I think it makes sense. Europe and other countries need to boycott the US based on how the US is negatively affecting the world and driving consumption. Similar to how many countries boycotted Russia.
linotype · 38m ago
You really think what the US has done is remotely on par with what Russia is doing?
bestouff · 16m ago
Not necessarily but nobody was trusting Russia.
tharne · 2h ago
Lol, I'll believe it when I see it. Is this the same Europe that despite everything going on in the world is:
- Still buying Russian gas
- Dependent on U.S. Military bases for their own security
- Dependent on Chinese manufacturing for consumer goods
- Dependent on the U.S. for software and cloud infrastructure
- Dependent on the Chinese for computer hardware
Best of luck Europe, you've had a good run, but you've gotten yourself into a fine mess here.
tobias3 · 1h ago
Yeah, it was a mistake taking this free trade, globalization, UN, WTO, basic human rights, ICC, change through trade, nuclear disarmament etc. stuff seriously. Cost us bigly.
tharne · 1h ago
It really did cost you bigly. Compared with 25 years ago, Europe is less safe, less powerful, and more dependent on other countries for very important things.
lazyeye · 1h ago
Not everything but in alot of cases yes it was a mistake. Trade has never been free, globalization has been a negative for alot of people etc
lazyeye · 1h ago
Yes the funding of Russia's war machine (by buying Russian energy) whilst expecting the US to fund the EU's defense takes some level of nerve. Nobody should take the EU seriously.
pfdietz · 1h ago
I thought the results of science are free for everyone to see. That's how science works.
So isn't it optimal to depend on science someone else does? They spend the money, but you both reap whatever knowledge is obtained.
Rodmine · 31m ago
No, “science” often produces results favourable to those who fund it.
pfdietz · 18m ago
So, the results aren't published? How is that consistent with how science is supposed to be done?
Or do you mean there are spinoffs? But then how is science supposed to be superior at producing these compared to directed development of actually useful things?
richwater · 2h ago
> The United States funds 57% of Argo's $40 million annual operating expenses, while the EU funds 23%.
Why the hell is the US on the hook for practically 2/3rds the cost of a system that monitors the entire worlds' ocean?
bryanrasmussen · 2h ago
1. Why should the EU monitor the Pacific? The Pacific is big.
2. The EU claims the EU as its sphere of influence. The U.S claims The U.S and Central and South America by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine.
3. The U.S wanted to be in charge and be big and important, so if you want to be big and important you gotta do more.
4. The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU. The U.S has a military presence in every Ocean of the world.
azinman2 · 2h ago
> The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU. The U.S has a military presence in every Ocean of the world.
UK/France and I’m sure others have bases all over the world.
nosianu · 2h ago
But that is their business and not the EU. And I have no idea why you included the UK anyway - not in the EU.
Something else: Let's also ignore (or not) that the headline of the submission is waaayyy too grand for what's actually in the article. It's only about meteorological data collection. As important as it may be, there's a lot more science than that.
perihelions · 2h ago
$820 billion in hurricane damages since 2016, and the cost center we should focus on is some $40 million/year spent researching causes of that? That's roughly similar in proportionality—and in reasoning—to a datacenter deleting its smoke detectors. (If that is what you want for your discounts, there is OVH).
It is one of the side effects in terms of costs that a country has in order to enable the safe flow of global trade.
epistasis · 2h ago
Why the hell should I have to live a worse life with more storm damages, less military preparedness, etc. etc. etc. just because sycophants are willing to make up ridiculous excuses for extremely unwise decisions? Such is the pain of democracy, while we still have one.
givemeethekeys · 2h ago
Yeah, just like they're breaking their reliance on the American military /s.
inejge · 2h ago
Those things take time and have an inertia in both branches: it's easier to continue using the existing resources than standing up your own, but once you're committed to developing a replacement it's not easy to stop.
(EU already did it, however partially, with its own satellite navigation system.)
pfdietz · 1h ago
Yes, they will divert money from their social welfare spending into military spending any day now.
Any. Day. Now.
surfsvammel · 2h ago
Yes. Very similar actually. Most of Europe is increasing spending on military defence.
xyzzzzzzz · 2h ago
So they finally are doing what trump asked them to do?
whynotmaybe · 2h ago
No, they've been doing it since Russia's war in Ukraine.
3 days after the start of the invasion, Germany announced a €100 billion increase to military spending.
The fact that you think that's a big number just underscores how dire Europe's security situation is at the moment. One hundred billion Euros sounds like a lot, but China spends two and a half times that much on defense every single year, the U.S. spends 10X that much every single year, and even the Russians spend more than that every single year. Nevermind the fact Europe needs to play catch up here, not just keep pace.
vikaveri · 1m ago
Wikipedia says Russia spent 100 billion in 2023, so increase of 100 billion should be more than that don't you think? Are you misinformed or deliberately lying?
seydor · 2h ago
By promising to buy more american weapons, more american LNG and investing in american companies.
We europeans are having a really hard time breaking our US addiction. I mean what are we even doing in here
jltsiren · 2h ago
Those "promises" were meaningless BS. Every European should know that the EU cannot make such promises, because it has no power in those matters. Defense policy is up to the member states, while investments and energy purchases are mostly made by private entities.
No comments yet
bpodgursky · 2h ago
Europe is deciding that US technology addiction is better than Russian subjugation.
It's not a time to be playing political games buying sub-par weapons. Bad for Saab, but that's reality. The world is dangerous again.
alimw · 2h ago
If your weapons can stop working according the whim of America, that would be seriously subpar.
bpodgursky · 1h ago
The reality is that European solidarity is not ironclad either. Is the US, or Germany, or Sweden more likely to fold and deactivate* weapon systems under nuclear blackmail?
It sounds hypothetical but seriously, what would Gripen do if tactical nukes were dropped on Estonia and Putin threatened the same on Sweden if they didn't back off? I don't know, and you don't either.
*I've not seen credible accusations this is possible, but assuming it is
givemeethekeys · 1h ago
*Most of Europe has promised to do something... in the glorious future, where anything is possible. Anything at all!
- Still buying Russian gas
- Dependent on U.S. Military bases for their own security
- Dependent on Chinese manufacturing for consumer goods
- Dependent on the U.S. for software and cloud infrastructure
- Dependent on the Chinese for computer hardware
Best of luck Europe, you've had a good run, but you've gotten yourself into a fine mess here.
So isn't it optimal to depend on science someone else does? They spend the money, but you both reap whatever knowledge is obtained.
Or do you mean there are spinoffs? But then how is science supposed to be superior at producing these compared to directed development of actually useful things?
Why the hell is the US on the hook for practically 2/3rds the cost of a system that monitors the entire worlds' ocean?
2. The EU claims the EU as its sphere of influence. The U.S claims The U.S and Central and South America by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine.
3. The U.S wanted to be in charge and be big and important, so if you want to be big and important you gotta do more.
4. The EU has military bases in the EU and the waters which touch the EU. The U.S has a military presence in every Ocean of the world.
UK/France and I’m sure others have bases all over the world.
Here is a list, by the way: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/overseas-...
Something else: Let's also ignore (or not) that the headline of the submission is waaayyy too grand for what's actually in the article. It's only about meteorological data collection. As important as it may be, there's a lot more science than that.
https://www.wunderground.com/article/storms/hurricane/news/2...
It more than likely has uses in defence?
Hegemony isn't free.
(EU already did it, however partially, with its own satellite navigation system.)
Any. Day. Now.
3 days after the start of the invasion, Germany announced a €100 billion increase to military spending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitenwende_speech
We europeans are having a really hard time breaking our US addiction. I mean what are we even doing in here
No comments yet
It's not a time to be playing political games buying sub-par weapons. Bad for Saab, but that's reality. The world is dangerous again.
It sounds hypothetical but seriously, what would Gripen do if tactical nukes were dropped on Estonia and Putin threatened the same on Sweden if they didn't back off? I don't know, and you don't either.
*I've not seen credible accusations this is possible, but assuming it is