I don't think spending more on military than the next 10 countries combined can be described as "only" in any way.
The highest spender are the US, with $732.0 billion, followed by China with $261.0 billion, then India and Russia with $71.1 and $65.1 billion respectively.
Militaries are reliant on domestic production and labor. (Paying Chinese solider costs the government a fraction as much as an American soldier.) So instead of an exchange rate conversion, you should be doing a purchasing-power conversion. For these three countries, that means multiplying by 2x to 4x.
Also, the US is particularly inefficient at capital spending. It costs us a billion dollars to build a mile of subway, and costs countries like France a fraction of that. So that weighs further in favor of discounting our spending in that comparison.
The majority of DoD's budget is not salaries. Only the salaries should be scaled in this way.
E.g. many other countries are buying our F-35s at the same price we are. Other countries simply can't get equally effective jet fighters, aircraft carriers, etc., at a third to a quarter of the price.
Also, one needs to take into account Black Budgets - as they are totally opaque and we have no idea what amount of the budget they consume, assuming they are even accounted for in the 700 billion dollar number the budget claims to be.
Why would only salaries be scaled that way? It costs China a fraction as much as the U.S. to build a train line. Do you think it costs them the same amount in nominal dollars to build a landmine?
>So instead of an exchange rate conversion, you should be doing a purchasing-power conversion. For these three countries, that means multiplying by 3x or 4x.
Where did you get those numbers from? According to the OECD the renminbi PPP rate is 4.198 whereas the the current exchange rate is 7. That's 1.67x not 3x.
No matter which way you slice it, America has a very capable blue water navy while China's barely qualifies. They're on tier with India, Italy, and Russia; only capable of force-projection in their neighborhood. Besides the US, France and the UK are capable of global power projection; that's it. And both of those are in NATO too.
France was a member of NATO from the very beginning. In the 60s France had some manner of dispute with the rest of NATO and disassociated themselves in some capacity, but technically remained a member. Since 2009, French/NATO relations have been largely normalized, I think with the exception of how the French government chooses to control France's nukes.
> Edit: ok they are. But they did attempt to withdraw and were only stopped by the 20 year rule. And they still don't have unified nuclear command.
Be that as it may, I don't think Americans need an expensive navy to protect themselves from the French.
They're not, and that's the point. If a software company in the U.S. was spending 5x as much as one in India (where are experienced developer might make 1/5 as much or less), would you say the U.S. company was spending to much?
My brother was a Colonel in the airforce, Commander of the 10th Medical Wing. He is a really successful doctor who then led the VA for the state of alaska...
He is now CEO for a hospital in Idaho.
The point is that his life path was truly successful for him through the military and he has added great value to the nation through that experience.
Had he been a minion in a more oppressive style regime, such as China - or North Korea, or even Russia, then I would expect he would have been less effective at being such a positive value to those nations as he is to the US.
And this is due only in a small part as to his ability to have a happy, successful material life here in the US and also raise an amazing family.
I can only applaud your brother's accomplishments!
That said, why do you believe that he succeeded because of the military and not in spite of it? Is his story in any way typical for veterans? From my understanding, not at all.
Also, why do you assume that Russian or Chinese military service is less valued or constructive for their service members than US service? Are you basing this on something, or just the general image created by US media about the Chinese and Russian armed forces?
Thanks for your reply -- Ill be honest - I evaluated my statement based on your response, and the only thing I can come up with WRT what I am basing it on is actually a bias to my understanding of how corrupt those regimes are.... now, thats not to say that the US doesnt have a problem with corruption (its getting worse, here in the US, whereby politicians are enriching themselves at the expense of others -- see "politicians made millions from stock trade before the pandemic information was released" type stories)
The US is filling the role of the Roman Empire, securing trade routes to allow efficient scales of tech expertise and production. If that military is scaled back or shown to be obsolete/ineffectual, then globalism itself will come into question.
The dark ages were caused by the localizing of production, with local feifdoms losing access to specialized technical expertise. To some extent, this is what we see now with companies moving produuction back to North America.
In fact, its entirely apt cautionary tale because due to taxes and an ever increasing cost of living in Rome proper citizen-soldiers (during the Republic) often went bankrupt and fell into destitute while fighting campaigns from Rome's conquest and returned to see the oligarchy take their fields/land and displaced them further and further out of Rome.
This is the story of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, direct descendants of Scipio Africanus (the illustrious Soldier and Savior of the Roman Republic) and the Land/Ag Plebeian reforms they achieved that cost them both their lives after several stints in Politics.
It got to a point that due to land consolidation that it was less expensive to buy the wheat from Egypt, have it transported by boat, and used (often slave labour) to bake the bread then it was to buy a loaf locally. My old History professor went on an amazing rant about this for an hour in one of my Roman History courses when we were discussing the true costs of Imperial Expansion and what is often swept under the rug as a footnote in History, she was old but still pissed because they didn't let her include it in her book.
The World now is ever more interconnected than ever, and one could argue why that is a horrible trade-off both for national security purposes but also for self-reliance reasons as we saw with the PPE shortage and the faulty equipment that came from China. But I fail to see how the West at least would abandon the critical supply chains they have developed in order for Society to function unless we have something like an asteroid collision. Even now the EU as well as Australia, and New Zealand are siding with the US' stance on punishing the CCP's Security Law in Hong Kong that is going to undo the relationship that served as an access point into China via a neutral party.
Are you seriously suggesting that if the US empire scaled back its efforts in those regions then we'd return to the dark ages? Because when I was in Europe Somali pirates were hi-jacking oil tankers and the US didn't intervene, it took the European companies and military to put an end to that entirely by themselves without the need of US involvement.
I think the US is headed for the same fate as Rome as it refuses to learn the same lessons, but if given the choice between China or the US as the Global Superpower I think its the latter that must retain its position as the former is hellbent on a suicidal mission that destroys everything in its path and will commit horrible acts of barbarism and won't hesitate to take the whole World down with it in its folly (see recent cases: Xianjing, Wuhan, Hong Kong and Beijing).
I just hope we can attain a position where the World doesn't need superpowers and can return to at least a mutually beneficial city-state model as COVID has proven we cannot really overcome such huge issues like pandemics (or likely wide scale famines or global catastrophes) at such a scale. I mean governing 300+ million People is hard to conceptualize, but with Nation-States like China and India where it goes into the billions is just unfathomable and failure is the only real outcome in that.
> Are you seriously suggesting that if the US empire scaled back its efforts in those regions then we'd return to the dark ages?
No, we’d probably return to the era of world wars.
> Because when I was in Europe Somali pirates were hi-jacking oil tankers and the US didn't intervene, it took the European companies and military to put an end to that entirely by themselves without the need of US involvement.
> In the late 2000s, anti-piracy coalition known as Combined Task Force 150, including 33 different nations, established a Maritime Security Patrol Area in the Gulf of Aden. By 2010, these patrols were paying off, with a steady drop in the number of incidents.
> Countries presently contributing to CTF-150 include Australia, Canada, Denmark,[1] France, Pakistan, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other nations who have participated include Italy, India, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Thailand and Turkey. The command of the task force rotates among the different participating navies, with commands usually lasting between four and six months. The task force usually comprises 14 or 15 ships.[2] CTF-150 is coordinated by the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), a 33-nation coalition operating from the US Navy base in Manama, Bahrain.
> On 8 January 2009, at the United States Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, Vice Admiral William E. Gortney, USN, announced the formation of CTF-151 to combat the piracy threat off Somalia, with Rear Admiral Terence E. McKnight in command.
> I just hope we can attain a position where the World doesn't need superpowers and can return to at least a mutually beneficial city-state model
That will mean war.
Within a single country, government serves the purpose of providing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This monopoly is an impediment for the otherwise random violence people would live under. Internationally, the same is true for superpowers.
> No, we’d probably return to the era of world wars.
As opposed to the constant and just as deadly porxy wars fought in placed like Georgia, India, Hong Kong, Syria, Yemen, Somlaia, Tunsia, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan... That seems like a World War situation to me in that it spans 2 or more continents and some conflicts/occupations have lasted longer than the World wars combined.
> > In the late 2000s, anti-piracy coalition known as Combined Task Force 150, including 33 different nations, established a Maritime Security Patrol Area in the Gulf of Aden. By 2010, these patrols were paying off, with a steady drop in the number of incidents.
The existence of a collation and the presence of the US doesn't invalidate my statement, seeing as how most of these hijacking were happening in the Mediterranean Sea the EU Naval Force had a vested interest in protecting its shores and the influx of refugees coming in from Northern Africa was also happening simultaneously so a joint effort only make sense. But here are a list of hijackings and see how many of them bein released were a result of US involvement, its not as many you are making out to be [1].
> That will mean war.
Why, because you say it does? We are seeing the massive revamping of Civil Rights and the systemic Police Brutality in the US without a Civil war after the protests, why can't that amount of civility exist in this process? Riots did occur, but as the blueleaks is revealing a lot of it was external criminal enterprises taking advantage of the situation to foment unrest for its own ends.
As did looting from opportunistic people, but I heard it best when someone said 'Those were the people who otherwise cannot participate in Consumerist Society, that is afforded to everyone else.'
Jura, a canton with strong Anarchist Intellectual History on top of its reputation for perfecting the art of superior Rolex watch making while the rest of the World was in the midst of World War, separated from Bern/Switzerland for a period of time with nothing more than a simple vote.
Jura was technically its own Nation for a while and no blood was shed. California gained Independence and declared itself a Republic (hence the flag) in the Bear Flag Revolution of 1846 without bloodshed. Many former Soviet Satellites nations gained independence after the USSR dissolved without having to take up arms, as did Slovenia after the collapse of Yugoslavia--by contrast Croatia and Serbia went to war and ruined their economies and have created deep wounds in their society as a result that and are still felt to this day, where as Slovenia is a member of the core EU member nations, which has many negative implications but the point stands.
> Within a single country, government serves the purpose of providing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Agreed, which is why the State is inherently an evil institution, one we've been warned by the creators of the US who detested War and Empire and put in certain vanguards to ensure it didn't occur. And exercising these in the modern World will now make you an extremist, terrorist and Enemy of the State.
> This monopoly is an impediment for the otherwise random violence people would live under. Internationally, the same is true for superpowers.
You base your (flawed) argument on the basis that Humanity cannot conduct itself without abject violence and wanton barbarism, when in reality those predictable outcomes are a direct byproduct of Imperial decree: importing slaves from Africa and generational disfranchisement, isolating conquered aboriginal People into small, remotely located and undeserved areas of the US (reservations) and expecting them to have any opportunities all while promoting things that lead to vice and violence (gambling and alcohol are huge problems in Native People) as their only way to succeed.
I will go on record so say that I'm not an apologist for these things, its sad, but I didn't do it and to be fair my startup's parent company had Native American outreach programs to help them grow hemp on reservation land for subsidized costs in seed, so I don't have what is often regarded as 'white guilt' as my family was also exploited when they came to the US as did just about every race/creed that came in search of a better Life in the New World. Its just what happened.
I argue that because of the abundance afforded to us by automation and technology we can already start from a much better position and can make this a more inclusive system, that does not limit based on fictional borders or race and instead can see and find value that is inherit in all of Human Capital. Its an incentive and distribution issue, not one of scarcity. We can already feed the entire World many times over with the food produced now. That was thought to be unfathomable when the Nation-State model was created, so why are we still using this archaic framework to model our Society?
Taiwan and the UK just opened up its borders to Hong Kong refugees, and Taiwan has made a form of UBI available to those that decide to come as they value the highly skilled labour that comes from HK, whereas the UK is limiting it to BN passport holders born before the handover in 97. And still, Ivan Ko a property tycoon, is thinking about settling a new Hong Kong in Ireland [2]. The World is shifting and I'm super excited to see it happening as it seems they will have to compete for its citizens.
The Nation-State model is being challenged before your very eyes if you want to pay attention to it, I'm saying its best to embrace it and benefit from the disruption rather than go to war to try and needlessly try to keep pretend it can remain intact in the 21st Century.
Its not like this notion is anything new, it was just limited to the rich and powerful: Venice, London, Vatican, Monaco, Gibraltar, Macau etc...
> As opposed to the constant and just as deadly porxy wars fought in placed like Georgia, India, Hong Kong, Syria, Yemen, Somlaia, Tunsia, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan... That seems like a World War situation to me in that it spans 2 or more continents and some conflicts/occupations have lasted longer than the World wars combined.
England and France famously fought a "Hundred Years' War" in the 14th and 15th centuries over the claim of the English king to the French throne. From that time onwards, neither country ever experienced a Hundred Years' Peace even on their own soil. The longest stretch of peace for either country started in 1945 and extends to the present day.
> The existence of a collation and the presence of the US doesn't invalidate my statement
Your statement was:
"Somali pirates were hi-jacking oil tankers and the US didn't intervene, it took the European companies and military to put an end to that entirely by themselves without the need of US involvement"
In other words, you made the very strong statement that European powers addressed the issue of Somali piracy "entirely by themselves" and that "the US didn't intervene". In reality, the US did intervene and the European intervention was not entirely by themselves--countries including Pakistan and Japan even helped!
> But here are a list of hijackings and see how many of them bein released were a result of US involvement, its not as many you are making out to be
It's more than zero, which is what you made it out to be.
> You base your (flawed) argument on the basis that Humanity cannot conduct itself without abject violence and wanton barbarism
Yes, and I think it takes a completely willful or perhaps tendentious ignorance of history to claim otherwise.
> when in reality those predictable outcomes are a direct byproduct of Imperial decree: importing slaves from Africa and generational disfranchisement, isolating conquered aboriginal People into small, remotely located and undeserved areas of the US (reservations)...
That's beside the point. Every part of the world had centuries of war before Americans ever did these things. Those slaves were exported by West African slavers. Indians also practiced slavery and warfare.
It also applies across cultures. If you look at the history of China, there are periods where China is a unified empire and then there are periods where China is divided into multiple warring states (one of which is literally called the "Warring States Period"). European history between the fall of the Roman Empire and the end of WWII can be seen as a single long Western warring states period.
> Its not like this notion is anything new, it was just limited to the rich and powerful: Venice, London, Vatican, Monaco, Gibraltar, Macau etc...
The Venetians sacked Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade. London was the seat of a global empire won through centuries of warfare and more of an example of my model than of yours. The Vatican's relative inability to maintain the loyalty of continental Europe was a direct contributing factor to the Thirty Years' War, which is one of the most brutal and bloody conflicts in history.
> England and France famously fought a "Hundred Years' War" in the 14th and 15th centuries over the claim of the English king to the French throne. From that time onwards, neither country ever experienced a Hundred Years' Peace even on their own soil. The longest stretch of peace for either country started in 1945 and extends to the present day.
And Spain fought for independence/Reconquista for 780 years against Moorish occupation of Iberia, the Sengoku Jidai lasted 148 years of internal civil war. I'm really not sure what else you're trying to achieve other than deflecting from the point that we don't have to abide by this mode of operation moving forward and trying to one-up your understanding of Imperial conflicts form the past isn't proving as effective as you think it is.
That fact that it occurred is not being denied, no one is disputing this took place. It just isn't in the US' People's interest to do this given the alternative that exist today. I'm come for a military family, I lived near the biggest Marine Base camp in the US: I've seen first hand the consequences of these campaigns, there is no glory in it just a long list of sad casualties and injured people on the US side.
> It's more than zero, which is what you made it out to be.
Only because your initial argument was based on the notion that the dark ages awaited us if the US pulled out of trade route protection in its attempts to fill the vacumm left behind Rome, when in reality that it's clearly not true... But if you wish me to clarify: yes, US joint coalitions helped, in conjunction with other Global partners participation, re-commandeer sea vessels lost to pirates.
> Yes, and I think it takes a completely willful or perhaps tendentious ignorance of history to claim otherwise.
You seem entirely fixed on the idea that it must continue this way so much you refuse for it to be any other way. Do you really think having this mindset is correct during a pandemic, mass economic crisis and global civil unrest while China is trying to expand its territory and illegally annex Hong Kong and eying up Taiwan, while playing bully in the South China Sea? This doesn't end well for Humanity if it does and could ensure we really do go extinct, Nuclear leaks have been detected in N. Europe from possible failures in Russia this week, do you really think Warfare is in any way a viable choice given all the problems we have going on? We still have Fukushima pouring nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean for what will soon be a decade in 9 months from now.
I'm afraid there really is no getting to people this belligerent and jingoistic about the matter, I just wonder how long you'd hold that point of view if it was you and those you care about on the front lines fighting these needless banker wars.
I think that if you would describe the other party here as jingoistic, you're not understanding what they mean.
Their argument is essentially that war is inevitable, and US imperialism is a good way to prevent it. This is a consequentialist anti-war position. Consequentialists often believe that a bad thing is okay if it decreases the net number of bad things. This does not mean they are in favor of bad things happening.
Short of reaching post-scarcity, I don't see a path forward that ends violence without inflicting more. The conservative in me wants to carry on as is, because it's working better than anything else ever has. The liberal in me wants to push for economic measures to take the place of as much of the military as possible, and introduce transparency and oversight to prevent things like the war in Iraq.
You're saying a path exists that would awaken the radical in me. But you haven't explained how it works. You've just suggested that Europe can do what the US is doing instead, which seems net zero. And you've suggested that perhaps we can all just agree to stop, which seems impossible. I genuinely would love to hear more options, it is hard to escape a false dichotomy.
Essentially what I was going for, except I would use the term “hegemony” rather than “imperialism” since, at its best, the US does not seek to actually control the rest of the world so much as establish conditions for peace and constrain aggression in the international sphere. Some examples of this include American diplomatic intervention in the Suez Crisis, the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Japan, the Korean War, the Persian Gulf War, intervention in the 1990’s Yugoslav wars, and suppression of ISIS over the past decade.
I don’t think everything the US has done served this purpose or even had this motive, and I think it’s counterproductive at the very least for the US to abuse its hegemonic power. But it’s also essential, and basically good, for the US to exercise that power responsibly when it’s beneficial to do so.
> I think that if you would describe the other party here as jingoistic, you're not understanding what they mean.
> Their argument is essentially that war is inevitable, and US imperialism is a good way to prevent it.
How is that not jingoistic? State worship is bad, dare I say 'Anti-American' in the Founder's understanding of the term but going so far as to suggest that US imperialism is a net 'good' in the World?! The US being the biggest most expansive empire the World has ever seen, is the very definition of jingoism as the US can't seem to think in terms outside of war tactics to solve issues; I still remember talking to my physics professor in a somewhat somber yet joking manner about how that spy satellite that was falling back into Earth was blown up using a missile was using also using the same military tactic they used on the moon to see if it had water.
> Consequentialists often believe that a bad thing is okay if it decreases the net number of bad things. This does not mean they are in favor of bad things happening.
That seem more like a rationalization than it does a valid argument, as its premise is not in seeking the most good but in accepting that evil is a constant occurrence and detracting its source is not an option.
Suffice it to say: as a Hedonist at my core I don't accept this argument nor it's flawed premise. Moreover, I come from a lineage of people who are often used as the cannon fodder to achieve that end, and its a cycle I intend to break, if only with my own Life.
> Short of reaching post-scarcity, I don't see a path forward that ends violence without inflicting more.
That is exactly the aim I pursued and abandoned my career for and focused instead on food and agriculture, something I have now in my mid 30s have dedicated the largest part of my Life toward, and we've already achieved post-scarcity not just caloric terms but also in real abundance terms due to technology, mechanization, and automation. Much is left to be done, but that requires more engineering than it does Life Scientists like myself. I just hope we have the right incentives to direct them towards that instead of a Lockheed Martin or Dow Chemicals.
I've since left my work as farmer and chef after achieving all of my goals because I think the next target is to focus on the broken Supply Chains to ensure this occurs in masse in order for it to be replicated elsewhere, as I honestly think that is the only thing left to achieve other than the adoption of more sustainable practices and models. Which COVID is already doing that more effectively than anything I've seen to date as the factory farm model and its immensely complicated supply chains have faltered and failed to deliver on their promises under scrutiny leaving small, local (often organic) farms with more customers and demand then they can meet and their CSA programs are selling out seasons in advance! Community gardens plots were sold out well in advance of planting season where I live, and are getting people to take an active role in community based solutions towards food security.
> I genuinely would love to hear more options, it is hard to escape a false dichotomy.
Honestly, I'd enjoy exploring that too, but this conversation is beyond the scope of this format and requires more in depth discussion and further reading than I think this medium allows.
I'd start with the works of Murray Bookchin, and the ecological centered efforts and works of Alexander Grothendieck and take it from there once you understand the ecological damage and unnecessary destruction we see in a World to maintain the State model that serves the few and the expense of the many in a system that ultimately puts us all at greater risk despite having the means to works toward a more desirable society in our Lifetime.
Consider that we are seriously going to be colonizing Mars in our Lifetime, mainly through the efforts of a Private company not a Nation-State, and the amount of potential economic growth that entails to achieve that could literately usher in a period of Global prosperity unlike anything else we've ever seen as it won't stop with just a colony but also asteroid mining and resource gathering.
We live in the best time in Human History, and yet we walk around as though we're resolved to endless perpetual warfare and reckless ecological death as an absolute. I refuse to accept that and would rather die trying to break that cycle than live comfortably waiting for this perilous and harrowing inevitability.
> I'm really not sure what else you're trying to achieve other than deflecting from the point that we don't have to abide by this mode of operation moving forward and trying to one-up your understanding of Imperial conflicts form the past isn't proving as effective as you think it is.
I'm pointing out that perpetual warfare is the human condition and that the world we're living in today is the most peaceful we've known in all of human history. That provides very strong and direct evidence that whatever we've been doing between 1945 and 2020 is helping.
> I'm afraid there really is no getting to people this belligerent and jingoistic about the matter, I just wonder how long you'd hold that point of view if it was you and those you care about on the front lines fighting these needless banker wars.
Don't presume to know anything about me. Leave the personal bullshit out of it. We both want the same thing. It's just that the historical record provides very direct evidence that hegemons--be they Roman, Chinese, Mongol, British, or American--can sustain longer periods of peace than any balance of power ever can.
> Only because your initial argument was based on the notion that the dark ages awaited us if the US pulled out of trade route protection in its attempts to fill the vacumm left behind Rome, when in reality that it's clearly not true
I entered this thread after your false claim that “the US didn't intervene” in Somali piracy. It’s not my fault you got that point of fact wrong. It’s also not my fault that you refuse to concede that point of fact and make inappropriate assumptions about my personal motivations. The only thing you are proving is your own inability or refusal to disagree in good faith.
The highest spender are the US, with $732.0 billion, followed by China with $261.0 billion, then India and Russia with $71.1 and $65.1 billion respectively.