The Philosophy Discussion Forum

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united- ... pe=article

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-say ... 026-03-27/

interesting idea...

NATO countries didn't want to help the US with their Iran excursion, wonder who stays home with the next Chinese or Russian excursion?

-Imp

Devil's advocate here.

Looking for a good EXCUSE (public explanation covering secret agenda)?

There IS an argument that the US economy could be greatly boosted by inducing an arms race (crash re-armament) among countries, not poor countries, that have been sheltering under a US umbrella. In other words, way more extreme than just trying to coax them to put up more.

What would it do for the US economy if the Western European counties and Japan (don't think just NATO) were SERIOUSLY re-arming.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 10:09 pm What would it do for the US economy if the Western European counties and Japan (don't think just NATO) were SERIOUSLY re-arming.

You must have missed the bit a year ago where Trump said that the US would sell downgraded aircraft to allied nations
President Donald Trump has announced that any new U.S. F-47 fighter jets sold to allied nations will be deliberately downgraded by 10% and then all your existing allies lost their shit over the threat of the USA withholding vital F-35 software updates from allies, causing the Dutch minister of defence to say they can be Jailbroken Like $80 Million iPhones

Those countries are boosting armaments purchases, along with South Korea, but they aren't directing much of that money to American firms because it has become apparent that we can't trust the USA any more. You vote for presidents who work for the Russians and threaten to destroy alliances over petty imperial adventurism because of that Kompromat.

So the Poles and South Koreans are currently in a joint tanks and artillery systems venture, with products to rival Americas HIMARS. Japan, Britain and Italy are jointly developing a 6th gen fighter platform, France and Germany might team up to do one of those too. Everyone has joint ventures with Ukraine for various drone stuff. And so on...

I didn't mean DIRECTLY (that they would be buying arms from us). Of course they would be trying to do that amongst themselves. But if shifting production to military production, that reduces their production of other suff, and that's where the benefit to our economy would come.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 1:13 am I didn't mean DIRECTLY (that they would be buying arms from us). Of course they would be trying to do that amongst themselves. But if shifting production to military production, that reduces their production of other suff, and that's where the benefit to our economy would come.

What is this other stuff would be subject to such a drop in demand that it would necessitate European factory closures, and how does that benefit the USA?

Europe has no shortage of capital to build production lines with, plenty of R&D capability to fill up those production lines with new types of advanced killing machines, and the ability to raise funds to purchase all the goodies at the end of those lines. Your idea there seems to assume a Zero Sum Economic Game which probably isn't there.

All of this seems like a dangerous development. The rearmament of Europe doesn't seem like a good thing. Putin needs to back off of Ukraine. He and Trump have damaged the civilized world enough.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 9:40 pm https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united- ... pe=article

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-say ... 026-03-27/

interesting idea...

NATO countries didn't want to help the US with their Iran excursion, wonder who stays home with the next Chinese or Russian excursion?

-Imp

Two problems:
(1) That isn't the purpose of Nato, which is a mutual defence pact. If one member is attacked (eg on 9/11) then that is treated as an attack on all members. Hence the vast allied effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and to pursue Al-Qaeda. This does not imply any requirement for any of its other members to join in if one member (such as the USA) decides to launch war of choice. However, Nato is mutually beneficial for all members including the USA in terms of collective security, and additionally for the USA Nato acts as an incredibly potent force multiplier. This (not out of charity) is why the USA has spent trillions on it over the decades, including during its great power rivalry with the USSR.
(2) Trump does not get (1).

Because of (2) and the fact that Trump does not take Congressional overview seriously, this may well now be the end of Nato, which in turn will mean that the world becomes even more dangerous than it was already.

I agree that NATO is a defensive organization...

I don't think this Iran kerfuffle is a war of "choice"

Allowing an enemy to arm himself is not wise

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ir ... ngNewsSerp

-Imp

edit: the motives behind Iran's "arms race" were unlike those of your friendly neighborhood communists...

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 12:59 pm I don't think this Iran kerfuffle is a war of "choice"

If Biden had launched it you would.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:59 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 12:59 pm I don't think this Iran kerfuffle is a war of "choice"

If Biden had launched it you would.

Biden could barely tie his shoes, and his "aides" never had the sense to do what needed done

-Imp