3 ms·

'Because Fuck You, that's why' works as a foreign policy when we're the biggest 800 pound gorilla in town. But it could turn out pretty badly for us (the US) la

'Because Fuck You, that's why' works as a foreign policy when we're the biggest 800 pound gorilla in town. But it could turn out pretty badly for us (the US) later.

rayiner 13y ago
It's not just being the biggest 800 pound gorilla, but also, through NATO, subsidizing the national defenses of the major European powers.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I bet they could survive, and it worked better when the major European powers had a big scary USSR to fear. Now? Europe fears winter-time natural gas shortages (still a Russia problem, but a much nicer one to have), and gets some oil price benefit out of our mid-east intervention, but we take the lion's share so I'm not sure that subsidy means as much as we need it to.
MichaelGG 13y ago
It would be interesting to see the fallout, though. How seriously are other countries going to take things? Could they apply sanctions against the US? Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >It would be interesting to see the fallout, We're so smugly confident of the security of our position at the top of the heap that we can bemuse idly about how interesting it will be to watch foreign affairs in the near future. BTW, I'm not trying to mock you, any more than I mock myself for the same thoughts. But it worries me that so few people seem to even consider the possibility that our prospects for the future might be anything other than world dominance. >How seriously are other countries going to take things? Diplomats from the countries involved have known or been aware to some degree, but now they can publicly rebuke US/NATO policy initiatives. For that matter, anyone may now criticize UN policy on the basis that it lacks independence. >Could they apply sanctions against the US? Well, maybe not through UN resolution! But, sure; it may not have an effect if it isn't unilateral to some degree. The US still holds a lot of cards in that respect, but fewer each day it seems. When, (not if) consensus turns against the US, it will turn quickly. >Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying? The pessimist in me thinks that by the time public opinion in the US (even among the businessmen you're referring to) turns against gov't policy, the damage will already have been done. Arguably/Possibly a good thing for the world.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
ferdo 13y ago
The rest of the world holds enough of the US debt that no one would have to fire a shot for parts of the world to retaliate. Looking at the rise in Tbill yields, it may have already started on some level.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  That sword cuts both ways. I think we're betting that the other side is less willing to tolerate global impoverishment than the others, and to what degree. I hope we don't push it to the degree that China decides to call our bet.

'Because Fuck You, that's why' works as a foreign policy when we're the biggest 800 pound gorilla in town. But it could turn out pretty badly for us (the US) later.

rayiner 13y ago

It's not just being the biggest 800 pound gorilla, but also, through NATO, subsidizing the national defenses of the major European powers.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I bet they could survive, and it worked better when the major European powers had a big scary USSR to fear. Now? Europe fears winter-time natural gas shortages (still a Russia problem, but a much nicer one to have), and gets some oil price benefit out of our mid-east intervention, but we take the lion's share so I'm not sure that subsidy means as much as we need it to.

MichaelGG 13y ago

It would be interesting to see the fallout, though. How seriously are other countries going to take things? Could they apply sanctions against the US? Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>It would be interesting to see the fallout, We're so smugly confident of the security of our position at the top of the heap that we can bemuse idly about how interesting it will be to watch foreign affairs in the near future. BTW, I'm not trying to mock you, any more than I mock myself for the same thoughts. But it worries me that so few people seem to even consider the possibility that our prospects for the future might be anything other than world dominance. >How seriously are other countries going to take things? Diplomats from the countries involved have known or been aware to some degree, but now they can publicly rebuke US/NATO policy initiatives. For that matter, anyone may now criticize UN policy on the basis that it lacks independence. >Could they apply sanctions against the US? Well, maybe not through UN resolution! But, sure; it may not have an effect if it isn't unilateral to some degree. The US still holds a lot of cards in that respect, but fewer each day it seems. When, (not if) consensus turns against the US, it will turn quickly. >Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying? The pessimist in me thinks that by the time public opinion in the US (even among the businessmen you're referring to) turns against gov't policy, the damage will already have been done. Arguably/Possibly a good thing for the world.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

ferdo 13y ago

The rest of the world holds enough of the US debt that no one would have to fire a shot for parts of the world to retaliate. Looking at the rise in Tbill yields, it may have already started on some level.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
That sword cuts both ways. I think we're betting that the other side is less willing to tolerate global impoverishment than the others, and to what degree. I hope we don't push it to the degree that China decides to call our bet.