3 ms·

I noticed you weren't able to provide any compelling concrete examples, as expected. At best, the US does a bad job of providing global public goods which bene

I noticed you weren't able to provide any compelling concrete examples, as expected. At best, the US does a bad job of providing global public goods which benefit all nations. At the peak of the British Empire, the Brits controlled 25% of the globe. By contrast, US territory barely expanded in the wake of WW2, during the period that we've supposedly been running the world for our own benefit. During this period, relative US economic strength also declined considerably: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy... >Presumably you would still like to spend some dollars defending the US? How many dollars do you think is the difference? (keep in mind there are many nonlinearities in defense spending: you can very easily cut spending by 20% and wind up with 20% of the capability instead of 80%) The US's presense in Europe is very much strategically part of the US defending itself. I think we should have a nuclear deterrent. I don't think we should have bases in Europe or commitments to defend foreign countries. We should evaluate all of our spending on the basis of how much it helps with homeland defense. >If Europe ceased to be an ally to the US and instead became hostile (due to being occipied by e.g. Russia), then it very much would be the US's problem. I don't seek a hostile relationship with Russia. It's critical for global peace and stability that the major powers have good relationships. Part of the strategy is to stop inserting ourselves in foreign conflicts so we have less need for military spending. We get nothing but complaints for inserting ourselves in foreign conflicts anyways. If things go right, our involvement is forgotten or taken for granted; if things go wrong, somehow it is always our fault.

vel0city 1y ago
> providing global public good > At the peak of the British Empire Global public goods and peak British Empire don't belong in the same thought IMO. Might as well go in about how great a public good the Belgians and French brought to Africa in their heyday. I definitely agree the US shouldn't insert itself as much directly like the Iraq wars. But thinking that means we should walk away from controlling global naval shipping and near immediate air presence is missing out the enormous soft power we can project. Align with us on trade and we'll make sure your ships can leave, your planes can take off. Disagree, and we'll see who answers the call when those Houthis start shooting at your boats. Losing those air fields and making the Navy considerably smaller massively reduces the ability for the US to project security on a global state. Meanwhile the Trump administration cuts programs while ballooning the military budget to $1T...
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >Global public goods and peak British Empire don't belong in the same thought IMO. Might as well go in about how great a public good the Belgians and French brought to Africa in their heyday. Yes, I was deliberately contrasting the US with the British Empire. The British Empire is what it looks like when a nation actually runs the world for its own benefit. >But thinking that means we should walk away from controlling global naval shipping and near immediate air presence is missing out the enormous soft power we can project. Again: Give me concrete examples of the benefits from this, which justify hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending. >Losing those air fields and making the Navy considerably smaller massively reduces the ability for the US to project security on a global state. I don't want to "project security" on a global scale. >Meanwhile the Trump administration cuts programs while ballooning the military budget to $1T... I'm a Democrat. I voted against Trump.

vel0city 1y ago

> providing global public good > At the peak of the British Empire Global public goods and peak British Empire don't belong in the same thought IMO. Might as well go in about how great a public good the Belgians and French brought to Africa in their heyday. I definitely agree the US shouldn't insert itself as much directly like the Iraq wars. But thinking that means we should walk away from controlling global naval shipping and near immediate air presence is missing out the enormous soft power we can project. Align with us on trade and we'll make sure your ships can leave, your planes can take off. Disagree, and we'll see who answers the call when those Houthis start shooting at your boats. Losing those air fields and making the Navy considerably smaller massively reduces the ability for the US to project security on a global state. Meanwhile the Trump administration cuts programs while ballooning the military budget to $1T...

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>Global public goods and peak British Empire don't belong in the same thought IMO. Might as well go in about how great a public good the Belgians and French brought to Africa in their heyday. Yes, I was deliberately contrasting the US with the British Empire. The British Empire is what it looks like when a nation actually runs the world for its own benefit. >But thinking that means we should walk away from controlling global naval shipping and near immediate air presence is missing out the enormous soft power we can project. Again: Give me concrete examples of the benefits from this, which justify hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending. >Losing those air fields and making the Navy considerably smaller massively reduces the ability for the US to project security on a global state. I don't want to "project security" on a global scale. >Meanwhile the Trump administration cuts programs while ballooning the military budget to $1T... I'm a Democrat. I voted against Trump.