9
submitted 1 year ago by hedge@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mtset@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I honestly don't think that most people understand how incredibly bloated the US military budget is. Even if you accept the premise that we have to have the biggest military in the world, so much money is spent on overseas military bases that don't meaningfully contribute to our national defense. We have >750 military bases around the world so that we can intimidate other countries into doing what we want, which is both wasteful and evil. Learn more at Al Jazeera

[-] nuke@yah.lol 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We have >750 military bases around the world so that we can intimidate other countries into doing what we want, which is both wasteful and evil.

The US military is the most efficient global logistical operation ever. Open up flghtradar sometime and just look at how many military planes are moving tons of equipment and resources every hour of every day. You don't achieve a global logistics network without those bases. To claim it's just for intimidation and wasted is laughably naive.

[-] mtset@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

We don't need a global logistics network.

[-] PupBiru@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

sooooo yes you’re not wrong, but i’d argue (as not an american mind you) that also it’s a little more complicated than just national defence

overseas military bases aren’t just for intimidating other countries into doing what the US wants: they also contribute significantly to global stability… having THE world super power kinda everywhere means it’s probably much less likely that some random country is going to start shit… sure, the US gets to pick and choose to benefit itself, but it certainly contributes

and that’s not just good for the world: AS the worlds leading superpower, the US benefits enormously from global stability: from cheap trade, financing, more global budget being spent on STEM/R&D (which because of trade and financing the US almost always capitalises on somehow!)

[-] mtset@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Personally, I do not think that we should be the police of the world, and I don't want to spend my tax dollars on it.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Didn't keep Russia from invading Ukraine.

[-] fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Ukraine is in a wierd position. A decade ago it had corrupt Russian puppets running rampant through the government. It was explicitly not under the US umbrella of protection.

Now, having nearby bases makes the logistics of providing aid to Ukraine much more feasible. Without them, the invasion of Ukraine might be complete, not just begun

[-] PupBiru@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

it did not; that’s correct! and i’m unable to list the conflicts that were prevented because of it, because, well, they were prevented

global stability doesn’t mean world peace

[-] Aurailious@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

It does keep Russia from invading NATO countries.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

NATO keeps Russia from invading NATO countries.

[-] FlickOfTheBean@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Are you claiming that the US doesn't contribute using the defense budget to NATO? Are you claiming the US had bases in Ukraine that failed to stop the Russian invasion?

Sorry for the question deluge, I just want to make sure I'm reading you right because I don't think either of those things are true...

Idk if I'm able to have an in depth conversation about this topic but I also don't want to get you wrong, you know?

[-] confusedbytheBasics@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are you implying that if the USA stopped projecting force globally NATO would continue deter aggression like it does now? I doubt that but I'm open to changing my perspective.

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

It did keep Russia from succeeding.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

I would argue that having only one nation in charge of policing the world's stability is incredibly unstable. Its like having a table with only one leg. If that leg suddenly fails the whole thing topples over. The whole world would benefit more from a more distributed system than relying entirely on one nation.

Of course that also means they'd have to start getting their own hands dirty, and risking the lives of their own citizens for world stability, which doesn't seem particularly likely at this point.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

More to the point, other countries would have to start spending money on their militaries. Most NATO countries don't even meet the purported spending goals, and that's just for the single goal of deterring Russia. Many countries benefit a lot from America's military spending, both by being able to utilize the peace and by being able to save their own money.

Whether or not this is a good or fair state of affairs is a different question, but there are a lot of reasons why things are this way.

[-] fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

The existence of those bases means we can negotiate with soft power where instead we might need to make a show of force. Intimidation, aka diplomacy, is superior to actual fights.

[-] mtset@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

We wouldn't need to intimidate people if we weren't all up in the business of other random countries, constantly inciting coups, etc.

[-] fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation

International shipping: just one of the freedoms protected by the modern us armed forces

[-] Aurailious@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I honestly thought it was already over $1T annually.

However, I still remained pretty worried about shipbuilding capacity, at least until the situation over Taiwan can be resolved. If there ever is a large conflict that causes loss in any significant amount in ships it will be very, very difficult to replace. The current shipyards have orders beyond what they can produce, but even more significantly there is a severe shortage in labor that can even build ships.

Also the comparisons he makes I strongly feel are quite poor. There is a large difference in the budgets of various countries in defense spending. Its really hard to argue that the US and France should spend in similar amounts due to size, population, and commitments. And the cost for manufacturing and paying salaries in the US is quite different than what China can do. So the US will always have to spend the more, though we do still in other measures such as a per capita basis its not as extreme as its made out to be.

[-] SpaceMonk@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

My friend works for L3 Harris and has been working on useless government contracts for years. The bloat is real.

The assholes at ID.ME are pushing their way into the government ID system and I hate them because they just want to market bullshit restaurants coupons to me and my vet friends.

I hate predatory government contracts that happen because shit bag politicians allow it.

[-] Ducks@ducks.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There is absolutely no argument that can be made in good faith to continue the bloated military budget. We grossly overspend. Of course the US should strive to have a strong military and national defense, but so much of the budget is used to line the pockets of political "donors"

[-] CapedStanker@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

It's called the "Military Industrial Legislative" Iron Triangle. It works like this: Military retirees go into cushy industrial lobbying positions then lobby to the congressperson to build weapons and "create jobs", this is an easy win for the congressperson and helps with reelection. The congressperson then passes laws that give huge military contracts to the industry.

I think it's the abrams tank where each of the 50 states makes at least one part for the tank and then it is assembled somewhere else. It's not just a complex any more, it's much worse than that.

[-] yildo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

"If you want peace, prepare for war. Si vis pacem, para bellum." - Vegetius

Big bureaucracies do tend to have waste, but spending less reduces both useful spending and wasteful spending equally. Cutting a budget does not achieve virtue. US military spending keeps the world at peace

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

Do you have any sources to back up your claim that useful and wasteful spending decreases equally?

If that is the case, it sounds like the issue is with management which can also be replaced.

The military is unbelievably wasteful and I have a very hard time buying your argument. You're framing makes it sound like he's proposing getting rid of the budget all together.

Also, I didn't realize the world was at peace...

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I didn’t realize the world was at peace…

Compared to what's in the history books, yeah, it is. This is by far the most peaceful time humanity has ever known.

[-] sculd@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Well, if the US doesn't need to protect their allies in Europe, Pacific, South China Sea, support Ukraine against invasion, prepare for invasion against Taiwan....Yeah, then it doesn't need that money. But we live in this world.

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

This is suspiciously similar to Trump's anti-military rhetoric. And at this of all times, when that very same military is engaged in defending a sovereign nation from being conquered by an infamously brutal dictator.

Just whose side are you on, Mr Sanders?

[-] PooPooTheClown@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You are suggesting Bernie is doing this as some secret team-up with Trump, which I think is just super funny. I’d watch the shit out of that cartoon

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't be the first time Sanders did something that was awfully convenient for Trump…

[-] PooPooTheClown@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What other conspiracies you got? I’m entertained. Doesn’t have to be politics

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Bernie Sanders, lol, wouldn't have the first clue as to what the Pentagon needs and what it doesn't

[-] SemioticStandard@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

This is a particularly low effort comment, provides no value, and is therefore unwelcome here. It’s also demonstrably nonsense, as others have shown you.

Please consider engaging intelligently, and in good faith.

this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10179 readers
172 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS