[spwa4]

... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take?

If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil.

Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, UK, Denmark and Yemen to tax entire continents, including each other simply by threat of sinking ships. Endless wars have been fought over this.

Why?

First, anything that depends on international supply chains (like computers, iphones, cars, coffee, chocolate, tea, ... or the food for the survival of gulf nations' populations) is gone, in a matter of months.

Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over (which is code for WW3 will start as soon as the first country considers itself ready). This will, by the way, not fix the first problem, not even if your country wins.

The sad truth is that either the US wins this war, or half of the world will once again find their place of employment is a cold, wet dugout with people shooting at them. Including, of course, Iranians.

[jurgenburgen]

> Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over

I’m sorry but it ended when the US started to threaten Denmark with invasion. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle.

[spwa4]

The main component of it is the US enforcing the law of the seas (as in actually enforcing it, not the way the UK serviced itself before WW2).

So no, quite the opposite. Thankfully.

I have worked for the EU, and the EU has wanted an EU military since before I was born. Hell, my father was in diapers the first time it was called for (Charles De Gaulle demanded it before he returned to France from Berlin. And I assure you, at the time Charles De Gaulle's voice was louder than if God himself would have come down to earth, shouting. He couldn't make it happen). Europe is not suddenly waking up to reality.

You know how much the US pays for it's military? About the same as EU states pay for unemployment in bad years (as in 30% more than the average now). What I mean is the question is not "Does the EU want a military?". That's obvious.

The question is the price, and not really in money, but in the economic effort required to do it (in other words, most of the abstraction that is money won't apply. You cannot borrow an army, for example. Whatever you spend on an army you will be increasing the budget with at least inflation every year, and so on). And even then, keep in mind the US does not really pay for soldiers. In the US it's effectively the case that some social benefits, mostly free in Europe, are only available in the US if you join the army first. This is why every country tries to get foreign nations to pay for their military, like the UK did before and Iran is trying to do now.

And there are only a few big expenses in EU government budgets. So ...

The question becomes "There's 3 components to social security in European countries. Medical insurance, unemployment and pensions. The only way to get an army is to trade in one of the 3. So which one do we trade in for an army?"

But yeah, the EU countries could cancel unemployment and instead do something like "if you lose your job, serve 5 years in the military for almost no pay, THEN you can get unemployment". That is the level of effort required.

I don't think we have to go through the effort of scheduling a vote, do we?

[upboundspiral]

Your solution (of tackling unemployment by tacking it onto national defense), is eerily close to what they discussed in an episode of Yes Prime Minister in the 80s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks