4 ms·

Although your comments are technically correct I think the bigger picture may still make this relevant. These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired

Although your comments are technically correct I think the bigger picture may still make this relevant. These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII.

alephnerd 2y ago
> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII The 1950s is ancient history now. All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin. This same incident literally happened last week in the French nuclear industry, where a senior exec was canned because they weren't able to pass background checks due to their familial ties in Russia and past work in the Russian defense space before naturalizing as a French national. If the US is to be viewed as a threat by EU member states (like a lot of Redditors-turned-HNers argue or imply), then it suffices to say that these states need to view Americans working in NatSec industries as potentially compromised.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing I agree. It is doable for individual European states to rebuild their conventional fighting capabilities. France has been a proponent of this kind of "strategic autonomy" for decades, and so has the UK to a certain extent. Most of the angst is coming from Germany, who let the Bundeswehr degrade from being one of the most capable Armed Forces in Europe in 1990 to what it is today.
  - thecopy 2y ago
    The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees) It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine. It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.
      - thecopy 2y ago
        >Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything. NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        If we are defeated by China or Russia, it will have been because of decades of political malfeasance and hollowing out of our industrial base. >I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything Half of the European countries now are anti-democratic, and actively work against the will of their own people. As for "rules-based order" I think we are just the cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry. Don't kid yourself. Our governments have been up to a lot of nefarious things around the world. We don't have a clear moral high ground as the propagandists would have you think. But we're stuck in our own countries for better or worse. We have to do what we can to straighten things out.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    Note that "US as a threat" was a strawman argument. (Although USA has threatened to occupy EU territory in the last weeks.) It does not have to be a threat, but if Europe should take more responsibility for their own defense, it would make sense build up their nuclear capacity. (And I am well aware of the differences between EU, Europe and individual countries. But it seems to me tha France is the country to build upon.) Ukraine had nuclear weapons that they gave away. Maybe they shouldn't have? Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Ukraine had weapons systems that it could not operate due to them being locked down by USSR leadership. So their choices were really to give them up, or begin reverse engineering and risk getting invaded by parties that didn't want them to have those weapons. >Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it. We can't afford it. Most of the Western countries that have it can't actually afford it either. The US and the rest of the West are only rich in a very narrow sense, in that they get to borrow more than anyone else. Manufacturing has left, and everyone is running a trade deficit. It's time to turn all that around before our countries become 100% dependent on imports and unable to defend themselves.
      - fifilura 2y ago
        Yes, but France and UK has working nuclear weapons, my point is that it may give protection to build on them especially when their previous ally leaves the space. AFAIK USA pays more for healthcare per capita per person. It is not about economy, but political will. (And I did not bring up this argument). One thing that can be criticised though is low retirement age in southern Europe. But whenever that question is brought up (Macron has bet much of his political future on it), the JD Vance friends from the far right wakes up and start wild protest and collecting votes against (yellow vests, AFD). I don't think we disagree that Europe has been naive in trusting both USA and the current world order with free global trade. But that also gives them the freedom to act.

alephnerd 2y ago

> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII The 1950s is ancient history now. All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin. This same incident literally happened last week in the French nuclear industry, where a senior exec was canned because they weren't able to pass background checks due to their familial ties in Russia and past work in the Russian defense space before naturalizing as a French national. If the US is to be viewed as a threat by EU member states (like a lot of Redditors-turned-HNers argue or imply), then it suffices to say that these states need to view Americans working in NatSec industries as potentially compromised.

wakawaka28 2y ago
So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing I agree. It is doable for individual European states to rebuild their conventional fighting capabilities. France has been a proponent of this kind of "strategic autonomy" for decades, and so has the UK to a certain extent. Most of the angst is coming from Germany, who let the Bundeswehr degrade from being one of the most capable Armed Forces in Europe in 1990 to what it is today.
- thecopy 2y ago
  The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees) It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine. It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.
    - thecopy 2y ago
      >Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything. NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        If we are defeated by China or Russia, it will have been because of decades of political malfeasance and hollowing out of our industrial base. >I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything Half of the European countries now are anti-democratic, and actively work against the will of their own people. As for "rules-based order" I think we are just the cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry. Don't kid yourself. Our governments have been up to a lot of nefarious things around the world. We don't have a clear moral high ground as the propagandists would have you think. But we're stuck in our own countries for better or worse. We have to do what we can to straighten things out.
- fifilura 2y ago
  Note that "US as a threat" was a strawman argument. (Although USA has threatened to occupy EU territory in the last weeks.) It does not have to be a threat, but if Europe should take more responsibility for their own defense, it would make sense build up their nuclear capacity. (And I am well aware of the differences between EU, Europe and individual countries. But it seems to me tha France is the country to build upon.) Ukraine had nuclear weapons that they gave away. Maybe they shouldn't have? Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Ukraine had weapons systems that it could not operate due to them being locked down by USSR leadership. So their choices were really to give them up, or begin reverse engineering and risk getting invaded by parties that didn't want them to have those weapons. >Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it. We can't afford it. Most of the Western countries that have it can't actually afford it either. The US and the rest of the West are only rich in a very narrow sense, in that they get to borrow more than anyone else. Manufacturing has left, and everyone is running a trade deficit. It's time to turn all that around before our countries become 100% dependent on imports and unable to defend themselves.
    - fifilura 2y ago
      Yes, but France and UK has working nuclear weapons, my point is that it may give protection to build on them especially when their previous ally leaves the space. AFAIK USA pays more for healthcare per capita per person. It is not about economy, but political will. (And I did not bring up this argument). One thing that can be criticised though is low retirement age in southern Europe. But whenever that question is brought up (Macron has bet much of his political future on it), the JD Vance friends from the far right wakes up and start wild protest and collecting votes against (yellow vests, AFD). I don't think we disagree that Europe has been naive in trusting both USA and the current world order with free global trade. But that also gives them the freedom to act.