zlacker

>>anigbr+(OP)
As a US taxpayer I don’t particularly like this. We rely on being the world’s reserve currency, and many things get more expensive, e.g., serving government debt. In 2000-2001 we were able to effectively bully three countries that were talking about moving away from the US dollar, but I am not sure if that works now.

I have a lot of personal theories how my country can best cope with future geopolitical adjustments. If I were in charge, the first thing I would do would be to close most foreign military bases. We can have the strongest military in the world and have them largely based in the US. I think the US Navy continues to be a good investment, but I would cut back a small amount on intel and other military branches.

>>mark_l+R3
> If I were in charge, the first thing I would do would be to close most foreign military bases. We can have the strongest military in the world and have them largely based in the US.

The strategy behind the foreign military bases isn't just about having the strongest military in the world. They serve two purposes:

First, we want to preserve the credible threat of boots on the ground anywhere in the world within just a few hours of a conflict beginning. Think edge computing, but for military operations.

Second, we want to reassure our allies that they have more than just our word for it that we'll come to their aid in a crisis. Having US soldiers in your country 24/7 functions as a guarantee that if the country falls to an invader the US will have to respond, because our soldiers were captured or killed.

The concern is that without the bases, a hostile power (like, say, the one TFA is about) could invade an ally (like, say, the Baltic states) with overwhelming force and present NATO with a fait accompli before we have time to react. Pulling away from those bases would be correctly seen by many of our allied states as relaxing our commitment to them.