US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries (2019)
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Here is an interesting thread [1] from it about Canadas military budget which ends with the comment "Look at the map, find Russia, see how large it is. Do you really think it needs more territory?" Apparently, they indeed think they do!
Nukes are good for ensuring MAD, but don't stop conventional wars,insurgencies, and geopolitics.
This is why every nuclear armed country also has a conventional military. Nukes don't make them obsolete.
Like you said, counties don't want to fire fist. This holds true if if Russia were to invade Poland, or NATO were to invade Russia, so you are back to square one. A good old conventional standoff.
That might be true. It might also be true that Russia would have been even more belligerent due to a weaker US military.
I guess all we can do is speculate.
The one-sided article does not mention any possible downsides of scaling back the U.S. military.
The U.S. military provides the security of american companies. It is a pity that those countries feel safe with the US military.
Cut the “America is a terrible imperial country. They invaded Iraq and police the world blah blah blah” BS.
Feel free to point out all the shortcomings, but you should indeed be grateful. The world is lucky to have at least one military superpower that actually has some regard for the rights of other nations and peoples. You’re not going to get that from Russia or China.
Both of these points are besides the subject of the article in question. It is focusing exclusively on the CO2 footprint of the US war machine, which is never accounted in the US national emissions (therefore skews any discussion on curbing emissions). (...cumulatively US is by orders of magnitude in energy demands for its military over all others combined (averaged over past 30 years)).
Effects of possible downsizing of US military is yet a separate question with its own multiple levels of analysis.
Many of those countries were already in the stone age.
>It is focusing exclusively on the CO2 footprint of the US war machine, which is never accounted in the US national emissions (therefore skews any discussion on curbing emissions).
Citation needed. The US military is mostly stationed in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan wars are over.
Or if your assessment was correct, then in spite of such a large budget, the US has managed to get beaten by a handful of Stone Age countries.
ISIS, gays being thrown off buildings... Press F to doubt.
Grenada was barely bombed at all.
>Or if your assessment was correct, then in spite of such a large budget, the US has managed to get beaten by a handful of Stone Age countries.
Name any large engagements or battles where the US "got beaten" in Iraq, Syria, Grenada, Afghanistan, etc. Even the biggest "loss" in Vietnam (Tet Offensive) was a huge tactical failure for the North Vietnamese. Nonetheless, it ended up being a strategic failure for the US because it turned the public tide against the war.