5 ms·

The US managed the assemble an alliance of the... let's count them: Based on military ranking: #5 SK, #6 UK, #7 France, #8 Japan, #9 Turkey, #10 Italy, #11 Br

by oblio 11mo ago

The US managed the assemble an alliance of the... let's count them: Based on military ranking: #5 SK, #6 UK, #7 France, #8 Japan, #9 Turkey, #10 Italy, #11 Brazil, #12 Pakistan, #14 Germany, #15 Israel, #17 Spain, #18 Australia, and if it were allowed to, #20 Ukraine. Based on economic power: I won't even bother, only China, India, Russia aren't US allies in the top 30 or so, by GDP. The US was a world police but it wasn't alone. Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. What the US is doing now is a tragedy that will unfold over many decades. [1] Based on https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-2025-ranked https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-202... (if you have a better ranking, please link it).

mikkupikku 11mo ago
> Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. This breaks down as soon as you stop looking at abstract rankings and dive into the specific logistic realities of force projection. France and to a lesser extent the UK are reasonably capable, but there's no math that adds up to anything approaching America's capabilities.
- eszed 11mo ago
  Beyond that, if you do get into the specifics of force projection (and basically anything logistical to do with NATO), you see that the entire alliance was built on the assumption that the US would contribute the capabilities that kept the whole system viable. So, $(US) + $(ALLIES) > $(US) However, $(ALLIES) - $(US) < $(ALLIES) This has been true from the beginning, and I don't think was a nefarious plot, or even mistake, for most of the alliance's history. The further we get from the Cold War alignments within which NATO was created, however, the more difficult it has become to sustain.
  - greedo 11mo ago
    'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' was a central tenet of NATO from its founding.
  - oblio 11mo ago
    The problem is, this looks so much like a rerun of post WW1 America. Tariffs (check - Smoot Hawley), American isolationism (check - America First), I guess we won't be far from the economic crisis (not checked yet - Great Depression). At best, the US will slowly turn into Qing China. Unrivalled in its sphere of influence, stagnant and complacent. The US has always had a very strong anti-scientific undercurrent and a lot of it was kept in check by importing foreign elites wholesale (fairly sure the US public school system up to university level is nothing to write home about, on average). If the US turns against foreigners, most of the good ones will stop coming.
- oblio 11mo ago
  Now? No. But West Germany alone had 5000 main battle tanks in 1989. Demographics have changed, the economy has changed, but Europe could definitely project force all over the area about 1000-1500km in its vicinity if it really wanted to. But Europeans definitely do not want that and up to a point, that's a good thing, yet Europe still needs a big enough force as a deterrent, and it currently does not have that.
embedding-shape 11mo ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > as long as no one feels like they need to pick up the mantle Multipolarity means spheres of influence. That sort of works if a region has an undisputed hegemon. It means war if that title is contests.
- nradov 11mo ago
  It's so bizarre that you believe anarchy and constant regional conflicts will produce long-term happiness.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    Shockingly, I don't believe the results will be anarchy and constant regional conflicts. But it's interesting that some people still seem to believe the US idyllic propaganda about how safe they're keeping the world.
- buellerbueller 11mo ago
  China and Russia both appear to be gunning for the role of global hegemon.
  - oblio 11mo ago
    China, all right. But Russia will fall flat on its face in at most 5 years.
    - buellerbueller 11mo ago
      >But Russia will fall flat on its face in at most 5 years. Right, the same timeline as AGI and Tesla FSD.
      - 11mo ago
pbhjpbhj 11mo ago
>only China, India, Russia aren't US allies Yes, all the European-aligned states you mention should currently be opposed to USA [or at least the fascist regime ruling it], because of the threats to Denmark/Greenland. UK, Aus should be particularly aligned against USA because of the threats to Canada (as part of the UK royalty's commonwealth). Trusting the post-democracy, post-constitutional USA we find ourselves with is major folly. We might as well climb in bed with Russia.

by oblio 11mo ago

mikkupikku 11mo ago

> Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. This breaks down as soon as you stop looking at abstract rankings and dive into the specific logistic realities of force projection. France and to a lesser extent the UK are reasonably capable, but there's no math that adds up to anything approaching America's capabilities.

eszed 11mo ago
Beyond that, if you do get into the specifics of force projection (and basically anything logistical to do with NATO), you see that the entire alliance was built on the assumption that the US would contribute the capabilities that kept the whole system viable. So, $(US) + $(ALLIES) > $(US) However, $(ALLIES) - $(US) < $(ALLIES) This has been true from the beginning, and I don't think was a nefarious plot, or even mistake, for most of the alliance's history. The further we get from the Cold War alignments within which NATO was created, however, the more difficult it has become to sustain.
- greedo 11mo ago
  'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' was a central tenet of NATO from its founding.
- oblio 11mo ago
  The problem is, this looks so much like a rerun of post WW1 America. Tariffs (check - Smoot Hawley), American isolationism (check - America First), I guess we won't be far from the economic crisis (not checked yet - Great Depression). At best, the US will slowly turn into Qing China. Unrivalled in its sphere of influence, stagnant and complacent. The US has always had a very strong anti-scientific undercurrent and a lot of it was kept in check by importing foreign elites wholesale (fairly sure the US public school system up to university level is nothing to write home about, on average). If the US turns against foreigners, most of the good ones will stop coming.
oblio 11mo ago
Now? No. But West Germany alone had 5000 main battle tanks in 1989. Demographics have changed, the economy has changed, but Europe could definitely project force all over the area about 1000-1500km in its vicinity if it really wanted to. But Europeans definitely do not want that and up to a point, that's a good thing, yet Europe still needs a big enough force as a deterrent, and it currently does not have that.

embedding-shape 11mo ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> as long as no one feels like they need to pick up the mantle Multipolarity means spheres of influence. That sort of works if a region has an undisputed hegemon. It means war if that title is contests.
nradov 11mo ago
It's so bizarre that you believe anarchy and constant regional conflicts will produce long-term happiness.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  Shockingly, I don't believe the results will be anarchy and constant regional conflicts. But it's interesting that some people still seem to believe the US idyllic propaganda about how safe they're keeping the world.
buellerbueller 11mo ago
China and Russia both appear to be gunning for the role of global hegemon.
- oblio 11mo ago
  China, all right. But Russia will fall flat on its face in at most 5 years.
  - buellerbueller 11mo ago
    >But Russia will fall flat on its face in at most 5 years. Right, the same timeline as AGI and Tesla FSD.
    - 11mo ago

pbhjpbhj 11mo ago

>only China, India, Russia aren't US allies Yes, all the European-aligned states you mention should currently be opposed to USA [or at least the fascist regime ruling it], because of the threats to Denmark/Greenland. UK, Aus should be particularly aligned against USA because of the threats to Canada (as part of the UK royalty's commonwealth). Trusting the post-democracy, post-constitutional USA we find ourselves with is major folly. We might as well climb in bed with Russia.