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.
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%.
Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?
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.
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.
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.
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.
