[llcoolv]

Given that the current world exchange currency requires 43 aircraft carriers and 6,185 nuclear warheads (+ all the support they need, thousands of very worhtwhile human lives a year, etc), any electricity consumption seems a small problem. Not to mention that the oil-to-electricity transition would require ridiculous investments anyway.

[JumpCrisscross]

Is the hypothesis that the U.S. switching to Bitcoin as legal tender would let it liquidate its military?

[llcoolv]

It is not a hypothesis and it is not about the US. It is a fact that the current global currency is USD and it is enforced thanks to the role of the global policeman and unquestionable military might. However over the (many) years it has caused growing problems both inside and outside the US.

P.S. I think that the US was playing this role very well over the past 76 years and am perfectly happy with 90% of what has been done.

[solosoyokaze]

The US would never switch to BTC as legal tender because they can't control the supply of BTC.

BTC is "clean" money in that it doesn't have the blood of millions and an imperialistic army powering it.

The energy usage by BTC is a drop in the bucket compared to the ecological damage wreaked by the US military.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US would never switch to BTC as legal tender because they can't control the supply of BTC

Most evidence shows the U.S. no longer benefits from the dollar as a global reserve currency. And lots of governments have currency boards or currencies they don’t control.

[llcoolv]

This is a quite dubious claim:

1. The currency board countries are very small players, mostly beaten to blue and also not all currency boards are tied to USD.

2. The bulk (I guess 90%+) of global lending is still in USD - a currency which the Fed can debase at will - as has been happening since 2008 and happened at a grande scale in 2020.

This brings only frustration and bitterness - the last two things you want in international relations, especially in the post-nuclear age soft-power days.