Hacker News Reader

I don't think OP is specifically criticising the size of the US army, but rather the culture that surrounds the presence the military has in the country.

I'm from the UK, and I too have found the cultural US norms around military service creepy and weird.

> I don't think OP is specifically criticising the size of the US army, but rather the culture that surrounds the presence the military has in the country. I'm from the UK, and I too have found the cultural US norms around military service creepy and weird.

The culture surrounding the military in the US is intrinsically linked to both its size and its importance on a global scale (which are two distinct factors). There is no military power in NATO or MNNA more powerful than the US military. So it would be surprising - and honestly dangerous - for it not to have a culture of visibility in its own country.

> I'm from the UK, and I too have found the cultural US norms around military service creepy and weird.

Personally, I find nothing creepier and weirder than the relationship the UK has with its own military actions. In the US, we may not always like or approve of our military engagements or decisions, but we're certainly aware of their prevalence and significance. Having a visible military culture makes it rather difficult to forget that - both the good and the bad.

The UK outsources much of its defense interests to NATO (read: the US), and of the rest, does a bang-up job of keeping them out of the public eye. Not in secret, mind you - just quietly enough that Brits forget about their own country's responsibility in ongoing armed conflicts to this day, let alone historical ones.

>The US has an outsize military because, for most of the past century, it has taken on the role of being the primary defense force not just for itself, but for countries all around the world.

That's one way to phrase it. Viewed from a different angle, the US loved competing in proxy wars against the USSR, continues fighting proxy wars against Russia (currently in Syria) and destabilizes the middle east to keep contracts for it's defense industry coming

> That's one way to phrase it. Viewed from a different angle, the US loved competing in proxy wars against the USSR, continues fighting proxy wars against Russia (currently in Syria) and destabilizes the middle east to keep contracts for it's defense industry coming

You think that other NATO countries - the UK, France, and others - didn't support these as well? It's not like the US is going into Syria against the wishes of France and the UK - both have sent in their own forces as well, coordinating military strikes along with the US.

It's extremely hypocritical for people from NATO and MNNA countries to criticize the US for military actions that their own countries backed, especially the ones that they are themselves actively involved with.

>It's extremely hypocritical for people from NATO and MNNA countries to criticize the US for military actions that their own countries backed, especially the ones that they are themselves actively involved with.

Why? It's not like you're obliged to agree with everything your government does.

> defense

I beg to differ. The US has been on the offensive side of things far more than they have ever been on the defensive side.

I think the argument would be that being proactive is a sort of defense, and a good one because it is cheaper and saves more lives than waiting until things are really bad. Of course, not waiting for things to get really bad means that we can't know if the intervention is too heavy-handed or even exploitative.

In the US "defense" is a general term for military. We call it the "Department of Defense" and companies that contract with the military are "defense contractors."

With that said (and I've worked at a defense contractor as my college internship a decade ago) the name is intentionally misleading. Most reasonable people wouldn't support the "foreign war budget" but "defense"? What person would be against defending your country!?

> The US has an outsize military because, for most of the past century, it has taken on the role of being the primary defense force not just for itself, but for countries all around the world.

It's also a social program of sorts.

Part of the allure of the military is a middle class lifestyle and access to employment opportunity outside. Millions of people would be unemployed if they weren't in the military or supporting military functions indirectly. I grew up in a small town... 20% of my class of 80 went into the military. If you live in many areas, your options are essentially truck driving or the army.

>>> That's not to say that I'm a fan of much of what the US military does, but it's rather off-base for foreigners from other NATO and MNNA countries to criticize the US for its military, when they're far and away the outsize beneficiaries of it.

Something is wrong with this logic. Why are you free to "not be a fan" to certain things about the military but it's "off-base" when other people aren't fans either?

Shouldn't New Zealand have more military personal per capita, if it's a smaller country?