[manfredo]

The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia, or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.

[TaylorAlexander]

But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”.

So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet trains.

[manfredo]

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe.

Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.

[lostlogin]

If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military?

Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

[philwelch]

It’s not purely a question of spending. There are qualitative differences as well. No US ally has even an approximation of the US nuclear deterrent or the US Navy. Partially as a consequence of this, no US ally can match the quantity, quality, or versatility of American air power.

[manfredo]

It could be, that's part of why Trump flirted with the idea of making NATO's 2% of GDP military spending target a requirement rather than a general guideline.

However, the fact that the US is the main component of NATO gives the US a lot of leverage over those other countries which is valuable in its own right.

[yason]

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil.

It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend. USA seems to be doing the defending anywhere but on their own soil.

[manfredo]

True, but the US soil really doesn't need much defending. There are large oceans to the East and West. To the North is an allied country, and to the South is a country with close economic and cultural ties. There are no countries that could feasibly carry out a transoceanic invasion of the US, even were they to exert the entirety of their military might.

Countries like Poland and South Korea are within the reach of geopolitical rivals, though. So places like those are where the US is garrisoning much of its combat ready troops. Which makes perfect sense.

I'm also not so sure what you meant by "It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend." Why wouldn't it be rightful to defend the territorial integrity of other countries? In fact, the US is obligated to defend it as per international treaties like NATO.

[porpoisely]

Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?

We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?

Pride goeth before a fall. I'm afraid our hubris is going to cost us big one of these days.

[manfredo]

> Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?

I'm not sure I follow. Is it your genuine belief that Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states would prefer Russian hegemony? Or that South Korea prefers Communist hegemony? The reality is that if the US doesn't maintain a strong presence in these regions, then other powers will exploit that power vacuum. Sure, in an ideal world, every country would turns it's swords into plowshares, it's tanks into tractors, etc. But we live in the real world, not the ideal world.

> We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?

Eastern Europe spent most of the last 250 years under monarchies and dictatorships. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most[1] find the 21st century is preferable to domination by the USSR, domination by the Fascists before that, and imperial monarchies before that.

East Asia spent most of the last 250 under either feudalism[2] or domination by an imperial power. Again, I'm going to go out on a limb that they prefer their situation in the 21st century to that.

1. Probably all Eastern European countries other than Russia and maybe Belorussia and Moldova. The latter two are pretty pro-Russian.

2. Some point out the Qing dynasty had an extensive central bureacracy and isn't exactly fudalism. It's some form of monarchic rule, though.

[porpoisely]

My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the russians and chinese have cultural, geographical and ethnic ties to these regions and we don't.

And everyone is going to prefer modernity to the past. North koreans would prefer their modern dictatorship to the dictatorship of the past too.

All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

[manfredo]

The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1].

> We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china.

When was the last time the US rounded up religious or ethnic minorities and put them in concentration camps? We did it to the Japanese, over half a century ago and it remembered as a point of national shame. After 9/11, Muslims were subject to "random" searches at airports at a higher rate and it was considered unacceptable by many people. Contrast that with China that has somewhere between 500k and a million Uyghurs in "reeducation camps" and most of the populace doesn't seem to bat an eye.

When was the last time the US forcibly annexed territory from a neighboring country? Unless you count military bases such as the ones on Okinawa (which are still part of the sovereign territory of Japan), it was the Mexican American war over 150 years ago. Russia did the same less than a decade ago. And they invaded Georgia not long before that.

To say that "we are no different than Russia or China" seems to be based more on an a priori decision that all forms of international hegemony is bad, rather than thoughtful comparison between the three countries.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/polan...

> All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

I agree. Most countries agree as well. That's why so many of them have a high opinion of the US, and why many of them are asking for US military presence: to shield them from subjugation of neighboring powers.

[porpoisely]

If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland. And by many eastern countries, you also mean a small group of political entities within those countries.

The high opinion of the US stems from our wealth and our cultural domination. Once again, that doesn't translate to a desire for subjugation. For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

[manfredo]

> If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

And yet, the people on the receiving end of these wars generally have positive views of the US and close economic ties after a couple decades. The US's most destructive wars were against Germany and Japan, with are now close allies. An an interesting type of "Empire" where the subjects of the said empire have a positive view of their purported overlord. Or, maybe, the US's coalition of allies isn't an "empire".

> By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland.

And Ukraine. And the Baltic Countries. What Eastern European countries do want US presence to diminish? The only ones I can think of other than Russia are Belorussia and Moldova.

> For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Well, I've got bad news for you: Foreign troops from said countries (at least Germany) are regularly based in US to train and practice cooperation.

> Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

People also protest when military bases are closed. In fact, the current plan to withdraw troops from Syria is being criticized significantly.

> I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

Again, if the US's sphere of influence is an "Empire" it's one that that most of the subjects seem to be happy to be a part of. In fact, plenty of countries have voluntarily joined this group on their own accord. Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania all joined NATO on their own accord. In fact, these countries had to apply to join NATO. Strange form of "Empire" where countries apply to become a part of it.