Thread

1. MadrasThorn · 1790684474 · focus · HN ↗

   Trump attacking the Netherlands means transatlanticism is really dead.

   I think this has a lot to do with how the case against Putin was built and Trump used his influence to disrupt it.

   1. rapsey · 1790686721 · focus · HN ↗

      The EU is entirely subjugated to the US. No energy independence, militaries falling apart and out of date, no tech development or investment.

      1. mittensc · 1790687062 · focus · HN ↗

         Maybe that's wrong?

         The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO

         What is the US going to do when China starts making their own moves?

         1. bluGill · 1790690702 · focus · HN ↗

            > The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO

            That is false. The US could win a war in the middle east without NATO.

            The US has consistently chosen not to attempt to do so, but there is every reason to think they could. It is good that the US mostly tries to work with NATO on the middle east (and bad that Trump has not).

            The US has also consistently chosen to send minimal ground forces, and when they do send them they are very careful to protect the lives of their soldiers at the expense of winning.

            However there remains every reason to think the US could make different decisions and win wars in the middle east alone.

            1. mittensc · 1790693786 · focus · HN ↗

               Right now the US looks impotent vs Iran.

               1. bluGill · 1790717749 · focus · HN ↗

                  So? My comment was never about what things look like, it is about reality.

                  1. mittensc · 1790753378 · focus · HN ↗

                     Reality: US is impotent against iran closing the straight
            2. deadbunny · 1790694078 · focus · HN ↗

               "We could win the wars if we wanted to"

               The US has been getting their shit rocked by people in sandals for the better part of 70 years.

               1. bluGill · 1790695022 · focus · HN ↗

                  Again, because the US has chosen not to do anymore.

                  1. mittensc · 1790695193 · focus · HN ↗

                     "the US could have won but have chosen to lose"
                  2. deadbunny · 1790696857 · focus · HN ↗

                     Why is the US chosing to lose basically every war they've been involved in since WWII?

                     1. bluGill · 1790717716 · focus · HN ↗

                        That is an interesting question.

                        The other poster said "to distract from some other issue".

                        There are various people who point out that winning as most define it was never the objective in the first place, and the US doesn't care.

                        After WWII England (and to a lesser extent France) decided they didn't want to pay to be the world super power anymore. The US took over that roll, but to appease those who don't like that the US is willing to appear as a fumbling idiot despite meeting their objectives.

                        There are probably other reads, those are just the 3 I can think of right now.

                  3. Steve16384 · 1790697711 · focus · HN ↗

                     You're probably right. The wars have served their purpose, i.e. distract voters from domestic issues. Who in power cares if they win or lose if they're still in power?
            3. Danox · 1790694113 · focus · HN ↗

               The US has lost every war after World War II, it is also lost in Central and South America when it comes to long-range infrastructure, having a rail system stuck in the 1950s is not gonna go anywhere, not leading the charge in Central and South America and getting that Pan American highway or Pan American railroad built from one end to the other?, and where is that highway or railway leading all the way to Nome, Alaska? The billions, trillions of dollars wasted, and US Steel which is now, owned by the Japanese.

               By the way, if it wasn’t for the Russia’s ill fated war, the Chinese would have high-speed rail built out all the way to Europe, and would be making plans to build out all the way to South Africa, the Chinese have even taken the lessons of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are gonna have Thorium up and running sometime in the early 2030s.

               When it comes to Mercantile and Infrastructure China is one step ahead.

               1. bluGill · 1790694998 · focus · HN ↗

                  The US's objectives have rarely including a traditional win, so that isn't a useful think to ask about.

                  I don't know where your US rail system comparison comes from, but the US rail system is not stuck in the 1950s, the US rail system is the best in the world and has innovated. You might be thinking about passenger rail, but that is small subset of rail and not useful for most US needs.

                  Pan American highway or Pan American - these are feel good ideas of questionable benefit. They would sound good on paper, but they would not be useful for much: flying is faster (and probably cheaper) for things that need speed, while the nearby ocean is much cheaper for things that don't need speed.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.