politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
All true, but in a world where nuclear weapons exist, I think all of that is only of secondary importance. I believe that in a world where even 100 million fighter jets can be destroyed by a drone, the absurdly high military spending of the US is absolutely counterproductive. I mean, what the US spends on this every year exceeds the GDP of medium-sized countries many times over - that's plenty money that is lacking in many important areas and could be invested much more sensibly.
In my opinion, the Chinese have recognized this and therefore do not want to be an unnecessarily expensive, apparent military power, even if they could afford it.
In short, I think it's a mistake to invest in conventional weapons instead of in your own people and infrastructure, because possessing nuclear weapons is already enough of a deterrent. I mean, if you wanted to, you could destroy the entire world with them - and that is true for decades now – no one wants that, even if you have state-of-the-art aircraft carriers.
Edit: When the Nazis were defeated, nuclear weapons did not yet exist, which is why this discussion seems rather hypothetical to me - I think today the effect would be the end of humanity because fascists would be willing to accept that. Instead, it seems all the more important to me that democratic countries try to prevent fascist movements from within.
Nuclear weapons can exterminate a populace, but they cannot occupy, pacify, and rehabilitate one. For that, you need actual boots on the ground, which requires logistics. China could have the biggest military in the world, but that doesn't mean jack-shit unless they've got a blue-water navy to ship them over here, and they don't.
Remember, this discussion is not about China defeating the US. This discussion is about China liberating the US from the MAGAs the way the US liberated Germany from the Nazis. Nukes and drones are categorically useless for that purpose.
I completely agree with you, although things like cyber warfare also play a significant role here, in which the Chinese are on a par with the US.
Nevertheless, I think all this is pointless, because in my opinion, wars of invasion are only possible against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons – if this were not the case, a country like North Korea would no longer exist. So you are right in a way – but not because there is no military superpower comparable to the US, but because nuclear weapons exist, which makes conventional military superiority superfluous. That was simply not the case in the Second World War.
As I said, I think the Chinese have recognized this, which is why they are investing their money much more wisely. Also, as I said, we are talking about inconceivable amounts of money - such amounts that you could easily pay for decent social security for every US citizen, as is the case in virtually every Western country besides the US. That seems much more sensible to me.