Is it in the US' interest that eg Europe militarizes?

[Angst]

When faced with questions why US social services are so horrible, right wingers often retort that the services are an economic impossibility due to the massive military spending of the US.

Another argument in the same vein is when you suggest universal healthcare as a solution to the subpar healthcare in the US, right wingers claim the US is leading in medical technology partially because of the income in medical institutions. US is said to be sacrificing its ability to spend socially, increasing the private industries and increasing innovation that way.

Basically the argument is that the rest of the West is freeloading on US military and research. If the US wanted the same kind of socioeconomic success, they'd have to demilitarize, which meant increasing military spending in Europe, which is currently relatively pacifist.

But the thing is, I'm not sure I buy the argument. First off US innovators corporations are knee deep in Western economies, and the massive demand created by European wealth redistribution as well as generally stable prosperous economic environments makes for a great market for export and trade. Is it really in US interest that Europe militarizes to the degree that the US do, taxing the money that would otherwise go into the pockets of businesses? EDIT: Also there's the question of potentially destabilizing the region through military proliferation.

Additionally, I think the US is currently missing out on massive possibilities by focusing so much wealth with its wealthy, as it decreases overall demand massively. Wealth redistribution would help a lot. I don't think the economic problems of the US can be boiled down to US military spending. I think there is plenty of opportunity to fix it by some relatively simple tax work.

I've never been presented statistics on these things as I have only thought of it quite recently. I'm sure that real economists have numbers on it. If you have stats, I'd love to see them.

 

[warpus]

When faced with questions why US social services are so horrible, right wingers often retort that the services are an economic impossibility due to the massive military spending of the US.

That's just flat out wrong. The reason that the U.S. doesn't support social services very much is due to politics and the fact that you guys barely collect any taxes.

Overall your military budget is high, but it's a reasonable enough % of the GDP.

That's just an excuse, really. If you guys reallllly really wanted more social services, you would just collect more in tax income and fund it all. But the political climate in your country prevents that from happening. It's not the military spending that's in the way.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nah. It's no so much that it would or wouldn't save any nickels in the USA if Europe did, it's more that Tim is right in that a bunch of ethnic states with incredibly dodgy military histories aren't really in anyone's interest to have armed.

If - direct threat from a rising and hostile power node is such that a) the US requires help in balancing it out and b) the rising threat is actually such that Europe could miraculously be trusted not to blow itself up with infighting or stomping on near neighbors because super good reasons? Then.... maaaaybe?

I mean, it's not like the USA has an impressive amazing super laudable history there either. But Europe manages to get under that bar.

 

[warpus]

it's more that Tim is right in that a bunch of ethnic states with incredibly dodgy military histories aren't really in anyone's interest to have armed.

Uhm who are you talking about here? Germany? France?

That sounds like an argument that doesn't hold much water at all.

 

[Farm Boy]

Uhm who are you talking about here? Germany? France?

That sounds like an argument that doesn't hold much water at all.

I am talking about it in the format that the question was posed. In totality.

 

[Oerdin]

Mostly because it would take some of the burden off the US and make our European partnera more capable of actually contributing something meaningful. That said the US could easily cut a third of the cost out of most purchasing programs and still get the same results because all of the contractprs know how to milk the system and drive up costs.

 

[warpus]

I am talking about it in the format that the question was posed. In totality.

So answer my question, which countries were you talking about? I'm curious eh, because what you're saying makes 0 sense

 

[Farm Boy]

So answer my question, which countries were you talking about? I'm curious eh, because what you're saying makes 0 sense

It's not that I'm not interested in your question. Merely that if that is how the OP had asked the question I would not have posted a response to it. I do not know enough about the individual components of European military history in enough depth to even offer a lay opinion on it. However, the same is true of the individual components in my car's engine. Something holistically is not the same as its pieces in isolation. I can, for all my ignorance of how any given traction control system works, grasp a high level picture of what all the pieces do when their interplay is tapped. The car operates in such and such a manner.

So, should Europe rearm? My opinion is no. Not because of any costs or savings the USA currently bears on its behalf, or for whatever unrelated reasons the USA spends on its military. Europe should not rearm because of how Europe works in totality when Europe is armed. Specifically as to how that relates to the USA's interests. Also as posed in the OP.

That fair?

 

[warpus]

So basically you don't think you know enough about this to have an opinion, but you have an opinion anyway, and to top it all off you aren't sure about the details of your own opinion?

Fair or not, that just doesn't make sense.

I mean, if you're going to say that certain European countries have a questionable military history and/or are too ethnic (hmm?) then you should at least be able to name them. Doesn't that make sense?

But I mean, at the same time, let's not derail this thread, I just thought what you were saying was very odd and was curious who exactly you were talking about, and why.

 

[Farm Boy]

So basically you don't think you know enough about this to have an opinion, but you have an opinion anyway, and to top it all off you aren't sure about the details of your own opinion?

Fair or not, that just doesn't make sense.

I mean, if you're going to say that certain European countries have a questionable military history and/or are too ethnic (hmm?) then you should at least be able to name them. Doesn't that make sense?

But I mean, at the same time, let's not derail this thread, I just thought what you were saying was very odd and was curious who exactly you were talking about, and why.

I'm going to say the continent as a whole has a questionable military history. You don't need to break out each individual part because of how military buildup and destabilization works. You cannot tease out the situation in Europe prior to The Great War by looking at England, or France, or Russia, or Germany or etc alone. You need a wider lens. None of them existed in a vacuum then and they still don't today. If a climate of rearmament takes hold in part of the continent it impacts the continent as a whole. One piece will move the other pieces. There is interplay. Angst noted this in the OP.

I guess I'm just not certain where we're disconnecting on this. I was thinking the difference between single points and integrated totalities was pretty straightforward. Since the car analogy didn't work let's try another one. In civil suits alleging that there is a hostile workplace environment towards (women/homosexual people/persons of color/whoever) the whole premise of actionable "hostile workplace environment" is that no single incident or actor is so egregious as to be actionable under the civil code, but taken in totality a collection of incidents and actors can create an actionable totality.

 

[warpus]

World War Two was over 70 years ago, though. Instead of dictatorships, empires, fascist regimes, communist regimes, etc. the EU is now exclusively made up of liberal democracies.

It makes 0 sense to point to that time in this context. It's pretty much like saying that I shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, because my racist grandpa drove a car into a tree once 80 years ago. Disclaimer: I do not have a racist grandpa, it's a hypothetical.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it would be an error to think liberal democracies are inherently safe with weaponry. They're just different. Europe has been largely disarmed compared to its past for that period of time. The living memory of the worst of the large scale horrors will be fading off in the next decade. Cultures shift more slowly than generations. People forget pain.

 

[warpus]

That doesn't justify tying WW2 to the question being asked here either.

I mean, if that's the metric we're going to go by, then every single military on the planet should be disbanded, except maybe the Swiss army.

 

[Phrossack]

The implication, then, is that European cultures are inherently warlike and cannot be entrusted with military power. The evidence given is that Europe has a war-torn past.

But going by this logic, is there any large culture on Earth that can be entrusted with military power?

 

[red_elk]

Basically the argument is that the rest of the West is freeloading on US military and research. If the US wanted the same kind of socioeconomic success, they'd have to demilitarize, which meant increasing military spending in Europe, which is currently relatively pacifist.

Europe needs to militarize to the US level, only if it wants to have similar to the US geopolitical influence in the world.
US would voluntarily demilitarize only if they decide to discard their superpower status, which is not going to happen regardless of EU actions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

World War Two was over 70 years ago, though. Instead of dictatorships, empires, fascist regimes, communist regimes, etc. the EU is now exclusively made up of liberal democracies.

It makes 0 sense to point to that time in this context. It's pretty much like saying that I shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, because my racist grandpa drove a car into a tree once 80 years ago. Disclaimer: I do not have a racist grandpa, it's a hypothetical.

Since Farm Boy beat me to my own argument (props for crediting me there FB!!!) I'll just step in here.

Europe was demilitarized because their megalomania had already disrupted the entire world for...well...all of their recorded history. Imperialism viewed as "Europe's gift to the "lesser peoples" had turned into centuries old border squabbles rooted in nothing more but sibling rivalries in the first place sprouting into "world war."

While Europe does seem to be a bit toned down on the bloodthirstiness they are best known for, this brief nap by their lowest angels doesn't mean their incessant dreams of world conquest have actually been outgrown.

To coopt your example...

Just because you have demonstrated responsible driving in your subcompact doesn't mean we should put aside that not only your grandfather but literally every male ancestor you have was a willful hit and run driver and give your son a tractor trailer to drive.

 

[Farm Boy]

The implication, then, is that European cultures are inherently warlike and cannot be entrusted with military power. The evidence given is that Europe has a war-torn past.

But going by this logic, is there any large culture on Earth that can be entrusted with military power?

The evidence given would be that Europe has a particularly war-torn past. Some other cultures seem to have had less than others. Maybe they've been held in check by capacity, rivals, and location?

 

[warpus]

The Americans are going to blindly continue throwing money at their military to retain that superpower status, no matter what happens. It gives them a lot of leverage and it seems it would be political suicide to attempt to change the status quo, so I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Europe should have a stronger military not so that the EU is a superpower or whatever, but rather that they don't need to rely on the U.S. so much for defense purposes and beyond. The U.S. would welcome a stronger European military or militaries, it would mean that they could focus their resources elsewhere.

 

[warpus]

Europe was demilitarized because their megalomania had already disrupted the entire world for...well...all of their recorded history.

If we were using this argument to demilitarize countries, then the U.S. would no longer have a military.

 

[Farm Boy]

The US has a strong and oft-villianized isolationist streak to its identity. It's weaker than it used to be, but the sections of the US population being marginalized by a globalized economy are kind of rocking that vibe again. If we go back to the first post that started this exchange Warpus, it contains no assertion that the US is a saint or is a great force of military good. It contains no statement that the US should continue its current spending. It does contain an assertion that the European continent has performed more badly with naked force than the US has, leading to the conclusion that it is not, at present, with caveats, in the USA's best interest to see our violently alcoholic cultural progenitors pick up the sticks again.