4 ms·

This is somewhat deliberate. We have the resources to stay on top, but we have other priorities. During the cold war we spent 10% of our GDP on the military.

by tsotha 11y ago

This is somewhat deliberate. We have the resources to stay on top, but we have other priorities. During the cold war we spent 10% of our GDP on the military. These days it's more like 4%. Personally I'd like to see the US pull back sharply from its global commitments. There's no reason for US troops in Germany or Japan or Korea. There's no reason for the US to get involved in land disputes in the South China Sea. If the countries involved fight it out just let us know who wins so we can update our maps.

smacktoward 11y ago
> There's no reason for US troops in Germany Russia. (see: Ukraine) > or Japan China. > or Korea North Korea. > There's no reason for the US to get involved in land disputes in the South China Sea The problem is that the U.S. has longstanding treaty commitments guaranteeing the sovereignty of several other countries in that area, such as Taiwan and the Philippines, and significant trade relationships with others, such as Vietnam. A unilateral U.S. pullout from the region would therefore send the message to other nations we have defense treaties with (such as NATO members) that we can't be trusted to stand by our treaty obligations, which would weaken those relationships substantially.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Oh, there's a reason the Germans and the Japanese and the Koreans might want to have troops. There's just no reason for US troops to be there. WW II has been over for a long, long time. If the Russians attack the Germans, or the Chinese attack the Japanese... why is that a problem for the US? We're not trying to contain global communism or fascism. We should be a friend to freedom everywhere, but not its guardian.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > If the Russians attack the Germans... why is that a problem for the US? There is this treaty we signed in 1949 called the North Atlantic Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty), in which we promised the Germans (and the other signatory nations) that we would consider an attack on them as an attack on ourselves. That promise is what underpins NATO, the alliance that is the foundation of American strategy in Europe. We could tear that treaty up because the world is different now, but don't kid yourself that doing so wouldn't be a big deal. It would be a huge deal, arguably the biggest deal in European politics since the formation of the EU (and maybe even before that). And it would lead other nations we have signed treaties with to start wondering if we're going to be backing out of those too, weakening or terminating those relationships as well. Such fears could start a domino effect that unravels our security arrangements worldwide. I tend to agree that these relationships need to be rethought -- I thought the 1990s push to expand NATO to include Ukraine, for instance, was irresponsible in that it rekindled the old Russian fear of being encircled by enemies -- but modifying or unwinding them will be a very, very delicate process, not to be undertaken lightly.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >There is this treaty we signed in 1949 called the North Atlantic Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty), in which we promised the Germans (and the other signatory nations) that we would consider an attack on them as an attack on ourselves. That promise is what underpins NATO, the alliance that is the foundation of American strategy in Europe. Which made perfect sense during the cold war. What doesn't make sense is we're still in NATO, or even that NATO exists at all. We should definitely leave the organization. >It would be a huge deal, arguably the biggest deal in European politics since the formation of the EU (and maybe even before that). Oh, absolutely. The Europeans would be really upset, since they'd have to spend more than 2% on their own defense. But... that's not really my problem, is it? How big is the Russian economy compared to the combined economy of the non-US NATO countries? If the Russians are in a position to dominate Europe from the position of relative economic weakness, who's fault is that? Of course we should give them time to build their strength, so I'd wait six or seven years before striking the flag. That's plenty of time.
    - cema 11y ago
      You refer to "the 1990s push to expand NATO to include Ukraine", what is that about?
  - classicsnoot 11y ago
    >If the Russians attack the Germans The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The economic side would be devastating for the US economy. Many US citizens would get some pretty horrible content in their correspondence with family and friends. >If the Chinese attack the Japanese The tech industry is fucked, as two of the largest producers of parts and products shift their industrial capacity to a war footing, and the other big player is caught in between. If China went ham on Nippon, then Vietnam is next, and they would know it. Ditto for the Philippines. As the Island nations lock down, global shipping becomes a memory. Huge portions of the population in the US would watch as their families and ancestral homelands plunge into the dark and decay of a drawn out war. Frankly, i feel like your post was Bait. Surely no one on this site is that ignorant of global trade, or what would happen if 3 of the five largest economies shifted from peace to war. The refugee wave, from either ocean, would be enough to wreck our little utopia. I sincerely hope that, should push come to tactical shove, your group (the people that feel as you do) would be drastically outnumbered by the people who give a fuck about oaths, alliances, and friends. but i wonder... EDIT: reply limit reached. You seem to have a very limited understanding of the interconnected nature of global economy, ruling regimes, and scattered family groups. On top of this, it would appear that you are taking a theoretical approach to potential events that have a historical precedent. The US is a service industry based economy. for better or for worse we are completely dependent upon global commerce. This notion that we can do everything we need to do is not impossible, or even improbable, it is just unfeasible. The same people that want America to be nice to everyone (whilst simultaneously cutting off our involvement globally... :|) are the same people that will shit their pants when their college degree does not get them out of working in fields and factories that are running night and day.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The economic side would be devastating for the US economy. Many US citizens would get some pretty horrible content in their correspondence with family and friends. None of that constitutes a reason for the US to get involved militarily. The idea we should put ourselves in the position of going to war with China because "the tech industry is fucked" is daft, in my opinion. The Japanese are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and they're quite capable of entering into regional security agreements. >I sincerely hope that, should push come to tactical shove, your group (the people that feel as you do) would be drastically outnumbered by the people who give a fuck about oaths, alliances, and friends. I sincerely hope we outnumber the people who think the US should be the guarantor of everyone else's peace and freedom. We should not be getting into other peoples' wars without a clear national interest of corresponding importance. In terms of "oaths, alliances, and friends", well, countries do not take oaths and do not have friends. We do have alliances, but there's no dishonor in dissolving alliances as long as the other party has sufficient time to adjust. EDIT: >You seem to have a very limited understanding of the interconnected nature of global economy, ruling regimes, and scattered family groups. You seem to have a bad habit in which you assume people who don't agree with you are either ignorant or stupid. I understand these things perfectly well. Probably better than you. I just don't think they're worth going to war over.
- justicezyx 11y ago
  >> There's no reason for US troops in Germany > Russia. (see: Ukraine) Know why Ukraine has the conflict in the first place? >> or Japan > China. Japan invaded china, US is there to protect Asian countries from Japan's invasion, now at least China can defend itself... >> or Korea > North Korea. They used to be 1 country, guess who intervened their unification war?
- sanderjd 11y ago
  The question (which I wouldn't deign to answer) is whether having troops in those places actually makes any strategic difference one way or the other (see: Ukraine).
  - classicsnoot 11y ago
    In Taiwan, at least, i think the answer is obvious.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    You will notice that when Russia invaded Ukraine they took pains to disguise the fact that that is what they were actually doing: they limited their engagement to levels small enough to be explained away as contingents of patriotic volunteers ("little green men": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_%282014_Crimean_crisis%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_%282014_Crime...) who rushed to Ukraine to support the pro-Russian government that had been turned out in the 2014 revolution. This was almost certainly in order to make the intervention appear ambiguous enough to avoid provoking a NATO reaction. In the absence of a countervailing power, it's likely the invasion would have looked less tentative and more like Hungary 1956 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956) or Czechoslovakia 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czecho...).
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Those troops aren't there to fight. They're there to die so we have a justification to get involved in a war. The 40k US ground troops in Germany will have very little effect in a European war involving any of the major powers.

by tsotha 11y ago

smacktoward 11y ago

> There's no reason for US troops in Germany Russia. (see: Ukraine) > or Japan China. > or Korea North Korea. > There's no reason for the US to get involved in land disputes in the South China Sea The problem is that the U.S. has longstanding treaty commitments guaranteeing the sovereignty of several other countries in that area, such as Taiwan and the Philippines, and significant trade relationships with others, such as Vietnam. A unilateral U.S. pullout from the region would therefore send the message to other nations we have defense treaties with (such as NATO members) that we can't be trusted to stand by our treaty obligations, which would weaken those relationships substantially.

tsotha 11y ago
Oh, there's a reason the Germans and the Japanese and the Koreans might want to have troops. There's just no reason for US troops to be there. WW II has been over for a long, long time. If the Russians attack the Germans, or the Chinese attack the Japanese... why is that a problem for the US? We're not trying to contain global communism or fascism. We should be a friend to freedom everywhere, but not its guardian.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > If the Russians attack the Germans... why is that a problem for the US? There is this treaty we signed in 1949 called the North Atlantic Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty), in which we promised the Germans (and the other signatory nations) that we would consider an attack on them as an attack on ourselves. That promise is what underpins NATO, the alliance that is the foundation of American strategy in Europe. We could tear that treaty up because the world is different now, but don't kid yourself that doing so wouldn't be a big deal. It would be a huge deal, arguably the biggest deal in European politics since the formation of the EU (and maybe even before that). And it would lead other nations we have signed treaties with to start wondering if we're going to be backing out of those too, weakening or terminating those relationships as well. Such fears could start a domino effect that unravels our security arrangements worldwide. I tend to agree that these relationships need to be rethought -- I thought the 1990s push to expand NATO to include Ukraine, for instance, was irresponsible in that it rekindled the old Russian fear of being encircled by enemies -- but modifying or unwinding them will be a very, very delicate process, not to be undertaken lightly.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >There is this treaty we signed in 1949 called the North Atlantic Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty), in which we promised the Germans (and the other signatory nations) that we would consider an attack on them as an attack on ourselves. That promise is what underpins NATO, the alliance that is the foundation of American strategy in Europe. Which made perfect sense during the cold war. What doesn't make sense is we're still in NATO, or even that NATO exists at all. We should definitely leave the organization. >It would be a huge deal, arguably the biggest deal in European politics since the formation of the EU (and maybe even before that). Oh, absolutely. The Europeans would be really upset, since they'd have to spend more than 2% on their own defense. But... that's not really my problem, is it? How big is the Russian economy compared to the combined economy of the non-US NATO countries? If the Russians are in a position to dominate Europe from the position of relative economic weakness, who's fault is that? Of course we should give them time to build their strength, so I'd wait six or seven years before striking the flag. That's plenty of time.
  - cema 11y ago
    You refer to "the 1990s push to expand NATO to include Ukraine", what is that about?
- classicsnoot 11y ago
  >If the Russians attack the Germans The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The economic side would be devastating for the US economy. Many US citizens would get some pretty horrible content in their correspondence with family and friends. >If the Chinese attack the Japanese The tech industry is fucked, as two of the largest producers of parts and products shift their industrial capacity to a war footing, and the other big player is caught in between. If China went ham on Nippon, then Vietnam is next, and they would know it. Ditto for the Philippines. As the Island nations lock down, global shipping becomes a memory. Huge portions of the population in the US would watch as their families and ancestral homelands plunge into the dark and decay of a drawn out war. Frankly, i feel like your post was Bait. Surely no one on this site is that ignorant of global trade, or what would happen if 3 of the five largest economies shifted from peace to war. The refugee wave, from either ocean, would be enough to wreck our little utopia. I sincerely hope that, should push come to tactical shove, your group (the people that feel as you do) would be drastically outnumbered by the people who give a fuck about oaths, alliances, and friends. but i wonder... EDIT: reply limit reached. You seem to have a very limited understanding of the interconnected nature of global economy, ruling regimes, and scattered family groups. On top of this, it would appear that you are taking a theoretical approach to potential events that have a historical precedent. The US is a service industry based economy. for better or for worse we are completely dependent upon global commerce. This notion that we can do everything we need to do is not impossible, or even improbable, it is just unfeasible. The same people that want America to be nice to everyone (whilst simultaneously cutting off our involvement globally... :|) are the same people that will shit their pants when their college degree does not get them out of working in fields and factories that are running night and day.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The economic side would be devastating for the US economy. Many US citizens would get some pretty horrible content in their correspondence with family and friends. None of that constitutes a reason for the US to get involved militarily. The idea we should put ourselves in the position of going to war with China because "the tech industry is fucked" is daft, in my opinion. The Japanese are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and they're quite capable of entering into regional security agreements. >I sincerely hope that, should push come to tactical shove, your group (the people that feel as you do) would be drastically outnumbered by the people who give a fuck about oaths, alliances, and friends. I sincerely hope we outnumber the people who think the US should be the guarantor of everyone else's peace and freedom. We should not be getting into other peoples' wars without a clear national interest of corresponding importance. In terms of "oaths, alliances, and friends", well, countries do not take oaths and do not have friends. We do have alliances, but there's no dishonor in dissolving alliances as long as the other party has sufficient time to adjust. EDIT: >You seem to have a very limited understanding of the interconnected nature of global economy, ruling regimes, and scattered family groups. You seem to have a bad habit in which you assume people who don't agree with you are either ignorant or stupid. I understand these things perfectly well. Probably better than you. I just don't think they're worth going to war over.
justicezyx 11y ago
>> There's no reason for US troops in Germany > Russia. (see: Ukraine) Know why Ukraine has the conflict in the first place? >> or Japan > China. Japan invaded china, US is there to protect Asian countries from Japan's invasion, now at least China can defend itself... >> or Korea > North Korea. They used to be 1 country, guess who intervened their unification war?
sanderjd 11y ago
The question (which I wouldn't deign to answer) is whether having troops in those places actually makes any strategic difference one way or the other (see: Ukraine).
- classicsnoot 11y ago
  In Taiwan, at least, i think the answer is obvious.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  You will notice that when Russia invaded Ukraine they took pains to disguise the fact that that is what they were actually doing: they limited their engagement to levels small enough to be explained away as contingents of patriotic volunteers ("little green men": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_%282014_Crimean_crisis%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_%282014_Crime...) who rushed to Ukraine to support the pro-Russian government that had been turned out in the 2014 revolution. This was almost certainly in order to make the intervention appear ambiguous enough to avoid provoking a NATO reaction. In the absence of a countervailing power, it's likely the invasion would have looked less tentative and more like Hungary 1956 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956) or Czechoslovakia 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czecho...).
- tsotha 11y ago
  Those troops aren't there to fight. They're there to die so we have a justification to get involved in a war. The 40k US ground troops in Germany will have very little effect in a European war involving any of the major powers.