US Military Hegemony
Cluster debates the US military's role in maintaining global dominance, including benefits like reserve currency status, military bases, and economic leverage, versus claims of altruism or world policing.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
This is not altruism. This strange american "look how we suffer for you"-thing is just utterly weird.Why do you think the US has global power projection capabilities? Why do you think they can control world trade? Why is the dollar still the reserve currency?The military "altruistic" peacekeeping is a major benefit, from better access to trade agreements to bases everywhere and military support from dozens of countries.Nothing of that would be possible otherwise. End
US doesn’t want to run the world and control other countries? This is an incredibly immature understanding of geopolitics. Do you understand what NATO is? Do you understand how many military bases the US has. Do you understand the involvement of the US in wars outside its own country. Do you understand the political and military powerhouse the US is. Do you not understand these goals have been accomplished with only Russia and China pushing back? US has formed a strategic alliance with every pow
Europe outsources defense to the US, but the prize for the US being a top military power is also having the top currency. Almost all world banks have to report to US inquiries about account information, but no US bank has to do that for abroad. A dollar used as reserve currency worldwide means much higher value of US savings, real estate, stock market, in which any American can participate. Multiple military lead pretenders also eventually clash. Whenever the military is strong a leader who want
The US's vast wealth depends on keeping other countries dependent on us; if they weren't so dependent, they wouldn't be so compliant.
The US exerts it's influence over the world by the trillions they spend on weapons and soldiers. The idea of a "right" is quite irrelevant. The only relevant question is how much the target country spends on military.
The US has spent a significant amount of money and manpower in the past 70 years to convince countries, not just Canada, to be dependent on them. The US has reaped the benefits of this, such as having military bases abroad, using the US Dollar for trade, easy travel for its citizens etc. So then why is the US upset about countries being dependent on them when they set that system up and received benefits from it?
"Don't invade fellow democracies".Business doesn't like things like wars of conquest where the legal system your factories operate under, your workers and the factories all seized by force or blown up when someone artillery strikes the town they're in to the ground.The whole point of being a reserve currency is to be stable and a key part of that is also enforcing stability - which the US does through things like it's naval supremacy."Don't
US got favorable deals in many countries using its military might, i guess that is what the comment is implying.
The reason US is so influential is its the most powerful world's economy and the issuer of world's reserve currency. Having big military is a consequence of that - if you can afford to have big military, you get it. And, also, if you have a big economy, you may need some ways to defend it from all kinds of threats - before they become so serious that they can hurt your economy.
Everything is relative. Even with all the problems in the US, the world has decided that it is still where they should put most of their trust. Also, having the most powerful military means it can do whatever it needs to keep itself going (not that it necessarily will, but it can, so that adds to the trust).