this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
349 points (96.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2837 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • US Adm. John Aquilino said China's military is building up at a rate not seen since World War II.
  • That puts it on the path to meeting its goal of being ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, he said.
  • Aquilino, the outgoing head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, urged Washington to accelerate military development.

China's rapid military build-up is more expansive than anything seen since World War II, which means it's on track with its 2027 goal to be ready for a Taiwan invasion, said US Navy Adm. John Aquilino.

"All indications point to the PLA meeting President Xi Jinping's directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027," Aquilino wrote in a testimony to the US Armed Services House Committee.

"Furthermore, the PLA's actions indicate their ability to meet Xi's preferred timeline to unify Taiwan with mainland China by force if directed," added the admiral, the outgoing head of the US Indo-Pacific Command.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 18 points 7 months ago (15 children)

stay out of conflicts between other nations

Exactly. There's no way Hitler's will try to take Poland. Even if he does, it's not like the Nazis or Japanese would attack the US.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (11 children)

Americans can’t afford housing, homelessness is increasing, healthcare is unaffordable; and you want its population to support teabagging the rest of the world like it’s 1945. When militaries spread themselves thin, without the nation taking care of its home population, that spells trouble. Ask Rome.

[–] laverabe@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

All of those problems are because of political corruption, not raw money in/out. The US spends 3.5% of GDP on military, a lot, but not the most. Ranked #10 globally for military spending per GDP. Russia spends more than the US.

US is not Rome, at least not yet, or anytime in the immediate future.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I don't understand why you'd use GDP here. Is the assumption that, normalized for currency differences, all countries have the same gdp? That's not true.

I think argued earlier that tue money goes less far in the us because the cost of living is higher, so then normalize by cost or standard of living? But even that would assume that the average wage in the country is supporting the same lifestyle in both Russia and the us. Which it isn't. Some countries live "better" than others.

I think raw numbers are probably best here. 100 trillion in military spending is 100 trillion.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)