Military spending vs societal benefits

[Tigers!]

We don't do arms races because we're stupid but because we find ourselves in a situation where the math pushes us that way.

No, we are stupid.

I'm all for settling our differences more peacefully, but somehow becoming capable of that isn't a matter of growing our intelligence or maturity or peacefulness or willingness to unilaterally disarm; it's a hard technical challenge to think up a way to stop "build" from being the mathematically dominant strategy. For all his faults, Nixon was good at this and got us the SALT and ABM treaties and set us and the USSR on a path to something better than continuing this intraspecies arms race.

Praising Nixon. I am surprised

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments.

I think any sane, rational speaker of British or Commonwealth variants of English would do exactly that.

Why Anericans feel the need to use a grammar that exactly reverses their meaning, I have no idea.

Perhaps every American is not guilty of this...

I’m sorry for whatever it is that compels you to insult any American who makes an error in language or grammar or simply a typo.

I hope you feel better soon.

More interested in a response to post #69.

 

[Politesse]

Considering our "strong military" roundly loses every war it starts, or at best brings them to a lengthy and expensive stalemate from which we must eventually withdraw with our tail between our legs once again, isn't that throwing good money after bad?

E.g. Afghanistan wasn't lost because of our military, but because of politicians. No clear objective, overly restrictive rules of engagement.

Afghanistan was lost because it was an inherently unwinnable war. You can't win a war against an insurgent force with an untouchable source of backing.

You can... it's just not pretty. And a sizable portion of both our political machine and our citizenry have an aversion to the means necessary to win. Not saying they're wrong in that view, just saying that it wasn't "inherently unwinnable". It was unwinnable when we handcuff our wrist to our ankles so that we're being humane and compassionate toward an enemy who does not show us that same respect.

So you believe more killing, scalping, etc, all the classic accoutrements of the American imperial regime would have "won" the conflict? How? This ain't the Sioux Wars, you can't just storm in and take a country anymore. It just doesn't work with modern technology, let alone the global social ethos as it now exists. The idea that we would have won if not for those pesky morals is emotional, not logical, reasoning.

 

[bilby]

The best outcome is for nobody to buy weapons; But if A buys weapons and B doesn't, A gets all if B's stuff; So the consequence of being the only nation not to buy weapons is disaster.

If there is no C and if A and B mutually decide to not buy weapons are they better off?

Yes.

Hence the value of organisations like the USA or the EU, in which states don't need to arm themselves against each other.

Except that this doesn't work in a globalised world, unless at least a large majority of states sign up to a single unified non-aggression pact, and them perhaps pool resources to defend the pact nations against the few rogues.

The UN is supposed to work like that; But it never has, because Russia, China, and the US don't trust each other at all, and they have veto powers that prevent the rest of the UN from having any say in matters where one of the five permanent security council members disagrees with the global consensus.

It all probably sounded like a much better idea back in the 1940s, when they were still thinking of each other as the Allies who had won the war.

 

[bilby]

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments.

I think any sane, rational speaker of British or Commonwealth variants of English would do exactly that.

Why Anericans feel the need to use a grammar that exactly reverses their meaning, I have no idea.

Perhaps every American is not guilty of this...

I’m sorry for whatever it is that compels you to insult any American who makes an error in language or grammar or simply a typo.

I hope you feel better soon.

I didn't insult anyone; Nor did I say that anyone had made an error.

I made a wry observation on an amusing difference in grammar between traditional English and American English.

I'm sorry for any suffering your ingrown patriotism causes; It must be dreadful to see insult in any mention by outsiders of your country's foibles and inconsistencies.

I hope you feel better soon.

 

[Toni]

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments.

I think any sane, rational speaker of British or Commonwealth variants of English would do exactly that.

Why Anericans feel the need to use a grammar that exactly reverses their meaning, I have no idea.

Perhaps every American is not guilty of this...

I’m sorry for whatever it is that compels you to insult any American who makes an error in language or grammar or simply a typo.

I hope you feel better soon.

I didn't insult anyone; Nor did I say that anyone had made an error.

I made a wry observation on an amusing difference in grammar between traditional English and American English.

I'm sorry for any suffering your ingrown patriotism causes; It must be dreadful to see insult in any mention by outsiders of your country's foibles and inconsistencies.

I hope you feel better soon.

Oh, I’m fine!

I also find the differences between different countries’ use of English and within my own country, regional and occasionally generational differences in English to be interesting and fun. I like language, frankly, and what it can tell us about how people view themselves and the world. I’m a bit sad to see a lot of regional differences flatten out or become so much more bland. I think the main agent of change in the US, and I suspect, other industrialized nations is the pervasiveness of media, television and otherwise, that tends towards some more ‘middle’ American accent.

Within my current hometown, I see it as also being generational—people my age and older definitely have a stronger regional accent and use more local colloquialisms compared with people my children’s age and younger. I feel the loss, even though I did not grow up here and indeed, spent a few years puzzling over some common regional terms. Now that they are going away, I feel as though some of the unique color and flavor of this area is fading into a general blandness. Some of the older phrases and terms were much sharper in conveying meaning.

 

[Toni]

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments.

I think any sane, rational speaker of British or Commonwealth variants of English would do exactly that.

Why Anericans feel the need to use a grammar that exactly reverses their meaning, I have no idea.

Perhaps every American is not guilty of this...

I’m sorry for whatever it is that compels you to insult any American who makes an error in language or grammar or simply a typo.

I hope you feel better soon.

More interested in a response to post #69.

Feel free to skip over posts that you don’t find interesting. I certainly do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The best outcome is for nobody to buy weapons; But if A buys weapons and B doesn't, A gets all if B's stuff; So the consequence of being the only nation not to buy weapons is disaster.

If there is no C and if A and B mutually decide to not buy weapons are they better off?

Yes.

Hence the value of organisations like the USA or the EU, in which states don't need to arm themselves against each other.

Except that this doesn't work in a globalised world, unless at least a large majority of states sign up to a single unified non-aggression pact, and them perhaps pool resources to defend the pact nations against the few rogues.

The UN is supposed to work like that; But it never has, because Russia, China, and the US don't trust each other at all, and they have veto powers that prevent the rest of the UN from having any say in matters where one of the five permanent security council members disagrees with the global consensus.

It all probably sounded like a much better idea back in the 1940s, when they were still thinking of each other as the Allies who had won the war.

We agree that we're better of not spending vast sums of money arming ourselves against each other. In the USA those states went to arms against each other over the business of slavery, which for one group of its citizens was a highly profitable business they did not wish to lose.
No doubt all conflicts occur for the same reason. Humans probably would be better served having longer lifespans as we seem incapable of thinking far enough into the future, generally speaking.

 

[Swammerdami]

Anyway, to the OP's question... We shouldn't reduce military spending because 1) it's not actually that much compared to all the other things we spend our money on and 2) Pax Americana

Y'all may not much like it, but US military might is the single largest reason that there has been as little global armed conflict as there has been in the last 70+ years. The US hasn't been imperialistic since the late 19th century, we've only annexed territories that wanted to be annexed, and for the last century, we've been pretty damned happy to just hold our own - and support our allies. And while it might chafe some of you... pretty much all of Europe and our fellow English-speaking countries are dependent on US military firepower to maintain their own borders. Hell, there are a fair number of Asian countries that benefit from our presence throughout the globe. If it weren't for active military patrols and bases throughout the world, both China and Russia would be much much bigger than they are now.

It sucks, but pretty much if the US materially cuts military spending, China and Russia will start gobbling up their neighbors, NK will start shit with their southern neighbor, and the middle east and the indian subcontinent are going to be a mess.

I agree with most of this. The U.S.A. IS "the world's policeman" and the American military should take pride in that. The world would be a much different place without that "policeman." South Korea is one of the "best" countries in the world now, and owes its very existence to the U.S. military.

In fact, however, American strength has often been misused: Russia is worse than the Soviet Union. Cheney's shit-show in Iraq was horrid. Dictatorship was supported in Iran, Nicaragua, etc. (Support for the Shah of Iran led to a cycle of mutual hatred, eventually causing the divide that is destroying Middle-East peace today.)

BUT the U.S. military is much more expensive than Emily implies. (Elixir's pie-chart was just for "Discretionary" spending.) And don't forget to add in Veteran's Benefits when totaling military cost; it is normally NOT included. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next TEN countries added together.

Trivia question: The United States Air Force is the largest air force in the world. What is the SECOND-largest air force?

Spoiler

The United States Navy

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Great post, Swammi. If we didn't spend all those resources on defense we'd very likely find some other way to waste them. Such is the nature of our species. It really is at present an 'eat or be eaten' world. Maybe we are better off thinking of our defense spending as seeding and protecting democracy around the planet.

 

[bilby]

The U.S.A. IS "the world's policeman" and the American military should take pride in that. The world would be a much different place without that "policeman." South Korea is one of the "best" countries in the world now, and owes its very existence to the U.S. military.

In fact, however, American strength has often been misused

"Who guards the guards?" becomes a far more pressing question when there's only one guard, and she has the strength to overwhelm almost any allied force that the rest of the people could muster.

Supreme Dictator for Life Trump, as Commander in Chief and sole decider of the actions of the Sherriff of Worldtown, is a nightmare most Worldtown residents would find as indefeasible as it was intolerable.

We can hope that the sensible decision to have the military pledge allegience to the constitution, and not to the president, might prevent this from coming to pass; But right now that hope is looking rather shaky.

What does the world do when the world's policeman is a bent copper?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Pride in the defense of the world is a pretty shitty ROI when you factor in how much we're also paying for healthcare and education.

aa

 

[RVonse]

Anyway, to the OP's question... We shouldn't reduce military spending because 1) it's not actually that much compared to all the other things we spend our money on and 2) Pax Americana

Y'all may not much like it, but US military might is the single largest reason that there has been as little global armed conflict as there has been in the last 70+ years. The US hasn't been imperialistic since the late 19th century, we've only annexed territories that wanted to be annexed, and for the last century, we've been pretty damned happy to just hold our own - and support our allies. And while it might chafe some of you... pretty much all of Europe and our fellow English-speaking countries are dependent on US military firepower to maintain their own borders. Hell, there are a fair number of Asian countries that benefit from our presence throughout the globe. If it weren't for active military patrols and bases throughout the world, both China and Russia would be much much bigger than they are now.

It sucks, but pretty much if the US materially cuts military spending, China and Russia will start gobbling up their neighbors, NK will start shit with their southern neighbor, and the middle east and the indian subcontinent are going to be a mess.

So how does any of that help anyone in America? I can see how paying for world security might help Europe live more peaceful since they are close to those neighbors. But America is on the other side of the world.

Trump is right. Its not fair that all of Europe should get free national healthcare while American's pay with all our taxes to support everyone else with free military safety and security!

After WW2 the US was rich enough to give charity. We aren't anymore.

 

[cycomiko]

Anyway, to the OP's question... We shouldn't reduce military spending because 1) it's not actually that much compared to all the other things we spend our money on and 2) Pax Americana

Y'all may not much like it, but US military might is the single largest reason that there has been as little global armed conflict as there has been in the last 70+ years. The US hasn't been imperialistic since the late 19th century, we've only annexed territories that wanted to be annexed, and for the last century, we've been pretty damned happy to just hold our own - and support our allies. And while it might chafe some of you... pretty much all of Europe and our fellow English-speaking countries are dependent on US military firepower to maintain their own borders. Hell, there are a fair number of Asian countries that benefit from our presence throughout the globe. If it weren't for active military patrols and bases throughout the world, both China and Russia would be much much bigger than they are now.

It sucks, but pretty much if the US materially cuts military spending, China and Russia will start gobbling up their neighbors, NK will start shit with their southern neighbor, and the middle east and the indian subcontinent are going to be a mess.

So how does any of that help anyone in America? I can see how paying for world security might help Europe live more peaceful since they are close to those neighbors. But America is on the other side of the world.

Trump is right. Its not fair that all of Europe should get free national healthcare while American's pay with all our taxes to support everyone else with free military safety and security!

After WW2 the US was rich enough to give charity. We aren't anymore.

Speaking of WW2, we're lucky that pesky war over there never made it to our shores.

what happens to the american economy if the rest of the world is in chaos? that's an actual question. i don't have any data in front of me but what do you think that would look like for us?

china takes over the pacific, russia takes over eastern europe and they just stop there?

i don't think we dump quite as much money into a black hole in europe as trump would have his rubes believe.

 

[ZiprHead]

Anyway, to the OP's question... We shouldn't reduce military spending because 1) it's not actually that much compared to all the other things we spend our money on and 2) Pax Americana

Y'all may not much like it, but US military might is the single largest reason that there has been as little global armed conflict as there has been in the last 70+ years. The US hasn't been imperialistic since the late 19th century, we've only annexed territories that wanted to be annexed, and for the last century, we've been pretty damned happy to just hold our own - and support our allies. And while it might chafe some of you... pretty much all of Europe and our fellow English-speaking countries are dependent on US military firepower to maintain their own borders. Hell, there are a fair number of Asian countries that benefit from our presence throughout the globe. If it weren't for active military patrols and bases throughout the world, both China and Russia would be much much bigger than they are now.

It sucks, but pretty much if the US materially cuts military spending, China and Russia will start gobbling up their neighbors, NK will start shit with their southern neighbor, and the middle east and the indian subcontinent are going to be a mess.

So how does any of that help anyone in America? I can see how paying for world security might help Europe live more peaceful since they are close to those neighbors. But America is on the other side of the world.

Trump is right. Its not fair that all of Europe should get free national healthcare while American's pay with all our taxes to support everyone else with free military safety and security!

After WW2 the US was rich enough to give charity. We aren't anymore.

The United States is by far the richest country in the world. If Trump wanted to give us universal health care he could have proposed it at anytime during his administration. However, his only action concerning healthcare was to try to get the ACA repealed, with no replacement.

He concentrated a lot more on getting a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. Another reason we don't have universal healthcare.

 

[RVonse]

The United States is by far the richest country in the world.

In 1971, the US defaulted on its dollar reserve currency, Nixon forcing it off gold standard. Since then US debt is currently at $34T, an insane amount many times more than can ever be paid off. Without depending on the global reserve currency, the US treasury would be bankrupt years ago. For example in 2008 the US experienced a monetary liquidity crises which has only been patched and not yet resolved. But the biggest tell of all is that the US also consumes much more than it produces by a wide margin. So if the US isn't already bankrupt it will be in the near future.

The US can not afford charity anymore.

 

[RVonse]

Speaking of WW2, we're lucky that pesky war over there never made it to our mainland shores.

If the US had not been involved at all, it still would never have made it to our shores.

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of WW2, we're lucky that pesky war over there never made it to our mainland shores.

If the US had not been involved at all, it still would never have made it to our shores.

Do you even know how the US got into WWII?

 

[RVonse]

Speaking of WW2, we're lucky that pesky war over there never made it to our mainland shores.

If the US had not been involved at all, it still would never have made it to our shores.

Do you even know how the US got into WWII?

FDR wanted the US to get into WW2. And Pearl Harbor is not a mainland shore.

 

[cycomiko]

Speaking of WW2, we're lucky that pesky war over there never made it to our mainland shores.

If the US had not been involved at all, it still would never have made it to our shores.

I notice you changed what I wrote to add "mainland". I assume you didn't do that on purpose and it was just going to a part of your response. Does Hawaii not count as an attack on our country?

Are you saying that Japan attacked us because we gave naval support to England?