why are americans scared shitless?

[Jason]

ARPAnet gave way to... Derpanet!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not sure if the Internet was developed with military funds, but it had a military motivation: that if our scientists could communicate with each other more easily and have access to more data, then we'd have a technological advantage in the long run.

The internet was developed from DARPANET, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Network.

[Jason]

ARPAnet actually. It's a common mistake.

[sandinista]

Also worth considering: the US only ranks 1st in the world in military spending in absolute terms. This should be predictable since the US also has by far the world's largest economy. But compared to the GDP of other nations, the US spend less on its military than 27 other nations. Yes, the US is in 28th place. And those DoD expenditures-compared-to-GDP are a fraction of what they were fifty years ago.

But it's so much more dramatic to say the U.S. spends more than the next thirteen countries combined!

Really has nothing to do with "drama", it's just the facts. As for GDP, its a terrible measure of anything related to the economy really. A really bad indicator. So many factors go into determining the gdp of a country.

GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is the one of the most widely used indicators of the national economy. GDP is the annual aggregate production of all goods and services in a country. One problem with GDP is that it does not necessarily indicate the economic well-being of a country since activities that are detrimental to the long-term economy (like deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, murders, terrorism) increase today's GDP. Therefore environmental degradation is rarely accounted for in GDP calculations. For example, the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill showed up as a net economic gain in the US because of the expenditures associated with the clean-up effort. These expenditures outweighed the eleven million gallons of oil spilled into Alaskan waters.

just a quick look round the net...first thing that popped up, there is plenty of info as per why gdp is a bad indicator.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/10gdp.htm

Besides that, look at the other countries who spend more per gdp: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Iraq, Oman, Jordon. See a trend? These are countries with actual threats as neighbors. There are really no threats to the US. Mexico? Canada? Flawed, but good post overall ian. You are basically spelling out the problems with the US military industrial complex. That the US economy is based on military spending and warfare, it runs the economy, provides employment etc. Quite a terrible situation really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

[Robert_S]

GDP is flawed as a quality of life indicator, but not so much as a rough comparative guide to the relative size of national economies.

[FBM]

On Friday night, Bill Maher asked if America was undergoing a masculinity crisis. Why do we spend more on defense than the next 13 countries combined, Maher wondered?

“Let me ask you: if a guy on your block was so frightened of mostly nonexistent prowlers that he spent all his resources on alarm systems and guns and cameras, so much so that he didn’t even have enough money left to maintain his home or send his kids to college, would you call him brave?”

We're not the "home of the brave" anymore, Maher says, before asking: "When did we become a nation of dickless armchair warriors?"

http://www.alternet.org/bill-maher-how- ... r-warriors

Got nothing to do with fear. It's $$$$$. The Pentagon and the industrial military complex work in collusion to buy/sell all the $400 hammers they can. One side the other, then they switch off.

[sandinista]

On Friday night, Bill Maher asked if America was undergoing a masculinity crisis. Why do we spend more on defense than the next 13 countries combined, Maher wondered?

“Let me ask you: if a guy on your block was so frightened of mostly nonexistent prowlers that he spent all his resources on alarm systems and guns and cameras, so much so that he didn’t even have enough money left to maintain his home or send his kids to college, would you call him brave?”

We're not the "home of the brave" anymore, Maher says, before asking: "When did we become a nation of dickless armchair warriors?"

http://www.alternet.org/bill-maher-how- ... r-warriors

Got nothing to do with fear. It's $$$$$. The Pentagon and the industrial military complex work in collusion to buy/sell all the $400 hammers they can. One side the other, then they switch off.

How long do you think that can last?

[FBM]

As long as the powers that be can keep the public ignorant and apathetic. Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

[Seabass]

Also worth considering: the US only ranks 1st in the world in military spending in absolute terms. This should be predictable since the US also has by far the world's largest economy. But compared to the GDP of other nations, the US spend less on its military than 27 other nations. Yes, the US is in 28th place. And those DoD expenditures-compared-to-GDP are a fraction of what they were fifty years ago.

But it's so much more dramatic to say the U.S. spends more than the next thirteen countries combined!

Really has nothing to do with "drama", it's just the facts. As for GDP, its a terrible measure of anything related to the economy really. A really bad indicator. So many factors go into determining the gdp of a country.

GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is the one of the most widely used indicators of the national economy. GDP is the annual aggregate production of all goods and services in a country. One problem with GDP is that it does not necessarily indicate the economic well-being of a country since activities that are detrimental to the long-term economy (like deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, murders, terrorism) increase today's GDP. Therefore environmental degradation is rarely accounted for in GDP calculations. For example, the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill showed up as a net economic gain in the US because of the expenditures associated with the clean-up effort. These expenditures outweighed the eleven million gallons of oil spilled into Alaskan waters.

just a quick look round the net...first thing that popped up, there is plenty of info as per why gdp is a bad indicator.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/10gdp.htm

Besides that, look at the other countries who spend more per gdp: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Iraq, Oman, Jordon. See a trend? These are countries with actual threats as neighbors. There are really no threats to the US. Mexico? Canada? Flawed, but good post overall ian. You are basically spelling out the problems with the US military industrial complex. That the US economy is based on military spending and warfare, it runs the economy, provides employment etc. Quite a terrible situation really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

It may be factually correct, but it is deliberately misleading and intellectually dishonest. Of course the U.S. spends more on military than say, Norway, since it has over sixty times the population. If you don't like GDP, use per capita.

[Robert_S]

Also worth considering: the US only ranks 1st in the world in military spending in absolute terms. This should be predictable since the US also has by far the world's largest economy. But compared to the GDP of other nations, the US spend less on its military than 27 other nations. Yes, the US is in 28th place. And those DoD expenditures-compared-to-GDP are a fraction of what they were fifty years ago.

But it's so much more dramatic to say the U.S. spends more than the next thirteen countries combined!

Really has nothing to do with "drama", it's just the facts. As for GDP, its a terrible measure of anything related to the economy really. A really bad indicator. So many factors go into determining the gdp of a country.

GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is the one of the most widely used indicators of the national economy. GDP is the annual aggregate production of all goods and services in a country. One problem with GDP is that it does not necessarily indicate the economic well-being of a country since activities that are detrimental to the long-term economy (like deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, murders, terrorism) increase today's GDP. Therefore environmental degradation is rarely accounted for in GDP calculations. For example, the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill showed up as a net economic gain in the US because of the expenditures associated with the clean-up effort. These expenditures outweighed the eleven million gallons of oil spilled into Alaskan waters.

just a quick look round the net...first thing that popped up, there is plenty of info as per why gdp is a bad indicator.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/10gdp.htm

Besides that, look at the other countries who spend more per gdp: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Iraq, Oman, Jordon. See a trend? These are countries with actual threats as neighbors. There are really no threats to the US. Mexico? Canada? Flawed, but good post overall ian. You are basically spelling out the problems with the US military industrial complex. That the US economy is based on military spending and warfare, it runs the economy, provides employment etc. Quite a terrible situation really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

It may be factually correct, but it is deliberately misleading and intellectually dishonest. Of course the U.S. spends more on military than say, Norway, since it has over sixty times the population. If you don't like GDP, use per capita.

Or % of average income.

[Robert_S]

As long as the powers that be can keep the public ignorant and apathetic. Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

In a sufficiently large bureaucracy, you're going to get some stuff like that. Hell, it was Ronald Reagan who first brought that kind of thing to light.

[FBM]

As long as the powers that be can keep the public ignorant and apathetic. Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

In a sufficiently large bureaucracy, you're going to get some stuff like that. Hell, it was Ronald Reagan who first brought that kind of thing to light.

A little bit earlier than Reagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E ... al_complex

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[macdoc]

he knew



follow the money.....

[sandinista]

Also worth considering: the US only ranks 1st in the world in military spending in absolute terms. This should be predictable since the US also has by far the world's largest economy. But compared to the GDP of other nations, the US spend less on its military than 27 other nations. Yes, the US is in 28th place. And those DoD expenditures-compared-to-GDP are a fraction of what they were fifty years ago.

But it's so much more dramatic to say the U.S. spends more than the next thirteen countries combined!

Really has nothing to do with "drama", it's just the facts. As for GDP, its a terrible measure of anything related to the economy really. A really bad indicator. So many factors go into determining the gdp of a country.

GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is the one of the most widely used indicators of the national economy. GDP is the annual aggregate production of all goods and services in a country. One problem with GDP is that it does not necessarily indicate the economic well-being of a country since activities that are detrimental to the long-term economy (like deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, murders, terrorism) increase today's GDP. Therefore environmental degradation is rarely accounted for in GDP calculations. For example, the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill showed up as a net economic gain in the US because of the expenditures associated with the clean-up effort. These expenditures outweighed the eleven million gallons of oil spilled into Alaskan waters.

just a quick look round the net...first thing that popped up, there is plenty of info as per why gdp is a bad indicator.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/10gdp.htm

Besides that, look at the other countries who spend more per gdp: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Iraq, Oman, Jordon. See a trend? These are countries with actual threats as neighbors. There are really no threats to the US. Mexico? Canada? Flawed, but good post overall ian. You are basically spelling out the problems with the US military industrial complex. That the US economy is based on military spending and warfare, it runs the economy, provides employment etc. Quite a terrible situation really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

It may be factually correct, but it is deliberately misleading and intellectually dishonest. Of course the U.S. spends more on military than say, Norway, since it has over sixty times the population. If you don't like GDP, use per capita.

OK...per capital: 2008

Top 15 Military Spending Per Capita; (ranked approx.)

Israel - $2300/person
United States - $1950/person
Oman - $1650/ person
Singapore - $1625/person
Kuwait - $1600/person
Saudi Arabia - $1500/person
Norway - $1250/person
Greece - $1100/person
Britain - $1050/person
France - $1025/person
Australia - $575/person
Denmark - $550/person
Brunei - $525/person
Bahrain - $500/person
Netherlands - $475/person

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/top-15-m ... -overboard

Not even sure what your trying to get it? Trying to say that the US does not spend a ridiculous amount of money on "defense"? Not even sure what the gdp? per capita? etc "argument" (is that what you'd call it") is supposed to be saying.

[pErvinalia]

Aside from oldman zillas trolling, seriously, why are americans so scared of everything. I mean, really, the amount spent on military is ludicrous. Obviously shitting themselves over something. As far away from "the land of the brave" as you can get. Is it just a culture of fear?

This might explain it for half the population.