this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
642 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2665 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

the worlds only super power

Is the US even really worth that term anymore? Seems like we've lost quite a bit of gas since the 90s.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 24 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Militarily speaking the US is still a force to be reckoned with, they can bitch-slap any smaller non-nuclear country anywhere in the world on a moment's notice.

Soft power wise, though, the US is in freefall. And without that soft power the hard power can't be readily employed because blowback. I'd say in the future the US is going to do a lot more riding on the EU's soft power than they're currently comfortable admitting. That is, they're not going to invade random countries to bolster election results at home, they're going to knock on Brussel's door and ask "hey anything need peacekeeping right now that would be popular with the world?", then portray it as their own initiative.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Much as russia just spent their material legacy capacity in ukraine, the us spent their economic legacy capacity in Iraq/Afghanistan. We are driving around a fancy army we spent too much on, and the payments are hurting.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We still spend too much on it. We're following Germany's fallacy from World War 2 of trying to have all of our equipment be the bestest ever instead of good enough. Accounting for inflation last time I looked we're spending twice what we were when we invaded Iraq.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There's no "from WWII" about that we're still gold-plating equipment.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's... That's my point. We won world war 2 with equipment that was great strategically and logistically, but was merely good enough tactically. We've switched positions. We need to realize that a million man military can't be gold plated.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean Germany is still gold-plating things. Also a million men when did you decide to cut the size of your forces in half.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I wasn't counting all of the reserves because we accept that they get old equipment.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

I could go for a few decades of that. We need some humble pie.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Militarily speaking the US is still a force to be reckoned with

Sure. But so are France, Russia, India, and Pakistan. A lot of the US influence comes from its extensive base network. And yet... America can't keep the Suez open in the face of some Yemeni rebels with access to a Radio Shack. They've bowed out in Afghanistan and Iraq. They're roughly holding the line in Ukraine by sheer weight of expenditure. Logistically, all very impressive. But its playing ten different chess games at once. Only impressive if you're not losing them.

I’d say in the future the US is going to do a lot more riding on the EU’s soft power than they’re currently comfortable admitting.

I'm not even sure what the EU looks like in another thirty years. The UK is in steep decline, France is in full sell-out mode, Germany and Italy are making kissy-faces at their fascist wings. The Eastern European states never recovered from the break up of the USSR. Scandinavia is a gas station.

Europe's chips seem to be stacking up in the Middle East, under a handful of petty dictatorships and theocracies. But the real future power players are looking more and more like the member states of the South Pacific - India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia. Enormous populations, high tech industries, rapidly expanding navies, some of the last pristine wilderness anywhere on earth... These look like the countries which will be leading the world into back end of the 21st century.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We could stop the Yemenis. But it would take far more manpower and material than anyone in the US is willing to commit right now. We could go to the fortress village concept; and just generally go full scale COIN. It would stop the attacks. It would also cost a trillion dollars over a couple years and probably turn into a transitional government and peacekeeping mission.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We could stop the Yemenis

The same way we stopped the Iraqis, the Afghanis, and the Vietnamese, sure.

We could go to the fortress village concept; and just generally go full scale COIN.

Trying to teach another generation of 19 year olds broken Arabic before throwing them into a literal mine field?

We could try it. But I can't imagine it would boost enlistment rates

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Enlistment? Shit at the rate we're getting into fights we're going to need conscription anyways. Let's just get it over with. /s

The only reason we have shortages is because they cannibalized an entire generation. Turns out when you keep fighting you go right through the pool of eligible volunteers.

And hey I didn't say we'd leave a stable state behind. Just that we'd stop the attacks.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

And hey I didn’t say we’d leave a stable state behind. Just that we’d stop the attacks.

I mean, it helps to understand the political situation in Yemen up to this point. Its already functionally been in and out of civil war for the last decade. The Houthis currently lobbing bombs into the Gulf of Adan are the same insurgents that Saudi-backed Yemen officials have been fighting with since the Obama Era.

Then you've got the other side of the Gulf, where pirate communities across Somalia were already a perpetual nuisance for major shipping. They've been raising the insurance rates on this boats well before the Houthis started playing Battleship with merchant vessels. This isn't a new problem for the US Navy. Its simply a numbers game. Too many ships to protect and too many potential pirating crews to combat.

The cost-efficient solution appears to be to send everyone around the Horn of Africa again, rather than trying your luck in the Canal.

Definitely true, its just the arms companies milking your country dry want more money. So, they'll convince you all that you're no longer a super power.