“Defense”
Proping up the vastly inflated military industrial complex*
This 100%. MIC is social welfare for republicans though so it will only ever get worse.
Some might argue the best defense is being able to blow everyone else out of the water six times over.
Worst part is even though it probably is the best military by a good margin, it’s not very good at all if you look at this stat. It should be way better. These 10 countries combined would easily roll America. Although there will be no one left to enjoy the win afterwards
It can project power on multiple fronts in a way that no other country can match. The US has logistics capabilities that allow it to reach the other side of the globe. But you have a point. A critical strength of the US is its network of allies, a fact not always appreciated by isolationist Americans.
Yes it can do that compared to an other country. Multiple counties could probably attack on multiple fronts in a similar way the US could if not more.
Disclaimer: know nothing. Just some unemployed neckbeard in his mid 40’s trolling with Cheeto dust fingers in between rounds of WOW in his divorced mothers mouldy basement
Well, it kind of depends on how you’re measuring. Are they attacking the US on the homeland without the aid of Canada or Mexico? In that case the terrain around the US is going to be a death trap. Any troops will land on hostile shores and quickly be mired in various mountain ranges.
But ultimately I’m not sure if it’s really that interesting of a question, outside of a “what if?” scenario. Armed forces exist in the same world as diplomacy, and the US is on good terms with many of the top ten. The big hope is that there can be military alliances that are one sided enough in size that no one wants to test the water.
Sorry dude I thought I was replying to someone else who was being a dick
It’s all good. You’re not the first person that’s happened to, so I wonder if your Lemmy client can introduce a UI guide to show what comment is being replied to.
deleted by creator
I don’t think you quite understand or appreciate the sheer technological advantage the American military has, let alone volume. it’s not even close bro they could probably take on and defeat all of the top 10 nations even ignoring nukes
deleted by creator
Sorry again
Im not american, but without nukes I’m not entirely sure that would be truth.
At least 4 out of those 10 countries have nukes. Russia has more than the US alone
Oh, you didnt develop your reading skills yet. Let me rephrase it ‘If we remove nukes from the equation im not sure if they would be capable to win against usa’
Even more, Russia is doing badly in ukraine, China is a wildcard, India has like russian weapons right? They dont fair well. European countries are well prepared with high training and high tech, but probably lack resources and manpower.
I really would not discard usa so quickly.
Oh, you didn’t develop the part of your brain that dampens arrogance. You wrote:
without nukes I’m not so sure that would be the case.
This could easily be interpreted by someone on the internet reading some words from a random stranger as meaning without nukes (implying the 10 countries don’t have nukes or in the event of war nukes are off the table because of the mutually assured self destruction ), I’m not so sure.
People can’t read your mind. If you can’t form a sentence that rules out the possibility of it being interpreted in multiple ways, especially knowing people on the internet say dumb shit all the time, you are the one that needs to develop your writing abilities. Either that or don’t be a massive douche when someone interprets your reply incorrectly. You’re not perfect. You’ve just proved that on multiple fronts. Wake up to yourself and stop turning everything into a superiority contest.
Chill.
Reflect so I can stay chill
deleted by creator
I’m so glad medical treatment can put me in lifelong debt for this.
I’m fixing tired of this meme, let’s put it into context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
BTW: The reason we don’t have socialized Healthcare is because certain party blocks it, not because we can’t afford it. If we had a single payer we would actually be spending overall less on Healthcare not more.
It’s not just the red team blocking it. The ACA was written by insurance companies. If the Dems actually wanted to push through single payer, they would be able to each time they have controlled Congress and the pres. Don’t get me wrong, red team has never been for it and are much more to blame, but the Dems carry it as well.
Reminder, Dems had a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate in 2009
Yep, people keep forgetting that they could have pushed it though. They just don’t want to.
I mean…yeah? They’re a big tent party, they had to compromise within their ranks to get it passed, and even with a super majority, some Dem senators are more centrist than others.
The Democrats are not a leftist party, they never have been. They’re a collection of people who aren’t conservative. But that’s the best we can get until the county’s population stops being centrist and starts voting more left.
It’s always weird watching people protect Dems as if it’s a party of uniform desires. At least half of them in office agree more with Republicans than they do with the progressive members of the same party.
I think this is what bothers me the most, yes they’re not as shit as repubs but damn…why just let them get away with being meh.
Bah. What the hell does the Supreme Allied Commander Europe for WWII know about the military? Eisenhower should have just stayed in his lane.
That was Eisenhower, yes? Should probably cite your quote source.
Yes. The entire quote is a link to him making the speech.
Okay, viewing on the Memmy app does not show a link.
A great chunk of this money should be spent on healthcare, education and infrastructure. Instead, politicians have successfully managed to deceive common taxpayer for decades.
The US is just getting ripped off by private contractors and the rest of the military-industrial complex.
The following is for informational purposes only; do not assume I’m advocating for or against anything.
It’s a myth that the US spends more on the military than it does on social programs and healthcare.
Medicare Advantage (a simi-private part of Medicare) costs the US about the same as the Army and Navy combined.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html
In 2022, the Defense Dep spent 585 Billion dollars while Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare tax credits totaled nearly 3 times that at 1.4 Trillion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget#Discretionary_spending
The biggest difference in spending between the US and countries like China, Russia, and India is not that we have X times as much or better weapons, it’s that our soldiers and defense contractors are paid US salaries in US dollars.
USA USA USA!
We invest quite a lot, and our allies benefit from that, so they don’t have to invest as much.
So how about for a compromise, our allies start providing health insurance for Americans.
You think Freedom is free.
Nah, freedom costs a buck oh five.
This is really a bad chart, our military protects European countries which is why they don’t have to pay as much for defense
Edit: not to imply we don’t waste tons of money on boondoggles
It’s when you realize that some US Americans unironicaly believe that, that you understand how powerful the USA propaganda machine is.
I’m not saying we don’t waste money on defense, and obviously a country with zero threats on its borders can afford to spend less on defense and more on health care, but this chart in particular is a bad way to convey this message
I’m not saying we don’t waste money on defense, and obviously a country with zero threats on its borders can afford to spend less on defense and more on health care,
Don’t we spend way more on health care than military? I read somewhere it is like 4 trillion per year over 4 times more than military. Honestly as sad as this sounds I don’t think an extra trillion would improve the health care system in the US. Personally I think we have plenty of money going to health care, it is just doesn’t seem to be going towards actually healing people.
Don’t we spend more because the industry is extremely inflated? But yeah if it’s something everyone needs it should be subsidized and provided as a public service
our military protects European countries
Please give me a list of enough threats the US protected Europe from to back your statement. I doubt there are enough to justify those differences, and hence your statement must be doubted until you prove otherwise.
Are you differentiating between active conflicts that the US has been involved in versus the preventative protection of it…looming?
Because let me tell you, Russia doesn’t make a stink about NATO because of Belgium…
So can you answer the question? Has there been a threat or Russian aggression into Western Europe that was averted due to US involvement? I am yet to see that.
Do you not understand the concept of deterrence through strength or are you being intentionally dense?
Do you believe for one second that Putin stops with Ukraine if NATO and the US weren’t standing in his way?
or are you being intentionally dense?
Is your argument not good enough on its own, that you have to engage in personal attacks? No I am not dense. Please keep these comments to yourself. If you can’t engage in a civil discussion, I will report you to moderators.
Do you not understand the concept of deterrence
I do understand it. Now I’d love to see a proof of the presence of a threat that was deterred due to US military budget.
Do you believe for one second that Putin stops with Ukraine if NATO and the US weren’t standing in his way?
I need to see proof to believe that Russia is a threat to the parts of Europe you speak of, and said threat was deterred by US military budget. Otherwise I will continue not believing it.
I am asking for clarification for the question - how are you taking into account deterrence? What do you accept as a sign of successful deterrence?
I want to see evidence of a real threat, with evidence that it was going to happen, but was only avoided due to said deterrence. I believe that would be the textbook definition of deterrence. Anything else is not. But I am open minded if you have an alternate definition that is reasonable.
How many historical examples of this can you come up with, across the world? I’m currently thinking that’s an unreasonable set of requirements.
In my books, having the big gun in the room is deterrence. You don’t need for someone to attempt shit for it to count as deterrence - if nobody is stupid enough to try anything at all you have successfully deterred others.
Well we in Finland joined NATO because of Russia. Same for most of Eastern Europe.
I’m quite glad US spends a shitload on defence tbqh. Way too much, but it’s not out of my pocket…
Finland joined NATO because of fearmongering. I am yet to see a real threat. Now can you answer my question? If not, then it says enough.
Once a country is involved in a conflict, they cannot join NATO. You are proposing a logical catch 22 in which countries that join NATO only do so out of fear mongering (in your opinion), and countries that actually are involved in conflicts cannot join NATO, and thus will not be protected by the US. Finally, NATO countries aren’t being attacked, so unless you recognize the value of deterrence, there will never really be a chance to provide examples that fit into the framework you’ve set up.
I hope you do recognize the value of deterrence, and I also hope you recognize someone can’t provide examples of things that were prevented due to deterrence, since they never happened.
The threat of Russian involvement in Ukraine was known wayyyy ahead of the invasion actually occurring. Ukraine tried hard to join NATO to “deter” it but they never allowed it. So yeah, they don’t deter shit.
If Russia had plans to invade Finland like they did Ukraine, we don’t know if that would have gotten them into NATO.
Which attempt to join NATO are you talking about? IIRC one was retracted by the president of Ukraine and the other was already after crimea.
What’s your reasoning behind Finland being a bad example again, beyond a “fear mongering” label that you’ve applied without explaining?
We joined because Russia attacked Ukraine. We neighbor Russia. Seemed real enough to us.
Eastern Europe obviously knows more about this than even us.
If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine, instead of fueling the profits of the military industrial complex? Why do they keep letting hostilities and murder happen? Sounds like they aren’t deterring threats very well.
Ukraine war proves you wrong. When the threat is real, they do not deter it.
This isn’t to mention that Finland has not faced the same circumstances of Ukraine that led up to the war there, which goes back to my feafmongering claim.
But again, if you think Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine (it’s not), the US has failed to protect it. But they have successfully made a lot of profit for military corporations.
Ukraine wasn’t in NATO. That’s the point.
If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine
Goalposts moved - initial claim was that the US defense budget protects european countries, not all European countries. If that was the case, even Russia would be included as needing American protection.
deleted by creator
Realistically our military protects the world against going anti American. We keep every nation in the world wrapped into our economy except for those we specifically kicked out like Cuba. It’s why even nations like Russia and China are so tightly wrapped in our economy that sanctions hurt them. America is the protectors of the world, by force.
- Not sure we’re as free as you think we are.
- How much is enough? $877B, seems like a lot.
I support a cap at twice a much as our nearest competitor. I believe the US is one of the safest countries in the world (regarding a direct attack on our land) due to our geographical location in the world and the fact that we have more guns than people.
I’m not sure that guarding against attacks overseas, makes us safer. I think we breed a lot of adversaries by pushing our weight around all over the world. Then we get terrorist attacks which the military doesn’t really have much control over.
I’m for a strong military but I think we overshot the mark a bit.
Largest airforce in the world: US airforce. Second largest airforce in the world: US Navy. Third largest airforce in the world: US army.
I feel like this is patently deceptive. The DoD’s allocation includes the US’s only socialized medical system and universal income for hundreds of thousands.
Uh… why is Ukraine on the left side?
Because they also spend money themselves, I guess.
Why do you think they should belong (exclusively) to US spending?[gestures broadly at everything]
“but we need to protect our country”
Is it me, or is their budget increasing or the others budgets decreasing?
I swear it used to be the same as the next 7 countries a while ago.
An easy fix: European nato country reach their contribution requirements and the US can downsize
But then the Europeans would need to come up with new jokes to feel superior to Americans. Not as easy as expected.
I’ve noticed Europeans on Lemmy specifically tend to hate Americans and try to act all superior but instead all they are good at is trying to do is spread hate and forgetting their own disgustingly bloody past as if their countries have always been the good boys and girls. They suffer from denial pretty hard.
Nah, even if they did their NATO % contribution the amount would be pitifully small. When you look at most of the articles that talk about “10 Best Places to Live” it’s mostly super small population, low immigration, countries with virtually no military.
Most NATO countries are between 1-2.5% of their GDP, but that’s only ~$300 billion. The US does ~3.5% which amounts to ~$811 billion.
The other NATO countries wouldn’t just need to meet their NATO 2%, they’d need to more than triple it. Even just for the US to come down to 2% would cause a ~$348 billion decrease (more than the rest of NATO combined).
If I were a European country free riding in NATO the last thing I’d be pushing is the US to reduce military spending.
It doesn’t work that way, each country spends it for themselves, NATO allows to combine the defense force.
The reason US spends so much is to maintain its status of super power and to allow us to live without having wars on its territory. For example what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022 is sobering experience that if you are militarily weak others will exploit the situation.
A lot of things that we are assuming are normal are possible because of it. For example. US naval force for example allowed to protect international waters allowing for global trade.
In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness.
That literally is how it works.
Military spending isn’t a bad thing but I wouldn’t trust numbers from China and Russia, Russia being in an active war and China rapidly expanding
Also, they’re pulling their numbers from congressional allocations, which include massive amounts of medical and retirement benefits investments. Let’s include all medical and social Benicia for anyone whose served from those other nations and look at the numbers.
Who knows, maybe they don’t change much because those countries don’t even try to take care of their service members? I honestly don’t know because the only numbers are always this skewed metric.
