7 ms·

Surely it would be of strategic interest to the U.S. to protect Mexico and should there be significant war, they would protect Mexico.

zabzonk 3y ago
Doesn't that make about as much sense as the UK expecting the French to protect them without some concomitant agreement (such as NATO)?
- yodelshady 3y ago
  Or Ireland, Cyprus, Malta?
  - zabzonk 3y ago
    good points. i must admit i thought ireland did have jet fighters, never thought about malta, and of course cyprus is complicated (greek & turkish interests. and the UK has boots and planes on the ground)
  - pjc50 3y ago
    A neutral country and two British airbases?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
That was the EU logic for decades, it definitely helps improve social services not having to spend on defense.
- _2z1p 3y ago
  A lot of social spending around the world has been subsidized by the Pax Americana. The practical reality is that the United States military has made most lesser militaries almost comically obsolete. Iraq was once the world’s fourth largest military and America obliterated their military within just a few weeks.
  - dfadsadsf 3y ago
    We should be very careful about drawing conclusions from Iraq or Afghanistan on potential performance of US army against competent and motivated opponent. Both Iraqi army in 2003 and Taliban in 2001 just melted away deciding not to fight. Time that it took to capture Fallujah is much better example of what could have happened if Iraqi were motivated. Almost 2 months to capture city with only 4k poorly trained enemy fighters with no heavy weapon at cost of 100 American dead and 500 wounded. At that time US had full air supremacy and full attention on that small battle. My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      It depends on the kind of fighting. If it's a conflict between the US and large regional powers (eg. Russia, China, India, UK, etc) assuming combatant morale holds it would be a bloodbath on both sides. Most regional powers now have the ability to manufacture weapons systems and train soldiers up to par with the where the U.S. was in the 1990s and 2000s now, which means our relative power is much less than in the 1990s or 2000s, when the only near peer was Russia. On the plus side, we are lucky a number of our allies have stronger power projection capabilities now (eg. SK modernization, Japan'a rearmament, Türkiye's military modernization, Poland's modernization, etc). That said, the Ukraine-Russia War does highlight how bloody a war between near peers can be.
      - ahoka 3y ago
        I generally agree with you, but Russia can’t even manufacture weapons up to par with SU in 1980s.
        greedo 3y ago
        They can't manufacture them in quantity, but qualitatively they have surpassed 80's era weaponry. From ICBMs to cruise missiles and SAMs, they are a step above what they had before. Tanks are improved as well. The Su-57 appears to be a competently designed 5th gen aircraft, and Russian helicopters are logical progressions of USSR designs. What Russia can't do is afford any of this. Forget the sanctions, their economy is small, and not willing to under go the hardships of the communist era. So they've been forced to use older gear, and their newer gear has been crushed in combat. And don't forget that most militaries have old gear. B-52, B-1, B-2, etc are old old airframes. M1 is an old tank design (though it has been upgraded heavily). Bradleys are an old ICV design, again upgraded heavily. But the US still uses M113 from the 70s in some units, the Blackhawk and Apache are from the 80s, and we have ships in the USN that are almost old enough to qualify as senior citizens.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  The problem with Europe is that it is not and never will be a single country. If you ad up the defense spending of all European countries it would on paper have a military that could rival China and the US.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  "EU logic" is backed up by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There is no equivalent US-Mexico mutual defence agreement so far as I'm aware. There is a "security relationship", though that tends to encompass other considerations: <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-mexico-security-relationship-in-2021/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-mexico-security-re...>.
goodbyesf 3y ago
'Protect' mexico? Like russia is 'protecting' ukraine? If you read up on US-Mexico history, you'd realize mexico needs protection from the US and nobody else. But your point is ultimately correct. We'd never allow any power to establish a presence in mexico. Not for mexico's benefit but our benefit. Even if mexico wanted to form a military alliance with china or russia or north korea, they wouldn't be allowed. We'd invade and 'liberate' mexico. This applies to canada and the rest of the western hemisphere. If a foreign power is occupying mexico, it will be the US and nobody else. If you ever read a headline : 'Mexico establishes joint military base in chihuahua with china and russia'. The next day's headline will be : 'US brings democracy and freedom to liberated Mexico.'.
- smileysteve 3y ago
  Important Modern Day Context; at the GOP Debate last Wednesday, multiple candidates proposed sending forces to Mexico with or without approval.

zabzonk 3y ago

Doesn't that make about as much sense as the UK expecting the French to protect them without some concomitant agreement (such as NATO)?

yodelshady 3y ago
Or Ireland, Cyprus, Malta?
- zabzonk 3y ago
  good points. i must admit i thought ireland did have jet fighters, never thought about malta, and of course cyprus is complicated (greek & turkish interests. and the UK has boots and planes on the ground)
- pjc50 3y ago
  A neutral country and two British airbases?

mensetmanusman 3y ago

That was the EU logic for decades, it definitely helps improve social services not having to spend on defense.

_2z1p 3y ago
A lot of social spending around the world has been subsidized by the Pax Americana. The practical reality is that the United States military has made most lesser militaries almost comically obsolete. Iraq was once the world’s fourth largest military and America obliterated their military within just a few weeks.
- dfadsadsf 3y ago
  We should be very careful about drawing conclusions from Iraq or Afghanistan on potential performance of US army against competent and motivated opponent. Both Iraqi army in 2003 and Taliban in 2001 just melted away deciding not to fight. Time that it took to capture Fallujah is much better example of what could have happened if Iraqi were motivated. Almost 2 months to capture city with only 4k poorly trained enemy fighters with no heavy weapon at cost of 100 American dead and 500 wounded. At that time US had full air supremacy and full attention on that small battle. My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    It depends on the kind of fighting. If it's a conflict between the US and large regional powers (eg. Russia, China, India, UK, etc) assuming combatant morale holds it would be a bloodbath on both sides. Most regional powers now have the ability to manufacture weapons systems and train soldiers up to par with the where the U.S. was in the 1990s and 2000s now, which means our relative power is much less than in the 1990s or 2000s, when the only near peer was Russia. On the plus side, we are lucky a number of our allies have stronger power projection capabilities now (eg. SK modernization, Japan'a rearmament, Türkiye's military modernization, Poland's modernization, etc). That said, the Ukraine-Russia War does highlight how bloody a war between near peers can be.
    - ahoka 3y ago
      I generally agree with you, but Russia can’t even manufacture weapons up to par with SU in 1980s.
      - greedo 3y ago
        They can't manufacture them in quantity, but qualitatively they have surpassed 80's era weaponry. From ICBMs to cruise missiles and SAMs, they are a step above what they had before. Tanks are improved as well. The Su-57 appears to be a competently designed 5th gen aircraft, and Russian helicopters are logical progressions of USSR designs. What Russia can't do is afford any of this. Forget the sanctions, their economy is small, and not willing to under go the hardships of the communist era. So they've been forced to use older gear, and their newer gear has been crushed in combat. And don't forget that most militaries have old gear. B-52, B-1, B-2, etc are old old airframes. M1 is an old tank design (though it has been upgraded heavily). Bradleys are an old ICV design, again upgraded heavily. But the US still uses M113 from the 70s in some units, the Blackhawk and Apache are from the 80s, and we have ships in the USN that are almost old enough to qualify as senior citizens.
WeylandYutani 3y ago
The problem with Europe is that it is not and never will be a single country. If you ad up the defense spending of all European countries it would on paper have a military that could rival China and the US.
dredmorbius 3y ago
"EU logic" is backed up by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There is no equivalent US-Mexico mutual defence agreement so far as I'm aware. There is a "security relationship", though that tends to encompass other considerations: <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-mexico-security-relationship-in-2021/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-mexico-security-re...>.

goodbyesf 3y ago

'Protect' mexico? Like russia is 'protecting' ukraine? If you read up on US-Mexico history, you'd realize mexico needs protection from the US and nobody else. But your point is ultimately correct. We'd never allow any power to establish a presence in mexico. Not for mexico's benefit but our benefit. Even if mexico wanted to form a military alliance with china or russia or north korea, they wouldn't be allowed. We'd invade and 'liberate' mexico. This applies to canada and the rest of the western hemisphere. If a foreign power is occupying mexico, it will be the US and nobody else. If you ever read a headline : 'Mexico establishes joint military base in chihuahua with china and russia'. The next day's headline will be : 'US brings democracy and freedom to liberated Mexico.'.

smileysteve 3y ago
Important Modern Day Context; at the GOP Debate last Wednesday, multiple candidates proposed sending forces to Mexico with or without approval.