5 ms·

The US has a vested interest in a large number of military bases in the UK, including Fylingdales which is an essential part of the US's ballistic missile warni

The US has a vested interest in a large number of military bases in the UK, including Fylingdales which is an essential part of the US's ballistic missile warning system. There's no way that the US could renege on existing defence commitments without causing itself severe reciprocal damage. For future generations of missiles, recent events might encourage the UK to make buy/build decisions in line with those made by France, and I would personally be very pleased if we did. It's not at all good for us to rely on the US to make things that we could build ourselves, if we actually tried. But: there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing, and we shouldn't allow the mercurial temperament of the current president to make us think that there is.

simion314 2y ago
US has bases in Germany and Trump already announce moving parts of all of it out. So with Trump you can use logic to be sure what comes next, because is actions align very well with Ruzzia for now but it could be he is either stupid or he really prepares for invading NATO countries before he nature claims him.
technothrasher 2y ago
> without causing itself severe reciprocal damage I believe the entire reason we're having this conversation is because that doesn't appear to be much of a concern for the current administration.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  And by extension a lot of voters. We’ve got a Caligula problem at the centre of the empire. And the calls are coming from inside the house.
kdavis 2y ago
Given the past week, I think “there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing” is wishful thinking. In his last term Trump wanted to pullout of NATO[1], but “cooler heads” prevailed. Now these moderating forces are no longer members of his cabinet. So he will doubtlessly try officially, through legal means, or unofficially, by weakening NATO to the point where its guarantees are no longer believed, to withdraw. The only real moderating force preventing official withdrawal is the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024”[2] which “prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress”. There is no real moderating force preventing unofficial withdrawal. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-ukraine-election/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=Most%20recently%2C%20the%20National%20Defense,or%20an%20act%20of%20Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=M...
- gnfargbl 2y ago
  I do agree that the wider guarantees offered by NATO aren't now what they were, particularly for states that Trump feels shouldn't have been members in the first place. His recent comments on Poland (strong support given) followed by his subsequent comments on the Baltic states ("tough neighbourhood") show that. My point though was on the UK/US defence relationship. This has always been a transactional arrangement, and there's benefit on both sides from it continuing.
zitsarethecure 2y ago
> there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing The USA is now threatening to wage war to annex both Canada and Greenland. For the life of me I don't understand why so many people are absolutely unwilling to take this seriously. “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” - Henry Kissinger
- gnfargbl 2y ago
  > “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” Yes, and we are well aware of this. See the history of the Tube Alloys project and the McMahon Act.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  The US would obviously prefer they choose to play ball — and if you refer to the actual quote, Trump clearly referred to economic coercion: the question was compound (“economic or military coercion”) and Trump elaborated on his answer (discussing economic pressures). But you’re talking about two massive land masses with relatively little population right next to the US, both in places that will become strategically important as the climate shifts. Of which one (Canada) is openly engaging with the CCP, the US’s geopolitical rival. The US will (if forced to) invade Canada for the same reason Russia invaded Ukraine or China is invading the Philippines and ASEAN Sea: no major power will tolerate a large border controlled by adversarial states.
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    >Of which one (Canada) is openly engaging with the CCP, the US’s geopolitical rival. This is amazing. You cannot be serious. Is this how the insanely ignorant far-right in the US convinces themselves that Canada is a "security threat", ala Russia? There is one country/party that is supercharging China, and has de facto ceded global leadership to them in the most amazing self-own in history, and that is the US under the Trump administration. When American trade and relations collapse into a pile of ashes, and eventually nuclear proliferation gone wild due to your clown's actions leads to some American cities glassed, I hope you think "Boy, but it sure made me feel like a big man saying incredibly stupid things online" The US is already teetering on the edge of dissolution -- if you don't realize this, you're living a fantasy -- and won't be invading anyone. I doubt the country will even survive the decade. Russia and China cannot believe how profoundly generous Trump and his outrageously ignorant movement could be for them.
SG- 2y ago
And the US has many bases and monitoring stations all around the the northern Canadian border (NORAD) which they have threatened to end along with all the other BS and direct threats happening to Canada almost every day.
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
Fylingdales is useless to the US because the US is no longer worried about Russian ICBMs. There's no need to rain nuclear hellfire on a country when you own its government. Trump is clearly being steered towards leaving NATO altogether, so the idea that "severe reciprocal damage" is a consideration is naive. Trump doesn't have the IQ or the rationality to operate in the best interests of the US, and his US handlers like Heritage are too busy hallucinating dollar signs to think geopolitically. And even if none of that were true it's obvious the old WWII consensus is being - nuked. So here we are. Without US support the UK's deterrent is a very expensive nothingburger. Presumably it still has some time before it expires - the actual time being [redacted], but no doubt known to Moscow. I really can't see Starmer crash-starting a new independent deterrent program. And I also can't see him doing a deal with France. That would push the UK back towards the EU, and his handlers clearly don't want that.

simion314 2y ago

US has bases in Germany and Trump already announce moving parts of all of it out. So with Trump you can use logic to be sure what comes next, because is actions align very well with Ruzzia for now but it could be he is either stupid or he really prepares for invading NATO countries before he nature claims him.

technothrasher 2y ago

> without causing itself severe reciprocal damage I believe the entire reason we're having this conversation is because that doesn't appear to be much of a concern for the current administration.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
And by extension a lot of voters. We’ve got a Caligula problem at the centre of the empire. And the calls are coming from inside the house.

kdavis 2y ago

Given the past week, I think “there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing” is wishful thinking. In his last term Trump wanted to pullout of NATO[1], but “cooler heads” prevailed. Now these moderating forces are no longer members of his cabinet. So he will doubtlessly try officially, through legal means, or unofficially, by weakening NATO to the point where its guarantees are no longer believed, to withdraw. The only real moderating force preventing official withdrawal is the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024”[2] which “prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress”. There is no real moderating force preventing unofficial withdrawal. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-ukraine-election/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/bolton-book-trump-nato-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=Most%20recently%2C%20the%20National%20Defense,or%20an%20act%20of%20Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#:~:text=M...

gnfargbl 2y ago
I do agree that the wider guarantees offered by NATO aren't now what they were, particularly for states that Trump feels shouldn't have been members in the first place. His recent comments on Poland (strong support given) followed by his subsequent comments on the Baltic states ("tough neighbourhood") show that. My point though was on the UK/US defence relationship. This has always been a transactional arrangement, and there's benefit on both sides from it continuing.

zitsarethecure 2y ago

> there's no real possibility of the transatlantic defence alliance suddenly completely failing The USA is now threatening to wage war to annex both Canada and Greenland. For the life of me I don't understand why so many people are absolutely unwilling to take this seriously. “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” - Henry Kissinger

gnfargbl 2y ago
> “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” Yes, and we are well aware of this. See the history of the Tube Alloys project and the McMahon Act.
zmgsabst 2y ago
The US would obviously prefer they choose to play ball — and if you refer to the actual quote, Trump clearly referred to economic coercion: the question was compound (“economic or military coercion”) and Trump elaborated on his answer (discussing economic pressures). But you’re talking about two massive land masses with relatively little population right next to the US, both in places that will become strategically important as the climate shifts. Of which one (Canada) is openly engaging with the CCP, the US’s geopolitical rival. The US will (if forced to) invade Canada for the same reason Russia invaded Ukraine or China is invading the Philippines and ASEAN Sea: no major power will tolerate a large border controlled by adversarial states.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  >Of which one (Canada) is openly engaging with the CCP, the US’s geopolitical rival. This is amazing. You cannot be serious. Is this how the insanely ignorant far-right in the US convinces themselves that Canada is a "security threat", ala Russia? There is one country/party that is supercharging China, and has de facto ceded global leadership to them in the most amazing self-own in history, and that is the US under the Trump administration. When American trade and relations collapse into a pile of ashes, and eventually nuclear proliferation gone wild due to your clown's actions leads to some American cities glassed, I hope you think "Boy, but it sure made me feel like a big man saying incredibly stupid things online" The US is already teetering on the edge of dissolution -- if you don't realize this, you're living a fantasy -- and won't be invading anyone. I doubt the country will even survive the decade. Russia and China cannot believe how profoundly generous Trump and his outrageously ignorant movement could be for them.

SG- 2y ago

And the US has many bases and monitoring stations all around the the northern Canadian border (NORAD) which they have threatened to end along with all the other BS and direct threats happening to Canada almost every day.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

Fylingdales is useless to the US because the US is no longer worried about Russian ICBMs. There's no need to rain nuclear hellfire on a country when you own its government. Trump is clearly being steered towards leaving NATO altogether, so the idea that "severe reciprocal damage" is a consideration is naive. Trump doesn't have the IQ or the rationality to operate in the best interests of the US, and his US handlers like Heritage are too busy hallucinating dollar signs to think geopolitically. And even if none of that were true it's obvious the old WWII consensus is being - nuked. So here we are. Without US support the UK's deterrent is a very expensive nothingburger. Presumably it still has some time before it expires - the actual time being [redacted], but no doubt known to Moscow. I really can't see Starmer crash-starting a new independent deterrent program. And I also can't see him doing a deal with France. That would push the UK back towards the EU, and his handlers clearly don't want that.