Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tonjevic]

Not to mention that, a not completely insignificant Russian speaking minority exists in Deutschland. You never know when those dastardly krauts might try to ban Russians, so they obviously need defending.

Also the recent Nazi marches in Wunsiedel prove there is a considerable fascist element in the nation which legitimises an invasion.

[LordBucket]

What is all this national defence guff?

It's largely a relic of that cold war. You know, that time when we all walked to school every day thinking about how nuclear missiles could fall from the sky at any moment and incinerate us all. Or that we might not be lucky enough to be incinerated instantly, and might have to survive for a couples days or weeks watching or skin fall off our bodies. Wondering if maybe we'd be close enough to ground zero that we'd simply cease to exist before we even heard the blast.

Oh, don't remember that? Too young?

Right.

Here's an instructional video for children with a cartoon turtle and nice man explaining calmly how we certainly hope to have warning of a nuclear attack, but that we might not and how we should be ready at every moment of every day to drop to the ground and cover ourselves to avoid being ripped apart by debris from the shockwave. How we might be torn up by glass and burned by the flash effect.

You remember duck and cover drills in school? I bet you thought those were for earthquakes. They weren't, originally.

The thing I am confused about is that this thing which we are currently calling national defence is not that. It can't be.

How exactly do you defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles?

When I was in school, ICBM was an abbreviation in as common use as ATM is today. Try to imagine that. Imagines that the idea of missiles fired from halfway across the globe carrying nuclear payloads that could incinerate you is such a common topic of discussion that schoolchildren use the acronym for it.

How do you defend against those? Equipping your "defense" force on your beaches with tanks and guns isn't going to help. And at the time, shooting them down wasn't practical.

But what you can do is build a whole lot of missiles yourself and put them in underground silos and submarines that could be anywhere so that You can insure that your opponent will be destroyed too. That's a another fun acronym that was in common use when I was in school. MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

We knew, as kids, that we couldn't defend ourselves. Think about that. Try to understand. Day after day, year after year, knowing that there's nothing anybody can do to stop "the bad guys" from killing everyone you know, whether instantly or painfully over weeks. All you can do is have the ability to do it back to them and hope they're smart enough to choose to not push the button. Because if they do, it might mean not only that you and they die, but that human civilization comes to and end.

Today, kids worry about things like date rape, school shootings...sure, unpleasant and unfortunate things. We worried about the end of human civilization as we starved to death under a radioactive, dusty, sunless sky and watched the skin peel from our bodies.

So what can you do? Yes, you can build lots of nuclear missiles. And when you do you make sure you build more than they have, because the whole point is that it's a deterrent. You hope to never use them. But then they find out you have more missiles than they do, so they build more. Prompting you to build more. Oh dear, now we're competing to see who can build more nuclear weapons, and before long you have enough to render the entire surface of the planet uninhabitable dozens of times over. Ok, maybe that was excessive. And worse, you're beginning to suspect that the deterrent is minimal. So what else can you do?

Instead of defending only your own country, you can start building military bases abroad. Over a thousand of them. The world is a big place. Of course, your opponent is doing this too. It's a competition to see who can put their weapons and planes and surveillance stations closer to their opponent.

But even that might not be effective. Even with bases everywhere across the globe monitoring, waiting, watching...ready to intercept planes and report, there still might be nuclear submarines right off your coast that you don't know about, able to strike without warning. Some of you might remember a certain Sean Connery movie about how that might happen. So, since conventional solutions won't work, you invest in highly speculative 'high tech' research to find alternatives.

I also have a very nice bridge for sale if anyone is interested.

It's easy to look back on this now and say it's silly. And yes, it is silly. And pointless. And unnecessary. And unhealthy.

But try to understand why it is this way. How it came to this. Entire generations living in terror, trying to spend more and more money to solve an unsolvable problem. It got out of hand. It still is. We haven't recovered from it. Like the fat grandfather who came to this country from poverty, and ate himself fat and was proud of it, because his was the first generation to have enough food to be capable of being fat. And you, the grandson who has grown up amidst aplenty, looking at him in bewilderment wondering why he's fat and keeps on eating.

The defense budget is fat and bloated for reasons. They might not be good reasons. But not that long ago they were reasons a lot of people could relate to: fear.

[Drunken]

Thanks for the input LordBucket, the perspective you put forward does explain a lot of the original causes. My question was more about the present though. Why still? Every other nation has scaled back their military budget since the cold war ended, but the US has increased theirs. Why are the US public still content to pay 100k per person for this?

Helgoland. Due to the number of ad hominem attacks in your post I feel I should go through your points one by one.

"'Occupying'? If you're German, you've just successfully revealed as either a far-right or a far-left nutjob. If you're not German, I would like to ask you in the name of my whole country to revise your wording."

No I am not German, does this exclude me from being a far right or far left nutjob? I think not. Given that I am arguing against military spending I think the idea that I might be far right is unlikely, which means I must either be a filthy communist or a disgusting punk anarchist. I should be locked up. What wording do you prefer, are you seriously swallowing he idea that US nukes in Germany make Germans safer?

"And interestingly you do not mention Russia as a possible threat, or indeed even as an impossible thread... Do I smell an agenda? I think so. Only a fool could have witnessed the past six months and conclude that our big neighbor inn the East is just a harmless as Luxemburg."

I would never call Russia harmless, far from it, but Russia has no strategic interest in invading Germany at the moment and if you don't see that you have less understanding of defence policy than you seem to believe. Nothing that Russia has done recently is a threat to the German people's security, and nothing they have done in the last six months is significantly worse than what they have done in the last six years, or the last 30. Russia is fairly consistently a nation ruled by tyrannical oligarchs that oppress and exploit their neighbouring countries. For the record I also would call Luxembourg harmless, although obviously they are less scary than Russia.

"And your conflation of various unrelated prooblems the US is having does not strengthen your credibility either. What does the failed war on drugs with the surge in imprisonment have to do with the war in Iraq? Why do you think is a reactionary tax and welfare policy the result of war abroad?
Lastly, you gallantly ignore that the phrase 'national interest' has been abused to hell and back, but still retains its original meaning."

I was talking about national interest when I talked about the war on drugs, taxation, war and welfare. Are you suggesting these are not related to the national interest at all? Please back this up with reasoning because to me they seem to be very connected.

"It is in the US national interest - and in the national interest of most everyone else - ..."
I was arguing with the cost, not the existence of national security. I was talking about national interests with regard to where financial expenditure could be in the interest of the nation. Significant evidence suggests that relatively small expenditures in the areas I mentioned could save many lives and elevate the living standards of many more. I could say that I really need to wear shoes or my feet would get cold, that is not an argument that has any bearing on whether a million dollars is a fair price for shoes. your argument appears to be that we need national security at any price. Are you arguing that 100k per person is a fair price for national security, and that it could not be obtained for less? If this is indeed your position please say so unambiguously so we know where we stand.

"And we shouldn't throw away a good tool for securing these true national interests just because a WASP moron invaded a country to cope with his daddy issues."

I am not sure I understand this sentence at all but I do understand it is a hostile attack on my character. Actually now I am not even sure of that. Are you calling me protestant and accusing me of invading somewhere and having daddy issues? Or was that comment about some world leader somewhere?

Either way personal attacks show that you are emotionally invested in your side of the debate. Why is this? Why is the military so important to you? Are you or someone close to you a veteran? Was someone you know killed? I have no intention of hurting your feelings or insulting anyone's memory. If you would like to talk about your emotions feel free to PM me any time, I may not be able to offer much real help but I am always prepared to listen and sympathise. I hope nothing I said caused you too much distress.

[Helgoland]

Okay, I'll work on my communication skills.
1) The 'occupied' bit
In Germany the only people who claim that the American troops are 'occupying' Germany are indeed far-left and far-right nutjobs. They usually have an anti-American agenda, want to suck up to Russia, loathe the EU, and to be honest I suspect a fair few of them are anti-semites or at least close to it. They're as close to rabid nationalists as you get in Germany. They represent a lot of what's wrong with the German political landscape, and not calling them out on it immediately can result in great harm.
Good news: You're not German, so this doesn't apply! You shouldn't use the word 'occupy' anyway when talking about the US troops in Germany. Mine isn't an occupied country, and claiming something else shows either ignorance (I apologize in advance for the hard wording) or malice.
2) Russia's non-harmlessness
It is true that Russia has little strategic interest in invading Germany. Even if it did, it would be rather hard since we do not share a border! Our neighbors in the East - Poland and the Baltics mostly - as well as countries further away however are very much threatened by Russia: If you haven't noticed, Russia's the country that is currently invading another European country and annexing part of its territory. One could of course go the appeasement route and ignore all this as long as one is not personally threatened, but I for  one do not wish to stand idly by while Poland once again lives up to its moniker as 'the doormat of Europe'. German defence does not stop at the German borders. European defence does not stop where the Wall used to be. And so American defence doesn't stop there either. The only reason the US troops cannot move further east is an old agreement between Russia and the Western powers preventing exactly that.
I just thought that it was odd that you ignored the one somewhat realistic threat. In my country only a certain kind of people does that, and since the situation is rather tense at the moment, I tend to jump on that sort of thing.
3) National interest and domestic problems

After spending trillions and killing millions for 'national interests' you have 3% of US children homeless, many millions of people in prison, further millions depending on welfare and still not getting by, millions without access to healthcare and even tens of thousands without access to fresh water.

This sentence suggests a causal relationship between the wars waged abroad and the pitiful state of American society. Do you really think that savings from reduced military spending would immediately go into welfare? If that was the case, Congress would already have raised taxes - which are among the lowest in the developed world - to adress these ills. It's much more likely that the freed money would be used to reduce the deficit (if you're an optimist) or lower taxes for the rich even further (if you're a pessimist).
If you didn't mean to suggest a causal relationship I'm sorry for talking past you. The same goes for what came after: You seemed to suggest that 'national interest' was a sham altogether (again, depressingly common in my country). The cost issue is wholly separate, and is largely the result of Europe mooching off the US defence budget. It's an issue that has little to do with the size of the military apparatus and more with how costs are distributed.
4) That failed joke
'WASP with daddy issues' indeed refers to George W. Bush. Don't you think it's odd that his dad waged war against Iraq but didn't occupy it, and the lil one decided to one-up him? Especially since there are reports of Iraq war planning starting even before 9/11 and Bush Sr. apparently having a strong dislike of his son...
5) Emotional investment
Damn right I'm emotionally invested! There's war in Europe, and significant amounts of my countrymen go "Mourir pour Kiev?" One of the leading politicians of our second-largest party recently suggested just legalizing the annexation of Crimea. He took some heavy flak for that, but the sentiment's there. And in such a situation I have very little patience with isolationists.
6) Ad hominems
I'm sorry, but I really don't see any. Well, if you had been German, there would have been one, but since you're not, there wasn't. My wording was harsh I'll admit, but I do not see any personal attacks... Could you point them out, in post or PM form? After all I'm trying to improve

[alexandertnt]

It's important to keep in mind that 23 years (since the Soviet Union existed) is not all that long. Plus with the escalating conflicts invlolving Russia, it's easy enough to see the US gaining interest in world intervention once again.

It's also important to note that that "100k per person" diddn't just evaporate into empty F-35's. A number of useful advances have come from that spending, nuclear power, advances in computer technologies, the internet, etc.

That money could have been spent more efficiently, sure, but if I lived in America I would not feel that money was a waste (I would be annoyed somewhat, that it could have been used better though).

are you seriously swallowing he idea that US nukes in Germany make Germans safer

I'm not German, so I can't speak for the German people, but here in Australia we have numerous US millitary installations and I don't feel particularly occupied or oppressed. I would oppose stockpiling nukes from any country here, due to my opposition to nuclear weapons, but if US nukes were stockpiled here I certainly wouldn't feel occupied.

I mean, I'm not quite sure why you would feel occupied*. Most countries in NATO rank very highly for personal and political freedom, I can go outside and slander the US all I want without consequence.

(*I am only assuming this is how you feel, and that you are in a country in a similar situation to Germany. If you are not, I apologise for the misunderstanding).

Given that I am arguing against military spending I think the idea that I might be far right is unlikely

There are plenty of far-righters that are against millitary spending, particularly the isolationists (increasingly popular in the US), and of course those who oppose the country they are referring to (pretty much what Helgoland was implying...).

[Drunken]

alexandertnt: I have heard that argument before and I don't believe it holds water personally. Yes military research has civilian uses, but civilian research usually yields more for the expenditure. If you are arguing in favour of military spending you have to demonstrate that the money would yield more useful advances being spent by the military than by a civilian research organisation.

I apologise to all for my use of the word occupied, I know it has a lot of baggage. I meant it purely in the literal  dictionary sense (definition 1, whereas definition 2 was wrongly implied). I used the term to contrast with 'defend' and 'protect' used by others, which I find to be just as wrong and just as offensive. I will compromise on the term 'inhabit'. The US military is inhabiting Germany. I do not feel occupied or oppressed by the US military. I have never even seen a US solder in my life.

Helgoland:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't agree that George Bush is the only one needlessly squandering military resources. I do agree that he has daddy issues.

I would like to go into more detail on the Russia issue. I understand how, as a German, you (Helgoland) might be misinformed about what is going on in the Ukraine. The German media itself has admitted that its own coverage has been biased and politically motivated. I apologise that the link is not in English for other forum users but the western English speaking media has not covered this admission at all. The only English articles I could find are from Russian news sources which I did not want to use for reasons that should be obvious. Here is an example, it is relatively accurate if a lot more strongly critical of the German media than the German one I linked. The reality is that what you call 'annexation' was in fact the result of a referendum with an 83% turnout and a 95% yes vote held in Crimea asking whether the people wanted to join Russia. The reason this is called annexation in the media is because NATO does not recognise the referendum as legal, because it was not sanctioned by the Ukraine government. The Ukraine government (supported by NATO) is a right wing junta which illegally and violently took control from the (corrupt and ineffectual) democratically elected former government of the Ukraine. The people in the Crimea were probably not happy to give up their independance but they overwhelmingly decided that it was better to be part of Russia than part of a country under a violent right wing junta. This junta has been shelling civilian populated areas in Donetsk now for months but this is also never mentioned in German media.

Some say that the US and NATO fomented and supported the uprising which toppled the Yanukovych government. Although this is just speculation it does not seem unbelievable given the historical record.

None of this adds up to a military threat for the US or Germany, none of this justifies US defence spending. If anything it is another example of the US military, through NATO, overstepping their mandate and interfering in areas where they have no business.

With regard to national interest, I was not intending to imply a direct causal link between defence spending and domestic well-being. I was saying that the term national interest is misused and abused. You already agreed with this. I was also saying that if national interest really did mean the well-being of the population of the nation then the expenditure of money for US national interests would look a lot different. No I do not believe that a defence budget cut would be wisely spent, your estimation of that seems realistic.

My primary point was and is that huge amounts of money are being spent, that the justification for this is claimed to be for the security and well-being of the US population (national security and national interest), and that neither of these interests is actually being served in reality. I am saying that anyone who uses the terms national interest and national defence in any public setting should be treated with extreme suspicion.

I also find your comparison of the Crimea crisis with the Sudetenland crisis and implicitly the Russian government with the nazis to be unnacceptable. I don't necessarily agree with what Russia did, not having all the facts myself, but as a German you should understand how dangerous and incendiary such a comparison can be. Conditions in the Crimean peninsular are not comparable with what happened to the occupied Czechs. In fact conditions in the Crimean peninsular are better than the conditions in the east of the Ukraine where a majority also wanted to join Russia, but were prevented. I think the Czechs that were affected by the Munich Agreement would be outraged that you compare their suffering to that in the Crimea. Yes I am aware that there is severe repression of Tatars in the Crimea at the moment and I condemn it vehemently, but it is still not comparable to what the nazis did. Please let Russia's crimes be judged by the evidence and not inflammatory appeals to emotion.

[LordBucket]

My question was more about the present though. Why still?

Inertia.

It's possible we might have to wait for the current generation to die of old age and be replaced before it changes.

The average congressman is in his middle fifties, and the highest voter turnouts are among those 65 or older. We're talking about people who were the children of people who fought in world war 2. Children of people who witnessed 100 million war casualties and then themselves fought in Vietnam and then lived most of their lives in a state of perpetual fear due to the cold war.

Those are the people voting, and those are the people in politics. You can't just expect them to just casually say "oh! everything's ok now."

Every other nation has scaled back their military budget since the cold war ended, but the US has increased theirs.
Why are the US public still content to pay 100k per person for this?

Which other nations are you referring to? The Soviet Union no longer exists.

If you're referring to the Russians, they were never as antagonistic about the cold war as we were. Try watching some Soviet-era propaganda sometime. It's enlightening. They viewed us as oppressed people who would one day overthrow our capitalist slavemasters and join them with open arms as friends.

We perceived them as enemies who would destroy us if they ever got the upper hand. But they didn't. But most measures, if there were to be a victor, it was us. We won.


How old are you? If you're under 25...I understand completely how the situation can't possibly make any sense to you. You probably grew up gaming with Russians. It's possible that until this post, you didn't even realize that "the Russians" live under a completely different political organization. The country talked about as being the other side of the cold war no longer exists. You're used to the European Union being a thing that actually exists. It didn't when I was a kid. It didn't when I was a teenager even. The idea of Berlin being a city with parts cordoned off with death strips where they would shoot you if you tried to leave...that probably seems foreign to you.

This stuff was all just ordinary status quo when I was a kid.

If you grew up with insignificant little blips on the radar like the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of the twin towers as your concept of the "horrors of war," then you're going to have a tough time relating to people who endured the greatest loss of human life in the history of the human race.

The invasion of Iraq? Is that your concept of war? 172 combined allied casualties

Vietnam? FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND two hundred twenty Americans dead, and over THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND injured.

The people in politics right now personally fought in a war with over three hundred times as many American casualties as the invasion of Iraq. And the majority of voters were the children of people who fought in a war with over five-hundred-eighty-THOUSAND times as many total casualties, and then spent their entire lives with neverending pits of fear in their stomach, terrified that their children might have to endure the same.

You cannot expect those people to just let it go. They're the ones who voted all that military spending into existence in the first place, and the result was the dissolution of the USSR, the fall of the Berlin wall, and war with tens of thousands and millions of casualties replaced with "war" with...hundreds of casualties.

By every indicator they have, all that money was well spent.

When will it end? When those people die of age and a younger generation replaces them.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

result of a referendum with an 83% turnout and a 95% yes vote held in Crimea asking whether the people wanted to join Russia.

I heard the more you repeat a lie, it becomes true, right?

I especially enjoy how you told him he's misinformed about the realities of the situation then immediately start repeating lies and propaganda disseminated by the Kremlin. It's fun.

[smjjames]

result of a referendum with an 83% turnout and a 95% yes vote held in Crimea asking whether the people wanted to join Russia.

I heard the more you repeat a lie, it becomes true, right?

I especially enjoy how you told him he's misinformed about the realities of the situation then immediately start repeating lies and propaganda disseminated by the Kremlin. It's fun.

Yeah, a 95% yes vote is EXTREMELY implausible, given how 30% of the population is ukranian, the highest you'd plausibly expect would be 70%.

[Loud Whispers]

To address again the point of US defending Germany and Europe, the correct term is 'occupying'. There are no realistic or sane military strategists that are claiming any imminent threat of a European country being invaded, especially not by a power that Europe banded together could not deal with.

Yes, Europe banded together. One assumes a bloc of nations historically known for abandoning and killing each other would unite, and also that the threat would not be from within Europe itself. As has been mentioned already; Ukraine.

Why doesn't the US end the occupation of Germany and prove once and for all that they are right when Germany is instantly invaded and conquered by... by Sweden I guess, or maybe Turkey? Maybe hordes of kilt wearing claymore wielding barbarians from a newly independent Scotland.

Well Turkey is still occupying Cyprus and Sweden shall one day be annexed by glory Finland.

Thanks for the input LordBucket, the perspective you put forward does explain a lot of the original causes. My question was more about the present though. Why still? Every other nation has scaled back their military budget since the cold war ended, but the US has increased theirs. Why are the US public still content to pay 100k per person for this?

A desperate attempt to halt the waning pax Americana. Should America ever lose its absolute global hegemony there would be a very big power gap numerous great powers would be more than willing to try and fill.

Given that I am arguing against military spending I think the idea that I might be far right is unlikely, which means I must either be a filthy communist or a disgusting punk anarchist.

You sound distinctly American... Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just America is pretty untouchable military-wise, and so Americans enjoy a considerably more idealistic view of world peace than others closer to external threats. Is my prejudice well-founded?

I would never call Russia harmless, far from it, but Russia has no strategic interest in invading Germany at the moment and if you don't see that you have less understanding of defence policy than you seem to believe. Nothing that Russia has done recently is a threat to the German people's security, and nothing they have done in the last six months is significantly worse than what they have done in the last six years, or the last 30.

They bought out Germany's gas reserves then threatened to cut off their Russian gas supplies. There are more ways to ruin a country than simply invading it or occupying it; indeed for nations like Britain it is entirely possible to ruin the country without ever dropping a single bomb on it.

Significant evidence suggests that relatively small expenditures in the areas I mentioned could save many lives and elevate the living standards of many more.

Das communism, no obama pls

There are plenty of far-righters that are against millitary spending, particularly the isolationists (increasingly popular in the US), and of course those who oppose the country they are referring to (pretty much what Helgoland was implying...).

Right, don't forget the RON PAUL 2012 side of things, they love a non-interventionist USA (if you want to be cynical, it's because less military = less taxes).

[Jackrabbit]

I find this kind of question interesting, though not neccessarily for the US, NATO, Russia and all that. That IS interesting, and this thread is interesting, but it's not what gets me interested most. It seems to be that with the existence of a hyperpower in a globalized world with weapons of mass destruction, many, many armies of states that fall outside of the heavy hitters - France, the UK, China, etc. - are becoming more of a 'department of public works' staffed by extremely dangerous people who get to use weapons. Take Oceania for instance - Australia's army, whilst it tags along with the US a lot of the time and does in fact deploy overseas a fair bit - is mostly geared towards disaster relief and peacekeeping, as well as being a place advertised as great for learning a trade or making a career. Killing people for some greater purpose isn't ever, ever the focus or the public image of the military because killing people often isn't the job, even if you don't consider the massive extent to which support staff outnumber combat troops. Australia doesn't have ads where a marine in dress blues fights a dragon. They have ads about how cool it is to buikd airfields in Micronesia. Seeing combat and being in a warzone isn't something I'd assume is a driver for people signing up.

New Zealand, even more so. Who wants to invade NZ? Their army has 10,000 people in it. That's not good for anything a war involving NZ would entail, unless they're being invaded by Lesotho. It's not going to defend the country for any length of time, it's barely able to deploy overseas and simply couldn't do so on its own. Joining the armed forces there is a means by which you learn a trade on the government's dime with a slightly above average chance of death or injury. Most of this is due to the US footing the bill - if someone decides for some ungodly reason to turn on NZ, either the rest of the world helps out or there's nothing they can do anyway. Geopolitics, increased interconnectedness and general irrelevance makes 'national defence' a bit of a dumb term for states like NZ. Currently many states are gearing their armed forces more towards providing a place to learn skills whilst assisting the government through things like rebuilding disaster areas or delivering aid. I don't see that as such a bad thing. This isn't to say that this kind of thing is the natural end-point of war or the world's nations' attitude towards one another will stay the same forever or even for our entire lifetimes. War isn't predictable. But it seems low key enough for developed nations right now that the armed forces of most states would be having a strange day if they had to shoot someone.

But, of course, it does by and large require a hyperpower like the US. They're almost paying for peace in that respect, as everyone's pointed out.

[WealthyRadish]

I'm curious what historians will label this time period between WWII and the time when the US either spectacularly collapses or somehow otherwise withdraws from global policing.

The problem with the current state of things is that by having NATO and the UN so heavily crutched on US support/influence, it puts global politics at the mercy of something as stupid as whether we're having an election at the time (look at the entire presidency of Truman for why this is bad), and obviously the whole system goes to hell if that support is ever lost. With the burden of it driving the US further downward and an increasing degeneration of our domestic politics, it'll have to end eventually.

Fakedit: Pax America! There you go.

[Frumple]

By that point whatever it's called will depend heavily on how much that southern american thingummy comes along, methinks. I rather imagine a superpower brazil & co would be kinda' pissed about calling it Pax America. Unless they've renamed SA by then or something.

[Jackrabbit]

It is an interesting question. Also interesting will be whether the current global situation is beneficial enough for another power to take on the same role, assuming they'd even be strong enough to be capable. I'd be wary though of treating the collapse of US power as an inevitability though, especially as an inevitability that will happen in our lifetimes. It seems obvious to some, and it seems inevitable that great powers will rise and fall, but looking at history as a narrative runs the risk of ending up with egg in your face. Of course, it'll probably be egg on your face that ends up there 100 years from now after we're all long dead. And it'll probably be future space egg, from space chickens in space. It might happen, it seems likely it'll happen, but the world isn't simple, it isn't the same as it was, and it doesn't follow a script.

But, just to succumb to narrative history for a second, the US hasn't been a superpower for more than a hundred or so years and plenty of world powers have had periods where it looks like they're done before coming back. Perhaps America will remain the world's defence fund for a lot longer.

Ooooor perhaps it'll all go to shit.

[WealthyRadish]

Pax Cholesterola
The Flabalonian Captivity
Age of Explosuction