Do recent global developments change your view on defense spending?

[brianpatrick]

Focusing on your last sentence.

Often, homeless are rounded up eventually if they make a nuisance of themselves (aggressive panhandling for example) and they spend the night or two in jail...paid for by your taxes.

If they are found to be mentally (and many are), they go into treatment...paid for by your tax dollars.

Now, I am willing to bet that should they show up (or perhaps already have), you want them out as they bring down the neighborhood value and more importantly (I'm being serious here) they could be a safety risk...and you will call the police to remove them (I would as well, and I have)...so regardless of where they wind up....you and I will foot the bill with whatever happens.

So...since we are going to pay for it anyway...why not pay for programs that gives them housing, a treatment plan and a stable life a roof could give them to help them get jobs and to be more productive members of society instead of paying for the vicious cycle to continue forever. It may take time and not all will be successful...but since we are going to pay anyway, shouldn't we at least try?

That's for those who aren't mentally ill and who...choose...this lifestyle. I'm not sure why choosing this way of life is appealing to a rational person to live on the streets, in filth, dealing with violence, and I'm not sure why you think that way. But the sad truth...for those of us who deal with homelessness more than others....it's usually related to drugs and mental issues...not really a desire to live off the government teat by giving up the amenities of an apartment, electricity and available food and hygiene and living like a grub on the street.

It ends in some form of socialism eventually. Capitalism runs out of fuel to burn, and totalitarian socialism (right and left) is stamped out.

 

[Evilroddy]

For a non-state terrorist organization, and it was still the US carrying it, though the support from our allies was nice. I shared a base in Afghanistan with Italians who were administratively responsible for security operations in Farah but it was actually our forces that did all the work.

Do you ever wonder why no state actor violated NATO though? Doesn't your comment make you think of the cause? What kept a much more powerful and aggressive USSR in check? A broken and spent Europe? Please, don't kid yourself.

Fishking:

Well both Britain and France were nuclear-armed states. That as much as US forces in Europe may have had an impact on Russian military thinking in the early Cold War.

By the mid-nineteen-seventies Europe had recovered enough from the shocks of WWII to plausibly defend its territory conventionally if needs be. However NATO was designed to allow the hegemonic USA to constrain the Europeans from renewing their warlike and incessant bickering as much as it was to ward off the threat of Soviet invasion. By the early to mid 1980's the situation had shifted further in favour of the NATO alliance and they (the West) then accelerated their attempts to covertly but energetically undermine the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact with a mind to rolling back the Iron Curtain eastwards. That achieved fruition less than a decade later. When Russia degenerated into a shambles in the last part of Gorbachov's and all of Yeltsin's presidencies, the reaction came from Russian elites and it was the grooming and virtual appointing of President Vladimir Putin. That reaction has been unfolding since just before 2000 and is beginning to crest now. Alas those elites who thought they could use and control Putin miscalculated badly and now they are in thrall to him as he plays out his egomaniacal historical destiny desires.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[gbg3]

Typical Trump lots of rhetoric with zero follow through. We saw it over and over again.....all talk, no action.

Oh, he did get action (more than any other president had in decades). Just not as much as I would have liked. I think the basement dwellers of NATO stink.

"Democrats in Congress this week are contemplating a bill that would prevent President Trump from pulling out of NATO, saying his remarks of the last year have damaged the organization.

But according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the strong statements from the American President may have saved the joint military defense alliance from extinction–and American taxpayers billions of dollars. General Stoltenberg states this week that President Donald Trump’s repeated calls for other countries to increase their financial contributions have made a real impact after member nations agreed to fork out tens of billions of dollars in additional funding to their defense budgets."

NATO General says Trump has raised extra $100 billion - Metro Voice News

Democrats in Congress this week are contemplating a bill that would prevent President Trump from pulling out of NATO, saying his remarks of the last year have damaged the organization. But according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the strong statements from the American President may...

metrovoicenews.com

'Trump is having an impact': NATO head credits president's tough talk for $100B boost

Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, said Trump is helping the alliance adapt to "a more unpredictable world."

www.usatoday.com

Three charts that show why Trump thinks NATO is a bad deal

Money is an issue as heads of state and government meet in the U.K. this week for the 70th anniversary of the military alliance.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Evilroddy]

So we would go to war over Lativa. A NATO nation of less than 2 million. Seems silly to me.

Washunut:

That's what someone like Vladimir Putin earnestly hopes for. Collective defence is only as good as its weakest part. If you sacrifice one member state, then you weaken all member states' future chances of enjoying peace through deterrence. An attack on Ukraine (a country outside of the NATO protective umbrella) is not like an attack on the Alliance itself. If Russia decides to cross that line then NATO must both defend its community of member states but also punish Russia extraordinarily for the transgression, upto and including nuclear, biological and Chemical warfare. This will be Total War like the world has never seen. It is better to make this line absolutely clear to Russia before hostilities break out than to demonstrate that resolve in combat later. That is from me, an anti militarist and someone who abhors war and the suffering/ruin it begets.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[gbg3]

The US. The rest can stay.

Good comment!

 

[The Mark]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

Depends what they're spending the funding on.

As I understand it, they've never been successfully audited, so we just don't know.

If most of that funding is going to various necessary defenses against current threats, and predicted future threats, that's fine.
I can accept some corruption and waste as the price of humans being humans, but it needs to be kept at a minimum.

 

[lurchadams]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

This might be a little off topic - perhaps not -

I've seen a real change in humanity, even just over the past 3 years. We've all taken sides. No matter which side is the correct side to be on - (mine, of course (

And another thing - work ethic - my boss the other day, brazenly, right in front of us, pulled one of my fellow reps of the sales line and ordered him to go move his kid's furniture (the manager's kid). Jeez, man - what the hell is wrong with people? I gave my notice after that happened yesterday. **** that! My reputation is not going down with that place!

Last thing - work ethic - what the ****? These kids we have working with me in my same position, wander in and out whenever they feel like, it, or don't come in don't call - ****!!! I come from a generation where everywhere we go we want to make our mark - make something of ourselves.

What the **** is wrong with people?

Ok.. rant off - thanks for listening.

 

[jakiejakester]

Where does this feel good “defender of democracy” nonsense come from?

The US defends US interests globally - including strategic alliances and economic interests.

The US is not some great, moralistic “defender of democracy”

I have no idea what's the point of your post? Are you one of those people who think the world would be a better place if America only protected our own borders aka an Isolationist?

 

[washunut]

Washunut:

That's what someone like Vladimir Putin earnestly hopes for. Collective defence is only as good as its weakest part. If you sacrifice one member state, then you weaken all member states' future chances of enjoying peace through deterrence. An attack on Ukraine (a country outside of the NATO protective umbrella) is not like an attack on the Alliance itself. If Russia decides to cross that line then NATO must both defend its community of member states but also punish Russia extraordinarily for the transgression, upto and including nuclear, biological and Chemical warfare. This will be Total War like the world has never seen. It is better to make this line absolutely clear to Russia before hostilities break out than to demonstrate that resolve in combat later. That is from me, an anti militarist and someone who abhors war and the suffering/ruin it begets.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Yes what you are stating is what Putin earnestly hopes for. That is since Ukraine, a nation of 44 million is not part of some "alliance" then they are are their own. I do not want our kids in a war, but if it is not used to stop the brutal killing of innocents in Ukraine what good is our military and this alliance.

 

[Evilroddy]

Yes what you are stating is what Putin earnestly hopes for. That is since Ukraine, a nation of 44 million is not part of some "alliance" then they are are their own. I do not want our kids in a war, but if it is not used to stop the brutal killing of innocents in Ukraine what good is our military and this alliance.

Washunut:

A good question. Your military is not designed to shield others. It is designed to project power and to militarily intervene against second and third tier militaries abroad which have no nuclear aegis to protect them. So what is it good for? It excels at projecting global hegemony and maintaining a beneficial status quo to foster the American commercial empire globally. It is good for punishing economic nationalism abroad. It is excellent at controlling maritime trade and at denying resources to any state it deems a threat. It is superb at covert warfare designed to destabilise or topple foreign states.

However the US military is presently of little use in Ukraine because of Russia's nuclear shield which Russia is threatening to repurpose as a nuclear morning-star in order to bludgeon NATO and America into inaction in Ukraine. Why, because the US is rationally hesitant to be dragged into direct confrontation with the most powerful nuclear armed but conventionally militarily weak super-power in Eurasia.

The NATO alliance is still useful for deterring Russian aggression against its member states and for preventing European military adventurism or internal conflict.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[BirdinHand]

I have no idea what's the point of your post? Are you one of those people who think the world would be a better place if America only protected our own borders aka an Isolationist?

No. The United States will defend US interests globally.

But not because of being some “defender of democracy”

 

[Fishking]

Fishking:

Well both Britain and France were nuclear-armed states. That as much as US forces in Europe may have had an impact on Russian military thinking in the early Cold War.

Eventually they did. France produced their first nuclear bomb in 1963 and the US had placed our own nukes in the UK. In the wake of WW2, the US was the only country holding the USSR in place.

By the mid-nineteen-seventies Europe had recovered enough from the shocks of WWII to plausibly defend its territory conventionally if needs be. However NATO was designed to allow the hegemonic USA to constrain the Europeans from renewing their warlike and incessant bickering as much as it was to ward off the threat of Soviet invasion. By the early to mid 1980's the situation had shifted further in favour of the NATO alliance and they (the West) then accelerated their attempts to covertly but energetically undermine the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact with a mind to rolling back the Iron Curtain eastwards. That achieved fruition less than a decade later. When Russia degenerated into a shambles in the last part of Gorbachov's and all of Yeltsin's presidencies, the reaction came from Russian elites and it was the grooming and virtual appointing of President Vladimir Putin. That reaction has been unfolding since just before 2000 and is beginning to crest now. Alas those elites who thought they could use and control Putin miscalculated badly and now they are in thrall to him as he plays out his egomaniacal historical destiny desires.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Europe hadn't really recovered enough to defend themselves enough via conventional means by that time. Hell, they barely have that even today. NATO has always been effective because of US membership. There is also what you say that we help stabilize Europe in that they weren't able to go back to fighting with each other but I think the threat of the USSR also played a big role in that. It's much easier to unite when there is a bigger threat. At this point, I don't think (at least western Europe) would start waring with each other if the US pulled out and I don't think Russia would attempt an invasion beyond border countries that threaten their interests. I don't think they have the capabilities to do so on their own. Maybe if China started up to pull resources away from focusing on only Russia that might be a different story.

 

[gbg3]

I just can't stop thinking about NATO. It's led me to some opinions and while I'd propose what I'm about to discuss, I wouldn't necessarily propose it take place right now. A couple years ago and, hopefully, 6 months or a year from now, might be the correct timing. Or, maybe the current NATO members could agree to restructure into a new NATO type organization now - but as an up to date and more fair organization.

I think the U.S. should pull out of NATO, to facilitate this (IMO) needed transition. Obviously, without the U.S., I think NATO becomes practically obsolete. But the future of the current NATO would be up to the remaining member countries.

In place of NATO, I think it might make sense to form a new organization but with notable differences. I think membership into a new NATO should absolutely require minimum obligations and if any country within the new NATO failed to meet the minimum, they'd be automatically and immediately removed. Potentially they could be allowed back in at a later date if they could and would meet their required obligation (or, hopefully, more than their obligation). No grace periods whatsoever. Put up or you're out.

Then, I think it logical and important that NATO be managed per contribution. For example, countries with the most contributions, value, "stock" - should and must have the biggest role in decisions/votes, if you will. This would mean we couldn't have a leader of a country like the US, UK, or Germany (the top three contributors, for now, in NATO) take a back seat in a crisis - like I think Biden is doing right now. That's unacceptable and makes NATO (as a whole) weak and ineffective - too much just talk, and no needed leadership when time is of the essence.

So, while I think a NATO type organization might make sense - the current NATO has far too many illogical holes in it and it allows for far too many unserious countries to be recipients of potentially enormously costly protections - while they skate in an arrogant and entitled "signatory" stance. There simply must be required obligations to membership - and no exceptions.

 

[MikePrime]

Focusing on your last sentence.

Often, homeless are rounded up eventually if they make a nuisance of themselves (aggressive panhandling for example) and they spend the night or two in jail...paid for by your taxes.

If they are found to be mentally (and many are), they go into treatment...paid for by your tax dollars.

Now, I am willing to bet that should they show up (or perhaps already have), you want them out as they bring down the neighborhood value and more importantly (I'm being serious here) they could be a safety risk...and you will call the police to remove them (I would as well, and I have)...so regardless of where they wind up....you and I will foot the bill with whatever happens.

So...since we are going to pay for it anyway...why not pay for programs that gives them housing, a treatment plan and a stable life a roof could give them to help them get jobs and to be more productive members of society instead of paying for the vicious cycle to continue forever. It may take time and not all will be successful...but since we are going to pay anyway, shouldn't we at least try?

That's for those who aren't mentally ill and who...choose...this lifestyle. I'm not sure why choosing this way of life is appealing to a rational person to live on the streets, in filth, dealing with violence, and I'm not sure why you think that way. But the sad truth...for those of us who deal with homelessness more than others....it's usually related to drugs and mental issues...not really a desire to live off the government teat by giving up the amenities of an apartment, electricity and available food and hygiene and living like a grub on the street.

Because the cost of calling the police will be substantially less than paying for housing developments, treatment plans and a stable life. Also I have never called the police on the homeless because they are everywhere and the cops don't do anything, welcome to liberal California. We sacrifice and spend hours of our day working and providing for the country and we are supposed to pay for them to have the things I earn with hard work? No.
Drugs and metal illness are definitely part of it but a lot develop these illnesses because of their homelessness. A lot of them choose to live off tax payers, they would rather not have to work or try than have a clean clothes and an apartment.

Your opinion to just pay for them because oh well we already pay for other things will just enable their actions and further the problem.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

No, we don't need to spend more than the next 20 countries to be able to protect ourselves. And Russia is struggling against inferior Ukraine.

 

[jamesrage]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

I support having a strong defense for our country. I don't support spending billions of hard earned American tax dollars on the defense of other countries.

 

[Indydave]

7we have the ability to destroy every living thing on the planet several times over......we have 700 military bases around the world.......why would we want to increase military spending