this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
75 points (93.1% liked)
World News
32322 readers
885 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The US military budget (USD 877 bn) is larger than those of the next ten militaries put together (USD 849 bn). Also three of those ten (UK, Germany and France) are NATO members, and another three (Japan, S Korea and Ukraine) are all-weather allies. If the US decided to cut its military budget by 50%, it would still have a larger budget than the next two (China and Russia) combined.
Source: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/2304_fs_milex_2022.pdf
Okay and that means what? That doesn't imply 50% of the money is simply wasted. The US is aiding Ukraine now, posturing to aide Taiwan, also theyre making buzz about operations in Haiti, and have hundreds of bases over the world and you think absolutely none of that comes at the expense of their citizens who live below the QOL of more than most countries as rich as them?
If the US can already outspend both its geopolitical rivals together at 50% of its current expenditure, then it does suggest that the other 50% is not achieving anything more.
I don't. I was replying to the suggestion that the US military needs such a large budget in the first place.
Thats not how militaries work. Money doesn't fight other money. Unless they all develop, order, and make the same tech, and employ the exact same steategies you can't even begin to make that comparison. The US likes to spend its money on things and programs it considers 'deterrants'. Deterrance inherently cost much more than Destruction. Simply spending more money does not win wars and it's assanine to think forces of equal monetary value are necessarily equal. My only point is that the US military funds comes at the expense of the US population. No where have I tried to justify their budget, and simply refusing to believe 50% of it disappears to middlemen is not a support of the military, it's a rebuke of an obviously blown out of proportion claim. Let's take an example, do you think Russia or the US spends more effort on making sure its soldiers come back home, and which option do you think costs more money?
The US spends more than the next two superpowers, and they also occupy/defend more territory than the next 10 since we can now say today European security is dependent on American money and weapons. Not to mention the US collab with Isreal for security in that whole region, and the over 700 military bases across the world. Again this is all money American citizens are giving up, so that people much much closer to a problem that will never effect them dont have to sacrifice as much. People love running to America when they have military needs their country wont fulfill, but no one wants to consider helping Americans with needs their country won't fulfill.
I know. Defence expenditure is just a quick and dirty estimate, so I don't have to compare their assets gun by gun and ship by ship. Of course it won't be 100% accurate, but when you are spending double what both your main opponents are spending, it suggests that there is something wrong.
More like '50% or so is unnecessary expenditure authorised by politicians for their friends in business'.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Recent wars have shown that the defender usually has a strong advantage. The US could keep its borders (and any allied countries) safe for a fraction of its current budget. It's the 'invading random countries' part that costs tons of money.
Yes they could take care of all of their own needs for a lot less, but now they're taming care of Europes needs too. Thats the whole point, there would be a West Russia by now if the US only took care of its own borders. So the exorbitant budgets the citizens have to fund are benefitting average Europeans more than average Americans and of course the capitalist class above all of them. But the conclusion is undeniable, American workers suffering subsidizes the military which is now providing european security.
And you blame Europe for America's bad financing and decisions to arm their opponents?
America doesn't do things so that other countries don't have to sacrifice as much... why do people think countries and companies have feelings
America runs on military so they need to keep demand up, US weapons companies spend money on lobbying and politicians who can affect US military outcomes own stocks in those companies
Why would politicians cut down on military budget when every increase in it also increases their net worth?
Never blamed Europe for anyting
Never said thats why they do those things, only that what they do causes those things, which is does. The more burdern of an European war America takes on, means the less Europe has to take on.
Yes those are the problems that keep feeding the majority of the tax Americans have to pay to things that do not improve their welfare, notice how those are both independent of voting and effect the people who fund the parties and candidates themselves, its not like Americans haven't tried anything, the protest against the war in the middle east was the largest protest in American history at the time it happened.
Now that those funds are improving someone else's welfare, instead of someone else profits, I had though, I guess mistakenly, the people who it's benefiting would maybe help the people from which the benefit came with things their country cannot do, just like how their country helped with things the whole of Europe could not do.