4 ms·

Each one of those countries you listed _heavily_ relies on the United States military being on their side in the event of a war. You can't make the argument yo

Each one of those countries you listed _heavily_ relies on the United States military being on their side in the event of a war. You can't make the argument you're making without at least acknowledging US hegemony (which we can argue is good or bad).

huitzitziltzin 5y ago
Totally agree with you! Sounds like the found a smart way to reduce their defense budgets, no??
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  And The US gets something from it as well. They get political backup from their coalition and the ability to project hard and soft power from most of these countries. This of course leads to financial return on investment from this military expense
  - sfifs 5y ago
    The biggest benefit US gets from its massive millitary is that the Dollar is the de-facto global reserve currency and energy is priced in dollars. This makes debt essentially free for the US government (since the demand for dollars and dollar denominated tresury bonds remains high). It also enables strategic energy and reaource extraction companies from US to essentially get their way in most places.
triceratops 5y ago
In a war, I'd bet on a France-UK-Germany alliance against Russia any day. Ditto for a South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-India alliance against China. They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  > They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around. Emphasis on "They might not win". Which is exactly why they rely on US support in the event of one of those scenarios - it increases their chances of winning by a lot.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    They don't need to actually win. They just have to be strong enough (or have enough nukes, which both these alliances possess) to make victory too costly for the aggressor. If you're Russia or China, you also have to contend with the possibility that your opponents might actually win. Which would be disastrous for you. Also this is assuming those countries' current military strength. However, if the US military was weaker, they would probably strengthen significantly. Barring India, they're all rich, technologically advanced, economically developed countries capable of projecting a lot of military power.
- kofejnik 5y ago
  France will surrender a week in, Germany will go pragmatic and negotiate another pipeline after their chancellor becomes a VP at gazprom, and Britain will appease, as Putin is reasonable and only wants small parts of Wales and Poland
  - sofixa 5y ago
    You can't be serious. You know France has nuclear weapons (including a 24/7 nuclear ballistic missile submarine patrol) and a world class military, right? Just because you lack an understanding in military affairs and history, and have heard of a huge military disaster ( of course ignoring all the military successes) doesn't give you a right to insultingly dismiss whole countries' military capabilities.
    - kofejnik 5y ago
      > You can't be serious. wow, you're insightful! Also, I take it you agree with me wrt Germany and UK?
      - dang 5y ago
        Flamewar and snark are not welcome here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit? We've had to ask you this more than once before, and we eventually ban accounts that keep doing it, so it would be good if you'd fix this and stop.

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

Totally agree with you! Sounds like the found a smart way to reduce their defense budgets, no??

s1artibartfast 5y ago
And The US gets something from it as well. They get political backup from their coalition and the ability to project hard and soft power from most of these countries. This of course leads to financial return on investment from this military expense
- sfifs 5y ago
  The biggest benefit US gets from its massive millitary is that the Dollar is the de-facto global reserve currency and energy is priced in dollars. This makes debt essentially free for the US government (since the demand for dollars and dollar denominated tresury bonds remains high). It also enables strategic energy and reaource extraction companies from US to essentially get their way in most places.

triceratops 5y ago

In a war, I'd bet on a France-UK-Germany alliance against Russia any day. Ditto for a South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-India alliance against China. They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around. Emphasis on "They might not win". Which is exactly why they rely on US support in the event of one of those scenarios - it increases their chances of winning by a lot.
- triceratops 5y ago
  They don't need to actually win. They just have to be strong enough (or have enough nukes, which both these alliances possess) to make victory too costly for the aggressor. If you're Russia or China, you also have to contend with the possibility that your opponents might actually win. Which would be disastrous for you. Also this is assuming those countries' current military strength. However, if the US military was weaker, they would probably strengthen significantly. Barring India, they're all rich, technologically advanced, economically developed countries capable of projecting a lot of military power.
kofejnik 5y ago
France will surrender a week in, Germany will go pragmatic and negotiate another pipeline after their chancellor becomes a VP at gazprom, and Britain will appease, as Putin is reasonable and only wants small parts of Wales and Poland
- sofixa 5y ago
  You can't be serious. You know France has nuclear weapons (including a 24/7 nuclear ballistic missile submarine patrol) and a world class military, right? Just because you lack an understanding in military affairs and history, and have heard of a huge military disaster ( of course ignoring all the military successes) doesn't give you a right to insultingly dismiss whole countries' military capabilities.
  - kofejnik 5y ago
    > You can't be serious. wow, you're insightful! Also, I take it you agree with me wrt Germany and UK?
    - dang 5y ago
      Flamewar and snark are not welcome here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit? We've had to ask you this more than once before, and we eventually ban accounts that keep doing it, so it would be good if you'd fix this and stop.