...and even seem to have had access to settlement in colonies founded on seized land. Obviously, the USA is not going to pillage non-NATO countries to provide goodies to handout to wavering NATO members, that's not what I'm suggesting 3/
Let's say the base chance of a near-peer conflict is just 5% normally in the next 50 years, but without NATO (and our security commitments in East Asia) it rises to 15%. WWII cost something like $300bn at the time, or something like 4.1 trillion inflation adjusted. 13/
-
-
Just to the USA, not counting the cost in blood. If we assume that the near-peer conflict deterred by the 'off-the-table' effect would be of similar magnitude (I suspect it would be worse), the value of reducing its chance of happening by 10% over 50 years...14/
-
(avoiding fancy present-value calculations because I'm lazy) is something like $100bn per year over and above the security spending we'd be engaging in *anyway* (which, as a maritime power, would always be considerable)...15/
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.