1812 if I remember my history was in large part because they wanted to genocide all the natives and the British wanted to establish a nation for the natives (not out of altruism native trade was one of the only things that ever actually made money out of the Americas)
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them. There was a real threat and they chose not to deter it.
Finland wasn’t under any threat and was allowed to join, around the same time. The country that actually had a known threat wasn’t allowed to join. So they clearly haven’t deterred anything.
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.
I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn’t check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there’s no threat. Then you said well there’s a threat, because Ukraine.
The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
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.
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.
You think Freedom is free.
America hadn’t fought for its freedom since 1812 at best.
1812 if I remember my history was in large part because they wanted to genocide all the natives and the British wanted to establish a nation for the natives (not out of altruism native trade was one of the only things that ever actually made money out of the Americas)
They also burned down the White House which you know critical support for the imperialist red coats on that one
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.
That’s a regular classic sadly, along with the other banger: “our US healthcare can’t be free because we subsidize Europe’s healthcare”.
Yeah and it shouldn’t make sense either. That logic makes the US a European colony.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them. There was a real threat and they chose not to deter it.
Finland wasn’t under any threat and was allowed to join, around the same time. The country that actually had a known threat wasn’t allowed to join. So they clearly haven’t deterred anything.
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.
I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn’t check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there’s no threat. Then you said well there’s a threat, because Ukraine.
The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
deleted by creator
having access to cheap gas we were protected from that
As a Star Citizen backer you’d be an expert on money wasting.
Lol, not denying it’s very speculative, but you should look at the recent squadron 42 tech demo and tell me if you think it’s still a failed project
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.
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.