Hacker News Reader

Comment by 23iofj | Hacker News Reader

Reducing the number of military veterans period would be a good place to start. The USA does not need a massive standing peacetime army/navy/airforce. There's a real human cost too -- we kill more of our own soldiers in accidents than in actual combat.

Cut personnel in each branch by half, significantly consolidate bases, and modestly increase pay for the people who remain.

Then, redirect the enormous savings to actually useful jobs programs. Build roads instead of running around in circles in rural Alabama/North Carolina for four years.

View on HN

Active military suicides are also more common than combat deaths.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/14/169364733...

If not the US, then who? Trump, for all his faults, was spot on about the Europe's lack of fiscal participation in NATO. They were enjoying the privileges of what you described without ever worrying about the need for protecting it because the US was footing the bill. If it wasn't for NATO, do you really think the Baltic States would still be free from Russia today? And what about the Pacific islands? Nobody is stepping up to the plate to protect the sovereignty of those countries, something they themselves aren't capable of doing against a force like China.

Europe's 'lack of fiscal participation' in NATO only looks anemic when compared to the United States, which alone outspends the entire rest of the world, combined, on its military.

Europe's not going to afford to carry out a successful land invasion of Russia anytime soon, but if that's the level of defense spending Trump was looking for, I'm glad he was told to pound sand.

NATO was never about invading another country. It's purely intended to be a defensive pact (the whole Kosovo incident in the 90s notwithstanding). And that wasn't exactly Europe's response to Trump. Defense spending by European nations had been increasing since 2014 but a number of countries still did not meet their internal agreed-upon goal of 2% of GDP.

Most of Europe was already on track to hit 2%.

Trump wanted to raise it to 4%.

the United States, which alone outspends the entire rest of the world, combined, on its military.

Not true. The popular comparison is the US spends about as much as the next 10 countries combined. US is ~38% of the world's defense spending.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

As a percentage of GDP US defense spending is near its post WW II low.

> Not true. The popular comparison is the US spends about as much as the next 10 countries combined. US is ~38% of the world's defense spending.

In other words 4% of the world's population and 40% of its defense spending. Fucking jesus these feel like silly numbers to discuss -- the USA's military dumbassery puts Rome to shame. The latter collapsed because of its over-reach (well, unless you attended a conservative seminary, in which case it was clearly the "lack of morality on display in the Roman bath houses" or some such similar Very Serious Sociology/"Church History" That's Definitely Not Just USA Christian Nationalist Ur-Fascism.)

4% of the world's population

Economy size to defense spending is probably more a relevant ratio than population. 23% of the world economy, 38% of defense spending.

Defense spending is near all time lows. It didn't collapse the country in the 50s when it hit 11.3% of GDP. It didn't collapse the country in the 60s when it hit 8.6%. It didn't collapse the economy in the 80's when it hit 5.7%. We at sitting just over 3% now. If really you are worried that 3.4% going to cause the country to collapse, you can rest easy.

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/DoD-GDP-chart.png

Reply on news.ycombinator.com