[eksemplar]

Except right now, you may be paying for a lot of nothing because US relations change from tweet to tweet. I mean, I know politics is playing for the long run in these things, and Trump won’t be there in 10 years, but his voters might, and if the US is really closing up, then the powers at be near Australia just might end up being China.

[Trundle]

That's certainly the risk when going for this sort of strategy. Basically prepaying and hoping the stronger party will actually deliver when the time comes.

Id be interested to see how that would play out though. Like at what point in poor military decisions do generals ignore the president? Like hypothetically if China started landing troops and pillaging, and the pres have the military a stand down order, I can only assume hed get ignored/a bullet.

I wonder where letting allies fall lands in that. If military command/intelligence has data showing that to be safe the US needs allies, and that if they don't defend Australia then the rest of their allies will immediately all run to hide behind whoever, then what are the chances of the president waking up to a spook in his bedroom telling him that if he doesn't change his decision then he's going to have a heart attack very soon?

[sjwright]

It would be worth reconsidering if and when the Trump influence proves itself to be durable, not before, not reflexively.

The thing to remember is that Trumpism is a combination of cynicism towards prior experts/elites, and Donald’s extreme narcissism. The latter is certainly not durable.

[eksemplar]

There is no doubt that Trump is the temporary protest vote, but nationalism is on the rise everywhere. Before WWII America was perfectly fine minding its own business, and it might be dangerous to plan for their internationalism to recover post Trump.