United States | News & Politics

2032 readers

990 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

582

Sanders Rips Lawmakers Saying 'We Don't Have the Money' While Backing $900 Billion for Military (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 1 week ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/usa@midwest.social

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"I think it's time to tell the military-industrial complex they cannot get everything they want," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It's time to pay attention to the needs of working families."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I kind of agree, but also think it's important to understand a few things about this:

The US needs to keep its military-industrial complex active and technologically advanced at all times if it wants to be a military powerhouse. It can't decide to start it up whenever it wants because war machines have gotten too advanced. During WWII, it was easy to get the complex rolling because they just needed to churn out simple prop planes, tanks, rifles, and food. Now, they need stealth planes, laser-guided munitions, and high-tech chips.
Because of the geography of the US and the geopolitical situation, it would likely fight a two-front war. If the US goes to war with a formidable power, said power would surely ally with another. The US will not just fight China alone. Russia and North Korea would join. Therefore, the US military needs to be large enough to fight knowing that by population, the US is much smaller. China has just over 4 times the population of the US.
Having an overwhelmingly large and technologically advanced military serves as a deterrent. It's best to never go to war. It saves lives, economies, social institutions, etc. By having a decisively superior military, those that would consider starting a war avoid doing so.
The Department of Defense and military-industrial complex is a huge jobs program anyway. Service members receive training and all sorts of benefits that support them and their dependents. Military production companies receive reliable government contracts that make their business ventures stable investments while employees receive relatively adequate pay. If the government did not fund those contracts, all those businesses would go out of business and everyone involved would have to find other means of sustenance.
The US provides military defense and deterrence for more than just itself. It's practically the department of defense for most Pacific islands including Japan and the Philippines. It's also a necessary supporter of the EU and South Korea.

I'm not saying that I agree to the spending or that we shouldn't spend more on social welfare, but the solution is not obviously clear as just spending less on defense in my opinion.

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or maybe, and it's a big maybe, the US could start badgering like a good neighbor with the rest of the world and the need for most off that military would disappear. Something like stop helping dictators, warmongers, greedy corporations, ... and start pushing for human rights. And this time actually doing it, not just saying it.

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

And the same can be said about France, Russia or any other country that does the same shit.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Meh, some of it sure. But actually a lot of what we'd need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.

Also, it doesn't need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.

[–] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

But actually a lot of what we’d need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.

That's true, so we'd need more details to discuss specific spending and costs.

Also, it doesn’t need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.

The naval and island hopping campaign battles for the Americans in WWII seemed like they had to happen. I would prefer that the battles take part in the open ocean than in the homeland, though I wouldn't want the battles to take part in islands of allied and neutral countries where the locals have to pay the toll either. Still, it seems like a war with China and Russia at the very least would take part in Europe and the Pacific. Perhaps Africa will be a theater since Russia and China have been developing a lot there. In fact, Wagner Group (the Russian mercenaries that was lead by Prigozhin) has had a presence there for years now. Regardless, that's only China and Russia.

If North Korea joined, then we would include the Korean peninsula, of which North Korea has spend decades preparing for an invasion by digging tunnels and setting up other defenses while their population is brainwashed to fear anything that is not North Korean. If Iran jumps in, then the Middle East including the Persian Gulf which would be an important theater because of energy/oil resources. Basically, a war like that would have the capacity to involve more than two fronts.