[ItsMe000001]

Do you mean the US (territory) itself is threatened, or do you mean the ability for "power projection" (to arbitrary places around the globe) is going to be hindered? What exactly is it that you fear?

If another country were to surpass the US military capabilities, more budget, more high-tech, more soldiers (let's say all of those), do you think that alone would mean a territorial threat to the US?

I mean, given that ever single country that isn't the US has lived with this exact situation for many decades, even if we assume it happens, why is that a problem? Even from a US point of view. When I say "US" I think we may also have to look at who exactly benefits, is it the majority of citizens?

I think there are a lot of potential very interesting questions that could be asked and answered. Just saying "this is bad" is not enough, not by itself, but mostly because I think you can start some really good discussions if you look at details. This includes questions about how and why one comes to the opinion that one chooses to express, not just that opinion itself. Seeing the path, the justification, is I think very valuable. Even more so when such fears lead to such extraordinary results as never before seen weapons and same for military spending.

[Baeocystin]

>even if we assume it happens, why is that a problem?

Ukraine would have preferred holding on to Crimea, for one example.

[pjc50]

That wasn't due to lack of US force projection though - it was due to the Cold War realities of whether or not to escalate a conflict with another nuclear-armed country.

(Plus the influence of Russian money in US politics; it's much cheaper to bribe the US not to fight back!)

[Baeocystin]

Not that I particularly disagree with your statement, but my point was more that if Ukraine itself had a more effective military force, this wouldn't have been something Russia could have done in the first place. Military strength matters. For us, and for everyone else.

[ItsMe000001]

I don't understand. That happened when US military might was at an all time high. We are talking about fears about future weakness here. Why do you think an even larger lead (compared to the next few countries taken together) than the US already had (and still has at this point) would have made a difference? Additional question, do you think the US would have/should have sent troops to Ukraine?

[Baeocystin]

I think Ukraine has found out just how effective relying on good faith alone gets you with regards to the Budapest Memorandum, and I think that is an important lesson for anyone interested in the political structure of world power.