To support Ukraine in a proxy war that weakens, destabilizes or destroys Russia where no American soldiers die and we get to test out our arsenal in a real world scenario is a worthwhile investment not to mention the moral and humanitarian aspect.

Do we have problems at home? Yes but that’s never been a good enough reason to reduce military spending.

I do think the military budget is out of control and more money should be appropriated to the issues that matter like healthcare but at this moment in time we should absolutely continue to support Ukraine.

We are the world leaders and other countries follow. We can’t let our support erode. We can’t let Russia win this one.

[–] holiday@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not a fan of Team America world police but crippling Russia with a small percentage of our defense budget is a pretty good deal in geopolitics.

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 9 points 1 year ago

This isn't team America world police. This is team America, international arms dealer.

Which may or may not be better, depending on your outlook.

[–] vrojak@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, there would be easily enough money to both have the best military and the best public healthcare system in the world. The key is to tax the rich 0.1% properly.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You guys already pay more than you'd need for healthcare, by far. The problem is all that money is going into pockets rather than...well... actual healthcare. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/31/health/us-health-care-spending-global-perspective/index.html

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are the world leaders and other countries follow.

I am sorry, but this makes me puke.

The Americans sure are dominant in the world, no doubt about that. But miss me with this sanctimonious crap.

[–] GRENADE_MAGNET@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You took that in a broader sense. What I specifically meant by that was noone would provide Ukraine with tanks unless the U.S. offered them first.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your problem isn't even that the military budget is out of control (alhough accounting could be better), but a lot of this budget is only "military" by designation used to keep US jobs.

But "We spend much on our strong military" is much better politically than "We have to spend much to subsidize industrial jobs". And they can even recoup some of the costs by exports then.

If you are actually looking for problems... look at the industrial part, not the military part of the US' MIC.

[–] Adeptfuckup@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For over 20 years these tanks have been bought and paid for. Don’t let anyone tell you different. We have so many god damned weapon system in storage that we can supply Ukraine with arms indefinitely. Those who say we in the west are spending too much money are full of shit.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

But if we give too many away, what will our police use to quash protests?

The answer is “guns, riot shields, and tear gas,” but they would totally use the tanks on american citizens, unlike the army.

[–] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

That’s a great photo. The tank looks like a damn flamethrower. I didn’t even think it was real, but it’s credited to a specific photographer, so…

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

War is horrible and I wished leaders had to be on the front lines so they actually had some consequences for starting them. But since Putin invaded, I'm glad to hear some Abrams have been delivered. May they help Ukraine really fuck Russia's shit up.