5 ms·

Of course allies are necessary, but which allies and how many is the question. It depends on the situation. You shouldn't need the US for a mere deterring garri

Of course allies are necessary, but which allies and how many is the question. It depends on the situation. You shouldn't need the US for a mere deterring garrison, only if there is actual fighting to be done. The EU has many more people than the US, and is still fairly wealthy on the main. If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. The point of an EU army is not to appease Russia --- that indeed wouldn't work. The point is to give Europe some real sovereignty whereas today it has a hugely captive foreign policy.

long_time_gone 5y ago
> If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. Our military's size and capabilities seem to be more a function of job-creation, rather than actual military need.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Agreed a bit, there is definitely elements of instutitional self preservation for its own sake. And certainly the defense contractors are scared to have less of their main client. But getting rid of this "world police" "free world" bullshit will still help a lot. Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. Finally, if are allies can defend themselves, they will have more spine to call out our bullshit with things like Iraq.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. We are sending actual weapons and machinery, which need to be replaced by new weapons off the factory line. One Javelin missile costs $175k. "In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
    - aaronblohowiak 5y ago
      Anti tank and anti air weapons are so cheap compared to the things they destroy. If shifting the balance of power against Russia is a goal, that is money well spent
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    I wonder what would finally cause the US Dollar to finally collapse? Would it be China somehow? Either way, the only thing propping up this machine is the fact that the US dollar still means something. What would the world look like post-US? I noticed that recently my local dollar store has now become the 1.25$ store. This can't bode well for the future...maybe we are experiencing the fall right now. You wouldn't really know until after the fact.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Pretty much every fiat currency experiences inflation. That's not a serious problem as long as it remains below hyperinflation levels. The US Dollar can only collapse if the federal government defaults on its debts, or institutes currency controls which make it no longer convertible. The government only accepts tax payments in Dollars, so anyone subject to US taxes has no choice but to hold some Dollars.
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  What is your basis for this assertion?
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    That US military spending has never fallen below 3% of GDP. The two times it got close, we jumped right back towards 4%. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
    - QuarterReptile 5y ago
      I agree that the US military is huge and expensive, but that doesn't address 'military need,' which is a question of which missions are worth funding and what the requirements are for each. If your goals are just coastal defense and prevention of invasion from Canada and Mexico, then that's significantly easier. Those aren't the US goals and haven't been for a long time. And it seems to be overwhelmingly the case that any potential defense partner for the US (aligned interests, not judged to be themselves a threat) can successfully pass off military spending to the US.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        I agree completely. I think I am making more of a point about the "tail wagging the dog" in the US military strategy you mention. We have created economic dependencies on our vast military spending. At a fundamental level, the $1 trillion spent on defense ends up in the hands of US service members and defense contractors. They spend that money back in the US economy. When viewed from that (cynical?) perspective, it isn't surprising that the military's spending and scope grow year after year.
- pantsforbirds 5y ago
  I strongly disagree. Our entire strategy as an armed force is centered around force projection. We have bases in more than 70 countries and we have a number of carrier fleets and incredible logistics capabilities that allow us to project force almost anywhere in the world. Obviously we can't know for sure what a world without a large American military would be like, but a big goal of that force projection is to reduce the chance of major conflict from bad actors. Nuclear deterrents and the United States' military dominance have done a fairly good job of keeping peace in large parts of the world. Russia attacking Ukraine is the first major war in Europe in decades.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  I used to think that but now I think it is far more. Countries where we have bases essentially become vassal states, reliant on us for protection. This means we get favorable trade agreements as well as the opportunity to shape the world to our needs. It allows the US to exert massive influence over the course of world events and allows for the perpetuation of the US as the worlds top economic power.
zeku 5y ago
The US doesn't want to "shrink our monster". Read the thread! The EU and many small allies like South Korea and Japan have absolutely ROSEY relations with The US because they need The US. This is a massive strategic advantage that no sane American wants to give up. It's also one of the few things in politics that is a win win. It largely discouraged bad actors from war(despite Ukraine rn we have still lived in relative peace for a long time). EU gets defense, US gets clout to negotiate with everywhere. Best friends.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  >This is a massive strategic advantage that no sane American wants to give up. I'm sure you are saying this from a point of privilege. If you are upper middle class or higher in the US you are benefiting from this arrangement. Otherwise you are in an endless treadmill of barely surviving with the fear of no safety net and one missed paycheck away from ruin. I'm sure this vast underclass would say that instead of wasting money on this military instead a proper safety net + opportunities for advancement (eg. free college/healthcare) should be created...you know all the benefits that Europeans have and take for granted(built on the backs of Americans in a way). >It's also one of the few things in politics that is a win win. It largely discouraged bad actors from war(despite Ukraine rn we have still lived in relative peace for a long time). EU gets defense, US gets clout to negotiate with everywhere. Best friends. Yes it has made a lot of despicable people in the US very rich.
  - google234123 5y ago
    > instead a proper safety net + opportunities for advancement (eg. free college/healthcare) I don’t think more subsidized communication and psychology grads would make the US a better place.
    - nebula8804 5y ago
      But a clear path to better oneself is the dream of a modern society. No one is promising equality of outcome. But we should work towards equality of opportunity. With this system in place, a person can look at the market, put in the effort and better their situation in life with the greatest chance for success. If you treat it as an investment in your citizens that on the average will bring a return on the investment(in the form of a better educated workforce able to contribute to the country's bottom line) then you can have a scenario where some major in underwater basket weaving while others take a chance on STEM degrees. On average, the country is better off. In the end, the opportunity was there for all.
logifail 5y ago
> The point [of an EU army] is to give Europe some real sovereignty (...) Who would one put in charge, though? I'm not sure getting the 27 member states (who are already very much individually sovereign) to pool their sovereignty is going to be quite as easy as some think. The EU can't even agree on how to pick the President of the European Commission - see the statements in February 2018 by the EU Parliament on how this should be done, followed by nomination of the 'Spitzenkandidaten' and debates between candidates in early May 2019, followed by the elections at the end of May 2019, followed by ... Ursula von der Leyen getting the job in July 2019. Not exactly democracy at its finest.

long_time_gone 5y ago

> If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. Our military's size and capabilities seem to be more a function of job-creation, rather than actual military need.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Agreed a bit, there is definitely elements of instutitional self preservation for its own sake. And certainly the defense contractors are scared to have less of their main client. But getting rid of this "world police" "free world" bullshit will still help a lot. Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. Finally, if are allies can defend themselves, they will have more spine to call out our bullshit with things like Iraq.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. We are sending actual weapons and machinery, which need to be replaced by new weapons off the factory line. One Javelin missile costs $175k. "In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
  - aaronblohowiak 5y ago
    Anti tank and anti air weapons are so cheap compared to the things they destroy. If shifting the balance of power against Russia is a goal, that is money well spent
- nebula8804 5y ago
  I wonder what would finally cause the US Dollar to finally collapse? Would it be China somehow? Either way, the only thing propping up this machine is the fact that the US dollar still means something. What would the world look like post-US? I noticed that recently my local dollar store has now become the 1.25$ store. This can't bode well for the future...maybe we are experiencing the fall right now. You wouldn't really know until after the fact.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Pretty much every fiat currency experiences inflation. That's not a serious problem as long as it remains below hyperinflation levels. The US Dollar can only collapse if the federal government defaults on its debts, or institutes currency controls which make it no longer convertible. The government only accepts tax payments in Dollars, so anyone subject to US taxes has no choice but to hold some Dollars.
QuarterReptile 5y ago
What is your basis for this assertion?
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  That US military spending has never fallen below 3% of GDP. The two times it got close, we jumped right back towards 4%. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
  - QuarterReptile 5y ago
    I agree that the US military is huge and expensive, but that doesn't address 'military need,' which is a question of which missions are worth funding and what the requirements are for each. If your goals are just coastal defense and prevention of invasion from Canada and Mexico, then that's significantly easier. Those aren't the US goals and haven't been for a long time. And it seems to be overwhelmingly the case that any potential defense partner for the US (aligned interests, not judged to be themselves a threat) can successfully pass off military spending to the US.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      I agree completely. I think I am making more of a point about the "tail wagging the dog" in the US military strategy you mention. We have created economic dependencies on our vast military spending. At a fundamental level, the $1 trillion spent on defense ends up in the hands of US service members and defense contractors. They spend that money back in the US economy. When viewed from that (cynical?) perspective, it isn't surprising that the military's spending and scope grow year after year.
pantsforbirds 5y ago
I strongly disagree. Our entire strategy as an armed force is centered around force projection. We have bases in more than 70 countries and we have a number of carrier fleets and incredible logistics capabilities that allow us to project force almost anywhere in the world. Obviously we can't know for sure what a world without a large American military would be like, but a big goal of that force projection is to reduce the chance of major conflict from bad actors. Nuclear deterrents and the United States' military dominance have done a fairly good job of keeping peace in large parts of the world. Russia attacking Ukraine is the first major war in Europe in decades.
wonderwonder 5y ago
I used to think that but now I think it is far more. Countries where we have bases essentially become vassal states, reliant on us for protection. This means we get favorable trade agreements as well as the opportunity to shape the world to our needs. It allows the US to exert massive influence over the course of world events and allows for the perpetuation of the US as the worlds top economic power.

zeku 5y ago

The US doesn't want to "shrink our monster". Read the thread! The EU and many small allies like South Korea and Japan have absolutely ROSEY relations with The US because they need The US. This is a massive strategic advantage that no sane American wants to give up. It's also one of the few things in politics that is a win win. It largely discouraged bad actors from war(despite Ukraine rn we have still lived in relative peace for a long time). EU gets defense, US gets clout to negotiate with everywhere. Best friends.

nebula8804 5y ago
>This is a massive strategic advantage that no sane American wants to give up. I'm sure you are saying this from a point of privilege. If you are upper middle class or higher in the US you are benefiting from this arrangement. Otherwise you are in an endless treadmill of barely surviving with the fear of no safety net and one missed paycheck away from ruin. I'm sure this vast underclass would say that instead of wasting money on this military instead a proper safety net + opportunities for advancement (eg. free college/healthcare) should be created...you know all the benefits that Europeans have and take for granted(built on the backs of Americans in a way). >It's also one of the few things in politics that is a win win. It largely discouraged bad actors from war(despite Ukraine rn we have still lived in relative peace for a long time). EU gets defense, US gets clout to negotiate with everywhere. Best friends. Yes it has made a lot of despicable people in the US very rich.
- google234123 5y ago
  > instead a proper safety net + opportunities for advancement (eg. free college/healthcare) I don’t think more subsidized communication and psychology grads would make the US a better place.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    But a clear path to better oneself is the dream of a modern society. No one is promising equality of outcome. But we should work towards equality of opportunity. With this system in place, a person can look at the market, put in the effort and better their situation in life with the greatest chance for success. If you treat it as an investment in your citizens that on the average will bring a return on the investment(in the form of a better educated workforce able to contribute to the country's bottom line) then you can have a scenario where some major in underwater basket weaving while others take a chance on STEM degrees. On average, the country is better off. In the end, the opportunity was there for all.

logifail 5y ago

> The point [of an EU army] is to give Europe some real sovereignty (...) Who would one put in charge, though? I'm not sure getting the 27 member states (who are already very much individually sovereign) to pool their sovereignty is going to be quite as easy as some think. The EU can't even agree on how to pick the President of the European Commission - see the statements in February 2018 by the EU Parliament on how this should be done, followed by nomination of the 'Spitzenkandidaten' and debates between candidates in early May 2019, followed by the elections at the end of May 2019, followed by ... Ursula von der Leyen getting the job in July 2019. Not exactly democracy at its finest.