Military spending vs societal benefits

[bilby]

US debt is currently at $34T, an insane amount many times more than can ever be paid off.

Why would it ever need to be paid off?

Are you expecting the US to die, or become too old to work, or to lose her income due to redundancy or offshoring, or to run away from its creditors?

These are the main reasons why lenders won't offer open ended credit to individual people. People die, get fired, retire from working, or do a runner. Nation states do none of these things. The US will be wealthier in the future than she is today; Like a person in their youth, with a good job and excellent prospects, it makes a lot of sense for her to borrow a load of money now, and pay it back later when it's worth less, and she has a higher income.

And as she is imortal, she can keep on borrowing indefinitely.

Basing money on gold is utterly stupid; Basing it on the size of the economy makes far more sense.

Tying money to a commodity whose availability has no relationship to the demand for money just ties you into a rollercoaster of inflationary and deflationary upsets.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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?

Of course Japan attacked us because we gave naval support to England. Everyone know that. And of course no German u boat ever sank a single ship on the U.S. east coast. Everyone knows that too.

 

[RVonse]

Are you expecting the US to die, or become too old to work, or to lose her income due to redundancy or offshoring, or to run away from its creditors?

I'm expecting the US to lose reserve currency status and then resulting in a dollar crises. Ask our creditors how much their holdings are worth after that happens. Then ask the social security recipients how much their benefit is worth.

 

[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.

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?

Hawaii does count as US but I view that at a 911 one off. The Japanese weren't landing troops on our west coast and neither were the Germans on our east coast. Yes they could have but I don't believe it would have happened for the trouble involved crossing the oceans.

 

[bilby]

I'm expecting the US to lose reserve currency status

Why?

And why would it effect the ability of the US to borrow if it did?

The Australian Dollar isn't a global reserve currency, but Australia has a large national debt denominated in AUD.

Your proposed possible cause doesn't seem to be either plausible in its own right, OR capable of producing the effect you apparently fear.

 

[ZiprHead]

I suspect RVonse is getting his predictions of dire economic catastrophe from right wing sources. Whenever a dem is in office the budget is a terrifying threat to the nation. Yet they never make these complaints when Republicans are in office.

The fact is that for the last seventy plus years Dem presidents consistently lower deficits and Republicans consistently raise them. It's an historical fact.

 

[robnisch]

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?

Hawaii does count as US but I view that at a 911 one off. The Japanese weren't landing troops on our west coast and neither were the Germans on our east coast. Yes they could have but I don't believe it would have happened for the trouble involved crossing the oceans.

Aleutian Islands campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Elixir]

I suspect RVonse is getting his predictions of dire economic catastrophe from right wing sources.

Is he paying enough attention to realize that Trump is trying to take credit for how terrible the economy isn’t?

Whenever a dem is in office the budget is a terrifying threat to the nation. Yet they never make these complaints when Republicans are in office.

Generally speaking they have no clue and don’t want one. Just go with the latest grievance.

The fact is that for the last seventy plus years Dem presidents consistently lower deficits and Republicans consistently raise them. It's an historical fact.

That, and a host of other economic metrics would convince any reasoning person that Dems’ economic record is starkly better than that of Repugs. Of course as they say, past performance is no guarantee… and thinking is hard, so trust the guy who says everyone else is crooked.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Honestly Poli, sometimes I wonder what is going on in your brain that takes you to such an extreme assumption. But hey, thanks for just one more installment of "Poli assigns malice to an interlocutor for no good fucking reason"

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Except what you actually did was to observe a mistyped sentence, and then somehow generalize a typo to the entirety of americans so you could get a jab in.

Can you parse what Moogly said? Because I can - and the formation of the sentence is NOT "how americans do it", it's blatantly obvious that he just typed it wrong. But instead of gorking what he was saying, and engaging in good faith, you somehow felt it was a great time to drop in a snide comment about how americans are backwards.

This isn't a difference in grammar - this is you using an error and generalizing that to "what americans be like" and thinking you're funny about it.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Fair enough, but still not nearly as big as Elixir's would suggest.

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

I watched a video on this not to long ago, and yeah - Four of the top Five air powers on the planet are branches of the US military. Although... it shows Russia in there, and I'm currently thinking that this might be a case of Russia "exaggerating" their firepower yet again.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Well, you might start by remembering that the military is obligated to ignore unconstitutional orders. Trump was not "sole decider" while he was in office, nor would he be if re-elected. And the US military DOES pledge to uphold the constitution first and foremost

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

That UCMJ requires soldiers to disregard any orders that violate the constitution, or are otherwise illegal. The president could "order" soldiers to commit a war crime as defined by the Geneva convention... and they would ignore that order because it is illegal and a violation of the UCMJ.

 

[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.

Honestly Poli, sometimes I wonder what is going on in your brain that takes you to such an extreme assumption. But hey, thanks for just one more installment of "Poli assigns malice to an interlocutor for no good fucking reason"

So, you want warfare without an "aversion to the means necessary to win", just not "malicious" warfare? You want war crimes but only, like, the friendly kind?



You people have no idea what the experience of war is actually like, do you? But if you want to spell out in more clear terms which atrocities you approve of and which would be "going too far", feel free. Then explain how giving the military license to use any of them would have somehow "won" Afghanistan.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

It's a LOT of jobs. I mean, a LOT.

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.

It maintains trade for one thing. Peace and prosperity for Europe (and AU and NZ and Japan etc) maintains safe shipping lanes and air lanes throughout the globe, enabling the exchange of goods.

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!

Meh. Sure I guess, but at the same time... it does give us a rather dominant negotiating position for international agreements.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Hawaii does count as US but I view that at a 911 one off. The Japanese weren't landing troops on our west coast and neither were the Germans on our east coast. Yes they could have but I don't believe it would have happened for the trouble involved crossing the oceans.

So despite the objective for both Germany and Japan being shared global domination... you think they would have both just said "meh, the ocean is too much trouble, we'll just leave the Americas alone"? You're given them a lot of credit for either generosity or apathy... which seems a bit odd in the context of their actions during WW2.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Hawaii does count as US but I view that at a 911 one off. The Japanese weren't landing troops on our west coast and neither were the Germans on our east coast. Yes they could have but I don't believe it would have happened for the trouble involved crossing the oceans.

Aleutian Islands campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, Japan didn't really give enough credence to the size of our Navy or our willingness to just dominate the Pacific ocean the hard way.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Honestly Poli, sometimes I wonder what is going on in your brain that takes you to such an extreme assumption. But hey, thanks for just one more installment of "Poli assigns malice to an interlocutor for no good fucking reason"

So, you want warfare without an "aversion to the means necessary to win", just not "malicious" warfare? You want war crimes but only, like, the friendly kind?



You people have no idea what the experience of war is actually like, do you? But if you want to spell out in more clear terms which atrocities you approve of and which would be "going too far", feel free. Then explain how giving the military license to use any of them would have somehow "won" Afghanistan.

FFS, my entire fucking family is military, my husband was fucking deployed! I don't approve of atrocities, and the fact that you can't seem to envision an approach of highly directed aggression that doesn't involve war crimes says a fuck-ton of a lot more about you and your fucked up brain than anything at all about me.

"You people" FFS, how about you grow a fucking clue before you get all condescending about shit you clearly don't know about.

 

[Politesse]

FFS, my entire fucking family is military, my husband was fucking deployed! I don't approve of atrocities, and the fact that you can't seem to envision an approach of highly directed aggression that doesn't involve war crimes says a fuck-ton of a lot more about you and your fucked up brain than anything at all about me.

"You people" FFS, how about you grow a fucking clue before you get all condescending about shit you clearly don't know about.

Then you should know better. Brutality does not lead to success over the long term, and there is no evidence to suggest that it would. Not even as a pure hypothetical that you did not at all mean to endorse. I'm sure you really do believe that you only want to engage in nice, friendly military escalations, not mean ones.

 

[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?

Hawaii does count as US but I view that at a 911 one off. The Japanese weren't landing troops on our west coast and neither were the Germans on our east coast. Yes they could have but I don't believe it would have happened for the trouble involved crossing the oceans.

So the Germans sinking ships off the east coast and in the gulf of Mexico wouldn't have gone any further once they cleared out our navy, if they were able to?

The fact remains that we live in a globally integrated economy and Americans aren't will to have their prices go up for any reason. Chaos in other parts of the world affects us.

 

[Emily Lake]

FFS, my entire fucking family is military, my husband was fucking deployed! I don't approve of atrocities, and the fact that you can't seem to envision an approach of highly directed aggression that doesn't involve war crimes says a fuck-ton of a lot more about you and your fucked up brain than anything at all about me.

"You people" FFS, how about you grow a fucking clue before you get all condescending about shit you clearly don't know about.

Then you should know better. Brutality does not lead to success over the long term, and there is no evidence to suggest that it would. Not even as a pure hypothetical that you did not at all mean to endorse. I'm sure you really do believe that you only want to engage in nice, friendly military escalations, not mean ones.

You know YOU are the one who decided on brutality, right? Not me. That leap is 100% on you.