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.

>>lolind+46
I don’t argue with your main points except to question if it is worth the money now. I was in the defense industry for 25 years, and my comments above are just my opinions on what is in the best interests of the US taxpayer today in 2024.

I am questioning the value of having 800 military bases in foreign countries in 2024. What was once a good idea may not be worth the money and resources now. What does the US give up not protecting the rest of the world? I think these topics are worthy of serious dialogue.

>>mark_l+d8
> What does the US give up not protecting the rest of the world?

The number of lives we’d lose in the next world war. The end of Pax Americana won’t be sweet.

That said, I agree there should be more thought as to the marginal benefit of the 800th base.

>>JumpCr+Q8
The marginal benefit of the so-called 800th base is giving planners and operations officers options in a crisis. The more places you either have your own infrastructure or access agreements or leases with a host country, the more you can a) disperse your force and complicate targeting when on the defensive and b) have multiple avenues of approach when on the offensive.

If the enemy knows all your forces have to flow into theater via airlift landing at Krablakistan Air Base in Elbonia, they're going to make war plans involving targeting your transports and pounding the living shit out of Krablakistan Air Base with air strikes and/or ballistic missiles. And beforehand, they'll do their level best to sow discord between your government and the Elbonians to the point they reconsider your access to their base in a crisis.