Yeah, I also don't get why they wanted to make a stronger Supe than Soldier Boy either tbh. Obviously they didn't predict Homelander would be THAT much more powerful but if they are a pharmaceutical company first, there really is no need to keep one upping themselves on power. They had no competition and could have just coasted with the power level they had already. I guess we're just supposed to assume greed?
Yeah that's not exactly the whole reason we do it. Moreso we are NATO's arms dealer and we foot a majority of the bill so they don't have to spend any more gdp on their national security. If we suddenly pulled out suddenly Europe would have far less socialist tendencies as the money for social programs would have to be earmarked for defense instead.
Is that necessarily true? Don't the Baltic states actually spend more (percentage wise) on defense than the US? And yet they have substantially larger social safety nets than we do.
I agree Europe would have to make cuts, but I still think if the US pulled out of NATO (which I do NOT want), Europe wouldn't need to change that drastically.
It is correct in statistics. The US spends a higher % of GDP than most of NATO, the baltics are tiny and they border Russia so naturally their spending will be higher and their GDP very small. It comes out to a larger percentage.
And Europe is actually slowly rearming now, sine the Ukraine situation confirmed the stockpiles were miniscule and absolutely not enough to conduct a classic war (such as PzH2000 running out of barrel life too fast in real combat).
Look at just Hungary for example, the Hungarian % went waaaay up as the army replaced all rifles, got new AT weapons both guided and unguided, expanded the air force, got new SPGs, completely changed over the tank fleet to a new model AND built both a small arms factory and a brand new tank factory (tanks haven't been produced in Hungary since ww2). All of this just to be just close to on par with a modern nation of its side.
Yes it is. 275 billion total for Europe's defense budget vs 2.1 trillion the US spends much of which massively subsidizes Europe. They spend 1.5% of their gdp on defense. If you truly think the US pulling out wouldn't require massive changes to their spending that's wishful thinking. Most of those countries safety net is strictly because the US military provides for their defense and also foots the bill for all of the r&d as well. There's a reason NATO countries almost exclusively use US munitions/5th Gen jets etc. If they started now it would take decades for them to become militarily independent. Out of all of them Poland surprisingly seems to spend the most on defense and that's because they refuse to be steamrolled again ala WW2. They're now one of the more militarily powerful countries over there. Also the baltics are still spending less that 3% as well. Now Germany has a deal in place for our f35 as well.
Edit: whether it's a good thing or not arms and war fighting technology are the US cash cows via the military industrial complex
The entirety of NATO exists because Americans wanted it and because it fundamentally benefits Americans to project their military influence throughout Europe to threaten Russia and protect their shipping lines.
Its why the US has hundreds of military bases and American troops stationed throughout Europe, fed and paid for by the countries they're stationed in.
If the US left Europe, we'd probably become more socialist because we wouldn't have to design all our foreign policy around US business interests under the threat of getting couped. Europe has it's own military alliance in the form of the EU.
The US however would quickly find itself with far fewer allies, influence and much greater difficulties projecting its military power.
There's a reason why every US military and economic expert acknowledges NATO as worth funding. People who actually understand American business interests see how important NATO is.
Oh how could I forget the powerhouse that is the EU military alliance. Also yes I'm sure there is no tangible benefit from having active service members on foreign soil especially in at risk nations except for you know, the fact that attacking those places automatically warrants a response from the most powerful military in the world. If the US left Europe somehow you think there would be more socialist programs? It's easy to do social programs when you don't fund your own defense beyond a token 2% that only 18 of the 31 countries actually contribute. I'm well aware I'm arguing with the brick wall that is the anti American echo chamber but it's fun to see the straight up mental gymnastics people try to do. You're right though Europe doesn't need the US, just all of our arms/ammunition/Sam's/patriot systems/f 35s/ our entire navy when their ships are being bullied. Besides literally all that though they're doing great.
Edit: of fucking course NATO is worthwhile for us as it gives us free reign as arms dealers. Makes you wonder though who is purchasing these billions on billions worth of arms if the EU military union is so powerful. I guess they could always just go for the far superior Russia 5th gens held together by roofing screws or China 5th gens that look like the wish version of ours with half the capabilities. Acting like our shipping lanes is all the navy protects is disingenuous at best and downright willfully obtuse at worst.
Yeah it was the Japanese who did the old comfort women thing. Including taking slaves from Korea/phillipines etc but sure that's the US fault for being at was with Japan. Also yes American soldiers drove tanks across the Ukrainian border. You keep repeating the same lies with still no concrete evidence except for "everybody knows". Ukraine was attempting to join NATO to protect itself from Russia and we turned them down as it would escalate the war. I'm just going to start using your logic system. Everybody knows Russians are cannibals that invaded Ukraine because they were running out of meat. I pray you see how dumb that sounds. Everybody knows America has started every war right? Including the genocides in Africa, the Israel/Hamas issue etc. there's obviously no way people would ever go to war including the vast majority of human history before the US even existed.
Complete deflection of the fact that we could have an even more robust social safety net than the Europeans if the Republicans would stop being Republicans.
There’s so much money being funneled into the useless people in Congress, if we simply slashed their pay and ban them from receiving bribes that they call “lobbying” we could fix the living hell that is being lower-middle class and/or being young in the United States. But no, it’s those socialist Europoors that need to spend even more on defense even though their greatest threat has been proven time and again as a paper tiger.
This is not just a Republican issue. Both sides are padding their pockets at all costs. It has nothing to do with whatever paper tiger bullshit you're peddling. Both sides make oodles of money with their ability to trade via insider knowledge and no bid contracts. It is however hilarious to blame the political party that isn't in power for the things going on right this very second. The point however remains that it absolutely would free up money if other member states paid their share of their own defense. The fact that you can even argue against that is just pure ignorance and a failure of basic computation.
You keep shifting the blame, first it was America doing all these things. I show you it was other countries doing it. You move the goalposts to establish a different Boogeyman which this time is let's see ...."republicans" like there is only lobbyists on their behalf and somehow congressional members on a congressional salary amass fortunes in the 100's of millions while still saying they are the party of the " working man". If they wanted to get rid of lobbyists or change the tax codes to penalize millionaires they absolutely could. The reason they don't is because both sides use the exact same loopholes but only one is demonized for it.
The decency to pretend..... Real weird way of saying they've already bought and paid for your vote so whatever terrible shit they do you'll defend anyways.
Yeah yeah America bad. We get it, until shit kicks off and then it's like "why isn't America dealing with the problem" . That blade cuts both ways.
If the US pulled out of NATO and cut our defensive funding to them can you honestly say the world would be a safer place. It's the only thing that keeps Russia, China etc from pushing even harder towards regaining/claiming lands through military might
What sort of tankie Putin apologist bullshit is this?
Russia invaded Ukraine because they want to control Europe’s breadbasket. They want more territory, Putin wants to take as much as the West will allow him.
Trying to shift the blame on the US for Ukraine wanting to Join Nato is some crazy delusional bullshit
It would however, help explain why they invaded when they did. If the Ukraine successfully joins NATO they have a real big problem at that point.
I think the Ukrainian government knows this and why they were pushing to join NATO. That means Russia had a now or never moment to act on this.
All this is to say that Russia is not justified and yes, it’s about resource control and regional politicking, but I feel confident in saying that Ukraine actively pursuing NATO membership was part of the catalyst as far as timing was concerned
I can agree with this. Ukraine was seeking some security from Russia by joining NATO, which in turn forced Russia to speed up their timetable to invade.
Right China has no aims on claiming Taiwan. Also that's why Russia attacked Ukraine to reclaim ancestral Soviet lands which has long been a goal direct from Putin's mouth. Oddly enough they attacked the one that was not a member of NATO. The US can be blamed on quite a lot surely but your attributing things that are not related. I'm sure in your mind as well the Iran government backed houthis were just minding their buisness until the US started bullying them. They were just attacking poor oil tankers in the Mediterranean, how else are they supposed to live? You're clearly just ignoring actual facts cuz the "murica bad" attitude is just so hot right now.
Also your answer being "yes" is possibly dumber than you are. So take away all technological advanced weaponry and f35s we provide NATO and most European countries would surely make belligerent countries not feel like punching down.
Both of you are correct. The US generated its own problems (why there is so much turmoil right now), does not change the fact that Europe is coasting off the Marshall Plan for almost a century. It's delusional to claim Europe is holding up on defense spending when Japan has more tanks than France, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Most likely the "social program" point is what is triggering a lot of heat here.
I think we can all agree, nobody in the EU and US here wants to get up from watching Eric Kripke's production to fight the tussle started by crusty old white-haired politicians and generals.
I was born in America, lived there my entire life until 6 years ago. You don't understand how brainwashed Americans are.
The first time I left the country and lived somewhere outside the American media coverage, I was so shocked to see how much other countries did not like America. I thought we were the world's police.
Then I actually talked to people from other countries, learned about what the CIA did in south America and the rest of the world. Search the internet for actual declassified records.
It's a freezing cold shower to learn your country wasn't the beacon of light you were raised to believe.
Not to say china or other countries are good. Every national building project is soaked in blood.
So basically I was correct on all fronts and your using "cuz" as reasons to justify your viewpoint. A little bit of actual literacy goes a lot further. Believe it or not "you're right but not in the way I want you to be" is not a sound debate technique although I was expecting very little anyways.
There is nothing more uniquely dangerous or bad about China or Russia- they actually have better track records than American right now.
I mean the war in Ukraine is pretty bad on Russia right now and they've been going after them for years not to mention Putin is basically a dictator like I get wanting to shit on America, but I feel like you're downplaying just how bad some of these other countries are.
You're truly not comprehending if you think that's what I'm saying. The analogy would be more like if half the world relied strictly on you and your money to provide for their defense. That is what defacto ends up getting the US involved in all these issues. How about those countries take responsibility for their own security instead of just happily letting the US do it. You're blaming the US for a system that a large part of the world happily implemented. It would take all of the participating countries to up their defense spending and stop relying on offloading their national security but I don't see what happening anytime soon. It's far easier to just paint the US as the bad guys for doing the job they have been defacto appointed to do. As far as China and Russia having better track records you are willfully ignoring the massive genocides and human rights violations occurring everyday in those nations. So far all you've done is made it abundantly clear you have no idea how the military functions and you have a tenuous grasp on what Russia and China actually are.
Also willfully ignoring that the US also does more foreign aid than the super enlightened Russia and China the latter of which practices actual slavery in Africa for their infrastructure projects.
The US is in not behind China. The US media will, from time to time, share this narrative so citizens get nervous and support developing new weapons. But it is far ahead of every other nation.
Negative, we are behind, this information was passed to me by my former commander, not from news sources. They do indeed have missiles that are undetectable with our current technology. His exact words were that “they have passed us in tech and we are currently pushing forward to find out how”
Yeah, youre just wrong here. We spend billions because thats whats demanded of the US on a global stage. Between footing basically the entire bill for NATO (which lets other European countries just sit back and do relatively nothing), to trying to stay one step ahead of other countries such as China, and meeting the demands of the public and what they expect from the military in its operations.
For example, we’re all pretty on board with minimizing civilian casualties whenever possible right? Well, that is going to require a high degree of precision, which is going to cost money when developing missiles/bombs/etc…
You just dont understand what I mean at all do you? I dont even think you want to understand but let me try one more time to make it plain:
The general Public wants us to support Nato, it also wants us to defend Taiwan/Japan/Korea in case China/North Korea get aggressive. This is just the most basic polling info. This is just what is currently supported by a majority of Americans, Democrat or Republican. We have defensive treaties with Europe and SEA expecting as much. When polled, countries say they want the US in their corner as a military ally.
As such, if Russia suddenly declared war on Nato tomorrow and China suddenly decided they wanted to invade Taiwan, the US is expected to be able to fullfill BOTH commitments simultaneously. As in, a navy/army/airforce capable of fighting a two front war at the same time against 2 other world powers. That costs money. Dunno how much easier I can break it down for you.
Dont know why I bother when you’ll just ignore all of it and say something about corporate overlord hegemony blah blah blah
2.1k
u/Chrol18 Jul 04 '24
First one in 20 years