4 ms·

It’s none of the US’s business until it is. If China takes over Asia you think they will stop there? Kill a monster when it’s small. Defense in depth. Also s

It’s none of the US’s business until it is. If China takes over Asia you think they will stop there? Kill a monster when it’s small. Defense in depth. Also shipping lanes.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
If a nation takes unilateral action that the world wishes to prevent, then maybe it's the world's shared responsibility to respond. I have no problem with the US being an equal partner in that, but right now we're doing nearly everything, and the American tax payer is paying for it.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  The US does it because a) it's one of the few countries with global force projection capability b) it's in both its long and/or short term interest to do so Today, the US under Biden is pretty selective about intervention. For example, it isn't intervening on the the behalf of the Saudis anymore as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be Riyadh--specifically, MBS--is also being petulant and immature in taking for granted American support. There is remarkable symmetry between Netanyahu and MBS in this respect, e.g. the former trashing Israel's formerly bipartisan image by allying with the GOP under Obama and Trump.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    A) That costs money. More than 800 BILLION dollars a year, to be exact. B) Extremely debatable. There's a lot we could do with 800B that would have a much more tangible impact on the average American. If it's in our interest, it's in the worlds interest as well. Something tells me it wouldn't be too long before the UN had a maritime task force capable of defending shipping.
    - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
      All the UN's military power is provide by its member nations. If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability To put this into context, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 38 overseas bases, 130,000 troops overseas and nukes [1]. Turkey has 1, 12 and 60,000, respectively; Russia 1, 10 and 50,000 (exempting Ukraine, I think). You have to go from China to Australia--through India, Japan, France, Italy and the U.K.--to get to America's aircraft carrier fleet. U.K., Turkey and France for bases (this one is plausible). And none of this counts the massive logistics reserve the U.S. military has compared to the world. America has built and funded a military designed to check global hegemony. It doesn't produce it, even if our policymakers sometimes pretend it does. But it prevents a global hegemony from emerging, with regional hegemons kept from dominating their neighbors. In general, it is difficult to read history without concluding this is the right approach. It's basically antitrust as geopolitics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_projection_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_project...
        wing-_-nuts 3y ago
        TBH, I don't really care. I don't mind the idea of the US being an equal partner as part of said UN task force, but I'm pretty much over the US being solely responsible for it
- arbitrary_name 3y ago
  You have no idea how much we benefit from our interventions. We keep oil prices low and relatively stable, we keep long and complex supply chains from collapsing. We create and then maintain a global network of consumers for our goods. Withdrawing our military globally would cost us so so much. You think we invade and bomb countries because we are concerned for their welfare? Hah! We do it because it's long run profitable for us.
barelysapient 3y ago
No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? Communism doesn't have a great track record of building empires that span a millennia.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years i.e. multiple human lifetimes. Carthage and Athens were thriving polities. The potential fruits of their minds were permanently lost.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? USA is a land-grab expanding empire, they still exist. Do you think USA will end just because it is the result of massive land grabs and conquest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

It’s none of the US’s business until it is. If China takes over Asia you think they will stop there? Kill a monster when it’s small. Defense in depth. Also shipping lanes.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

If a nation takes unilateral action that the world wishes to prevent, then maybe it's the world's shared responsibility to respond. I have no problem with the US being an equal partner in that, but right now we're doing nearly everything, and the American tax payer is paying for it.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
The US does it because a) it's one of the few countries with global force projection capability b) it's in both its long and/or short term interest to do so Today, the US under Biden is pretty selective about intervention. For example, it isn't intervening on the the behalf of the Saudis anymore as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be Riyadh--specifically, MBS--is also being petulant and immature in taking for granted American support. There is remarkable symmetry between Netanyahu and MBS in this respect, e.g. the former trashing Israel's formerly bipartisan image by allying with the GOP under Obama and Trump.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  A) That costs money. More than 800 BILLION dollars a year, to be exact. B) Extremely debatable. There's a lot we could do with 800B that would have a much more tangible impact on the average American. If it's in our interest, it's in the worlds interest as well. Something tells me it wouldn't be too long before the UN had a maritime task force capable of defending shipping.
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    All the UN's military power is provide by its member nations. If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability To put this into context, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 38 overseas bases, 130,000 troops overseas and nukes [1]. Turkey has 1, 12 and 60,000, respectively; Russia 1, 10 and 50,000 (exempting Ukraine, I think). You have to go from China to Australia--through India, Japan, France, Italy and the U.K.--to get to America's aircraft carrier fleet. U.K., Turkey and France for bases (this one is plausible). And none of this counts the massive logistics reserve the U.S. military has compared to the world. America has built and funded a military designed to check global hegemony. It doesn't produce it, even if our policymakers sometimes pretend it does. But it prevents a global hegemony from emerging, with regional hegemons kept from dominating their neighbors. In general, it is difficult to read history without concluding this is the right approach. It's basically antitrust as geopolitics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_projection_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_project...
      - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
        TBH, I don't really care. I don't mind the idea of the US being an equal partner as part of said UN task force, but I'm pretty much over the US being solely responsible for it
arbitrary_name 3y ago
You have no idea how much we benefit from our interventions. We keep oil prices low and relatively stable, we keep long and complex supply chains from collapsing. We create and then maintain a global network of consumers for our goods. Withdrawing our military globally would cost us so so much. You think we invade and bomb countries because we are concerned for their welfare? Hah! We do it because it's long run profitable for us.

barelysapient 3y ago

No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? Communism doesn't have a great track record of building empires that span a millennia.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years i.e. multiple human lifetimes. Carthage and Athens were thriving polities. The potential fruits of their minds were permanently lost.
Jensson 3y ago
> No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? USA is a land-grab expanding empire, they still exist. Do you think USA will end just because it is the result of massive land grabs and conquest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars