Comment by lovich
1 day ago
I mean, we were trusted but also not fully.
This isnt the first time European powers repatriated gold from the US. In 1971 France sent their navy to take their gold back because of another conservative US leader who decided to try and leverage our power at the expense of international trust and lost us a portion of said power[1].
I am an American. I preferred when we were stronger because we sweetened the deal enough with everyone else that they let us be world financier/police/anti piracy force/etc.
This fucking machismo theory taking over the older conservatives and the "The Torment Nexus was actually an awesome idea" taking over the tech bros and younger conservatives is fucking destroying us. Both groups seem incapable of believing in a win/win deal. Its also zero sum game to these fuckers and thus our soft power, and eventually our hard power, is being lost.
[1]https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/07/31/august-1971-the-day-...
It's not really "eventually" for our hard power.
Iran has exposed many limitations and weaknesses in America's defense capabilities, and it's a fraction of the threat China is.
We have 0 carrier strike groups in the Indo-Pacific right now.
> Iran has exposed many limitations and weaknesses in America's defense capabilities
I'm far from a fan of current US policy nor an apologist, but this is a flawed analysis.
The war with Iran has exposed the stupidity of entering into that particular conflict, where:
* the goal (if there was one?) was something like regime change at arm's length
* 'arm's length' means using expensive long distance precision weapons, as there was/is very little taste for an invasion
* the target (Iran) is situated next to US allies which also happen to be hugely important as oil producers/exporters
* the target can also threaten a hugely important global shipping channel - the Strait of Hormuz
* the target has prepared for this action for years if not decades, and has good-enough drone technology to hand to threaten its neighbours and the Strait of Hormuz
This is an almost unique case in the world, and as such, its lessons of "US weakness" of "US failure" simply can't be assumed to translate more broadly. Iran is/was far more a strategic blunder which could/should have been foreseen, than a sign of America's weakness.
Yes, America currently has low stocks of long-range precision munitions and Patriots, but it still has the most powerful conventional military by far, and a globally-unrivalled ability to project that power around the world, if it chooses to.
---
"But what about Ukraine? What about drone warfare? America is far behind there." This may have changed the game. The heavy usage of drones in Ukraine evolved, noting Russia didn't initially invade with swarms of drones. If the US had had a strong reason to support Ukraine (imagine Russia had instead invaded Florida) they could likely have used conventional means (air superiority, tanks, men) and ended the war within a few weeks. Admittedly, now it's far less certain how those tanks and men would fare in current drone battlefield.
> and it's a fraction of the threat China is
It depends entirely on the nature of the war envisaged (see the points about Iran being a unique situation.). In particular, China does not have anything like the US Navy to project power in the way that the US still can.
> * 'arm's length' means using expensive long distance precision weapons, as there was/is very little taste for an invasion
Do you think Americans have a taste for invading China?
> * the target (Iran) is situated next to US allies which also happen to be hugely important as oil producers/exporters
China itself is the factory of the world, the world's second largest economy and America's third largest trading partner. It doesn't even have to strike surrounding countries to take aim at the US economy. Yes, that would hurt China too, but China has been preparing for this and the COVID supply chain shock in the US was just a small taste of what life could be like for Americans who are used to being able to buy everything under the sun for cheap at Walmart or on Amazon.
> * the target can also threaten a hugely important global shipping channel - the Strait of Hormuz
About a fifth of maritime trade goes through the Taiwan Strait. It's also one of the world's most important global shipping channels.
> * the target has prepared for this action for years if not decades, and has good-enough drone technology to hand to threaten its neighbours and the Strait of Hormuz
China has been preparing for a Taiwan contingency in earnest for well over two decades, with a particular focus on the A2/AD capabilities needed to keep the US from establishing superiority in a relatively small area.
The US on the other hand, spent 20 years chasing goat herders and insurgents and is now trying to reorient itself back to preparation for major power conflict. Which is a huge challenge when China is, for example, has an estimated shipbuilding capacity that's 100+ times greater than America's.
Don't get me wrong. The US still obvious has a very powerful military, but it has been trying to be be all things for all conflicts in all places. China has been laser-focused on a military that can accomplish just a few things.
> Iran is/was far more a strategic blunder which could/should have been foreseen, than a sign of America's weakness.
You're treating an inability to strategize as a strategic blunder and not weakness. You should reconsider that. Because it's the very thing that has caused the US to fail at achieving its long-term strategic aims in basically all but one of the significant conflicts it has been involved in since the end of WW2.
> In particular, China does not have anything like the US Navy to project power in the way that the US still can.
In a Taiwan contingency, China doesn't have to. China is just ~100-150 miles away from its target. Again, it has spent more than 2 decades investing in A2/AD capabilities for that specific contingency.
Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all also exposed the weakness of American might? Was the last big war that the US won WW2?
The US lost these wars politically. This has always been the US weakness rather than pure military power.
The US was better at getting what they wanted through either soft power or threat of military action than as a result of actual intervention. Which is why it’s really counterproductive when the government does not believe in soft power anymore. It’s the one thing you did well and that allowed you to get your way most of the time.
3 replies →
America won Iraq and Afghanistan in a walk.
They didn't do a great job of nation building afterwards, but the actual war part was very successful.
7 replies →
I think its eventually in that if we put our might behind it we could take probably any 2-3 major military powers on the planet at the current moment, but that's with the caveat that putting our might behind it means tens to hundreds of thousands of dead military members which we as a nation have lost the stomach for.
I am saying eventually in that I think we will not even be able to do that if we found our grit again in the coming years as long as we are prioritizing raising testosterone in individual soldiers and removing qualified women and minorities from our military over having competent leaders and prioritizing logistics.
Sorry, the ship has already sailed.
1. In Iran alone, the US has depleted stocks of some of its most advanced and important weapons systems.
2. The US does not have the manufacturing capacity for an extended conflict (China does) and the US is in fact dependent on Chinese components and raw materials.
3. As it relates to a China contingency in the Taiwan Strait: the Strait is ~140 miles at its widest point, and the Chinese have spent 20+ years investing in A2/AD capabilities. Given the state of the US military right now, it's hard to see how the US could overcome China's geographic advantage.
4. Our most important allies don't trust us (and we're even threatening some of them) so don't expect them to help.
5. Some of the most experienced and competent military leaders have been pushed out by an unqualified alcoholic who is more interested in how many pushups the cannon fodder can do than he is in how many ships America can build.