How is everything not collapsing in the US?

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I don't think it makes sense to compare any nation to other nations because each nation is unique in its circumstances. Pointing to another nation and saying "why can't you just do what they do" seems kinda ignorant to me.

Of course comparing nations does have significant rhetorical impact, so I'll just keep doing it anyway.

EU ignorance towards stuff like military feels like a ticking bomb, it may not explode today or in a decade but you never can be sure when it will go off and assuming US will actually take side with EU in a military conflict not something you should base your military policy and defence on.

 

[warpus]

I don't think it makes sense to compare any nation to other nations because each nation is unique in its circumstances. Pointing to another nation and saying "why can't you just do what they do" seems kinda ignorant to me.

Except nobody's doing that.

You're essentially saying: "Countries are all different so we can never compare them!". Sure. Just like we can't compare humans because we all different, right? And in fact. How can we compare anything at all? Maybe we should just stop comparing things altogether.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Except nobody's doing that.

You're essentially saying: "Countries are all different so we can never compare them!". Sure. Just like we can't compare humans because we all different, right? And in fact. How can we compare anything at all? Maybe we should just stop comparing things altogether.

I think the main issue is a comparison tend to simplify stuff and go towards good vs bad country view while ignoring much of why each country have the policies they have which may be due to many factors, from history to geographics.

 

[red_elk]

assuming US will actually take side with EU in a military conflict

Also assuming US will never initiate a military conflict against EU members.

 

[warpus]

I think the main issue is a comparison tend to simplify stuff and go towards good vs bad country view while ignoring much of why each country have the policies they have which may be due to many factors, from history to geographics.

Yep, if you wave your arms long enough eventually you won't be able to compare one apple to another. But until then...

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Also assuming US will never initiate a military conflict against EU members.

Yes that is a possible scenario. The idea that US and Europe is natural allies or something like that is dangerous.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't think it makes sense to compare any nation to other nations because each nation is unique in its circumstances. Pointing to another nation and saying "why can't you just do what they do" seems kinda ignorant to me.

But why not answer the question? Why don't we do it the way they do it? Maybe we could. To just assume we're incapable of learning anything from anyone seems kinda lazy to me.

Of course comparing nations does have significant rhetorical impact, so I'll just keep doing it anyway.

Yeah, me too.

 

[uppi]

I don't think it makes sense to compare any nation to other nations because each nation is unique in its circumstances. Pointing to another nation and saying "why can't you just do what they do" seems kinda ignorant to me.

On the contrary, it is a very valid question. Sometimes, there are differences large enough so that doing the same would involve huge costs. But usually the only real answer is: we do not want to.

Especially Americans seem to believe that their country is a special little snowflake where everything works different. But no, you are not that special.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

On the contrary, it is a very valid question. Sometimes, there are differences large enough so that doing the same would involve huge costs. But usually the only real answer is: we do not want to.

Especially Americans seem to believe that their country is a special little snowflake where everything works different. But no, you are not that special.

I think that line of thinking apply to western countries as a whole. The population in these countries probably for the most part have not lived through real poverty, food shortage, wars and so on.

 

[Estebonrober]

Asymmetric warfare largely precludes any real wars from breaking out. If you have not learned in the last twenty years that conventional war and its dominion is over I'm not sure what its going to take for you to learn it. The most dominant army in the world lost in Vietnam, lost in Iraq, and lost in Afghanistan. Any real will power to not surrender by any local population means any attempt to control that population will fail. Is anyone under the delusion that Russia can occupy any part of Europe with any long term success? Who else "threatens" Europe.

Frankly nukes and navy is all that is necessary for the US to operate its hegemony and the Navy could probably be an order of magnitude smaller.

 

[Socrates99]

Also assuming US will never initiate a military conflict against EU members.

Yes that is a possible scenario. The idea that US and Europe is natural allies or something like that is dangerous.

Outline that scenario. Seriously. One where the U.S. isn't a complete rogue state that will face opposition from not only the EU but also a number of other world powers.

Yes we have the biggest navy, a land army that can match any on earth and more nukes than the rest of the world combined but without international relations and trade that's useless. In the age of global corporations military is really only useful for maintaining hegemony and stealing resources from non-nuclear nations. That's about it.

 

[Estebonrober]

frankly I'd be surprised if anyone could outline any possible situation where a real nation state is taken over by any other nation state for any length of time effectively.

As it stands we can fragment nations by stirring division (US has long history of being effective at this as has Russia) within but outsiders ruling? not going to happen imo

 

[El_Machinae]

But, then will we get a 'no true Scotsman' thing, where anything conquered by default wasn't a 'real nation state'? But I do think people are a little psychologically unready for a true kinetic war.

 

[amadeus]

I think the ultimate reason we haven't seen a war of conquest is that the conditions of what we consider victory have changed over time, and this has changed due to political factors and cost-benefit analysis. The outwardly-exerted political factors are that a state that invades and outright annexes another is going to be shunned by the other states; this happened in 1990 with Iraq's attempt at integrating Kuwait.

Domestic political factors/cost-benefit problem: will people of one country want to take on the burden of policing, building, and assimilating a formerly independent state? Sometimes the first two happen, but I don't think you would find many Americans who thought that Bavaria and Japan should be made into U.S. states in 1946. The problem becomes greater when there is a bigger cultural and economic gap between nations, which is why I think Russia was able to absorb the Crimean peninsula with so easily and the U.S. finding difficulty in simply pacifying and restructuring Iraq.

 

[r16]

it is the global village thing . Let it slip and let discover China or lndia discover they are unwelcome in the global order and we will also stuff about wars and annexations . One of them is so much goaded by Washington lately , though it was the Bush ll Administration and its "failure" to handle the "jihadist" threat that made China ignore its "promises" under Deng and Zeming . Always have issues with Chinese names but 2nd and 3rd with Mao being 1st . lndia has just annexed Kashmir and what not and is very willing to get rid of Pakistan and no , this is not a joke , even with all the nukes all around in the subcontinent . Likewise in the Middle East , all it awaits is a spark .

 

[red_elk]

Outline that scenario. Seriously. One where the U.S. isn't a complete rogue state that will face opposition from not only the EU but also a number of other world powers.

If EU relies on US in defense, US doesn't need to attack or occupy territories in this scenario. It can bully EU into submission.

 

[EnglishEdward]

If EU relies on US in defense,

Defence against whom?

US doesn't need to attack or occupy territories in this scenario. It can bully EU into submission.

If no one is threatening the EU, the USA has no such leverage.

 

[amadeus]

There’s no bullying in a mutually agreeable trade; America retains some hegemony and in exchange the Western Europeans spend a little less of GDP on their defense.

There’s public squabbling on both sides, with America chiding Europe for not spending enough and W. Europe criticizing American militarism, but it’s all political theater.

 

[red_elk]

Defence against whom?

If no one is threatening the EU, the USA has no such leverage.

The scenario being discussed is about US turning hostile towards EU or some of its members.

 

[Hrothbern]

According to WorldBank data China does spend approx 1.9 % of GDP which is a bit more than USD 250 Billion.
According to Wiki the EU-27 did spend Euro 225 Billion (approx USD 250 Billion at 1.10 currency rate) and this is in 2018 approx 1.4% of GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy#:~:text=Expenditure and personnel,-Further information: List&text=The combined military expenditure of,and joint procurement of equipment.

If it is a numbers game....
Is 2.0% the norm... or is absolute amount equivalency with China the norm ?

The EU can easily spend some more money on military.
It means shifting some money from amenities to military insurance
That military insurance will cause some second order effects mostly better stability-continuity, beneficial to mitigating risks on the EU way of life.

But on what to spend that money, on what to spend those resources you tie up ?
And which regions, countries will enjoy the economy of the military industry and salaries and which regions, countries will just pay up ?
And will for example salaries paid to countries with lots of unemployed people lead to soldiers defending EU interests in other countries ?


And what military ?
More of the same of the last war like tanks ?
Do we need for the EU those costly air carriers ?
(how much is that alone already for the US military cost as % of GDP ?)
How much of future military is related to cyber war ?..... needing urban dweller nerds.
Then there are the attack submarines, the nukes, etc... what to do there beyond some vanity projects.
etc

If the US could re-design its complete military without the inertia of vested interests of politicians and States, of industry and military salaries.... and could swap from A to B without transition issues... how would US military look ?