6 ms·

America is a bit overstretched at the moment. As far as I can tell, we spent about 50 years in the cold war talking up liberty and democracy, but that was essen

America is a bit overstretched at the moment. As far as I can tell, we spent about 50 years in the cold war talking up liberty and democracy, but that was essentially all kind of a BS cultural-supremacy soft-power fig leaf until the cold war ended. Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed. About a decade of unwinding that position, and the new paradigm is to get back to creating a global order and dispatching regimes that disrupt our commerce. The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has. The only trouble is, we are no longer the superpower that we were in 1950 or even 1980. What I think will be interesting from this realignment is how our alliances will probably shift toward countries which are strategically aligned with us even if they're much less ethically or ideologically aligned with our stated beliefs. South Korea and the Philippines are both "capable allies" in the sense that Israel and the UAE are, and in the sense that much of Europe is not. I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south. But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis. A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move.

comrade1234 8mo ago
The USA has 11 carrier groups.
- iso1631 8mo ago
  Very good at fighting last centuries wars. Then Millennium Challenge 2002 came out Of course now we have cheap drones, putting massive asymmetric financial power. Every time Iran fires a $1k drone, America fires a $1m missile to stop it. That's a great way to lose a war of attrition. America has been losing wars for 50 years, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. 11 carrier groups or 110 doesn't make any difference.
  - roryrocker 8mo ago
    > fires a $1m missile But are they really 1 million dollars? I've always had the feeling that the cost of military equipment in peacetime has an extreme inflated price because it's a tax payer black hole with so much bureaucracy, middlemen and some level of corruption that you can charge almost any price you want. In a war economy where the goal is to make as many missiles as possible, would governments really pay 1M a piece?
    - financetechbro 8mo ago
      Feels like they’d be willing to pay more, imo. But regardless, product development costs don’t disappear during a war economy
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Hikikomori 8mo ago
      Patriots are 4m a missile and depending on target you may need more than one. Trump gov was already averaging 50b in loans per month, cost of this doesn't matter. MIC will get just as fat as hegseth is getting on lobsters.
      - pan69 8mo ago
        If I am not mistaken, another part of the equation is that it physically takes years to build a single missile (hence the cost).
watwut 8mo ago
China and Russia are benefiting from this war. It is not a blow to them, it is a gift for them. > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; Iranian regime was not "taken out". It does not seem like it will be taken out either. Its leader got changed for younger more hard line one with the same name. Edit: also Filipinos are much more affected by oil crisis then USA. It is literally an emergency crisis for them. > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis. Venezuela is under exactly same regime as before. Maduro got changed for Delcy Rodríguez, keep regime intact. Trump got personally richer, but that is it.
- iso1631 8mo ago
  Trump took out an 87 year old man, converting him into a martyr and ruining any chance of change for another generation, all while causing massive spikes in the price of oil and thus inflation, and of course sacrificing a few US soldiers in the way while he bombed hundreds of kids. And nearly half of the US supports this.
  - hrimfaxi 8mo ago
    I didn't believe your nearly half statement but yep https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/polls-wars-us-support.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/polls-wars-us...
  - hattmall 8mo ago
    I'm curious what you think about Iran killing 30,000+ protestors in the streets last month, going to hospitals to kill the injured, and continuing to review video footage to actively seek out and kill scores of 2+ million protestors? Personally I find it strange that with all the vocal detestation of "Nazis" so many people aren't in favor of intervening when an undeniably fascist regime commits the largest mass murder since the early days of the Holocaust and has no plans to stop the killing.
    - krige 8mo ago
      I'm curious why do you think that a half-assed undercooked invasion at Israel's beck and call is the only possible solution to this issue when we have ample historical evidence that invading Middle East literally never worked?
piva00 8mo ago
> South Korea and the Philippines are both "capable allies" in the sense that Israel and the UAE are, and in the sense that much of Europe is not. Most of Europe combined (meaning the EU + the most closely aligned non-EU countries) are a much more formidable force than the UAE or Israel... You can't compare using individual European countries since in a hot scenario the vast majority of the EU countries would band together, and the movement towards military integration has already been started. The US never had a period without flexing its muscles after the Cold War, you can't say that there were 20 years of "soft power is all you need" while keeping wars like Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years, keeping spending more on the military than the next 10-20 countries combined. The trouble is that the US has lost the plot, there's no value or vision to defend, it hollowed itself out with hyperfinancialisation since the 80s, the consequence is that there's no rallying inspirational point anymore. It doesn't have a "hook" to attach its vision of the future, I have no idea what's the vision of the USA for the future except for "generating wealth". As a nation it just seems to be lost, butting heads while moving backwards.
- ben_w 8mo ago
  Mm. Reminds me of something I saw a while back, can't remember enough to search for it though. During the Cold War, there was an easy "US good, USSR bad" pattern for the world to be inspired by, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, the rest of the world no longer needs to (or even can if it wanted to) rally around a call of "hey, at least we're not the USSR". Now we don't have the USSR in the picture, what does the USA offer? Much of the rhetoric I see from it these days is "We're not China", and true, you're not, but when we're looking in from the outside there's a loss of scale and rightly or wrongly the ICE detention camps and exporting of people to CECOT, looks much the same as Uighurs being put in Xinjiang internment camps. Meanwhile, increasing fractions of my hardware, from injection moulded widgets to laser welding kits, from 3D printers and PV to computers and smartphones, is made by Chinese firms, so China looks increasingly like the place where stuff actually happens, and conversely the USA looks increasingly like the place where grand visions are pronounced only to fail from lack of awareness of how to engineer anything or what customers really benefit from (e.g. Juicero, Metaverse, Cybertruck).
- nebula8804 8mo ago
fakedang 8mo ago
> Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by Iraq. Hard power was back baby! > The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has. The security concerns were never there to begin with, unless you mean the security concerns of Israel. With the US as the hegemon, it is in the US's interests to maintain the security of key trade corridors, the most volatile and important of which is the Hormuz strait (arguably even more than the Suez). Post Iranian Revolution, every action of the US has only served against its interests, to further destabilize the corridor - whether it was funneling weapons to Saddam, invading Saddam 20 years later, not to mention the constant sabre-rattling against Iran throughout. > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south Lol no. Getting involved with Iran means fighting a country that has every intention to bog down the US in a long war, at no cost consideration for its citizens. China loves the war - it's a repeat of Vietnam. China is literally dishing out intelligence to Iran and helping them skirt sanctions. Also Iran, which is Shia, isn't involved with the terror groups in Mindanao (which are hardline Sunni and funded by the US GCC allies). > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis The weakest link in the axis was literally Venezuela - proximity to the US, a hated president, and competing factions vying for power. Well, at least before the US decided it was a dandy idea to kidnap Maduro. > A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move. The Iran war is going to be anything but short-term, as the Iranians have stated. Even if the US wants to exit the campaign, the Iranians will not let them, and if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do. The Asian allies know this, which is why everyone from South Korea to Japan to Philippines to Australia has been worried - because they know that this leaves fewer American resources for them. The US has already begun diverting THAADs and Patriots from SK to the Middle East because they've been depleted. The UAE was begging around for interceptors from Italy (at a 125% premium) and then Russia, because the US failed to provide for its "capable allies". The Gulf states internally already see the US, including US defence products, as unreliable in supply and are already moving to lock in deals with EU providers such as Rheinmetall.
- 8mo ago
clerkclerk123 8mo ago
I admire your honesty and confidence regarding America's return to the path of imperialism. If only every American were as honest as you.
maxglute 8mo ago
> a bit overstretched > A short-term rotation away One of those better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt kind of situations. Replace fool with incapable. A short term rotation that revealed US isn't just overstretched but systemically incapable of honoring mild security obligations. US failing to protect CENTCOM vs Iran... an opponent like 2% of PRC GDP and even less industrial output. Abandoning CENTCOM infra to IR counter attacks, running out of interceptors... losing regional ABM shield assets... Ultimately it's still Iran, and US has overmatch if sufficient will to power through... (insert at what cost meme). On paper, anyone not retarded knew US posture in 1,2IC not sustainable or US MIC not calibrated to fight adversaries more than 50% it's GDP, let alone PRC 150% by PPP (more by industrial capacity). There is functionally no doubt US can't protect 1IC vs PRC if it has to dedicated this much hardware to Iran in CENTCOM. SKR and PH are going to have hard time convincing their constituents where even delulu can only sustain so much cognitive dissonance, all while paying war premium of MENA fossil, whatever that leaks through, which again breaks retarded narrative that they are unsinkable aircraft carriers vs PRC... who is in fact a land power with resources capable of sustaining regional hegemony, and in Indopac war, US partners would starve/suffer/be blockaded long before PRC suffers. US no longer sole superpower, when it tries to insist upon itself, current aligners are seeing limitations of power and cost of alignment. Not to mention what US+Israel has normalized... PRC has munitions in 1/2IC to decapitate/gaza US partners, which is now permissible.
- macartain 8mo ago
  Oh hey - the TLA/milspeak guy (gal?). I wouldn't wish more typing upon you but I would love if you could do a bit more 'longhand' so I could have a better grasp of some of the stuff you say - genuinely not being snarky, you seem to have great and informed insights! Thanks!
  - maxglute 8mo ago
    Lazy LLM acronym dump: 1IC / 2IC: First Island Chain / Second Island Chain. ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile. CENTCOM: United States Central Command, combatant command for Middle East MENA: Middle East and North Africa, in this case oil that comes from gulf to asia. IR: Iran MIC: Military-Industrial Complex. PRC: People's Republic of China. SKR: South Korea (Republic of Korea). PH: Philippines. The broad analogy is imagine a boxing match. US is aging heavy weight with finesse, Iran is a teen whose been training for a few years. The super weight's day job is protecting other teens from Iran. On paper one would expect US to absolutely brain Iran in first round. Before fight, heavy weight had to spend months training / prepping. Which is strange vs fight against teenager, but we can charitably interpret that as diligence. Fight starts, teenage Iran somehow lands a few blows. Which is concerning. Maybe got lucky, a little embarrassing but as long as US heavy weight knocks out teen emphatically in first round. Then teenager survived first round, spent rest period between rounds to punch the other teens US was obligated to protect in the face. Fight continues, what if that knockout doesn't happen until round2... 3... 4... etc. What if heavy weight drags out and wins by TKO in 10th round, what if heavy weight gets tired and forfeits by 5th round. Other teens in protection racket gets nervous, because PRC is not Iran, PRC is like 10 super heavy weights with homefield advantage watching US heavyweight borrow equipment to finish a minor fight with Iran. Some will fixate on the fact that yes, in deed the super weight can probably murder that teen eventually, but the amount of effort required feels insane. Maybe the strategically dignified / smart thing was for US not to accept (pick) that fight in the first place. Especially if staking credibility/reputation on fighting PRC one day. I'm 50/50 on this, there's medium/long term reason why Iran missile complex is existential for US regional posture (and Israel), taking it out is strategically sound. Taking it out while revealing that's about the limit of what US can take out is... not.
throwaways122 8mo ago
> Chinese expansionism I don't think people have the patience for this orwellian bullshit anymore in 2026. While we watched the United States kidnap a country's leader in order to "take their oil", while we are watching them literally starving another country with a blockade in a "friendly takeover" (or unfriendly) while simultaneously bombing a third country in order to (according to Lindsey Graham) control a third of the world's oil supply. And before i forget, threaten the territorial integrity of a fourth country and NATO and European ally to boot. But sure, tell us how the Chinese are the real bad guys that we needing to be watching out for.

comrade1234 8mo ago

The USA has 11 carrier groups.

iso1631 8mo ago
Very good at fighting last centuries wars. Then Millennium Challenge 2002 came out Of course now we have cheap drones, putting massive asymmetric financial power. Every time Iran fires a $1k drone, America fires a $1m missile to stop it. That's a great way to lose a war of attrition. America has been losing wars for 50 years, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. 11 carrier groups or 110 doesn't make any difference.
- roryrocker 8mo ago
  > fires a $1m missile But are they really 1 million dollars? I've always had the feeling that the cost of military equipment in peacetime has an extreme inflated price because it's a tax payer black hole with so much bureaucracy, middlemen and some level of corruption that you can charge almost any price you want. In a war economy where the goal is to make as many missiles as possible, would governments really pay 1M a piece?
  - financetechbro 8mo ago
    Feels like they’d be willing to pay more, imo. But regardless, product development costs don’t disappear during a war economy
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Hikikomori 8mo ago
    Patriots are 4m a missile and depending on target you may need more than one. Trump gov was already averaging 50b in loans per month, cost of this doesn't matter. MIC will get just as fat as hegseth is getting on lobsters.
    - pan69 8mo ago
      If I am not mistaken, another part of the equation is that it physically takes years to build a single missile (hence the cost).

watwut 8mo ago

China and Russia are benefiting from this war. It is not a blow to them, it is a gift for them. > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; Iranian regime was not "taken out". It does not seem like it will be taken out either. Its leader got changed for younger more hard line one with the same name. Edit: also Filipinos are much more affected by oil crisis then USA. It is literally an emergency crisis for them. > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis. Venezuela is under exactly same regime as before. Maduro got changed for Delcy Rodríguez, keep regime intact. Trump got personally richer, but that is it.

iso1631 8mo ago
Trump took out an 87 year old man, converting him into a martyr and ruining any chance of change for another generation, all while causing massive spikes in the price of oil and thus inflation, and of course sacrificing a few US soldiers in the way while he bombed hundreds of kids. And nearly half of the US supports this.
- hrimfaxi 8mo ago
  I didn't believe your nearly half statement but yep https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/polls-wars-us-support.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/polls-wars-us...
- hattmall 8mo ago
  I'm curious what you think about Iran killing 30,000+ protestors in the streets last month, going to hospitals to kill the injured, and continuing to review video footage to actively seek out and kill scores of 2+ million protestors? Personally I find it strange that with all the vocal detestation of "Nazis" so many people aren't in favor of intervening when an undeniably fascist regime commits the largest mass murder since the early days of the Holocaust and has no plans to stop the killing.
  - krige 8mo ago
    I'm curious why do you think that a half-assed undercooked invasion at Israel's beck and call is the only possible solution to this issue when we have ample historical evidence that invading Middle East literally never worked?

piva00 8mo ago

> South Korea and the Philippines are both "capable allies" in the sense that Israel and the UAE are, and in the sense that much of Europe is not. Most of Europe combined (meaning the EU + the most closely aligned non-EU countries) are a much more formidable force than the UAE or Israel... You can't compare using individual European countries since in a hot scenario the vast majority of the EU countries would band together, and the movement towards military integration has already been started. The US never had a period without flexing its muscles after the Cold War, you can't say that there were 20 years of "soft power is all you need" while keeping wars like Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years, keeping spending more on the military than the next 10-20 countries combined. The trouble is that the US has lost the plot, there's no value or vision to defend, it hollowed itself out with hyperfinancialisation since the 80s, the consequence is that there's no rallying inspirational point anymore. It doesn't have a "hook" to attach its vision of the future, I have no idea what's the vision of the USA for the future except for "generating wealth". As a nation it just seems to be lost, butting heads while moving backwards.

ben_w 8mo ago
Mm. Reminds me of something I saw a while back, can't remember enough to search for it though. During the Cold War, there was an easy "US good, USSR bad" pattern for the world to be inspired by, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, the rest of the world no longer needs to (or even can if it wanted to) rally around a call of "hey, at least we're not the USSR". Now we don't have the USSR in the picture, what does the USA offer? Much of the rhetoric I see from it these days is "We're not China", and true, you're not, but when we're looking in from the outside there's a loss of scale and rightly or wrongly the ICE detention camps and exporting of people to CECOT, looks much the same as Uighurs being put in Xinjiang internment camps. Meanwhile, increasing fractions of my hardware, from injection moulded widgets to laser welding kits, from 3D printers and PV to computers and smartphones, is made by Chinese firms, so China looks increasingly like the place where stuff actually happens, and conversely the USA looks increasingly like the place where grand visions are pronounced only to fail from lack of awareness of how to engineer anything or what customers really benefit from (e.g. Juicero, Metaverse, Cybertruck).
nebula8804 8mo ago

fakedang 8mo ago

> Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by Iraq. Hard power was back baby! > The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has. The security concerns were never there to begin with, unless you mean the security concerns of Israel. With the US as the hegemon, it is in the US's interests to maintain the security of key trade corridors, the most volatile and important of which is the Hormuz strait (arguably even more than the Suez). Post Iranian Revolution, every action of the US has only served against its interests, to further destabilize the corridor - whether it was funneling weapons to Saddam, invading Saddam 20 years later, not to mention the constant sabre-rattling against Iran throughout. > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south Lol no. Getting involved with Iran means fighting a country that has every intention to bog down the US in a long war, at no cost consideration for its citizens. China loves the war - it's a repeat of Vietnam. China is literally dishing out intelligence to Iran and helping them skirt sanctions. Also Iran, which is Shia, isn't involved with the terror groups in Mindanao (which are hardline Sunni and funded by the US GCC allies). > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis The weakest link in the axis was literally Venezuela - proximity to the US, a hated president, and competing factions vying for power. Well, at least before the US decided it was a dandy idea to kidnap Maduro. > A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move. The Iran war is going to be anything but short-term, as the Iranians have stated. Even if the US wants to exit the campaign, the Iranians will not let them, and if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do. The Asian allies know this, which is why everyone from South Korea to Japan to Philippines to Australia has been worried - because they know that this leaves fewer American resources for them. The US has already begun diverting THAADs and Patriots from SK to the Middle East because they've been depleted. The UAE was begging around for interceptors from Italy (at a 125% premium) and then Russia, because the US failed to provide for its "capable allies". The Gulf states internally already see the US, including US defence products, as unreliable in supply and are already moving to lock in deals with EU providers such as Rheinmetall.

8mo ago

clerkclerk123 8mo ago

I admire your honesty and confidence regarding America's return to the path of imperialism. If only every American were as honest as you.

maxglute 8mo ago

> a bit overstretched > A short-term rotation away One of those better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt kind of situations. Replace fool with incapable. A short term rotation that revealed US isn't just overstretched but systemically incapable of honoring mild security obligations. US failing to protect CENTCOM vs Iran... an opponent like 2% of PRC GDP and even less industrial output. Abandoning CENTCOM infra to IR counter attacks, running out of interceptors... losing regional ABM shield assets... Ultimately it's still Iran, and US has overmatch if sufficient will to power through... (insert at what cost meme). On paper, anyone not retarded knew US posture in 1,2IC not sustainable or US MIC not calibrated to fight adversaries more than 50% it's GDP, let alone PRC 150% by PPP (more by industrial capacity). There is functionally no doubt US can't protect 1IC vs PRC if it has to dedicated this much hardware to Iran in CENTCOM. SKR and PH are going to have hard time convincing their constituents where even delulu can only sustain so much cognitive dissonance, all while paying war premium of MENA fossil, whatever that leaks through, which again breaks retarded narrative that they are unsinkable aircraft carriers vs PRC... who is in fact a land power with resources capable of sustaining regional hegemony, and in Indopac war, US partners would starve/suffer/be blockaded long before PRC suffers. US no longer sole superpower, when it tries to insist upon itself, current aligners are seeing limitations of power and cost of alignment. Not to mention what US+Israel has normalized... PRC has munitions in 1/2IC to decapitate/gaza US partners, which is now permissible.

macartain 8mo ago
Oh hey - the TLA/milspeak guy (gal?). I wouldn't wish more typing upon you but I would love if you could do a bit more 'longhand' so I could have a better grasp of some of the stuff you say - genuinely not being snarky, you seem to have great and informed insights! Thanks!
- maxglute 8mo ago
  Lazy LLM acronym dump: 1IC / 2IC: First Island Chain / Second Island Chain. ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile. CENTCOM: United States Central Command, combatant command for Middle East MENA: Middle East and North Africa, in this case oil that comes from gulf to asia. IR: Iran MIC: Military-Industrial Complex. PRC: People's Republic of China. SKR: South Korea (Republic of Korea). PH: Philippines. The broad analogy is imagine a boxing match. US is aging heavy weight with finesse, Iran is a teen whose been training for a few years. The super weight's day job is protecting other teens from Iran. On paper one would expect US to absolutely brain Iran in first round. Before fight, heavy weight had to spend months training / prepping. Which is strange vs fight against teenager, but we can charitably interpret that as diligence. Fight starts, teenage Iran somehow lands a few blows. Which is concerning. Maybe got lucky, a little embarrassing but as long as US heavy weight knocks out teen emphatically in first round. Then teenager survived first round, spent rest period between rounds to punch the other teens US was obligated to protect in the face. Fight continues, what if that knockout doesn't happen until round2... 3... 4... etc. What if heavy weight drags out and wins by TKO in 10th round, what if heavy weight gets tired and forfeits by 5th round. Other teens in protection racket gets nervous, because PRC is not Iran, PRC is like 10 super heavy weights with homefield advantage watching US heavyweight borrow equipment to finish a minor fight with Iran. Some will fixate on the fact that yes, in deed the super weight can probably murder that teen eventually, but the amount of effort required feels insane. Maybe the strategically dignified / smart thing was for US not to accept (pick) that fight in the first place. Especially if staking credibility/reputation on fighting PRC one day. I'm 50/50 on this, there's medium/long term reason why Iran missile complex is existential for US regional posture (and Israel), taking it out is strategically sound. Taking it out while revealing that's about the limit of what US can take out is... not.

throwaways122 8mo ago

> Chinese expansionism I don't think people have the patience for this orwellian bullshit anymore in 2026. While we watched the United States kidnap a country's leader in order to "take their oil", while we are watching them literally starving another country with a blockade in a "friendly takeover" (or unfriendly) while simultaneously bombing a third country in order to (according to Lindsey Graham) control a third of the world's oil supply. And before i forget, threaten the territorial integrity of a fourth country and NATO and European ally to boot. But sure, tell us how the Chinese are the real bad guys that we needing to be watching out for.