Worst part is even though it probably is the best military by a good margin, it’s not very good at all if you look at this stat. It should be way better. These 10 countries combined would easily roll America. Although there will be no one left to enjoy the win afterwards
Oh, you didnt develop your reading skills yet. Let me rephrase it ‘If we remove nukes from the equation im not sure if they would be capable to win against usa’
Even more, Russia is doing badly in ukraine, China is a wildcard, India has like russian weapons right? They dont fair well. European countries are well prepared with high training and high tech, but probably lack resources and manpower.
Oh, you didn’t develop the part of your brain that dampens arrogance. You wrote:
without nukes I’m not so sure that would be the case.
This could easily be interpreted by someone on the internet reading some words from a random stranger as meaning without nukes (implying the 10 countries don’t have nukes or in the event of war nukes are off the table because of the mutually assured self destruction ), I’m not so sure.
People can’t read your mind. If you can’t form a sentence that rules out the possibility of it being interpreted in multiple ways, especially knowing people on the internet say dumb shit all the time, you are the one that needs to develop your writing abilities. Either that or don’t be a massive douche when someone interprets your reply incorrectly. You’re not perfect. You’ve just proved that on multiple fronts. Wake up to yourself and stop turning everything into a superiority contest.
It can project power on multiple fronts in a way that no other country can match. The US has logistics capabilities that allow it to reach the other side of the globe. But you have a point. A critical strength of the US is its network of allies, a fact not always appreciated by isolationist Americans.
Yes it can do that compared to an other country. Multiple counties could probably attack on multiple fronts in a similar way the US could if not more.
Disclaimer: know nothing. Just some unemployed neckbeard in his mid 40’s trolling with Cheeto dust fingers in between rounds of WOW in his divorced mothers mouldy basement
Well, it kind of depends on how you’re measuring. Are they attacking the US on the homeland without the aid of Canada or Mexico? In that case the terrain around the US is going to be a death trap. Any troops will land on hostile shores and quickly be mired in various mountain ranges.
But ultimately I’m not sure if it’s really that interesting of a question, outside of a “what if?” scenario. Armed forces exist in the same world as diplomacy, and the US is on good terms with many of the top ten. The big hope is that there can be military alliances that are one sided enough in size that no one wants to test the water.
I don’t think you quite understand or appreciate the sheer technological advantage the American military has, let alone volume. it’s not even close bro they could probably take on and defeat all of the top 10 nations even ignoring nukes
It’s all good. You’re not the first person that’s happened to, so I wonder if your Lemmy client can introduce a UI guide to show what comment is being replied to.
On the other hand, I doubt China is spending $14,000 on one toilet seat, so the bloated US military budget probably doesn’t even convert to proportionate fighting capabilities. For example, all that money and the US can’t even manufacture enough artillery shells to keep Ukraine going against Russia and it’s tiny sliver of expenditure on that chart.
Russia, China, and Iran (the last of which isn’t even on that image) have hypersonic missiles, which effectively mean that aircraft carriers are now pre-sunk artificial coral reefs in a direct conflict with those countries. America does not have hypersonic missiles and keeps failing their prototype tests.
I don’t think they’ve been proven in any real sense to satisfactorily bypass the insane defences those carriers have. They’re boasted as sorta wunderwaffen at this point lol
America does not have hypersonic missiles and keeps failing their prototype tests.
I don’t know how big of a priority it is for them, considering the situation Russia, China and Iran have with aircraft carriers
Well, how many aircraft carriers did the US lose so far? I mean Russia just lost a shitton of military equipment fighting one of its former allies while the US made bank by rearming half of Europe, there must be an equivalent response from Russia then, if they are capable of it, right?
Probably complicates things. If we’re taking into account the cheapness of Chinese tanks, maybe we need to evaluate the strength of American tanks and equipment vs Chinese equipment.
??? Infantry in Ukraine are able to easily take out tanks if they don’t come properly supported thanks to our anti tank munitions. This is something Russia didn’t anticipate or else they wanted have gotten so many tanks destroyed. That’s such a huge impact. Also, we haven’t even provided our newest planes to Ukraine, and still Ukraine pushed Russia back quite a bit. This war has shown how big of a difference US equipment is vs Russian.
Not really, wages make up a large portion of military expenditure and I don’t think there are major differences between the individual “strength” of a soldier/engineer/whatever.
It doesn’t work that way, each country spends it for themselves, NATO allows to combine the defense force.
The reason US spends so much is to maintain its status of super power and to allow us to live without having wars on its territory. For example what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022 is sobering experience that if you are militarily weak others will exploit the situation.
A lot of things that we are assuming are normal are possible because of it. For example. US naval force for example allowed to protect international waters allowing for global trade.
In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness.
Nah, even if they did their NATO % contribution the amount would be pitifully small. When you look at most of the articles that talk about “10 Best Places to Live” it’s mostly super small population, low immigration, countries with virtually no military.
Most NATO countries are between 1-2.5% of their GDP, but that’s only ~$300 billion. The US does ~3.5% which amounts to ~$811 billion.
The other NATO countries wouldn’t just need to meet their NATO 2%, they’d need to more than triple it. Even just for the US to come down to 2% would cause a ~$348 billion decrease (more than the rest of NATO combined).
If I were a European country free riding in NATO the last thing I’d be pushing is the US to reduce military spending.
BTW: The reason we don’t have socialized Healthcare is because certain party blocks it, not because we can’t afford it. If we had a single payer we would actually be spending overall less on Healthcare not more.
It’s not just the red team blocking it. The ACA was written by insurance companies. If the Dems actually wanted to push through single payer, they would be able to each time they have controlled Congress and the pres. Don’t get me wrong, red team has never been for it and are much more to blame, but the Dems carry it as well.
I mean…yeah? They’re a big tent party, they had to compromise within their ranks to get it passed, and even with a super majority, some Dem senators are more centrist than others.
The Democrats are not a leftist party, they never have been. They’re a collection of people who aren’t conservative. But that’s the best we can get until the county’s population stops being centrist and starts voting more left.
It’s always weird watching people protect Dems as if it’s a party of uniform desires. At least half of them in office agree more with Republicans than they do with the progressive members of the same party.
In 2022 the US spent an equivalent amount on Medicare as it did on defense ($747 billion vs $751 billion), and another $592 billion on Medicaid. US defense spending represents only 3% of GDP, and about 14% of the total federal budget.
The largest budget item is Social Security at $1.2 trillion.
Social program spending in the US massively outstrips military spending.
So sincere question: why the fuck is it so god damn awful over there then? People going bankrupt over medical bills isn’t a thing in Europe, and your social care appears non existent…why the dissonance between expenditure and apparent results?
Surprisingly, if healthcare is governed by the profit motive instead of an actual duty of care towards people, then the people in charge of healthcare will focus more on making profits than on providing care.
Never you fear, the disparity between America and Europe will go down. Not because America will improve - god no, it’ll get worse, even - but because the capitalists, backed by fascists, are here to loot European countries and rip the wiring out of the walls as the profitability crisis continues.
because the capitalists, backed by fascists, are here to loot European countries and rip the wiring out of the walls as the profitability crisis continues
Healthcare-wise this is already well under way, at least in France and the UK.
When we say military spending, what it really means is: how much is the US government granting the military industrial complex for them to accept powering its military
When we say Medicaid (and others) spending, it is: how much is the US gov giving to medical insurance companies to allow a sunset of poor people to have some healthcare?
Those companies are intentionally setting outrageous prices and the US is happy to pay them.
This is disingenuous, there is legislation in place that prevents the government from negotiating the price of medicine, keeping it wildly inflated compared to other countries. The US effectively isn’t doing social spending with that margin* but just laundering money to health insurance companies, medicine manufacturers, and patent barons.
*3 to 10 times the cost you see in other countries is the common range, I think, though in individual cases it gets much higher and there are some ~1:1 prices.
Not saying it’s right or worth the disproportionate investment, but the true value is the threat they pose keeps other countries in line (to a degree), winning the battle before it starts.
If you win a conflict decisively, then the conflict is over and weapon sales dry up. Continuous, low-level, indecisive battles are what keep the weapon dealers in business.
I’d argue that the additional funding has allowed the US to leverage the investments they’ve previously paid for in their regular budget to help Ukraine.
You cannot throw the money congress has budgeted for Ukraine at a vacuum to get nearly as much support - you need the logistics of a ready to go military industrial complex that everyone loves to hate.
Aid given to Ukraine has mainly been material the US already has. We aren’t building new weapons for them. The dollars on the aid packages is the value of the equipment.
climatejustice.social
Hot