Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cumpiler69 | Hacker News Reader

They do in Dresden Germany, but not nearly as cutting edge as the ones in US and Taiwan. US is a more useful strategic ally for Taiwan than EU. Not to mention the more expensive energy in Germany vs the US.

EU finds out the hard way that not having had energy independence plus a weak/non-existent military relying mostly on the US, has costly second order externalities that voters never think about or factor in their decisions(I'm European).

The best way to have peace is to always be ready for war. Being a non-armed hippie pacifist nation sounds good in some utopic fantasy world like the Smurfs, but in reality it only invites aggression from powerful despots like Putin and Xi and even your strong ally, the US, can exploit your moment of weakness and security dependence on it, to push its own agenda and trade terms on you.

After all, whenever EU falters, America gains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE-E1lQunm0

View on HN

That's true, but there is a large financial cost to always being ready for war. The US has spent 80 years being the "policeman of the world" for good or bad. Lots of bad decisions but the world also takes for granted the open seas, etc. that come at a great cost to Americans in reduced social services like health insurance and higher education.

Nonsense, Americans pay the most for health insurance. It's merely about how you use the money. Same with education. The American economy is so great it could afford an entire second military industrial complex and still have enough money left for healthcare and education.

Firstly, you don't need to spend America levels (more than than the next world powers combined) to have an efective military deterrent, since currently most EU member states barely spend 2% GDP on defense which is too little. You can have a strong military AND welfare services if you're smart about your state finances which many EU members are not(looking at you Germany), especially since defense investments create more jobs and innovations flowing back into the state coffers. Switzerland is a good example.

Secondly, America's defense is way more expensive than it needs to be due to a lot of high level corruption and lobbying from the military industrial complex profiteering when it comes to purchasing decisions, where a 10$ bag of bolts is bought by the military for 50K$, shovelings taxpayer money into the right private industry pockets. EU can achieve similar results with way less cost if it wanted to by minimizing this style of corruption but that's easier said than done. The only one rivaling America's military inefficiency is Germany who spends more than France, a nuclear power with aircraft carriers, but can't afford to issue underwear and dog tags to new conscripts.

Thirdly, America's lack of social services is not due to its powerful military, but due to political choices and inefficiencies. It could easily have better welfare if it wanted to since it can afford it with the world's largest GDP, but it chooses not to, since the current status quo is enriching a lot of private enterprises and parasites, while the concept of even more welfare is usually not a popular topic with the US voters which see welfare recipients as lazy and an unnecessary money sink funded by higher taxes on the middle class which they don't want. So their issue is social and political, not economical.

> Firstly, you don't need to spend America levels (more than than the next world powers combined) to have an efective military deterrent,

Would you consider most European countries to actually have an effective military deterrent?

By troop count, munitions stock, or the number if tanks and jets I don't see anyone as having a particularly impressive military in Europe. That doesn't mean they couldn't organize one if needed, but that's a different issue.

> Thirdly, America's lack of social services is not due to its powerful military, but due to political choices and inefficiencies.

You're missing a big factor here, cultural differences. America was built on the idea of people making a way for themselves and living or dying by their own successes or failures. We've moved pretty far away from that and do now have social programs and safety nets, smaller than many European countries' nets, but the expectation of making a way for yourself is still under the surface. Many people simply don't want the level of welfare programs seen in other countries.

> By troop count, munitions stock, or the number if tanks and jets I don't see anyone as having a particularly impressive military in Europe.

compared to what? Who does Europe need to fight who has more ammo, tanks, jets and nukes? Russia has proven itself unable to take on Ukraine with half-assed support by the west, China and India are far away.

Shall Europe prepare to fight the US for Greenland?

Russia has an estimated 1.5 million troops and plenty of equipment. They have seemed to still be very lacking in military logistics, which is crucial, but they also haven't seemed to be throwing everything they have at Ukraine.

I'd strongly recommend you not underestimate Russian ability by assuming Ukraine is the best they could do. That doesn't mean they are going to invade further into Europe, but we're talking about military size and deterrence here.

that was a somewhat defensible if somewhat silly position back in 2022, but in 2025 with part of Russia occupied by Ukraine, the Soviet stockpiles emptied, and North Koreans being brought in to fill the gaps, what the hell are you talking about?

I actually expected them to do better (militarily, obviously worse for Ukraine) in the first few days of the war. They showed the Russian military hadn't learned much from their previous logistics issues, but resources wasn't the problem.

Sounds like we just have different expectations of how stretched the Russians are today, nothing wrong with especially as I'm assuming neither of us have access to the most meaningful field assessment reports.

My view on how the Russians have handled the war, since losing their chance at a quick sweep, has been that they are doing only enough to keep pressure and roughly maintain the front line gains they made. Sure that line has moved, and Ukraine did a pretty impressive job capturing some Russian territory which I don't think was expected by many, but the Russians seem to be balancing a lot more than just a single goal of victory.

I'm curious where you are getting reliable Intel on the Russians current stockpile of munitions, I haven't come across anything meaningful there publicly beyond potentially politically motivated statements and reporting regurgitating those same claims.

Edit: its worth noting there are other reason the North Koreans may have sent troops. If the country is feels the military needs actual combat experience for whatever reason, for example, they could send troops regardless of whether it actually helps the Russian effort.

For a detailed description of Russian losses to date, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzR8BacYS6U. (with data mostly from https://www.youtube.com/@CovertCabal/videos which go into the satellite pictures which are pretty hard to dispute.) The TLDR is Russia to date has lost

almost all their functional BMDs

~4/5ths of their functional BMPs

almost all of their MTLBs and MTLbus

~2/3rds of their big artillery

~1/3rd of their small artillery (because they are short on ammo)

all of their mortars

~4/5ths of their towed artillery (that isn't from WW2)

~9/10ths of their rocket artillery

Furthermore, these numbers have been cross correlated with visually confirmed loss data https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum..., .

I'm sure Russia can do more, e.g. they have not enacted martial law and forced conscription. What I'm saying is that the current level of deterrent seems enough given what we now know about Russia's military might.

NATO-without-USA has more aircraft, tanks, and watercrafts than Russia. Less stored ammo for sure, and probably not as effective, but on the other hand: nukes.

I'd be curious if NATO would actually stay together without the US, though to be clear that's a theoretical curiosity that I'd be happy never to see answered.

It sure seems to me like NATO is largely built on the assumption of US involvement, but I could be biased there.

People don't want to be taken care of if they're sick or injured? They'd rather be backfired or dead because of an accident? Unless if they participate in the American employment cabal?

Please. People want to be taken care of. America was built by people escaping famine and people escaping poor living/working conditions.

In other words, it was built by people trying to make a better living for themselves. Living or dying by your success or failure wasn't a desirable feature, it was an incidental side effect of colonizing a new land.

You're cherry picking only the benefits of welfare programs and ignoring downsides.

Ask a person if they would prefer to be taken care of when sick and of course the answer would be yes. It isn't that simple.

Welfare programs require taxes to fund them and larger government bureaucracy to manage them. Not everyone agrees with that, and not every government is actually trustworthy to manage the programs well.

But being the "policeman of the world" has helped with preserving dollar's status as the major currency for international transactions between third countries, and in particular for oil, which in turn makes the dollar a desirable currency, because everyone has and wants to have dollars, and has allowed the federal central bank to print the trillions of dollars it had been printing over and over without it losing its value. Any other country's currency would have been super-inflated if they did the same.

> Lots of bad decisions but the world also takes for granted the open seas, etc. that come at a great cost to Americans in reduced social services like health insurance and higher education.

Thanks for the laugh

The reason the US defence budget is so sky-fucking-high is because we effectively pay for everyone's military, though.

I doubt the other budget line items would see an increase with defence cuts, but we certainly don't need the entire defence budget for just our own sake. America doesn't need 11 nuclear aircraft carriers or nearly 2500 F-35s, among other excesses.

Also: Attitudes like yours sincerely make me want to see America First pushed more literally to the point of leaving those who don't appreciate us to fend for themselves. Japan, EU, and so on.

Obama already declared we aren't the world police anymore, for better or worse.

Any talk that assumes the US defense budget is massive is silly. It's approx 12% of the federal budget and 3.4% of the nation's GDP. It seems large because the US is rich and it seems large compare to the EU because most of the EU, besides Poland, decided it was a lot cheaper to have a token force and leave the real work to the Americans.

Using the left-hand list here as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...

It takes all nine of the top 10 countries besides America (#1) to finally match and exceed the American defence budget. Of those nine, only two (Germany and France) are EU members.

In a word, the American defence budget is fucking massive and we certainly don't need anywhere even remotely most of it for ourselves.

You’re missing the parent’s point. It’s large in absolute terms but not as a percentage of GDP (3.5%). And for countries spending less, once again the point is that they’d rather spend less and lean on the US when things really hit the fan (see: European countries not chipping in the requisite 2% of GDP for NATO funding; roughly half of that “OMG so massive” US military spending goes towards NATO).

Edit: yes my bad, I was meaning this comment for another poster in the thread.

...But that's exactly what I'm saying?

Seriously. You just more or less repeated what I've been saying, minus the potentially spiteful sentiment.

From my original comment:

>The reason the US defence budget is so sky-fucking-high is because we effectively pay for everyone's military, though.

Size of the budget is all in the eye of the beholder though. I don't think its unreasonable for someone to see 12% of the total budget going to defense as massive, especially when the country isn't actively at war.

> The reason the US defence budget is so sky-fucking-high is because we effectively pay for everyone's military, though

Yes, but don't act like that is some kind of selfless act. In the end, it benefits the US more if they do that and have military bases and influence all over the place, than not doing that. If that also protects their allies, even better, since then it can be used to better justify the international meddling (as you're doing now).

> but there is a large financial cost to always being ready for war. The US has spent 80 years being the "policeman of the world" for good or bad.

The US has never gone through the stage of being "ready for war" and instead went for the "living from one war to the next"

> takes for granted the open seas

The open seas is a myth. It is the American seas unless you have a lot of nuclear weapons.

> that come at a great cost to Americans in reduced social services like health insurance and higher education

But also brought lots of business and investment too. On total it's positive, otherwise the US would not do it. *I am not saying the distribution of the incoming wealth was equal.

are you claiming that the US disadvantages non-American traffic? like Chinese vessels are less safe, or not free to travel, or prone to piracy?

I think that's not the case. you can make a case that Russia's "shadow fleet" is being treated with some bias, but then again...

well, EU are enjoying NATO Protection (what I mean nato is only few nato country that really spend money on their military)

some country didn't spend as much even almost downscale its military and you expect the same benefit while didn't want any cost associated with it, how it make sense and fair for everyone???

You should update your information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com