It’s not for nothing that Europe and China have been outpacing the U.S. in terms of renewables deployment. The only country that sees military intervention as the fix is us.

Europe, honestly, just can't afford that, even if they wanted. This is why e.g. Germany still has to buy natural gas from Russia, even while supporting the war effort of Ukraine against Russia.

Actually they built a bunch of LNG terminals very very quickly and now get most of their gas from that

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63709352

You can see rapid progression to zero of Russian imports for natural gas in Germany if you scroll down to the info graphic in this article

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependen...

Germany is also famously anti nuclear

Most gas in Germany comes via pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. LNG is at around 10%.

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Gasversorgung/aktuelle_g...

Not everything is about resources. Are you one of those people who thinks Taiwan is about chips? That conflict predates the chips, it's about face, prestige and reputation, but I often read people on HN saying it's all about chips.

When all you have to explain the world is a hammer every problem will look like a nail. It's a form of cognitive bias.

I haven't seen anyone suggest China wants to re-unify because of chips; I would say US's incentive to guard against reunification is supply-chain sensitive.

It's a popular narrative that Taiwan can deter an invasion by having their fabs rigged to blow up and thereby depriving China of that resource. But China would want to take Taiwan and terminate the ROC government even if the island were an underdeveloped backwater with nothing of value because it represents a bastion of resistance to the CCP, a hold out from their civil war. Party prestige, not resources.

Furthermore, America has been invested in the defense of Taiwan for far longer than the chips have been involved. America needs to remain committed to Taiwan if it wants other countries, particularly Japan and South Korea, to take America's support seriously. Reputation, not resources.

I mean to remember reading that the chips are mostly there to stop an invasion. Taiwan was afraid of losing US support so the government set up a plan to make the country vital for the US economy, ensuring their protection.

It's probably an exaggeration though

Fair enough. I have heard the narrative that the chips are economic leverage against an invasion and agree it's an insufficient deterrent.

Our military and standing as a super power has been in decline for a while now. I don't think we really have the military superiority or ability to just simply invade countries any more. With China, Russia and Iran aligning against us both economically and militarily, I don't see much of what you're talking about happening.

Russia annexed Crimea and we did nothing. Russia invaded Ukraine and besides sending billions in aid, we haven't done anything militarily. The attacks against Israel went unprovoked and we've got all we can handle with the anti-Israeli protests going on here on our own soil - let alone trying to send troops to any of these hotspots. China has been sabre rattling about taking over Taiwan and all we can manage at this point are sternly worded memos. Add in the amount of conflict going on in Africa that nobody seems to want to deal with either. All the while China has steadily moved economically in on Africa and has essentially pushed us out of the country altogether.

What you're saying in 2024? I don't see the US has the capabilities to do that any more.

I agree that the USA can't invade everywhere, no matter how much the hawks insist.

That said, "Any more"?

Russia is much less of a threat to you now than the USSR was between invading Poland and the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the Warsaw Pact. China and the USSR are why the US didn't win in Vietnam or North Korea, and you've had all those decades of fun with Cuba (including that time Castro offered to send some election monitors to help the US).

In general, the US does well as a team player, but isn't so good when it tries to be a loner. Looking over the Wikipedia list, of the wars you've won without allies, have been against very small, weak, opponents:

• United States invasion of Panama, 1989–1990 (but only if you don't count the Panamanian Opposition as an ally)

• The Tanker War is listed, but the full page for that war says the US was supporting Iraq at the time

• 1986 bombing of Libya

• 1923 Posey War, the main page for which… well, 2 casualties in total, so if that's a war then what are school shootings? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posey_War

• United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924)

There were plenty of solitary successes before that, but even the end of that last one was a century ago now. The successes, like WW2, the USA was one country amongst many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...

> Russia invaded Ukraine and besides sending billions in aid, we haven't done anything militarily.

An analyst I follow says this is deliberate, based on the US worldview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ402BMSs8

> The attacks against Israel went unprovoked and we've got all we can handle with the anti-Israeli protests going on here on our own soil - let alone trying to send troops to any of these hotspots.

Israel and the various Palestinian armed groups have been provoking each other for as long as I've been reading news. This doesn't justify any given example of bad judgement on either side, but they've definitely been provoking each other. And you're really not got all you can handle for the anti-Israeli protests, protests are a police action at most, not military.

I can't see the US forces being able to do much to help in the current Israel-Palestine mess, though, no matter what next step you think is the most important for peace in that area — given the politics, the only lever the US can pull on at this point is how many weapons they're willing to sell to Israel… and Israel has a huge weapons industry, about 10% of the global export market.

> China has been sabre rattling about taking over Taiwan and all we can manage at this point are sternly worded memos.

Yes, but that's also basically what's been going on since the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949, which resulted in the retreat of the Republic of China government to… Taiwan (fun fact: guess which of the two Chinas had a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council from 1949–1971).

Ukranian invasion in particular have shown that US and Europe seriously under-invested in military. While western countries have been able to do very impressive tech, it was produced in small quantities, and once a real (although a regional) war broke out, it became clear that even Russia can drastically outperform western factories in raw production capacity.

With risks of much larger conflict with China become more serious, I really hope that americans reconsider their priorities and invest in military production before it's too late.

Russia produces a lot, but loses even more.

Indicators of that include bringing T-55 tanks to the battlefield, which require four, instead of the usual three, crew members to operate, which is troublesome.

They produce artillery rounds at a rate of 250k per month, but fired approximately 10mln during the first two years of the war.

The Black Sea Fleet is unlikely to recover anytime soon - if ever.

The list goes on. What good is production capacity ig it's wasted like that?

Russia is getting its brand new billion dollar (per unit) air defense systems blown up almost weekly by 1990s US equipment bud.

Ah, but how many weeks in a row? ;)

Is it a production problem or that the US government, especially the House Republicans, won’t approve sharing with Ukraine? Shipments appeared to resume instantly once permission was given, and that’s higher-tech stuff than what Russia is making or even buying from China and Iran.

A hot war between two large nuclear weapons powers?

Nukes are intended to keep peace, as in "mutual assured destruction". And they still work in this capacity :-/

Yes and now that a single hypersonic missile can disarm a carrier group, we can have even more Peace as America is persuaded to stay home /s