When things are not normal, don't accept easy answers.
Nonetheless, three key conclusions emerge. First, actions that seem locally optimal in the immediate conjuncture can have long-run spillover consequences that are damaging both to others and to oneself. It might seem to many of us,now far away from the physical action, that what happens on US policies surrounding Ukraine is someone else's business. The externality effects, however, can be profound for us --- as they were in WW2 for Asia looking at the Roosevelt-Churchill discussion. Second, there can be sharply diminishing returns to spending on military preparedness. Before the obvious success of the German Blitzkrieg, the conventional view was generally positive on France's military preparedness: there were those who thought the French army --- numerous and well-trained --- to be one of the strongest in the world. France's military leadership was experienced in large-scale warfare. Of course, weighed against this were misperceptions, tactical errors, and political disunity. But the point is, smaller nations face sharp limits: they do need to be militarily strong, but they cannot expect that that alone, absent coalitions, will suffice. Third, co-existent with individual diminishing returns, Great Power nations like the US enjoy increasing returns to scale in the devastation with which they can prosecute war. They need to be on-side, and in turn they will be the stronger for it.
Your alternate future sounds like the world of The Man in the High Castle (by Phillip Dick). Netflix have a streaming TV version of the book that makes that world come to life. It's not a pleasant future and hence the plot.
Thanks for these thoughts. Yes, I have watched The Man in the High Castle on streaming and also read the original novel. As you indicate, these alternate histories connect. What I use is of course just the lightest version possible of that imagining.
Danny - a great opening but I do not know what your central message or position is.
When things are not normal, don't accept easy answers.
Nonetheless, three key conclusions emerge. First, actions that seem locally optimal in the immediate conjuncture can have long-run spillover consequences that are damaging both to others and to oneself. It might seem to many of us,now far away from the physical action, that what happens on US policies surrounding Ukraine is someone else's business. The externality effects, however, can be profound for us --- as they were in WW2 for Asia looking at the Roosevelt-Churchill discussion. Second, there can be sharply diminishing returns to spending on military preparedness. Before the obvious success of the German Blitzkrieg, the conventional view was generally positive on France's military preparedness: there were those who thought the French army --- numerous and well-trained --- to be one of the strongest in the world. France's military leadership was experienced in large-scale warfare. Of course, weighed against this were misperceptions, tactical errors, and political disunity. But the point is, smaller nations face sharp limits: they do need to be militarily strong, but they cannot expect that that alone, absent coalitions, will suffice. Third, co-existent with individual diminishing returns, Great Power nations like the US enjoy increasing returns to scale in the devastation with which they can prosecute war. They need to be on-side, and in turn they will be the stronger for it.
Your alternate future sounds like the world of The Man in the High Castle (by Phillip Dick). Netflix have a streaming TV version of the book that makes that world come to life. It's not a pleasant future and hence the plot.
Thanks for these thoughts. Yes, I have watched The Man in the High Castle on streaming and also read the original novel. As you indicate, these alternate histories connect. What I use is of course just the lightest version possible of that imagining.