3 ms·

Why do those other countries matter here? We’re talking about the US, the worlds joint number one superpower.

vmception 5y ago
Its obvious that isn’t important to me, right? This sentiment crosses party lines. We uniquely have the resources to be the most developed nation, domestically, but subsidize other countries’ defense instead and they subsidize other advances in their own country that we domestically deem too expensive. So how about we get this semiconductor geopolitical nightmare out of the way and use our massive domestic resources the way we can. There are consequences, not the US’ problem. There are a lot of people thinking like me, so hawkish people will need more articulate arguments for specific US foreign policy with specific countries.
- nexuist 5y ago
  > We uniquely have the resources to be the most developed nation, domestically, but subsidize other countries’ defense instead ...and in return, the rest of the world plays ball when we want to advance our interests. The basis of foreign policy is I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine. Our protection of Taiwan shows other countries that we will put ourselves on the line for our allies. It practically forces us to go to war if China invades because we'll lose access to our all-important semiconductors. Key word forces. If we lose our dependency on the semiconductors we're no longer forced to go to war. Which means China can try to invade and might succeed if we deem it unnecessary to protect Taiwan because "fuck you, we got ours." By keeping ourselves in this vulnerable position there's an implicit trust and understanding that we will be there for them. > There are consequences, not the US’ problem. Funnily enough this is the attitude of many citizens under protection of US hegemony. I think you will receive more varied responses from the Ukrainians and Taiwanese.

Its obvious that isn’t important to me, right? This sentiment crosses party lines. We uniquely have the resources to be the most developed nation, domestically, but subsidize other countries’ defense instead and they subsidize other advances in their own country that we domestically deem too expensive. So how about we get this semiconductor geopolitical nightmare out of the way and use our massive domestic resources the way we can. There are consequences, not the US’ problem. There are a lot of people thinking like me, so hawkish people will need more articulate arguments for specific US foreign policy with specific countries.

nexuist 5y ago
> We uniquely have the resources to be the most developed nation, domestically, but subsidize other countries’ defense instead ...and in return, the rest of the world plays ball when we want to advance our interests. The basis of foreign policy is I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine. Our protection of Taiwan shows other countries that we will put ourselves on the line for our allies. It practically forces us to go to war if China invades because we'll lose access to our all-important semiconductors. Key word forces. If we lose our dependency on the semiconductors we're no longer forced to go to war. Which means China can try to invade and might succeed if we deem it unnecessary to protect Taiwan because "fuck you, we got ours." By keeping ourselves in this vulnerable position there's an implicit trust and understanding that we will be there for them. > There are consequences, not the US’ problem. Funnily enough this is the attitude of many citizens under protection of US hegemony. I think you will receive more varied responses from the Ukrainians and Taiwanese.