3 ms·

Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target

Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
Iran might be a sensible adversary in some reasoning, so that's out. How about exactly what they've said - a multi front war with Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada?
- graemep 1y ago
  Firstly, who said war with Greenland? They want to buy Greenland, This is not new and the US has proposed this many times and has considered it many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisi... Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure. Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that. The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China. Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
concinds 1y ago
Trump has embedded so many China hawks in analytical/natsec/fopo roles deep in the bureaucracy that even if he turned into a complete dove, the US would likely still enter a new Cold War through sheer institutional inertia alone. They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.

3 ms·

Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target

by whatshisface 1y ago

Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
Iran might be a sensible adversary in some reasoning, so that's out. How about exactly what they've said - a multi front war with Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada?
- graemep 1y ago
  Firstly, who said war with Greenland? They want to buy Greenland, This is not new and the US has proposed this many times and has considered it many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisi... Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure. Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that. The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China. Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
concinds 1y ago
Trump has embedded so many China hawks in analytical/natsec/fopo roles deep in the bureaucracy that even if he turned into a complete dove, the US would likely still enter a new Cold War through sheer institutional inertia alone. They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.