Does anyone think the US would defend Taiwan at this point?
I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
The US abandoning European allies can be perceived through the lens of general isolationism (or even an outright support for fascism) but it can also be perceived as part of this pivot to Asia.
Time will tell. Elon Musk has so much of his net worth tied up in China, however, that I would bet more on abandonment. If Elon was out of the picture I'd bet more on support.
Only a fool would expect America to come to their aid now, and we'd better hide our oil/minerals lest we get a double dose of dictator-flavoured freedom...
And the Europeans are helping. Trump is not getting the straight forward quick foreign policy wins that he was chasing. Europe is going to keep sticking their "European peacekeeper" (however you want to characterize it) proposal into the Ukraine mix, and Putin is going to have a hard time swallowing that deal.
When the EU tariffs come, you can bet that EU is going to try to make it sting as much as possible.
But ultimately it's up to Americans to make the best of these opportunities.
Serious question.
It was that way for most of our existence (and empire building). The whole world police thing came after WWII.
I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
But hey, if you believe it, my pointing out the flaws in the arguments is not likely to change your mind. So I’ll just politely disagree with you.
You have a good evening sir or ma’am.
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.
Laughs in Barbary Wars and Monroe Doctrine
Given that we would be forced to 'participate,' with isolationism no longer being an option, it was logical enough for us to strive for domination.
That actually worked pretty well, considering that we were the only genuine superpower left on earth at the dawn of the 21st century. It worked until our enemies figured out how to attack us from within by playing a literal Trump card.
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”[1]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/project-2025-trump-american-revol...
>Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
No, I'm implying before people rah rah to defend Taiwan, they actually understand what that means; it probably won't mean sending only active duty and reserves after a year or two and that a draft will most likely occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo...
Even with a full, aggressive draft, we'll need allies who are also willing to draft their citizens.
If China has us completely militarily outmatched then of course we can’t afford to provoke them, but it’s not my sense that we’re ready to accept that currently.
Like you said, we haven't had a draft in decades. People might think we won't ever have one, and those people would be mistaken.
The US alone would lose in that as well, because its shipbuilding capacity is minimal. But together with South Korea and Japan, it could compete against China on a level ground.
We’re also at risk of losing strategic depth: how many more years of provocations from Washington do you think it would take a South American, Mexican or the Caribbean country to start letting Chinese drones, ships and missiles on their territory? (How confident are you in our intelligence community that this hasn’t already happened?)
Just being realistic. Americans were committed to these things because leadership committed us to these things and would make it illegal for us to get out of it. Given an actual choice, not many Americans would have willingly gone to, say, Vietnam. Maybe a few brainwashed anti-communists, but the average American thought, "Hey, not my circus, not my monkeys." I suspect even fewer would be willing to go fight for Taiwan.
The average American's attitude is, "Call me when they attack Hawaii." Until that point, most genuinely don't care. That's why Trump's current moves in Europe will be applauded by his base. Because people have severely overestimated the desire of the American every-man and -woman to defend foreign nations.
You can't give people a choice. If given a choice, they'll always say no.
That's just the sort of macho thinking that has caused so many military endeavors to fail throughout history. Maybe the politics is about soundbites like that one? I don't know? I'm not a politician. But the actual prosecution of a military conflict is about outcomes. Not soundbites.
Will there be a good outcome or not?
I mean, if it makes you feel any better, you can think of it this way. Our past has taught us that, without question, it is best to fight far away, but only after an enemy has been weakened by others.
I know how that sounds to many non-US citizens. But I'm just being honest about how the thinking in America has developed historically.
Letting Ukraine fall will embolden Russia who will continue their march across Europe until it is necessary to spill American blood.
Similarly we may not have a choice in Taiwan. Japan and The Philippines at least aren’t keen to have an emboldened imperialist China in their backyards. If they intervene US aid at least will be in our best interest.
Isolationism is not a guaranteed ideal strategy in all situations. Looking only at boondoggles like Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan doesn’t mean all US intervention is harmful to the national interest.
The only choice is whose.
After seeing people convinced to send their children to the Middle East for more nebulous reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the country can be found willing.
>If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
WWI Would have been merely a local conflict between Austria and Serbia. WWII would have been about the same as it was historically, if it happened at all, see previous answer on WWI.
As an aside and ironically, both Wilson and FDR campaigned on not getting us into WWI and WWII.
A draft is highly unlikely.
A draft is highly unlikely.
The last war fought on American soil was in 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or either Iraq war about American interests?
> 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Why would you ignore those?
Also WWII was fought on American soil in the pacific. The various guano atolls, as well as the islands of the Phillipines.
> Over 60 percent of 2016 enlistments came from neighborhoods with a median household income between $38,345 and $80,912. The quintiles below and above that band were underrepresented, with the poorest quintile providing 19 percent of the force and the richest Americans enlisting at a rate of 17 percent. The modern force comes predominantly from the middle-class households highlighted in Reeves’ article.
I can personally tell you that minorities don’t join the military because they think the country has been so great to them. This goes back to how the military treated Black Americans during WWII (The Tuskegee experiment) and when they came back they were still subjected to Jim Crow laws and how White upper class Americans avoided the draft at a much higher percentage.
The idea that “no Vietcong ever called me ni%%%” was pervasive.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-americans-are-much-...
All of the recruiters who come to minority majority high schools and colleges don’t mention “patriotism”. They mention job and education opportunities.
and it was also get downvoted
I have to say, americans love wars, it's some kind of american spirit
wars made american great, wars will make american great again
I'm a chinese living in china, i'm interest topics abt china, how strange
instead of reading some 'analysis reports' by sponsored medias and think tanks, now you leant to read ones by LLMs, such a progress
Do I look like a devil that tempts innocent Americans/Westerners to be corrupt to you?
be vigilant, we're everywhere