And likely the US would eventually intervene once both sides had slugged it out for a while, ensuring they have a seriously compromised enemy and seriously dependent allies...and enrich themselves in the process.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's almost as if something like this has happened before . . .

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

And the time before that as well.

At least they're consistent I guess.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I've had to point this out to people a few it's amazing how Americans think that the US is the only country in the world with any real military might.

Even without the United States NATO still has two nuclear powers. A military that would rival that of the US on its own. Access to space assets such as spy satellites, gps systems, and communication systems. Extensive bioweapons research labs, if they wanted to go that route (although realistically they would be better utilized to research bio defenses). And more money than the adversary. They also have a population that on the whole seem to be more on board with the politicians then not (relatively speaking).

I'm sure if there was a war, the French would go on strike about it, but they always do that.

All the United States brings to the table is just more people and more stuff. I'm not saying that wouldn't be useful to have access to it, but losing it wouldn't be as devastating as some Americans seem to think.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

No, no, no, the US isn't the only military power in the world, the US is the only country in the world

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago

Even if the US sat on the sidelines, the European parts of NATO would still be formidable.

You mean the parts of Europe that has been taken hostage by Orban?