to alleviate relatively minor regional issues (e.g., JSDF), or to create a shared purpose (e.g., NATO), but for the last ~77 years the United States has almost single-handedly created the conditions in which global free trade has been achieved for the first time ever, and the military has been central to imposing the conditions necessary to achieve it.
And before anyone asserts that pirates are a relic of centuries past, or that nations no longer desire to even engage in such tactics, this kind of thing regularly happens even under trade conditions imposed by the world's only superpower:
If you didn't have strong enough army to protect you, then you might loose, schools hospitals and what not... Unfortunatly, in a real world a war is not a maybe question but a when question. The question is what amount of defense expenditure is adequate? And that a political question, with no right or wrong answers that for the voters to decide.
I hope humanity lives in peace some day and there will be no more need for armies but that is a distant future. Until then, you do need an armed force to protect all the good things the free society has created, how much force you need vs civilian infra? An open question...