> The approved 2019 Department of Defense discretionary budget is $686.1 billion.[34] It has also been described as "$617 billion for the base budget and another $69 billion for war funding."

You don't think it possible the US military could be any smaller and still defend its nation? Invading Iraq hasn't really had any fruitful outcomes, but absorbed more than a trillion of dollars of tax payer funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Aftermat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

My sibling commenter will be happy to know that Finland takes defense against Russia very seriously. Might be interested in this article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/finland-army-russia-lit...

The US military is designed to defend 2 continents at once since Europe has shown zero interest in actually paying for its own military. Of course that’s going to be expensive as hell.

The US military is under no obligation to do so.

Edit: People are getting caught on semantics here. Change 'is under no obligation' to 'not required' if you please. There's no pressure for the US to remain (see comment to reply for examples of the US breaking treaties). Perhaps there are incentives to stay that are privy to policy-makers, but are those incentives what the average tax-payer wishes for?

Yes, the US military is obligated to defend Europe under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Techinically, you are right, but as with the treaty with Iran[0], or the Paris Agreement[1], etc. the US can leave. The US can basically do what it wants, and the political consequences are relatively minor.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_fro...

This interpretation of this "obligation" is true of any "obligation". "Obligations" are inherently a social capital forcing function conception. They can always be violated so this point is pretty moot.

You're getting caught on semantics rather than understanding my argument. See my edit on the original comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004980

Your edit is just as useless. Leaving NATO is not an inconsequential action nor do I see abandoning "The West" to be something likely to be well received by US voters.

No one got caught up in meaningless semantics. It's just that your point doesn't carry much weight.

> Leaving NATO is not an inconsequential action

'consequences are relatively minor' != 'inconsequential'.

> nor do I see abandoning "The West" to be something likely to be well received by US voters

Opinion. May be right, may be wrong. Trump did in fact try this at one point, but it was shot down by the house. Doesn't really reveal how many voters would support it, though.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/23/us-house-vot...

> It's just that your point doesn't carry much weight.

That's a baseless assertion until you explain why. Why shouldn't the US polity reconsider it's attachment to NATO? What are the bad outcomes? Bad for whom? And what are the good outcomes for citizens? (eg. say, for instance, but not exclusively, less taxes, or money spent better else where)

What does it mean to the people? That is the central question of democracy. And my ultimate point is that's what should be driving whether the US continues with NATO. And I think that carries weight with anyone who believes the US should be a democracy

The political consequences of the US withdrawing from NATO would be unimaginably large, not relatively minor. It would be like the partition of Rome, fundamentally reshaping the world order.

The US is the wealthiest nation by far and has leverage over any other developed nation you can name.

It has to be asked, what is being bought by the US participating in NATO? What are they getting in return? And is that in the interest of the majority of US citizens or not?

There seems to be a push from the US and the UK towards returning to isolationism. There are pros and cons to further isolation, which ought to be considered and balanced in the interest of the people - assuming democracy is the overriding principle.

That said, what consequences do you think would be borne by the US if they pulled out of NATO? And do you think there might be some benefits to counter that?

Which decades are you talking about? Finland was part of the Russian Empire between 1809 and 1917, but hasn’t been invaded since — although Stalin gave it a good shot.

Invaded twice, but not occupied. Indeed, I believe Helsinki and London were the only capitals of non-neutral European countries that were not occupied during the WW2.

Moscow wasn't occupied either, was it?

Oops, of course. Good point!

Finland was definitely invaded. While the Finns are often considered the victors in the Winter War because they managed to maintain their independence in spite of Stalin’s onslaught, they nonetheless lost a considerable slice of Karelia to the Soviet Union.

Ok, but that’s very different from “decades under Russian occupation” claimed by the grandparent post.

Quite right. The us$ is up with a large support of the 20 aircraft carrier you have. As said you cannot pay the firman when there is fire.