What would be the more sane version? Allow nuclear armed states to invade whoever they want whenever they want?
I am a little sick of seeing the US, a country with two friendly neighbors, and massive oceans between us and our nearest peer adversaries spend ~ 1T / yr on defense to be the 'world's police'. The real threat to our security is at home.
> I am a little sick of seeing the US, a country with two friendly neighbors, and massive oceans between us and our nearest peer adversaries spend ~ 1T / yr on defense to be the 'world's police'.
If you think the US isn't a major beneficiary of global peace and open trade, you are very mistaken. It isn't a charity project, it's a strategy.
> The real threat to our security is at home.
What does this mean?
They don't have to be able to defeat China to deter them, they simply have to make an invasion too costly to be worth it. Google porcupine strategy.
If Taiwan was serious about their defense, they would have a higher percentage of their population conscripted and trained for longer. They would have been spending a much higher proportion of their GDP on defense. The fact that they've done neither of these things tells me they're passing the buck to us and expecting the US to pay the cost (in both money and lives) of their defense, and I don't think we should.
>If you think the US isn't a major beneficiary of global peace and open trade, you are very mistaken.
You don't think the world had free trade before US hegemony? The truth is that other countries would step up and help shoulder the burden instead of simply relying on us to do everything.
I'm extremely doubtful of the benefit to the average us citizen of the tens of trillions of dollars in us military expenditures since WWII. I think we would find ourselves in a more stable, prosperous country had we spent that money on education, infrastructure and healthcare.
Regardless, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further. We're not going to change each others minds.
As far as I can tell, we have solid empirical evidence that those things are sufficient, based on the fact that China hasn't invaded.
> The truth is that other countries would step up and help shoulder the burden instead of simply relying on us to do everything.
Right... and they would each overlay their own protectionist policies.
I don't know who in here said the US's military expenditures are optimal, but it wasn't me. I hope you find 'em so you can tell them they're wrong!
I think this strategy will only work because of MAD, and it's essentially a modification of our previous proxy war strategies that existed prior. It has several risks and benefits. I'm worried that the separation Americans feel (we aren't at war, one of our allies we are heavily supporting is) isn't the same level of separation that the other side of the conflict feels. I'm worried that some of these allies will be manipulated into conflicts in order to generate customers. I'm worried that if our soldiers are needed too many of them won't have combat experience, which improves their effectiveness. I'm worried that the loss of life will have less of an emotional impact when it's happening to other people far away.
The benefit of not risking American lives while still maintaining cashflow for weapons R&D is massive though.
> I'm worried that some of these allies will be manipulated into conflicts in order to generate customers
Manipulated into being invaded?
Otherwise wouldn't Russia have just walked into Ukraine with a nuke saying "we're the boss now or eveyone is dead"?
The West has responded with a very slow, incremental ramping up of aid to avoid triggering it.
If Russia didn't have nukes, the situation in Ukraine would look very different.
Blackmail doesn't have to be perfect to be functional. The West has correctly assessed "they're not going to nuke us over x" so far, but it remains a consideration.
But it's not just like US policy in Ukraine is just a big sham to get these countries to buy modern weapon systems, if that's what you're insinuating.
At least the excess inventory will finally be put to good use, then.
Totally coincidentally, Republican media figures are being discovered to be essentially Russian stooges. It’s very shocking, if you happened to ignore their constant purveyance of Russian propaganda.
Russia isn’t gonna stop with Ukraine just like they didn’t with Georgia and Moldova.
The point of nuclear deterrent is to have it, not to use it. If one has too much of it they'll go bankrupt like the USSR. None and they'll get attacked or invaded. That's why nobody attacks North Korea and Iran mainly uses proxies to attack Israel.
Plenty of countries have no nuclear weapons and aren’t attacked.
The USSR didn’t fall because it had too many nuclear weapons.
Plenty of nuclear armed countries have been attacked or invaded.
Yep, you're right, that's definitely where I was going with it.
Edit: To make things perfectly clear, "not going to war" starts with "don't invade another country". I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.
"Would prefer if they didn't" is a sensible position to hold and not an actual contribution to the conversation.
Sensible positions worth holding are valid contributions to conversations.
Fruitful! Highly informative as to what decisions need to be made henceforth.
It hasn't historically worked that well.
If China chooses to invade, the US is left with a choice of how to intervene. "No war" isn't on the table any more, even if the US choice is "don't get involved in the war and let our ally get clobbered".