4 ms·
"Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military" I believe the equation is a bit more complex than that.
by lukan 5mo ago
"Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military"
I believe the equation is a bit more complex than that.
- nradov 5mo agoFair enough. There are a multiple additional reasons why the UK can no longer afford an expeditionary military to protect their overseas interests, but the full explanation can't fit into an HN comment. The exact reasons aren't relevant to the current state of affairs, the main point is that they lack the capability to do anything even if they wanted to.
- lukan 5mo agoThe simple reason is, the british stopped being a big empire in the wave of decolonisation. They lost most of their colonies. Not just for military reasons, but human progress. Self determination of people etc. So had no need or funds to sustain a mighty global fleet anymore. (And health care sounds like a way more useful thing to fund, than the capability to wage war around the globe) Maybe the US needs to learn that lesson, too? Right now all the US with all its might achieved is blocking a former free flowing transit.
- nradov 5mo agoThe US national security establishment is unlikely to learn any lasting lessons from this debacle. So the UK and other impacted countries will need to deal with the situation as it actually exists, not in some hypothetical alternate reality with a less interventionist US foreign policy.