That’s a counter argument against a slightly different scenario. That said, we don’t have to be unbeatable against a determined attack, we only have to be not worth the trouble. For that threshold the fundamental disparity is far from overwhelming.
That’s a counter argument against a slightly different scenario. That said, we don’t have to be unbeatable against a determined attack, we only have to be not worth the trouble. For that threshold the fundamental disparity is far from overwhelming.
Conveniently, precisely because of the disparity Canadian rearmament does not create many security-insecurity dilemmas for the United States
Notably the USA could not tolerate less than 10k deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think TV has fundamentally lowered the boundary of acceptable death in a conflict.
internet probably has lowered it some more
I’m someone more worried about when Americans start shooting eachother
Years of lead seems an order of magnitude more likely but I empathize.
Ya probably. All I’m really sure of it’s that it’s going to get uglier
Stochastic terrorism towards elected officials seems like the most likely turning point in the US. Agreed on it getting far uglier.
We need a supply of cruise missiles we can [redacted redacted redacted]
It irks me that the only scenario people can imagine is a total war of conquest and annihilation. The reality is that this is far to one end of the spectrum of possibilities, and one that seemingly exists for the sole purpose of terminating any thoughtful consideration of the problem.
Yes, the spectrum includes tacit coercion, salami slicing, little green men, arctic occupation, all sorts of things we could be much better placed to see off short of some sort of Trumpite Barbarossa
There are so many possibilities and it’s really pretty scary. And a lot of it is just based on what the regime thinks would help shore up its base or distract from other things!
Aka, the Swiss defence