I’m a pro-U.S. military libertarian. I have the standard free market libertarian beliefs but think that the world is a vastly better place because of U.S. military power which has done much to reduce the harm that governments cause. Basically, I find it historically exceptional that the United States doesn’t use its military dominance to rule or extract tribute from rich but relatively weak nations such as Canada, Japan, and much of Western Europe. I attribute the post-WWII peace in Western Europe and South America mostly to the fact that the U.S. would slap down an attempt by one country to invade another.
The modern world is different from the past in many ways, such as NATO, the UN, nukes, vast international trade, rapid communications, power moving away from the church and aristocracy, and horror at the vast death toll of the world wars. I couldn’t imagine Canada invading the US if the Canadians suddenly developed an unstoppable superweapon, and even if the US became completely isolationist I doubt Germany would invade France again any time soon. The west has too much trade, too much communication, too much tourism to want to fight even if NATO, the UN, the EU all shut down.
On the other hand, the fact that the US gave Germany money for rebuilding in the immediate aftermath of WWII really is an unprecedented act of generosity.
The west has too much trade, too much communication, too much tourism to want to fight
While that’s a valid observation, similar points were made just before WW1… Also you did notice how one European nation, Russia, invaded another European nation, Ukraine, just this year—right?
the fact that the US gave Germany money for rebuilding in the immediate aftermath of WWII really is an unprecedented act of generosity.
Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin’s European ambitions.
While that’s a valid observation, similar points were made just before WW1
Far more people have visited other countries now than in 1914. Having said that, once France and Germany were connected by trains it does seem a bit stranger that they would want to fight.
Also you did notice how one European nation, Russia, invaded another European nation, Ukraine, just this year—right?
And the Russia stock markets crashed afterwards. But the war in the Ukraine is pretty limited with only a few thousand casualties, if it wasn’t for the amount of trade esp. gas with Russia, the war might have escalated far more.
Incidentally, I’m not sure Russia counts as part of ‘the west’.
Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin’s European ambitions.
I know, but despite that it still seems very charitable compared to the treatment of the vanquished in previous wars. If only the allies had shown the same wisdom after WWI...
[The Marshall Plan was] Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin’s European ambitions.
I dunno, it also gave lots of money to Britain too, which is harder to explain that way. (And I just learned from Wikipedia it also offered money to the Soviet Union and its allies, though I guess it expected them to turn it down.)
The Marshall Plan was not Germany-specific, it provided money for rebuilding of the entire Western Europe. It also coexisted with severe restrictions on German economy during the first post-war years, e.g.:
Even while the Marshall Plan was being implemented, the dismantling of German industry continued … The first “level of industry” plan, signed by the Allies on March 29, 1946, had stated that German heavy industry was to be lowered to 50% of its 1938 levels by the destruction of 1,500 listed manufacturing plants.
Incidentally, Germany stopped paying reparations long before Hitler came to power. Not that that stopped various German governments from blaming Germany’s economic problems on them.
I doubt Germany would invade France again any time soon.
If the US became completely isolationist, including pulling out all support from NATO and dismantling the nuclear umbrella, I’d predict the next Franco-German war in 20 years max (possibly sooner).
Edit: since it wasn’t clear judging by the replies, I never said that the war would start with a German attack on France.
Ehrr… France is a nuclear power. Wholly independently so—It isn’t like the british deterrent which might get a lot more expensive without US support, the French nukes are French. Made in France, mounted on french rockets, in french submarines that are propelled by french reactors. “Has a firing solution for washington DC right along with the one for Moscow” is what I am saying. Nobody is invading them.
I’m not saying that friendships would prevent a war, I’m saying that I know people on both sides of the border and that from both point of views the idea of war is ludicrous and unthinkable. The French don’t hate the Germans, the Germans don’t hate the French, and the kind of flag-waving gun-toting nationalism you’d get in the US or China or Russia is highly unfashionable.
Predicting Franco-German war on a French talk show would probably get you laughed off stage …
I’m a Russian with Ukranian friends, and a war against Ukraine always seemed unthinkable. The war propaganda is based on the assertion that Ukrainians are our brothers and so we’ve got to protect them from the junta.
If the US became completely isolationist, including pulling out all support from NATO and dismantling the nuclear umbrella, I’d predict the next Franco-German war in 20 years max (possibly sooner).
Which what credence?
Why the heck should Germany want to wage war in the next 20 years on France?
Why should an isolationist US lead to a weaker EU instead of the EU coming more together?
I would like the government to legalize drugs. I support strict separation of church and state, and am not bothered by gay marriage. I support a right to die for sane adults. I don’t think that feelings of disgust should play any role in policy making. I think that current government policies do considerable harm to African Americans.
I’m a pro-U.S. military libertarian. I have the standard free market libertarian beliefs but think that the world is a vastly better place because of U.S. military power which has done much to reduce the harm that governments cause.
I’m about the same. But it’s not just the US military. Most of the freedom and prosperity in the world is due to the military dominance of the entire Anglosphere.
I believe that without USA, Russian tanks would already be in my country. Probably decades ago. And I would probably be forbidden from participating on LW. So… thanks!
Better mercenaries (volunteers) than slaves (conscripts). I generally support the U.S. government contracting out lots of responsibilities including military ones. I fear that organization such as Blackwater will become vital to U.S. power if the Blue tribe succeeds in turning our official armed forces into social justice warriors.
What about the practical effects? Correct me if I’m wrong, but explicit mercenaries (like Blackwater) give worse results for vastly more money than normal volunteer (paid) soldiers.
I am with you on the preference for incentivizing people to go in to the military, rather than using conscription. Not being able to conscript more soldiers limits our ambitions to smaller wars against inferior powers. Then again, America seems to have a really good track record fighting giant military machines and great empires (Germany, Great Britain) and a really bad track record accomplishing our stated objectives in these regional wars against inferior militaries (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). Maybe I should be pushing for us to expend our military might on European plains?
By the second point, do you literally mean it’s legal to conscript soldiers (it is in America at least, although starting a draft would be politically impossible absent an immediate existential threat to America as a state), or do you mean that figuratively, in that if we pay soldiers enough, we’ll get more volunteers? I’m not sure what point you’re making.
I will see if I can find the data on the poor performance and high cost of mercenaries.
I find it historically exceptional that the United States doesn’t use its military dominance to rule or extract tribute from rich but relatively weak nations such as Canada, Japan, and much of Western Europe.
The US runs a very big trading surplus. It gets vastly more goods from other countries than it ships to other countries. Of course that technically isn’t called “tribute” but it comes down to the same thing. More goods for US citizens.
The US trade deficit is not “tribute,” the idea is absurd. The trade deficit is not “you give us goods, we give you nothing,” it is financed by a combination of sales of US based capital to foreigners (American real estate is especially popular) and Americans going into debt with foreigners. (As Edward Conard pointed out, the two amount to the same thing.) Since these debts are paid back, with interest there is no way it could be interpreted as tribute.
Since these debts are paid back, with interest there is no way it could be interpreted as tribute.
Not true for treasury bonds, they roll them over rather than paying them down. The (likely temporary) special status of the dollar in international trade imposed after WWII also means that it is in high demand outside the US, giving us a special place as the source of dollars which can get extra stuff for them.
Regardless, end result is still more stuff for Americans.
Do you think it relies on its military dominance in order to extract that surplus?
Geopolitical power is quite complex. The US does at various points uses it’s power to punish countries that act against US economic interests.
It’s very hard to estimate the economic values extracted via wiretapping everything and using that information when it’s needed.
In general if you would predict based on economic history that value transfer to the party with the military power is happening and you see that value transfer is happening, it should get you thinking. “Cui bono?” is a good question if you are dealing with intransparent complex systems.
If you don’t see where the magician uses his skills, that can just means that the magician is good at his craft. If someone is really powerful you usually don’t know how they get their results. Information warfare is a key part of US military thinking.
As far as European countries go Germany is the country with the biggest amount of US military occupation and it’s the European country that exports the most. Of course it’s just correlation ;)
When it comes to dealing with secret power I found Leoluca Orlando worth reading. As major of Palermo he fought the Mafia with makes him know what he’s talking about. He did fought the building of US military bases because missile defense isn’t the only thing that you can do with military bases.
From that perspective it also makes a lot more sense why Russia has such a problem with Star Wars which probably won’t work for it’s stated purpose anyway.
I’m a pro-U.S. military libertarian. I have the standard free market libertarian beliefs but think that the world is a vastly better place because of U.S. military power which has done much to reduce the harm that governments cause. Basically, I find it historically exceptional that the United States doesn’t use its military dominance to rule or extract tribute from rich but relatively weak nations such as Canada, Japan, and much of Western Europe. I attribute the post-WWII peace in Western Europe and South America mostly to the fact that the U.S. would slap down an attempt by one country to invade another.
The modern world is different from the past in many ways, such as NATO, the UN, nukes, vast international trade, rapid communications, power moving away from the church and aristocracy, and horror at the vast death toll of the world wars. I couldn’t imagine Canada invading the US if the Canadians suddenly developed an unstoppable superweapon, and even if the US became completely isolationist I doubt Germany would invade France again any time soon. The west has too much trade, too much communication, too much tourism to want to fight even if NATO, the UN, the EU all shut down.
On the other hand, the fact that the US gave Germany money for rebuilding in the immediate aftermath of WWII really is an unprecedented act of generosity.
While that’s a valid observation, similar points were made just before WW1… Also you did notice how one European nation, Russia, invaded another European nation, Ukraine, just this year—right?
Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin’s European ambitions.
Far more people have visited other countries now than in 1914. Having said that, once France and Germany were connected by trains it does seem a bit stranger that they would want to fight.
And the Russia stock markets crashed afterwards. But the war in the Ukraine is pretty limited with only a few thousand casualties, if it wasn’t for the amount of trade esp. gas with Russia, the war might have escalated far more.
Incidentally, I’m not sure Russia counts as part of ‘the west’.
I know, but despite that it still seems very charitable compared to the treatment of the vanquished in previous wars. If only the allies had shown the same wisdom after WWI...
The war in Ukraine started with Russia just grabbing an important and lucrative chunk of territory: the Crimea. The West said: “Um.. err… OK.”
What you probably mean is “not vindictive”. The US was following self-interest, not doing charity.
Depending on who you ask. Others would say that the war started with a US-backed coup against Ukraine’s democratically elected government.
Sure, I am aware of such people, but listening to them tends to lead to severe brain damage :-/
I dunno, it also gave lots of money to Britain too, which is harder to explain that way. (And I just learned from Wikipedia it also offered money to the Soviet Union and its allies, though I guess it expected them to turn it down.)
I thought part of it was Germany starting WW2 as a result of resentment at reparations, so a more generous approach was tried.
The Marshall Plan was not Germany-specific, it provided money for rebuilding of the entire Western Europe. It also coexisted with severe restrictions on German economy during the first post-war years, e.g.:
Incidentally, Germany stopped paying reparations long before Hitler came to power. Not that that stopped various German governments from blaming Germany’s economic problems on them.
Sort of. Well-fed Germans excel at killing and would have been very useful to the United States in a WWIII.
If the US became completely isolationist, including pulling out all support from NATO and dismantling the nuclear umbrella, I’d predict the next Franco-German war in 20 years max (possibly sooner).
Edit: since it wasn’t clear judging by the replies, I never said that the war would start with a German attack on France.
Ehrr… France is a nuclear power. Wholly independently so—It isn’t like the british deterrent which might get a lot more expensive without US support, the French nukes are French. Made in France, mounted on french rockets, in french submarines that are propelled by french reactors. “Has a firing solution for washington DC right along with the one for Moscow” is what I am saying. Nobody is invading them.
As a Frenchman with German friends, and family near the border, this seems outrageously stupid.
Why? There were Frenchman with German friends near the border before the two world wars as well.
I’m not saying that friendships would prevent a war, I’m saying that I know people on both sides of the border and that from both point of views the idea of war is ludicrous and unthinkable. The French don’t hate the Germans, the Germans don’t hate the French, and the kind of flag-waving gun-toting nationalism you’d get in the US or China or Russia is highly unfashionable.
Predicting Franco-German war on a French talk show would probably get you laughed off stage …
Give them a decade or two under austerity, that will change.
I’m a Russian with Ukranian friends, and a war against Ukraine always seemed unthinkable. The war propaganda is based on the assertion that Ukrainians are our brothers and so we’ve got to protect them from the junta.
Which what credence?
Why the heck should Germany want to wage war in the next 20 years on France?
Why should an isolationist US lead to a weaker EU instead of the EU coming more together?
This seems very unlikely to me. Could you explain what you think would cause this war?
Probably the French getting annoyed at the real or perceived German takeover of their country through the banking system.
In what ways do you differ from a typical US conservative?
I would like the government to legalize drugs. I support strict separation of church and state, and am not bothered by gay marriage. I support a right to die for sane adults. I don’t think that feelings of disgust should play any role in policy making. I think that current government policies do considerable harm to African Americans.
I’m about the same. But it’s not just the US military. Most of the freedom and prosperity in the world is due to the military dominance of the entire Anglosphere.
Mind explaining your reasoning? Or is it just jingoism?
edit: option 2 it is, then
You would have gotten an answer if you had stopped at the first question.
I believe that without USA, Russian tanks would already be in my country. Probably decades ago. And I would probably be forbidden from participating on LW. So… thanks!
I’m happy that my tax dollars have helped enable your LW contributions.
What’s your opinion on a public military vs. mercenaries?
Better mercenaries (volunteers) than slaves (conscripts). I generally support the U.S. government contracting out lots of responsibilities including military ones. I fear that organization such as Blackwater will become vital to U.S. power if the Blue tribe succeeds in turning our official armed forces into social justice warriors.
What about the practical effects? Correct me if I’m wrong, but explicit mercenaries (like Blackwater) give worse results for vastly more money than normal volunteer (paid) soldiers.
I am with you on the preference for incentivizing people to go in to the military, rather than using conscription. Not being able to conscript more soldiers limits our ambitions to smaller wars against inferior powers. Then again, America seems to have a really good track record fighting giant military machines and great empires (Germany, Great Britain) and a really bad track record accomplishing our stated objectives in these regional wars against inferior militaries (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). Maybe I should be pushing for us to expend our military might on European plains?
I find this unlikely, though I haven’t seen any evidence either way. Where did you learn this?
We can conscript as many as we want if we pay them enough. If we’re willing to draft people, then why wouldn’t we be willing to raise taxes?
Taxpayers are generally better organized politically than potential conscripts.
By the second point, do you literally mean it’s legal to conscript soldiers (it is in America at least, although starting a draft would be politically impossible absent an immediate existential threat to America as a state), or do you mean that figuratively, in that if we pay soldiers enough, we’ll get more volunteers? I’m not sure what point you’re making.
I will see if I can find the data on the poor performance and high cost of mercenaries.
The second one. I seem to have misused the word “conscript”.
The US runs a very big trading surplus. It gets vastly more goods from other countries than it ships to other countries. Of course that technically isn’t called “tribute” but it comes down to the same thing. More goods for US citizens.
The US trade deficit is not “tribute,” the idea is absurd. The trade deficit is not “you give us goods, we give you nothing,” it is financed by a combination of sales of US based capital to foreigners (American real estate is especially popular) and Americans going into debt with foreigners. (As Edward Conard pointed out, the two amount to the same thing.) Since these debts are paid back, with interest there is no way it could be interpreted as tribute.
Not true for treasury bonds, they roll them over rather than paying them down. The (likely temporary) special status of the dollar in international trade imposed after WWII also means that it is in high demand outside the US, giving us a special place as the source of dollars which can get extra stuff for them.
Regardless, end result is still more stuff for Americans.
Do you think it relies on its military dominance in order to extract that surplus?
Geopolitical power is quite complex. The US does at various points uses it’s power to punish countries that act against US economic interests.
It’s very hard to estimate the economic values extracted via wiretapping everything and using that information when it’s needed.
In general if you would predict based on economic history that value transfer to the party with the military power is happening and you see that value transfer is happening, it should get you thinking. “Cui bono?” is a good question if you are dealing with intransparent complex systems.
If you don’t see where the magician uses his skills, that can just means that the magician is good at his craft. If someone is really powerful you usually don’t know how they get their results. Information warfare is a key part of US military thinking.
As far as European countries go Germany is the country with the biggest amount of US military occupation and it’s the European country that exports the most. Of course it’s just correlation ;)
When it comes to dealing with secret power I found Leoluca Orlando worth reading. As major of Palermo he fought the Mafia with makes him know what he’s talking about. He did fought the building of US military bases because missile defense isn’t the only thing that you can do with military bases. From that perspective it also makes a lot more sense why Russia has such a problem with Star Wars which probably won’t work for it’s stated purpose anyway.
Bin Laden achieved one of his political/military goals after 9/11-- US bases were removed from Saudi Arabia.