Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GarbledComms t1_j2djxoz wrote

Reply to comment by JustOneAvailableName in [OC] Around 30% of countries spend more than 2% of GDP on their military by IndeterminateYogurt

But the US kind of needs the power projection capability to be a useful alliance member. Having a strictly territorial-defense oriented US military wouldn't do NATO any good. If it can't get to the battle, what use is it?

14

Archmagnance1 t1_j2dsmqq wrote

Yes but that wasn't the point. The point was explaining the different approaches. The US is an ocean away from anyone that isn't Central America or Canada. European NATO members were a couple hours train ride at most (besides the UK) from the reason NATO was formed, the USSR. Different geographical locations require different solutions.

9

KristinnK t1_j2draex wrote

Historically this hasn't been a problem, since the hypothetical war NATO was designed to fight was with the Soviet Union, and that war would happen when the Soviet Union actually invaded alliance members.

The situation today is quite different. The present and future threat is an aggressive China. For the continental alliance members to be useful in that fight they would need to invest heavily in power projection. And that simply isn't going to happen until China has already gone rogue, and will come too late to make any difference (see the war in Ukraine for reference).

Instead the U.S. will have to lean on allies in the Western Pacific. A re-armed Japan is going to be key, as well as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines and Australia. Defensive alliances with Vietnam and Indonesia also need to be established. China needs to be put in a position where a stunt like that of Russia in Ukraine would be absolutely suicidal to Chinese society, economy and instustry.

2