[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.