Hacker News Reader

Comment by annabellish | Hacker News Reader

This is the theory, yes, and to a point it's even true, but the US military is _not_ being used in this way. There is no challenger for "ultimate political power" within the US region. Their spending and investment is well beyond what is necessary to keep up with the "competition", of which there is effectively none. It is merely the continual expansion and growth of an already vastly overqualified force which hasn't actually been needed to enforce "ultimate political power within its region" in decades, but instead has busied itself on a series of unpopular, unproductive, and devastating wars which have destabilized a region and are now causing problems worldwide.

Making this violence engine more powerful is evil, even if one accepts that a military force is 100% necessary.

View on HN

There is no challenger for "ultimate political power" within the US region

How quaint - "regions" don't exist with modern weapons. To say the US doesn't have to worry in it's "region" is laughably naive.

Their spending and investment is well beyond what is necessary to keep up with the "competition"

Also quaint. China is able to leapfrog decades and trillions of dollars of US spending on defense due to modern technology advancements. One only needs to look at terrorism and militants fighting in the Middle East to realize that spending does not equal capability or effectiveness. In war games, China's sheer numbers overwhelm a technologically superior foe at a fraction of the cost.

hasn't actually been needed to enforce "ultimate political power within its region" in decades,

It is literally being used every second of every day to project power and maintain stability around the globe (not to mention daily active engagements over Syria/Iraq/Afganistan etc.). Just because we haven't had a "traditional" war in (years) doesn't' mean this power isn't a vital part of defense.

*Making this violence engine more powerful is evil, even if one accepts that a military force is 100% necessary.

Who fill this power vacuum if the US steps down? Will the world hold hand and sing peace songs if the US reduces military spending and activity?

While in general I agree with your realpolitik viewpoints this example was perhaps not the best thought out when rationalizing the application of US military resouces:

"not to mention daily active engagements over Syria/Iraq/Afganistan etc."

That's like saying it's ok to first smash windows and then charge for replacing them and being happy about how good you are in mending broken windows. It would be better no to break the fucking windows in the first place.

While US is a stabilizing force in eastern Europe and the pacific, it has totally fucked up the lives of millions in the middle east area by it's interventionist escapades. The only charitable interpretation would be that US views world history through the narrow disfiguring lense of it's own revolution which was an astounding feat by any measure. It's as if they all believe that if you just give rebels guns then a George Washington will be magically summoned to lead the country in good order to a proper form of post-despotic administration.

Of course there are lots of other reasons to interfere in other countries, but given how easy it seems to be politically to engage in these activities I can't figure out anything else masking common sense.

this example was perhaps not the best thought out when rationalizing the application of US military resources:

I agree :) However, my point was that these regional conflicts, with "tiny* countries are anything but. Superpowers are funding these wars, and it's all part of a larger game of hard and soft power. Saying the US's only worry are nukes, is just ... insane.

"While US is a stabilizing force in eastern Europe and the pacific, it has totally fucked up the lives of millions in the middle east area by it's interventionist escapades"

Excuse my vulgarity but shit has been fucked in the middle east for over 100 years. The US din't break any windows, if anything they bombed these broken windows into dust, along with everyone else.

In 10-20 years, this same statement will apply to the Pacific as China becomes more "assertive". To say the US "got it right" here is only because China's aggression or "assertiveness" is so new.

"It's as if they all believe that if you just give rebels guns then a George Washington will be magically summoned to lead the country in good order to a proper form of post-despotic administration."

I agree this is what is "sold" to the US public and the world. However the real motivations are always monetary, even in the case of the American Revolution.

I agree with all you wrote above :)

>It is literally being used every second of every day to project power and maintain stability around the globe (not to mention daily active engagements over Syria/Iraq/Afganistan etc.).

Yes, Syria, Iraq, and Afganistan are good examples of the exact opposite of that.

You're not wrong, _in theory_. A military is necessary. Maybe even a military as large as the current one is necessary. Maybe even a _larger_ military is necessary.

All of those things can be true, but these drones are not being built to dissuade China from breaking their policy of isolationism and attacking. The growth of the US military is not happening to "maintain stability".

The theory is sound, and the propaganda paints a good picture, but the reason why adding more power to that system is evil is not just because it's a military and militaries are somehow intrinsically wrong. It's because that military is being _used_ in evil ways.

Again, to make it super clear: The US needs a military, and it needs a big one. The idea that humanity could achieve peace by just losing all the militaries is nice, but unfounded. It is possible for all of these facts to be true, and yet for it not to be true that literally anything a military does is thus moral and just, yeah?

"the US military is _not_ being used in this way."

I agree to a point. US is "hooked" to war as it feeds the profits and the subsidies of the military industrial complex. Especially in the eastern mediterranean area and middle east US escapades have been hugely destabilizing.

However, given the current world stage in total with such jolly players with extraterritorial ambitions as Russia and China, I would much prefer that US was ready to aggressively project force than not. As a counterbalance.

Especially as I live in Finland, I much prefer having US backed Nato force as a counterbalance to which ever clique in Kremlin has control of the Russian military antics.

This is anything but clear cut.

>This is anything but clear cut.

Definitely agreed.

For our current world conditions to hold stable it is important that at least one of our rich, basically politically aligned western countries has a worldwide military force. The US military has gone way past merely that point, however, and that is the point at which this starts getting "evil".

Let's first make the other NATO members more powerful before we keep increasing the US firepower.

This misses how we established a peaceful western Europe. The US provides military protection to cover Europe so that countries like Germany don't need a big military. This keeps France and Germany from contemplating shooting at each other because they don't see a threat there anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com