The US cannot support it's military projection without allies. If every US base has to be ran as 'fortress USA' the budget will break. Even just losing a few strategically located bases will greatly increase the cost of power projection.

All Europe has to do is stop all local support for US bases and force all resupply to be done via the US military and the bases existing infra, not via ANY civilian infrastructure (no civilian airports, no civilian trucking, no civilian shipping). That's just one pain point in the USAs soft underbelly that we didn't have to worry about before because we had allies.

If you add to this cutting power and water supply you really need some infrastructure upgrade.

But why do we need “power projection?” Why do we need bases all over the world?

You mean why do we need Greenland and Canada?

US power in Europe has been our intentional policy since the end of WW2. I can't do justice in educating you on the geopolitics of it all but there is a plethora of information out there for you. Not sure how an American can get to be an adult without understanding the background and reasoning.

We did this to the point of encouraging Germany to include limitations on their own power in their constitution (along with Japan). Anyways it's a long, thought out standing position of our country that has 70 years of thought put into it versus the recent 'but it's not fair to us' MAGA reaction based position.

Because the alternative to a US dominated world is a world dominated by someone else.

History has shown that lesson again and again and again. There is no “peaceful world without a hegemon” period of history. There is Pax Brittanica, Pax Romana and Pax Americana which is now coming to an end.

You asked this exact question last week and I answered it. If you are just going to ignore the people who reply to you, why bother commenting?

But your answer was handwaving. What’s the evidentiary basis for concluding that maintaining bases all over the world benefits americans? The British Empire was motivated by mercantilism: by requiring colonies to sell raw materials to Britain and buy finished goods from Britain, it ensured Britain remained highest on the supply chain, and redirected capital from the colonies to Britain.

We don’t do anything like that. We don’t extract resources from Europe at below market value. We run a trade deficit, so free trade doesn’t even help us. So what’s the concrete explanation that isn’t just recycling liberal internationalist tropes?

I would like to see the trade deficit evening out, but even then, the deficit is ~0.6% of our GDP. Charitably, the intake of goods we do support keeps our internal economy extremely productive, so even at a deficit maybe it's worth it.

That said, it's not very difficult to fix the deficit if there were any will. And once fixed, the US would benefit from open maritime trade more than anyone else. Holding these bases helps us keep the world in order, and in the current order the US winds up on top. (Though the US does need to deal with China's incursions).

It's funny to see you use the word "evidentiary" when you do not apply any standard to your own comments. If you do reply, please try to back up your points, since I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

Why would we benefit from more trade when we don’t make anything?

I don’t have evidence that american empire is bad for the economy. But the cost of maintaining it are indisputably high and result in a lot of immortality. So I would like evidence that maintaining an empire actually results in benefits that offset the cost.

Economic theory certainly doesn’t predict that empires would make you richer than free markets. And if empire makes you richer, why is Europe so content to be under our yoke?

Well, the US has been the most prosperous country for a long time, so clearly something is working. Maybe the "empire" has nothing to do with it, sure, but I'd like to see you support your position instead of nitpicking other people's.

We make a lot of stuff. The manufacturing industry contributes >$2T to US GDP.

The US doesn't have an empire, but we do have a degree of worldwide hegemony. As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. Will that make US citizens richer?

> As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap.

That sounds like a very neocon view of how the world works. We have to maintain an empire because if we don’t, someone else will?

One nice thing about being a superpower is that we don't have to do anything. We can choose to be isolationist. That seems like a seductive option in the short term because it costs us nothing. But historically that approach hasn't worked out well for us in the past. Will the average US citizen be better off if China takes over as the primary global power?

And stop being disingenuous by labelling the current US-led global security system as an "empire". Words mean things and I'm sure you're smart enough to know what a real empire looks like, so I can't imagine what you think you're accomplishing by trying to frame the debate that way.

Why do you assume China will take over as a superpower? It’s certainly not the case historically that there’s a single global hegemon.

Also, I use “empire” because people are justifying our having military bases all over the world on that somehow benefitting america economically. I am not sure I understand why—forcing the world to use dollars as the reserve currency seems to be part of the theory. But if that’s the case then empire is an appropriate label.

US doesn’t have to make “anytime” why export products when you can just export cash?

US economy, trade and budget deficit are subsidized by the rest of the world which buys their bonds.

> why is Europe so content to be under our yoke?

Sorry to disappoint, but Europe is not particularly content to be under the US yoke.

Actually, the US has been actively pressuring Europe to keep it under their yoke. For decades.

So we can extract value value from having the biggest stick. Surely any competent businessman turned president couldn't fail to turn a profit when our military, and only our military, can secure the safe travel of goods anywhere in the world and overthrow any non-nuclear power who acts not in america's interest.

Same reason US needs a huge military.

Deterrence and overwhelming force are the only ways to ensure longterm peace and stability.

Establishing fascist military regimes all over the Americas, Europe and Asia might have been good for longterm peace and stability, and esp. US companies and global trade, but not so for the oppressed civilians and workers.

Could you actually explain what fascist regimes did US establish in Europe?

Greek Junta perhaps, but it was anything but stable and it collapsed because of a war in Cyprus with another NATO member..

Or are you claiming that Americans put Putin in power in Russia? Slightly far fetched but you might have a point..

Because I can’t think of anything else.

I’m not sure in what way do you think US “financed Hitler and Mussolini” (or whatever’s going on in your head for that matter..)

But it’s a weird thing to say when the USSR/Stalin literally bankrolled the Nazi invasions of Norway and France (whatever the financing they got from the US USSR contributed a few magnitudes more).

Germany had no oil after Poland and its not far fetched that France/Britain could have just waited it out had the Soviets not bailed them out.

I think that's kind of the point. The Trump admin takes a very isolationist view of things, so I don't think they even want all those international bases.

That's about two orders of magnitude more thinking than they're actually doing.

It's not the point for the MAGA types. They want the power AND deference of the good old days, not actual feeble pullback and irrelevance. They think Europe paying it's share means Europe will pay for OUR military presence. Add on their kids no longer having access to military jobs/path to education and those communities will start to freak out. Trump wants to project power in the middle east. That's current done out of European bases.

tell that to Greenland.

he doesnt care about the military bases. he just want the resources. National security is just an excuse.

> Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting the US. How many components of US weapon systems are made in the EU?

For example, 15% of every F35 is made in UK.