• PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Considering how big our military is and how much of NATO we are, yeah, unironically it is a redistribution of US wealth to protect a huge portion of the world. The good kind of redistribution involves missiles I guess?

    • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If by “protect” you mean extract resources and concession from a huge portion of the world and redistribution from US tax payers to Military contractors.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. I mean use them as forward operating bases. We subsidize the defense of a huge portion of the world, particularly NATO members, because they’re strategically important.

    • DragonTypeWyvern
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Uh huh.

      Tell me about the last time the US Army defended a democratic nation from invasion.

      Or gave any significant amount of weapons to a nation that wasn’t expected to pay for them.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not out of kindness. The US defense strategy centers around having bases located around something like 500km from important targets in China and Russia. It just so happens that makes Germany and Turkey super important to us.

        Japan and South Korea are the only two off the top of my head that the DoD suggests they’re interested in defending regardless of strategic use. There’s no real way to actually verify that, though.