In 50 to 100 years it won't be when blocs like the European Union in theory could become more united militarily and no longer need American hard power to act as a protective curtain...
Just FYI: people in Europe are by no means oblivious to the danger of Rus expansionism, and they live in developed, highly industrialised first world economies with very extensive military experience and history. "50-100 years", you say? More like 5-10, I reckon.
The thing about european re-militarisation is that the US has until now been pretty unenthusiastic about it, for a number of geopolitical reasons. And for related reasons, so was the UK. But almost the first effect of it happening - and note that the UK is no longer in a position to delay and obstruct its development - and the biggest reason that the US hasn't made a big deal about it, is that a hypothetical* newly armed and operational EU will not care much about US priorities or cultural preferences in that new world order.
*Suddenly much less hypothetical, due to recent events.
EU gaining full military independence from the US umbrella might take 50 years. But that'd also be a fucking sea change in international relations.
You are correct though that shit is going down RIGHT FUCKING NOW. And Trump has made it worse by doing stuff like reopening up NAFTA and withdrawing from TPP, because countries like Mexico and Canada are already starting to pull back from NAFTA and enter other international free trade agreements. Once those questions are opened up, decisions made now/in the next few years might lock nations onto particular trajectories for the next 50 years.
Trump et al's. inability to distinguish friend from foe is a real problem for US diplomacy. All of the US' democratic allies are completely pinned by the fact that Trump is immensely unpopular among their populations. When NAFTA negotiations started, some Canadian bozos wrote op eds about how Trudeau needed to find a way to give Trump a "win," even if it's not really a win, just so Trump can salvage his ego. And I laughed my ass off, because there's no fucking way Trudeau can give Trump a "win," not without torpedoing his own political career. Even if we signed a NAFTA that was immensely favourable to Canada but had enough in it that Trump could credibly claim to his base that it was a "win" for Americans, Trump would then brag about that for months, it'd get broadcast on every US media outlet, make the rounds on US social media, and all of that shit gets filtered through here to Canadians, who'd promptly kick Trudeau's ass out for kowtowing to Trump.
If you're Trudeau or Merkel or Macron or Abe or whoever right now, giving Trump a "win" on the international stage, if it can even possibly be seen as a "loss" by your own people, is an absolute death sentence for your electoral chances. NAFTA's either dead, returning in its original form, or we're just counting on the American people being too stupid to realise that Trump is lying when he calls the new NAFTA the best deal ever. Probably the third, honestly, as an ironic side-benefit to his base not knowing anything about international relations, but the problem remains that all the leaders of the US's democratic allies have their options to cooperate with the US seriously clipped. Especially if Trump continues to do petty shit like tariff Bombardier or shit on the UK's Brexit plans.
Some of this goes back to my thesis that Trump's used to/only capable of dealing with a certain type of business transaction, operating in a world where the people he was dealing with only cared about $$$, had total control over their companies, and didn't have to answer to shareholders/voters. Ironically, some of his nonsense might work on leaders like Xi, Putin, Assad, etc.., who don't have to answer as much to their populations' opinions about Trump and/or can manipulate those opinions much more effectively, but Trump's too busy sucking up to/getting played by them.
hippofant on
+16
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Trump is playing "got your nose!" with the entire fuckin world
In 50 to 100 years it won't be when blocs like the European Union in theory could become more united militarily and no longer need American hard power to act as a protective curtain...
Just FYI: people in Europe are by no means oblivious to the danger of Rus expansionism, and they live in developed, highly industrialised first world economies with very extensive military experience and history. "50-100 years", you say? More like 5-10, I reckon.
The thing about european re-militarisation is that the US has until now been pretty unenthusiastic about it, for a number of geopolitical reasons. And for related reasons, so was the UK. But almost the first effect of it happening - and note that the UK is no longer in a position to delay and obstruct its development - and the biggest reason that the US hasn't made a big deal about it, is that a hypothetical* newly armed and operational EU will not care much about US priorities or cultural preferences in that new world order.
*Suddenly much less hypothetical, due to recent events.
EU gaining full military independence from the US umbrella might take 50 years. But that'd also be a fucking sea change in international relations.
It might take 50 years, but it certainly doesn't have to take 50 years. It's not like the various nations of the EU are unacquainted with producing military equipment. Literally the only thing that was blocking such a development was the political situation. Change the situation, and there's no logistical bar to stop it happening far more quickly.
Is the thread about US foreign policy or about Trump? Like, is discussion foreign policy of the US in recent years not allowed in the US foreign policy thread, or...?
"de-certifying isn't necessarily ending the deal. It's doing what Trump does best, pass the buck to Congress. They'll probably punt too, which will just create a limbo situation where we've declared them to be in breach but have taken no punitive action."
On the other hand, this photo op makes me worry he might have a different idea:
NBC News is a news channel:
Gathered alongside a group of United States military leaders for a photo op Thursday evening, President Donald Trump referred to it as being “the calm before the storm.”
Trump made the remark without being questioned by reporters, asking them: “You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”
“We have the world’s greatest military people in this room, I will tell you that,” Trump said.
Trump was pressed further to described the “storm” he was referencing and told media members, “You’ll find out.” Watch a video of Trump’s remarks below:
Here I am with the leaders of the US military. Let's hint and joke at the idea that we might be starting a massive war soon. This is totally not insane at all.
Seriously America, the fuck is wrong with you?
White supremacy.
Yes, but that's not what's going on here.
Trump's Middle East foreign policy is actually entirely normal, when compared with the last several decades. Iran is evil, check. Such the cocks of the Saudis and Israelis, check. Keep friendly dictators armed to the teeth, check. Make the odd comment suggesting war is possible, check.
Having this dingbat in charge certainly doesn't help for optics or the chance of an accidental conflict, but threatening Iran is par for the course.
Everything is par for the course EXCEPT for capriciously pulling out of a narrowly tailored multilateral agreement to prevent a nuclear outcome that is in the interest of the United States
But it is a standard Republican position. That the Iran deal was a performance by the Obama administration that did not truly stop the development of nuclear weapons and only gave them room to further develop their conventional capabilities has been the mainstream Republican line for years. McCain is against it, Romney was against it, I can’t think of one Republican who can get close to the throne and wouldn’t rip it up.
To be very clear, we are not discussing "what would Hillary have done" in this thread. Thanks.
Is the thread about US foreign policy or about Trump? Like, is discussion foreign policy of the US in recent years not allowed in the US foreign policy thread, or...?
A: If you have an objection use PMs.
B: A thread touched by the 2016’itis becomes a 2016 thread, and we’re not having that.
For those of you asking, "How does he not see running foreign relations like bad reality TV is bad?" The answer is he doesn't care. It runs great for his base.
I've brought it up a few times that I grew up in a very blue collar area in the Midwest and still talk to friends/family who never left the area. Their opinions haven't changed much. Politically, the mindset of the current regime's voter bloc (I.E. the blue collar worker) absolutely loves how Trump is running the country on the world stage. To those who don't understand world politics, they view diplomacy, working together, culture toleration, respect, etc. as a sign of weakness. The reason IMO drifts into xenophobia in that they don't think that they or a sitting President needs to tiptoe around foreign emissaries to get shit down. In the past, things like Bowing to the Saudi King are absolute signs of weakness. (This next sentence is extreme sarcasm. Bear with me, I'm getting to my point) Since America is obviously the greatest country in the world, we shouldn't have the need to respect other foreign leaders. Instead, those foreign emissaries should be kissing our asses to have the privilege to talking to the United States. The 2008-2016 era of diplomacy was seen as a tarnishment to the "big, strong America" image. These same people are eating up what Trump does because frankly, unless you're attuned to foreign diplomacy like the majority of us thread posters are, international diplomacy is boring to observe. Trump's foreign agenda policy being 140 in length and him telling everyone to do what America wants or we will destroy you runs deep with the rural voter or the rust belt audience. What they see are short term results of a President "Telling uppity people off" These are the same people that can't forward plan and their lives suffer for it. This same concept applies to American foreign relations. They don't understand that being disrespectful and telling people to do things or we'll beat them up doesn't have great long term effects. Right now, that tool is effective. In 50 to 100 years it won't be when blocs like the European Union in theory could become more united militarily and no longer need American hard power to act as a protective curtain. That's what those people who love the Trump theatrics don't realize nor do they care because to quote an elderly friend, "I'll be dead by then. So why do I care?". The end result is American foreign policy being 140 characters in lengths and why our country's international policy is being shaped around "Do what we say or we'll beat you up". We're now a world-wide bully on the world stage.
TLDR Version - American's love Trump's 140 character or less policy and his theatrics because he has made international relations fun to read at the expense of American political influence in the long term.
Sometimes I want to shake people like that.
This is not entertainment. It is not a game. It is not a matter of trolling/pissing off not-people you don't like.
It is real, it is the future - if not yours, then your children's, the country's, the world's. It is people's lives.
It's not about it being a game. It's about them understanding international politics through the lens of macho dominance. Anything but swinging your dick around saying "Do what I say or I will hurt you" is a sign of weakness. It's the same shit you see in every life with machoism.
Trump thinks this way too. He is, after all, one of the base in every way except his wealth. That's why they like and understand his views.
To the other point, of course, Trump's style of diplomacy will have bad short term effects too. Pissing people off right now has effects right now.
I mean, one of the reasons Trump fucking with the Iran deal is so stupid is no one is gonna follow him and the US doesn't do enough business with Iran to actually punish them with sanctions on it's own.
shryke on
+2
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
"de-certifying isn't necessarily ending the deal. It's doing what Trump does best, pass the buck to Congress. They'll probably punt too, which will just create a limbo situation where we've declared them to be in breach but have taken no punitive action."
On the other hand, this photo op makes me worry he might have a different idea:
NBC News is a news channel:
Gathered alongside a group of United States military leaders for a photo op Thursday evening, President Donald Trump referred to it as being “the calm before the storm.”
Trump made the remark without being questioned by reporters, asking them: “You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”
“We have the world’s greatest military people in this room, I will tell you that,” Trump said.
Trump was pressed further to described the “storm” he was referencing and told media members, “You’ll find out.” Watch a video of Trump’s remarks below:
Here I am with the leaders of the US military. Let's hint and joke at the idea that we might be starting a massive war soon. This is totally not insane at all.
Seriously America, the fuck is wrong with you?
White supremacy.
Yes, but that's not what's going on here.
Trump's Middle East foreign policy is actually entirely normal, when compared with the last several decades. Iran is evil, check. Such the cocks of the Saudis and Israelis, check. Keep friendly dictators armed to the teeth, check. Make the odd comment suggesting war is possible, check.
Having this dingbat in charge certainly doesn't help for optics or the chance of an accidental conflict, but threatening Iran is par for the course.
Everything is par for the course EXCEPT for capriciously pulling out of a narrowly tailored multilateral agreement to prevent a nuclear outcome that is in the interest of the United States
But it is a standard Republican position. That the Iran deal was a performance by the Obama administration that did not truly stop the development of nuclear weapons and only gave them room to further develop their conventional capabilities has been the mainstream Republican line for years. McCain is against it, Romney was against it, I can’t think of one Republican who can get close to the throne and wouldn’t rip it up.
That's all well and good, but all sane Republican sabre rattlers are nonetheless advising against recklessly decertifying the deal, because the prospect of actually pulling out of an agreement like this, once made, suddenly makes a lot of full throated warmongers pull nervously at their collars
"de-certifying isn't necessarily ending the deal. It's doing what Trump does best, pass the buck to Congress. They'll probably punt too, which will just create a limbo situation where we've declared them to be in breach but have taken no punitive action."
On the other hand, this photo op makes me worry he might have a different idea:
NBC News is a news channel:
Gathered alongside a group of United States military leaders for a photo op Thursday evening, President Donald Trump referred to it as being “the calm before the storm.”
Trump made the remark without being questioned by reporters, asking them: “You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”
“We have the world’s greatest military people in this room, I will tell you that,” Trump said.
Trump was pressed further to described the “storm” he was referencing and told media members, “You’ll find out.” Watch a video of Trump’s remarks below:
Here I am with the leaders of the US military. Let's hint and joke at the idea that we might be starting a massive war soon. This is totally not insane at all.
Seriously America, the fuck is wrong with you?
White supremacy.
Yes, but that's not what's going on here.
Trump's Middle East foreign policy is actually entirely normal, when compared with the last several decades. Iran is evil, check. Such the cocks of the Saudis and Israelis, check. Keep friendly dictators armed to the teeth, check. Make the odd comment suggesting war is possible, check.
Having this dingbat in charge certainly doesn't help for optics or the chance of an accidental conflict, but threatening Iran is par for the course.
Everything is par for the course EXCEPT for capriciously pulling out of a narrowly tailored multilateral agreement to prevent a nuclear outcome that is in the interest of the United States
But it is a standard Republican position. That the Iran deal was a performance by the Obama administration that did not truly stop the development of nuclear weapons and only gave them room to further develop their conventional capabilities has been the mainstream Republican line for years. McCain is against it, Romney was against it, I can’t think of one Republican who can get close to the throne and wouldn’t rip it up.
That's all well and good, but all sane Republican sabre rattlers are nonetheless advising against recklessly decertifying the deal, because the prospect of actually pulling out of an agreement like this, once made, suddenly makes a lot of full throated warmongers pull nervously at their collars
Assuming the plan isn’t for him to rip the deal apart with his hands but punt to congress and give them the option to rip it up, the danger lies with the majority of congress being composed of the sort that would pull out such agreement even though it would be bad for everyone involved.
It comes down to what the mainstream American political class and foreign policy establishment wants and finds acceptable.
Sometimes I want to shake people like that.
This is not entertainment. It is not a game. It is not a matter of trolling/pissing off not-people you don't like.
It is real, it is the future - if not yours, then your children's, the country's, the world's. It is people's lives.
I mean, it's not, but like, he is quite literally the first troll president.
The seemingly imminent Iran decertification is upsetting me deeply. There's no sensible point to doing it - the EU is just going to quietly call us idiots, so the previous status quo won't be restored, and Iran will no longer have an disincentive from pursuing nuclear weapons; the only purpose I can think of is a prelude to war. Or just domestic tough guy posturing, maybe, but it seems to set things on a war footing regardless. I don't even want to talk about the fucking "calm before the storm" comments, that shit is making me very unhappy. At this point I no longer care about the fact that Pence is pretty much a checklist of what I see as evil in the world, I want him to replace Trump ASAP because he seems less likely to stupidly kill us all.
To be very clear, we are not discussing "what would Hillary have done" in this thread. Thanks.
Is the thread about US foreign policy or about Trump? Like, is discussion foreign policy of the US in recent years not allowed in the US foreign policy thread, or...?
A: If you have an objection use PMs.
B: A thread touched by the 2016’itis becomes a 2016 thread, and we’re not having that.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
In 50 to 100 years it won't be when blocs like the European Union in theory could become more united militarily and no longer need American hard power to act as a protective curtain...
Just FYI: people in Europe are by no means oblivious to the danger of Rus expansionism, and they live in developed, highly industrialised first world economies with very extensive military experience and history. "50-100 years", you say? More like 5-10, I reckon.
The thing about european re-militarisation is that the US has until now been pretty unenthusiastic about it, for a number of geopolitical reasons. And for related reasons, so was the UK. But almost the first effect of it happening - and note that the UK is no longer in a position to delay and obstruct its development - and the biggest reason that the US hasn't made a big deal about it, is that a hypothetical* newly armed and operational EU will not care much about US priorities or cultural preferences in that new world order.
*Suddenly much less hypothetical, due to recent events.
EU gaining full military independence from the US umbrella might take 50 years. But that'd also be a fucking sea change in international relations.
It might take 50 years, but it certainly doesn't have to take 50 years. It's not like the various nations of the EU are unacquainted with producing military equipment. Literally the only thing that was blocking such a development was the political situation. Change the situation, and there's no logistical bar to stop it happening far more quickly.
The EU doesn't need independence from the US military umbrella, since we are still in NATO. However, the idea of an "EU Military" as opposed to EU member nation's militaries working jointly, even in non-NATO type exercises, is far more likely now than it was a few years ago. Especially after the UK leaves and can't sandbag it. Our stupidity is probably going to do more to truly unify Europe than anything since the War. Maybe Russian expansionism will edge us out, but it'll be touch and go.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The world needs the US, but the US needs to be needed much more.
Trump doesn't understand this, because much like the republican base he's never had to think about why the US is as well off as it is or appreciate the hundred some odd years of diplomacy that have helped to bring that change about.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
On the surface yes. But less tribute would come in. And the US would not be able to leverage for our interests as much.
The seemingly imminent Iran decertification is upsetting me deeply. There's no sensible point to doing it - the EU is just going to quietly call us idiots, so the previous status quo won't be restored, and Iran will no longer have an disincentive from pursuing nuclear weapons; the only purpose I can think of is a prelude to war. Or just domestic tough guy posturing, maybe, but it seems to set things on a war footing regardless. I don't even want to talk about the fucking "calm before the storm" comments, that shit is making me very unhappy. At this point I no longer care about the fact that Pence is pretty much a checklist of what I see as evil in the world, I want him to replace Trump ASAP because he seems less likely to stupidly kill us all.
It is really upsetting and frustrating, yeah. But I don't think, or I don't get the sense anyway, that decertification actually stops the whole inspection regime and everything. Especially if Congress doesn't actually do anything about sanctions. So it may not be as bad as feared.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
Russia was smashed as well.
Russia spent all their money on their military and then blew up their economy.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The first part depends on why.
Would it be bad if say, the world actually grew up and actually worked together, so there was nothing to protect against?
Sure, great thing all around. We could all focus money on things to help each other out as opposed to bigger and better ways of killing each other.
But if it's because we have a government run by short sighted idiots and helmed by a man who can't figure out how to treat allies much different than enemies and therefore makes loads of bad decisions, squanders good will, and seems to be maliciously screwing over good moves made by his predecessor because of basically, "well, fuck him"?
Yes, it's a bad thing. For them and very much for us (The US).
The whole situation erodes confidence in working with us, as well as trust. And that carries over into far more than just or ability to have some military hardware hanging around somewhere.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
Here we see an excellent example of the self-answering question.
Germany is in a good position to form a de facto sub-union of itself and the whole bundle of eastern European states who would like a strong ally to check the Russian expansionism, while Germany would like to continue having a whole bunch of partners to trade with where it basically sets the terms of trade like it does now.
Spain disappears into civil war and France I guess goes isolationist but positions itself as the nuclear power of the region.
I wish to fuck the press wasn't so goddamn easy to bait and manipulate.
Or at the very least, make sure to point out that it's not normal, and not funny. ie, less "He's playing to the crowd like he did on the Apprentice!", and more "Ughhh, look at this f'n guy.".
I know they work to be 'unbiased', but treating this like it's even close to acceptable to screw around with diplomatic relations that could end up in war, because the President treats his job like a gameshow host (and not a good one), normalizes things, both by allowing the audience to be lulled into complacency, and reinforcing the feedback loop that the President sees non-negative, if not positive coverage.
And this should NOT be considered normal. He might start a war because he thinks it'll get good ratings. And the consequences are going to be horrific.
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
Russia was smashed as well.
Yes, but it was way bigger and in a better position to absorb the damage.
Germany is in a good position to form a de facto sub-union of itself and the whole bundle of eastern European states who would like a strong ally to check the Russian expansionism, while Germany would like to continue having a whole bunch of partners to trade with where it basically sets the terms of trade like it does now.
Spain disappears into civil war and France I guess goes isolationist but positions itself as the nuclear power of the region.
Why do you think France would become isolationist? They're currently one of the most interventionist countries in the world, and seem to love the idea of France as a major world power.
Does Germany have nuclear arms? I've been under the assumption they're like the Republic of Korea and Japan in that they don't have warheads but could easily get them within a month if they need to.
Does Germany have nuclear arms? I've been under the assumption they're like the Republic of Korea and Japan in that they don't have warheads but could easily get them within a month if they need to.
The United States provides about 60 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Germany under a NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement. The bombs are stored at Büchel and Ramstein Air Bases, and in time of war would be delivered by Luftwaffe Panavia Tornado warplanes.
The page goes on to say that these are not German weapons, but U.S. controlled weapons stored on German soil.
Given their technological capabilities, I have no doubt that Germany could develop their own in fairly short order if they were so inclined.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Does Germany have nuclear arms? I've been under the assumption they're like the Republic of Korea and Japan in that they don't have warheads but could easily get them within a month if they need to.
Official nuclear powers are: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is an open secret that Israel is also a nuclear power.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
According to Wikipedia (at least as of a couple of years ago), Belgium, Italy, Turkey, and the Netherlands all have weapons stored on their soil as part of a NATO Nuclear Sharing program.
And yeah, that's not an exhaustive list, as EB noted.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
In relation to American foreign policy, would it be a bad thing if Europe no longer needed America's military to protect them? America would be able to reduce it's military budget (I know, fat chance), and America would lose it's worldwide hegemony. Those are good things, I think.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
Russia was smashed as well.
Yes, but it was way bigger and in a better position to absorb the damage.
Germany is in a good position to form a de facto sub-union of itself and the whole bundle of eastern European states who would like a strong ally to check the Russian expansionism, while Germany would like to continue having a whole bunch of partners to trade with where it basically sets the terms of trade like it does now.
Spain disappears into civil war and France I guess goes isolationist but positions itself as the nuclear power of the region.
Why do you think France would become isolationist? They're currently one of the most interventionist countries in the world, and seem to love the idea of France as a major world power.
Yep. Macron in particular is playing nice with Trump because he sees France as being capable of taking Germany's spot as a world power and the leading nation of Europe.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Why do you think France would become isolationist? They're currently one of the most interventionist countries in the world, and seem to love the idea of France as a major world power.
France is a lot more active in their former colonies than the other colonialist powers who sort of shrugged and threw up their hands after independence. Hence you see a lot of military operations by the French in Gabon, Senegal, Dijibouti, etc. to help keep Islamist forces at bay. They're not interventionist in the American sense of "let's go find monsters to slay".
Why do you think France would become isolationist? They're currently one of the most interventionist countries in the world, and seem to love the idea of France as a major world power.
France is a lot more active in their former colonies than the other colonialist powers who sort of shrugged and threw up their hands after independence. Hence you see a lot of military operations by the French in Gabon, Senegal, Dijibouti, etc. to help keep Islamist forces at bay. They're not interventionist in the American sense of "let's go find monsters to slay".
By "interventionist" I just mean they send jets and dudes with guns to achieve some political goal in another country. These used to be called wars but that term is out of vogue.
I don't think France has motives especially more pure than that of the US. They both use violence to protect their own interests abroad, usually propping up or bringing down some government. Most of these anti-islamist battles are fought by the US, too. France is also very active in Syria; bombing IS, supporting assorted rebel groups and looking for Assad's ouster.
Does Germany have nuclear arms? I've been under the assumption they're like the Republic of Korea and Japan in that they don't have warheads but could easily get them within a month if they need to.
Official nuclear powers are: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is an open secret that Israel is also a nuclear power.
It's worth remarking that South Africa was a nuclear power, and is the only nuclear power to have (voluntarily) disarmed.
Posts
EU gaining full military independence from the US umbrella might take 50 years. But that'd also be a fucking sea change in international relations.
You are correct though that shit is going down RIGHT FUCKING NOW. And Trump has made it worse by doing stuff like reopening up NAFTA and withdrawing from TPP, because countries like Mexico and Canada are already starting to pull back from NAFTA and enter other international free trade agreements. Once those questions are opened up, decisions made now/in the next few years might lock nations onto particular trajectories for the next 50 years.
Trump et al's. inability to distinguish friend from foe is a real problem for US diplomacy. All of the US' democratic allies are completely pinned by the fact that Trump is immensely unpopular among their populations. When NAFTA negotiations started, some Canadian bozos wrote op eds about how Trudeau needed to find a way to give Trump a "win," even if it's not really a win, just so Trump can salvage his ego. And I laughed my ass off, because there's no fucking way Trudeau can give Trump a "win," not without torpedoing his own political career. Even if we signed a NAFTA that was immensely favourable to Canada but had enough in it that Trump could credibly claim to his base that it was a "win" for Americans, Trump would then brag about that for months, it'd get broadcast on every US media outlet, make the rounds on US social media, and all of that shit gets filtered through here to Canadians, who'd promptly kick Trudeau's ass out for kowtowing to Trump.
If you're Trudeau or Merkel or Macron or Abe or whoever right now, giving Trump a "win" on the international stage, if it can even possibly be seen as a "loss" by your own people, is an absolute death sentence for your electoral chances. NAFTA's either dead, returning in its original form, or we're just counting on the American people being too stupid to realise that Trump is lying when he calls the new NAFTA the best deal ever. Probably the third, honestly, as an ironic side-benefit to his base not knowing anything about international relations, but the problem remains that all the leaders of the US's democratic allies have their options to cooperate with the US seriously clipped. Especially if Trump continues to do petty shit like tariff Bombardier or shit on the UK's Brexit plans.
Some of this goes back to my thesis that Trump's used to/only capable of dealing with a certain type of business transaction, operating in a world where the people he was dealing with only cared about $$$, had total control over their companies, and didn't have to answer to shareholders/voters. Ironically, some of his nonsense might work on leaders like Xi, Putin, Assad, etc.., who don't have to answer as much to their populations' opinions about Trump and/or can manipulate those opinions much more effectively, but Trump's too busy sucking up to/getting played by them.
It might take 50 years, but it certainly doesn't have to take 50 years. It's not like the various nations of the EU are unacquainted with producing military equipment. Literally the only thing that was blocking such a development was the political situation. Change the situation, and there's no logistical bar to stop it happening far more quickly.
But it is a standard Republican position. That the Iran deal was a performance by the Obama administration that did not truly stop the development of nuclear weapons and only gave them room to further develop their conventional capabilities has been the mainstream Republican line for years. McCain is against it, Romney was against it, I can’t think of one Republican who can get close to the throne and wouldn’t rip it up.
A: If you have an objection use PMs.
B: A thread touched by the 2016’itis becomes a 2016 thread, and we’re not having that.
It's not about it being a game. It's about them understanding international politics through the lens of macho dominance. Anything but swinging your dick around saying "Do what I say or I will hurt you" is a sign of weakness. It's the same shit you see in every life with machoism.
Trump thinks this way too. He is, after all, one of the base in every way except his wealth. That's why they like and understand his views.
To the other point, of course, Trump's style of diplomacy will have bad short term effects too. Pissing people off right now has effects right now.
I mean, one of the reasons Trump fucking with the Iran deal is so stupid is no one is gonna follow him and the US doesn't do enough business with Iran to actually punish them with sanctions on it's own.
That's all well and good, but all sane Republican sabre rattlers are nonetheless advising against recklessly decertifying the deal, because the prospect of actually pulling out of an agreement like this, once made, suddenly makes a lot of full throated warmongers pull nervously at their collars
NNID: Hakkekage
Assuming the plan isn’t for him to rip the deal apart with his hands but punt to congress and give them the option to rip it up, the danger lies with the majority of congress being composed of the sort that would pull out such agreement even though it would be bad for everyone involved.
It comes down to what the mainstream American political class and foreign policy establishment wants and finds acceptable.
I mean, it's not, but like, he is quite literally the first troll president.
Fair enough.
@So It Goes apologies for violating the PM rule.
The US being less militaristic and imperialistic? Great. Other countries taking up the slack? Less great. I'm not sure which is better. Usually the average person gets fucked over no matter who's running things.
Europe might have more difficulty than the US in exerting hegemony in the Pacific.
Depends on who you're asking.
It's probably bad for the US.
The EU doesn't need independence from the US military umbrella, since we are still in NATO. However, the idea of an "EU Military" as opposed to EU member nation's militaries working jointly, even in non-NATO type exercises, is far more likely now than it was a few years ago. Especially after the UK leaves and can't sandbag it. Our stupidity is probably going to do more to truly unify Europe than anything since the War. Maybe Russian expansionism will edge us out, but it'll be touch and go.
That's okay, China's got this.
Trump doesn't understand this, because much like the republican base he's never had to think about why the US is as well off as it is or appreciate the hundred some odd years of diplomacy that have helped to bring that change about.
I doubt another superpower will rise after the US; I think that was a unique condition caused by WW2 that utterly smashed all the great powers save the biggest two.
I believe we're in a multipolar world, back to the balance of powers Great rather than Super. So Europe (or more likely individual countries within Europe, cause why would they stay united) will arm up, but they'll still need to contend with Russia and China and Japan and etc.
On the surface yes. But less tribute would come in. And the US would not be able to leverage for our interests as much.
It is really upsetting and frustrating, yeah. But I don't think, or I don't get the sense anyway, that decertification actually stops the whole inspection regime and everything. Especially if Congress doesn't actually do anything about sanctions. So it may not be as bad as feared.
Russia was smashed as well.
Russia spent all their money on their military and then blew up their economy.
Wait a sec...
I wish to fuck the press wasn't so goddamn easy to bait and manipulate.
The first part depends on why.
Would it be bad if say, the world actually grew up and actually worked together, so there was nothing to protect against?
Sure, great thing all around. We could all focus money on things to help each other out as opposed to bigger and better ways of killing each other.
But if it's because we have a government run by short sighted idiots and helmed by a man who can't figure out how to treat allies much different than enemies and therefore makes loads of bad decisions, squanders good will, and seems to be maliciously screwing over good moves made by his predecessor because of basically, "well, fuck him"?
Yes, it's a bad thing. For them and very much for us (The US).
The whole situation erodes confidence in working with us, as well as trust. And that carries over into far more than just or ability to have some military hardware hanging around somewhere.
Here we see an excellent example of the self-answering question.
Spain disappears into civil war and France I guess goes isolationist but positions itself as the nuclear power of the region.
I know they work to be 'unbiased', but treating this like it's even close to acceptable to screw around with diplomatic relations that could end up in war, because the President treats his job like a gameshow host (and not a good one), normalizes things, both by allowing the audience to be lulled into complacency, and reinforcing the feedback loop that the President sees non-negative, if not positive coverage.
And this should NOT be considered normal. He might start a war because he thinks it'll get good ratings. And the consequences are going to be horrific.
Yes, but it was way bigger and in a better position to absorb the damage.
Why do you think France would become isolationist? They're currently one of the most interventionist countries in the world, and seem to love the idea of France as a major world power.
According to Wikipedia
The page goes on to say that these are not German weapons, but U.S. controlled weapons stored on German soil.
Given their technological capabilities, I have no doubt that Germany could develop their own in fairly short order if they were so inclined.
Official nuclear powers are: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is an open secret that Israel is also a nuclear power.
And yeah, that's not an exhaustive list, as EB noted.
Yep. Macron in particular is playing nice with Trump because he sees France as being capable of taking Germany's spot as a world power and the leading nation of Europe.
By "interventionist" I just mean they send jets and dudes with guns to achieve some political goal in another country. These used to be called wars but that term is out of vogue.
I don't think France has motives especially more pure than that of the US. They both use violence to protect their own interests abroad, usually propping up or bringing down some government. Most of these anti-islamist battles are fought by the US, too. France is also very active in Syria; bombing IS, supporting assorted rebel groups and looking for Assad's ouster.
It's worth remarking that South Africa was a nuclear power, and is the only nuclear power to have (voluntarily) disarmed.