Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Defensive Value of Generosity

The Defensive Value of Generosity (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2017, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Germany and Japan want that? My guess is no, because it’s the ****ing sweetest deal ever.
These countries are already adapting: France and Germany are taking steps to found a European army. And Japan's government is now trying to change Japan's constitution to abolish Article 9, the provision that prevents Japan from having a proper military. In the end, it's not a matter of what Europe or Japan wants, the writing is on the wall. Although I do think a lot of people in Europe and in Asia think that it is past time to revisit the post-WW2 arrangements.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Our defense spending is close to the lowest it’s been since before WWII. It’s not at its lowest point because we just had to pay for two wars.
The peace dividend as envisioned by Bush Sr., Thatcher and other politicians of that generation was that defense spending could be lowered significantly below those levels. US defense spending is still higher than that of the next 7 or 8 countries combined — why is that necessary? Imagine what the world would be like, if the US cut its military budget in half or to a third?

Just looking at the budget deficit, it is not as if the US can afford that level of military spending, and if it continues on that path, it may bankrupt the US. That doesn't sound very smart to me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2017, 09:35 PM
 
France, Germany, and Japan could better spend that money solving world hunger. They’re under the protective umbrella of the United States. Any threat to them would need to face the military which spends more than the next 8 militaries combined. Much better protection than they could ever hope to provide themselves.

Which is why our defense spending is necessary. Our military makes threatening any of those countries, and numerous others, a non-starter.

This umbrella has provided, and continues to provide, incalculable benefit to progress. I’m not using hyperbole when I rank it amongst humanity’s greatest achievements.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 15, 2017 at 09:48 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2017, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
France, Germany, and Japan could better spend that money solving world hunger. They’re under the protective umbrella of the United States. Any threat to them would need to face the military which spends more than the next 8 militaries combined. Much better protection than they could ever hope to provide themselves.
Have you noticed what the mood amongst the voting public is in the US? Every president from George W. Bush on ran on a “humble foreign policy”, on pulling the US out of conflicts. Also Trump's “America first” is just a continuation of that.

And because many of the policies of the US diverge from those of the rest of the world, be it on climate change, the Middle East or world trade, where the US stands more and more isolated, the cost of chaining yourself to the US is increasing. Before Trump, that tension could be managed somewhat, but Trump's decisions, which follow through on stances that Congress has taken for more than a decade, to change these policies put an end to any hope that this will change in the future. Before the Cold War ended, the interests of the US and those of its Western allies were closely aligned. Now, on a lot of important issues, the US is literally isolated by (its own!) choice. And it is just a natural consequence to rethink also the fundamental defense architecture.

If the US's stance doesn't fundamentally change, and I don't see that it will, there will come a day when this will come to a head. Where the US will try to force its traditional allies to do something they really disagree with.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which is why our defense spending is necessary. Our military makes threatening any of those countries, and numerous others, a non-starter.
That's circular reasoning: it is necessary because you want to outspend everyone else by a huge margin. Precisely because the US's stances are becoming more and more erratic, it is not as desirable or beneficial for its traditional allies as it once was.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This umbrella has provided, and continues to provide, incalculable benefit to progress. I’m not using hyperbole when I rank it amongst humanity’s greatest achievements.
I think you are overestimating the significance of the military and not taking into account the costs associated to that. The Marshall Plan and its Japanese equivalent is what propelled the West forward: the US (whose homeland hasn't been touched by war, and therefore its economy was fully intact) lent European and Asian countries money to rebuild, but these moneys had to be used for US goods. That scheme was win-win for both sides, and fueled the US's well-being until the 1970s when it petered out. Similarly, Europe was rebuilt quickly, and their economies got back in rather good shape. Other countries like Afghanistan wanted to be like the US (just have a look at photos from Kabul in the 1970s).




Soft power due to the West's and American core values are what was responsible for that. Nowadays, a lot of Americans don't see that and focus on hard power.

If you look at a lot of the problems you see in the world now, it is that the US has gone farther and farther apart from one of its foundational myths, that the US is not in search of monsters to destroy. After WW2, the US hasn't won a war. After winning a just, moral war, it acquired a penchant for supporting pliable dictators rather than risk the people democratically elect the “wrong party”. Just after WW2, the US insisted on putting Nazis and Japanese nationalists on trial, even the worst of the lot were supplied with defense council as a matter of principle and not all of them were sentenced to death. Look at where the US is now. Bin Laden was executed rather than tried. Politicians want to deny even US residents basic constitutional rights. It's a deterioration of the moral core of the US — and most of its allies as well.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2017, 11:33 AM
 
The United States maintains its military to insure aggression towards it or its close allies is unquestionably a losing proposition. How is this reasoning circular?

For my entire life, the United States has unwaveringly desired to insure the safety of its allies. Full stop. Talk of pulling out of conflict has nothing to do with this. Our close allies haven’t been in conflict.

One may question Trump’s resolve, but the Joint Chiefs and the three Generals in Trump’s cabinet are unwavering in this desire.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2017, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The United States maintains its military to insure aggression towards it or its close allies is unquestionably a losing proposition. How is this reasoning circular?
Your argument was that the US's exorbitant military spending is necessary because its allies won't spend the money on defense, and because the US has to play the role of world police. It's circular, because if the US keeps up its high military budget, there is no reason for other countries to increase military spending.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For my entire life, the United States has unwaveringly desired to insure the safety of its allies. Full stop. Talk of pulling out of conflict has nothing to do with this. Our close allies haven’t been in conflict.
The world has changed since the end of the cold war. As long as there was a common enemy, there was close alignment in the goals of America and its allies. These have drifted apart, and there is no external enemy to patch things over. In Europe, the European Union is seen as the guarantor of peace and stability. Ditto for free trade and climate change. The current President and at least the GOP in Congress see it critically, but it is false to see Trump as an aberration, Congress already was and is skeptical towards these issues. As a result, the US has been receding on many issues, leaving a vacuum that is taken up by China and to a lesser extent the EU. Trump isn't the disease, he is the symptom of a shift that started more than two decades ago in American politics, the GOP in particular.

Moreover, we already know that the US's guarantees are not absolute, we have seen that just recently. While France and Japan may rest assured for now that they are safe, what about then inviolability of Poland? What about Bulgaria? What about Moldova? What about Ukraine? The first two were easy “Yes!”, but what about the third? And the last?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One may question Trump’s resolve, but the Joint Chiefs and the three Generals in Trump’s cabinet are unwavering in this desire.
Generals don't make policies, the President and Congress do. Entrusting this kind of decision making to generals is wrong in a democracy, you shouldn't leave this to the military. And because Trump is a symptom, many of his policy stances are popular and are in fact shared by many in Congress.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2017, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Your argument was that the US's exorbitant military spending is necessary because its allies won't spend the money on defense, and because the US has to play the role of world police. It's circular, because if the US keeps up its high military budget, there is no reason for other countries to increase military spending.
This was not my argument, hence me rephrasing it to be better understood.

The United States maintains its military to insure aggression towards it or its close allies is unquestionably a losing proposition.

It was argued Bush 43 and Obama (who were in my lifetime) desire to move away from being responsible for the safety of our allies. Show me any action which they took over those 16 years demonstrating this.

I don’t approve of Generals wielding the amount of power they do at the moment, but I’m hard pressed to show how one of those problems is they think letting Japan or Germany swing in the wind (or, frankly, that either should be let anywhere near an offensive army) is a good idea.

Unfortunately, Moldova and Ukraine are screwed. Just ask the Georgians. The window for keeping Russia from gangbanging former Soviet republics is long past.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2017, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It was argued Bush 43 and Obama (who were in my lifetime) desire to move away from being responsible for the safety of our allies. Show me any action which they took over those 16 years demonstrating this.
I have already given several examples, the protection of outlying EU states and those associated with the EU, Congress's and the US government's lack of support for crucial political issues such as the EU, global warming and trade. The US is on the opposing side of a lot of these issues, be it the international relations to Iran (e. g. Congress was opposed to the agreement that the Obama Administration negotiated) or trade talks. The TTP will go on, but without the US, a move that fundamentally strengthens China's position in the world. You could say that Trump is responsible for this, but there are many previous lesser known steps. The US's insistence that China not join the World Bank meant that China funded its own equivalent with the help of partner countries. The US has been ceding ground for years now, instead of being the leader on climate change, democratization or trade, it opted out.

And before you object that this doesn't have anything to do with the military, keep in mind that for Europeans (at least those on the continent), the EU is the key political instrument that guaranteed peace amongst its members. And for Asian countries allied with the US, the US's main role was to keep China at bay. The US is giving up its soft power in a lot of places, and that means its allies have to look beyond the US to ensure their future.

On the American side I can understand why: President Bush Sr.'s notion of peace dividend made a lot of sense, and his son, Obama and Trump ran successfully on (very different versions of) a humbler foreign policy. Americans have sacrificed a lot to win the Cold War, and after you finish a war, you take the troops home. This was something that resonated with the American people across the aisle, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing — as it need not be ceding ground to others. But that is what it has become.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t approve of Generals wielding the amount of power they do at the moment, but I’m hard pressed to show how one of those problems is they think letting Japan or Germany swing in the wind (or, frankly, that either should be let anywhere near an offensive army) is a good idea.
Congress doesn't see it that way, and neither does Trump and a significant share of the voting public.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Unfortunately, Moldova and Ukraine are screwed. Just ask the Georgians. The window for keeping Russia from gangbanging former Soviet republics is long past.
If things go well, Moldova is scheduled to become a fully fledged member of the EU in 2019. And its citizens already enjoy quasi-EU status, because they are eligible to get a Romanian passport — and Romania is part of the EU. And what you just admitted is that the US does not guarantee the safety of all EU member states and those associated with the EU. Imagine now if the US secured all of its states but Alaska and Hawaii — they are pretty far away from the mainland anyway. That's the equivalent here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 02:52 PM
 
Sorry this took so long!

If Moldova joins the EU, then they’ll benefit from our protection. Where did I say member states don’t receive our protection?

If Trump doesn’t think the way I stated, why did he stuff his cabinet with people who disagree with him? Is Trump known for that?

Even though I’m not supposed to ask what the provided examples have to do with the military, I’m going to ask anyway. We don’t support the Paris Agreement, or the TPP. So what? It’s quite a jump to us abdicating our military responsibilities.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2017, 12:35 PM
 
Why aren‘t you supposed to ask? If you don‘t understand the connection or you want to question it, feel free to ask!

My point wasn‘t that diverging interests in other policy arenas implies the US is abdicating its military responsibilities, the point is that this is less and less desirable. Other countries no longer feel they can rely on the US, even worse they are diametrically opposed to the US on many essential policy positions. There is no need to push the US out, but all countries are taking measures for a time after the US removes its military support. Japan is working to repeal Article 9 in its current form and prepares for nuclear armaments. Germany and France are planning to work together miliatarily. However, military support is just part of the benefits of being in an alliance, but an alliance is based on shared interests. And that basis is eroding.

Regarding Trump‘s cabinet, honestly, I think Trump is pretty clueless when it comes to policy details of any sort, so I don‘t think he consciously stuffed his cabinet with people who disagreed with him. At best, the combination of Trump‘s volatile and often ill-informed bouts of activity and attempts at moderation by other cabinet members will at best lead to paralysis — while other countries are plowing ahead. Plus, a lot of what Trump says just seem to be words with no actions. To take one example, he raised a huge stink about the trade deficit with Germany. The Germans tried to get in touch with the State Department and there was literally nobody home. Since then I haven‘t heard anything about it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2017, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why aren‘t you supposed to ask? If you don‘t understand the connection or you want to question it, feel free to ask!
Well, I’m more objecting by way of question to something which was theoretically addressed.

What is the argument how our government’s view on TPP or the Paris Agreement is transferable to our military policy?

The evidence given is this century’s Presidents campaigned on humble foreign policy, yet between 2000 and 2010, our defense budget doubled. I argue what we did is more relevant than what we said.

Allow me to rephrase my point about Trump. He has so many Generals in his cabinet because they’re one of the few groups of people he actually respects. Those three, along with however many are attached to the Joint Chiefs, are all going to tell Trump to maintain or increase defense spending, and to use it to protect our allies.

He will agree.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2017, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What is the argument how our government’s view on TPP or the Paris Agreement is transferable to our military policy?
If other countries's interests diverge from those of the US's, then their willingness to rely on the US for their defense posture decreases. Plus, all of the other things mentioned tie in directly to (US and foreign) military policy. The US military, for example, sees global climate change as one of the biggest drivers of conflict in the future.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The evidence given is this century’s Presidents campaigned on humble foreign policy, yet between 2000 and 2010, our defense budget doubled. I argue what we did is more relevant than what we said.
The American people (just like any other peoples) are not without contradiction: they want to get out of international conflicts and have a strong military. Nevertheless, they have consistently voted for candidates advocating for a lesser involvement in international affairs (in importantly different ways, though, to be fair). You are right that despite that, the US defense budget has ballooned, and I think a sizable chunk of the American population is in favor of both, less involvement abroad and more military spending — even if the former would obviate the latter.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Allow me to rephrase my point about Trump. He has so many Generals in his cabinet because they’re one of the few groups of people he actually respects. Those three, along with however many are attached to the Joint Chiefs, are all going to tell Trump to maintain or increase defense spending, and to use it to protect our allies.
Implicit in that is that other countries aren't completely sovereign and don't have a say in what they want their relationship with the US to look like — but they do. And trust in the US as a reliable partner has declined in the last few decades, and that does and will have consequences.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
...their willingness to rely on the US for their defense posture decreases.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
...that does and will have consequences.
“If the US keeps behaving this way, we’ll show them who’s boss by spending way more money in exchange for a fraction of the security!”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2017, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“If the US keeps behaving this way, we’ll show them who’s boss by spending way more money in exchange for a fraction of the security!”
Your focus on military spending is clouding your perception, loss of military influence is a lagging indicator, a consequence of a loss in soft power.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 02:33 AM
 
I’m focusing on military spending because if Europe and Japan start paying for their own, the money is going to come out of the social services they love to rub in America’s face.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 03:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m focusing on military spending because if Europe and Japan start paying for their own, the money is going to come out of the social services they love to rub in America’s face.
Why do you assume that? I don't think this is accurate: Japan has been running deficits for years on end and has recently raised taxes. Germany has a budget surplus, and is contemplating how to deal with it (i. e. what percentage of the surplus should be spent on reducing the deficit vs. infrastructure upgrades vs. tax breaks). And many of these social programs have an ancient history (Germany introduced public health insurance and other social programs in the 1880s — nope, that's not a typo). Moreover, Europe's and Japan's social programs tend to be more efficient. E. g. most countries finance their whole public medical system with less than what the US government alone is currently spending — without having universal healthcare, though.

Governments in Europe are not as shy about raising taxes as they are in the US. That's good — if you want stuff, you need to pay for it. (Japan is a different case, though.) With Britain leaving the EU, the EU can proceed to coordinate its military efforts, it is neither necessary nor cost efficient for 10 countries to develop their own submarines, fighter jets and so forth.

However, in the end, it is not about military spending, it is about the health of the alliance with the US. I might come across as enjoying this, as if I find this to be a great development. I'm not. I'm worried about my friends in the US being left behind and moving farther and farther away from everyone else. Don't get me wrong, the US can and should leave the responsibility on broader shoulders and not pretend it needs to be able to outspend the next 7-8 countries by itself. That is depriving Americans of resources, costs lives and I don't think has paid off.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 01:18 PM
 
You are correct. My point was poorly made. The idea I attempted to get across is if Europe and Japan transition away from an effectively free lunch model, they will need to adopt a not so free one.

This is supposedly because Trump is pushing divergent interests, however I again note the only people Trump actually listens to are fully committed to protecting our allies.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 11:38 PM
 
I worry that our diminishing military power and international influence (thanks Brexit) will see the loss of a stabilising influence on the US. I think even Trump would listen to us at the moment but that it won't last very much longer and I wonder how bad that might be for everyone in the long run.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2017, 12:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You are correct. My point was poorly made. The idea I attempted to get across is if Europe and Japan transition away from an effectively free lunch model, they will need to adopt a not so free one.
Nobody expects a free lunch, and I don't see a problem to pay for that if the political will is there. France can provide a nuclear shield, and while there may not be global destruction, France's nuclear capabilities are scary enough to cause a nuclear winter and put one major nuclear power to ruins. Japan can deploy its own nuclear weapons within 6-24 months according to current estimates — it has missile technologies (from its civilian rocket program), has plenty of nuclear material (thanks to its reliance on nuclear power) and only has to put the pieces together.

I am scared of a world where more countries have nuclear capabilities, and precisely because I think this is a realistic possibility.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is supposedly because Trump is pushing divergent interests, however I again note the only people Trump actually listens to are fully committed to protecting our allies.
This is not about Trump! It is a long-term trend that has started at least two decades ago, and became obvious during the George W. Bush presidency. And it is a movement that started from the bottom, from the American populace. Your insistence to start from the military side is quite telling, because this is not how other countries think. (I'm not sure whether I am doing a good job at convincing you of that.) Military cooperation is only a small, but significant part of a political alliance. An alliance based solely on military cooperation but without political foundation will not last.

Moreover, it has been almost 30 years, which means that soon the last officer, general and staffer to grow up during the Cold War will have retired.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I worry that our diminishing military power and international influence (thanks Brexit) will see the loss of a stabilising influence on the US. I think even Trump would listen to us at the moment but that it won't last very much longer and I wonder how bad that might be for everyone in the long run.
For much of the post-WW2 period the UK was a bridge from continental Europe to the US — and now it is abandoning this position. The Brexit vote broke my heart, because I feel bad for rooting for a tough break, knowing full well that my British friends didn't want this to happen.

Soon enough the UK will be a lonely agent, that will have to try to move closer to non-European countries, but with diminished importance.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,