[orf]

You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?

I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak.

I agree that currently the US protects strategic sea routes that benefit the US, and as a byproduct other countries. That's fine, and the seas have always needed policing, but it's just a small part of military expenditure, and doesn't counter anything I said.

[bassman9000]

At some point, yes, they would. The whole point of the article is that people with the technical knowledge to maintain and improve the US miltary shouldn't do it. Luckily, reaching a critical mass of scientists and engineers with such attitude, enough for basic defense systems to fail, seems unlikely. But there's such an horizon.

I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak.

Because the US is far stronger. And still they grabbed half Ukraine, at the border of NATO, way more important than most African countries. Same with China, the South China Sea, and expansion via artificial islands.

If Russia and China can get away with that, the US being vastly superior from a military standpoint, what world destabilization, or plain open war would happen if the US just a bit weaker?

And, BTW, the war has started already, in the information battleground, with US and Western Europe's being ravaged by Russian and Chinese attacks.

The naivete point stands. We need more computer scientists defending Western democracy values, because today, more than ever, they're under attack.

[orf]

> If Russia and China can get away with that, the US being vastly superior from a military standpoint, what world destabilization, or plain open war would happen if the US just a bit weaker?

Ok, so if I'm following this logic, which is if you're not the strongest then someone is going to invade you, then the USA is going to start invading everyone because it is the strongest.

Or, if not, could there possibly be other factors that come into play when deciding to invade someone and destabilise the world?

> The naivete point stands. We need more computer scientists defending Western democracy values, because today, more than ever, they're under attack.

I agree. Let's fund this with a reduction in our standing army. Oh wait... the people who make the bombs might not like this.

[bassman9000]

then the USA is going to start invading everyone because it is the strongest.

That's where the values matter: US ones are better than Russia/China's. And before the barking: not perfect, just better. Good enough not to grab Ukraine or the South China Sea.

Let's fund this with a reduction in our standing army

False dichotomy. It is not the only way to fund it. Besides, OP article wasn't a funding issue, it never is, as you point out, with military spending. It's a moral one, and the author decided in 2004 that virtue signaling was more important that defending the aforementioned values against internal and external enemies. 14 years later we (the West) seem to be behind in information warfare.

[mmirate3]

> You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?

A nuclear arsenal is nothing without trained and loyal personnel to secure it and to operate and maintain it correctly. If your army is weak enough or makes bad enough decisions, enemy troops can blow the nukes up, kill the nukes' operators, or even sabotage them in a variety of ways.