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
It's not just where we have troops stationed. It's also the places where the US either owns/leases the place or else has an access agreement with the host country in a crisis. Beyond the speed of deployment you mentioned, it also matters how many countries in theater have given us permission to either use their soil to flow troops and supplies through or even attack from.

The more restrictive the access agreements are, the less options military planners and operations officers have and the more predictable we are to the enemy, who knows that he only has to defend against the evil Yankees coming from country X, not country Y or Z. And that because Country X is so far away, we need to burn additional logistical assets to support the shooters.