But the opportunity cost is far, far greater than the cost of actually maintaining troops. US mil is massively bloated and inefficient, so not a good comparison.
European coalition army would exceed US capabilities at much lower cost, from not needing coercive forward ops.
Conversation
The weird pickle that we'd be in as Kalmar is the need to maintain defence integration between CAN and the US
The ostensible reason for that is continental defence integration and interoperability
The unspoken reason is that we are, since 1945, effectively a colony of the US
2
1
The US-CAN relationship though is hugely positive sum. It's A Good Thing.
Kalmar would have to proceed cautiously to preserve good will and a good bilateral relationship with the USA
This will be a constant source of difficulty and friction between policymakers from...
1
1
...different sides of the Atlantic.
The Scandinavians/Nordics of Kalmar might tend to push a more anti-American diplomatic line
And while that will warm many a Canadian-Kalmarian heart, our heads will tell us to measure our talk and maintain a very cordial relationship with...
1
1
The problem with this is that US militarism is fundamentally about maintaining an extractivist economic system that will literally kill everyone.
It *has* to die. Urgently. And it has to be replaced with something unlike Russian, EU or Chinese strategy, which are the same.
2
2
What I will say is that Canada has experience managing this relationship. For example, our PM Chretien in 2003 did not take us into Iraq. Three/fifths of the Anglosphere went. We and New Zealand did not. There was immense pressure on us to go.
We went to Afghanistan, but...
1
1
...did not get involved in Cheney and PNAC's stupid and useless war.
So, while we're not perfect, and your larger point may be right that Kalmar must not be in NATO, the Kalmarian border will be at the Juan de Fuca Strait, 49th parallel, Great Lakes, and the townships of Quebec
1
Which means Kalmar needs some kind of cordial bilateral relationship with the States.
Or a really fucking good military.
1
1
We have excellent troops (far better than US) and some of the better tech in the world. Production, manpower and border defense would be huge issues though.
1
The real goal would be alliance with a remilitarized Europe. That isn't just a credible threat to US hegemony - it is the end of it.
US cannot maintain forward presence across the Atlantic without a compliant Europe, and a European military would easily match US'.
Yuge element of entrenched resistance to Trump is him wanting the EU to increase their military presence. This is what the neocons *actually* hate.
1
The entire point of the Marshall plan was to create a dependent Europe, peaceful and most importantly dependent.
Take that dependency away, and US force projection becomes impossible. The petrodollar dies. Global economic crash into realignment or war.
No, the *real goal* of Kalmar is of course to usurp the United States as the beacon of life, freedom, human security and conviviality, if the world falls into an attractor pattern of unraveling.
Yes, Kalmar would pursue an alliance with a remilitarized Europe...
2
1
...assuming Europe doesn't go fash.
If it does, fuck it, Kalmar rides alone
And yes, US hegemony will erode and recede. But that's not a foreign policy goal of Kalmar. Kalmar is not a nineteenth century billiard ball state trying to expand its power for arbitrary reasons...
2
1
Show replies