4 ms·

It's funny in a way: because the US spends so much on its military, its allies do not have to. This of course is an enormous benefit to the US: but it's a great

It's funny in a way: because the US spends so much on its military, its allies do not have to. This of course is an enormous benefit to the US: but it's a great way for allies of the US to prosper under the might of the US military while maintaining security in this regard.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>because the US spends so much on its military, its allies do not have to The US also doesn't have to spend so much on military considering it has no enemies at it's borders. It can always ramp down and spend the extra on social services. Ask yourself why doesn't it do that? >but it's a great way for allies of the US to prosper under the might of the US military while maintaining security in this regard Oh please, stop being so generous with your allies, you don't have to. You have this a bit backwards. It's mainly the US who prospers from the oversized military. Do you think the US would stay the world reserve currency and as influential on the world stage in terms of decision making, if the US had the military the size of Denmark? It's precisely that powerful military that allows the US to dictate a lot of international terms and deals in its favor: "Oh, you're a commie nation with different values than us? Then enjoy our globally imposed embargo and sanctions that will impoverish your people." The US could save a lot of money by shrinking its military and global influence to just cover the US/NA instead of the whole world, but then that would leave a worldwide power vacuum that China will gladly fill and that would also make the US less influential and therefore poorer. So you see, the US spends 'hella stacks' to be the world reigning superpower because it profits more than it spends.
- splintercell 3y ago
  I can't believe you're saying these things in a post Russia-Ukraine war scenario. Yes, US has a huge military and it benefits from it, but I would say the primary beneficiary of this military are the friends of US who now don't have to spend money on military. Rather they spend money on their social programs. Can US walk out of this role it plays, and still remain in a beneficial position? This is the biggest raging debate in the US right now. You can check the works of Peter Zeihan (who claims that US dollar will become even more desirable after the US walkout), or Brent Johnson (who claims that, even in a complete decline scenario, US dollar will still maintain its dominance above and beyond everyone). Either way, Americans are hugely divided on maintaining this world order as it exists, and saying "you guys would lose so much without this", it's just taking a side on that debate.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Yes, US has a huge military and it benefits from it, but I would say the primary beneficiary of this military are the friends of US who now don't have to spend money on military. That makes no logical sense. Why would the US invest so much money to protect its allies, if it weren't the primary beneficiary of it's giant military budget, and instead would mostly benefit its allies and not itself? The US always puts itself and own interests first. The massive military sector is what gave birth to US's tech sector and the massive surveillance apparatus the US has at its disposal, and allowed it to own the aerospace sector too. All that give the US the biggest soft and hard power globally, and it also trickled down to its economy and to other sectors as well. Protecting it's allies is just a happy side effect of them fitting underneath the giant umbrella the US has built primarily for itself, and it will never give it up because protecting its allies was never the main objective, but projecting its power.
    - roflyear 3y ago
      It can make logical sense, in game theory. For example, you can have two situations: A) thing A is the most beneficial thing for person A to do B) thing A benefits person B way more than person A These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not exactly arguing for this (I'm not sure if the US or its allies benefits more, and we'd have to define what "benefits" means and "who" benefits etc.. etc.. etc..) I'm just saying this is very obviously possible: where the US having a huge military is the best thing for the US, and also its allies benefit from this MORE than the US benefits from it.
- roflyear 3y ago
  I agree with you, for the most part. It's not a simple answer as you seem to be hinting but I agree with your principals. How I phrased it emphasized that the US benefits the most from this scenario, so please don't twist my words.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>because the US spends so much on its military, its allies do not have to The US also doesn't have to spend so much on military considering it has no enemies at it's borders. It can always ramp down and spend the extra on social services. Ask yourself why doesn't it do that? >but it's a great way for allies of the US to prosper under the might of the US military while maintaining security in this regard Oh please, stop being so generous with your allies, you don't have to. You have this a bit backwards. It's mainly the US who prospers from the oversized military. Do you think the US would stay the world reserve currency and as influential on the world stage in terms of decision making, if the US had the military the size of Denmark? It's precisely that powerful military that allows the US to dictate a lot of international terms and deals in its favor: "Oh, you're a commie nation with different values than us? Then enjoy our globally imposed embargo and sanctions that will impoverish your people." The US could save a lot of money by shrinking its military and global influence to just cover the US/NA instead of the whole world, but then that would leave a worldwide power vacuum that China will gladly fill and that would also make the US less influential and therefore poorer. So you see, the US spends 'hella stacks' to be the world reigning superpower because it profits more than it spends.

splintercell 3y ago
I can't believe you're saying these things in a post Russia-Ukraine war scenario. Yes, US has a huge military and it benefits from it, but I would say the primary beneficiary of this military are the friends of US who now don't have to spend money on military. Rather they spend money on their social programs. Can US walk out of this role it plays, and still remain in a beneficial position? This is the biggest raging debate in the US right now. You can check the works of Peter Zeihan (who claims that US dollar will become even more desirable after the US walkout), or Brent Johnson (who claims that, even in a complete decline scenario, US dollar will still maintain its dominance above and beyond everyone). Either way, Americans are hugely divided on maintaining this world order as it exists, and saying "you guys would lose so much without this", it's just taking a side on that debate.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Yes, US has a huge military and it benefits from it, but I would say the primary beneficiary of this military are the friends of US who now don't have to spend money on military. That makes no logical sense. Why would the US invest so much money to protect its allies, if it weren't the primary beneficiary of it's giant military budget, and instead would mostly benefit its allies and not itself? The US always puts itself and own interests first. The massive military sector is what gave birth to US's tech sector and the massive surveillance apparatus the US has at its disposal, and allowed it to own the aerospace sector too. All that give the US the biggest soft and hard power globally, and it also trickled down to its economy and to other sectors as well. Protecting it's allies is just a happy side effect of them fitting underneath the giant umbrella the US has built primarily for itself, and it will never give it up because protecting its allies was never the main objective, but projecting its power.
  - roflyear 3y ago
    It can make logical sense, in game theory. For example, you can have two situations: A) thing A is the most beneficial thing for person A to do B) thing A benefits person B way more than person A These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not exactly arguing for this (I'm not sure if the US or its allies benefits more, and we'd have to define what "benefits" means and "who" benefits etc.. etc.. etc..) I'm just saying this is very obviously possible: where the US having a huge military is the best thing for the US, and also its allies benefit from this MORE than the US benefits from it.
roflyear 3y ago
I agree with you, for the most part. It's not a simple answer as you seem to be hinting but I agree with your principals. How I phrased it emphasized that the US benefits the most from this scenario, so please don't twist my words.