Fasces wrote:But not eliminated. Trust requires assuming risk.
NFU is not an existential threat to US security, or to its empire, frankly.
I'd say eroding MAD - which is what would happen if the US declared a NFU policy while Russia didn't - definitely fits the bill.
Fasces wrote:You've already asked, and I've already answered.
So you want the US to ratify UNCLOS? Fine, but China should abide by it as well. If China doesn't, why would ratifying UNCLOS signal anything?
And if you want the US to enter the Rome Statute, I'd say it would also need to be reciprocal.
Fasces wrote:Both a consequence of an aggressive and hegemonic American imperial foreign policy to which I am opposed.
Not really. Even Putin himself has made it clear Ukraine is about more than just security, and if China hasn't invaded Taiwan it's precisely because of successful American deterrence.
Fasces wrote:Putin's Russia is insane, but is not an existential threat to the United States at this time or in the near future. The EU should absolutely militarize more to be more able to pursue an independent foreign policy, but we're talking about the US.
When NATO exists, it does become an actual threat to the US. Existential? No, the US could always chose to dump Poland or Estonia by not respecting the NATO Treaty to avoid an existential risk, but dealing with slightly lesser threats is completely legitimate.
Fasces wrote:I am not advocating that the US disarm, at this time. Your attempts to extrapolate into absurdity won't work.
In the short-term, I am advocating that the US do these three specific things, as a means of starting to build trust. What happens next is not up to the US, but whether their rivals reciprocate.
I am not saying these policies represent no risk, either. You can't build trust without assuming some risk. They represent a very minimal diminishment of US capabilities and a very minimal risk, but a positive first step nonetheless. If you want to have an honest discussion, I'm happy to have it, but don't misrepresent my position just because you have internalized the US obsession with invincibility.
You seem to be getting it backwards, it is the weaker parties who have to make this trust building effort, don't you think? It would of course need to be reciprocal, I don't disagree with that, but there is no incentive for the US to move first.
Doing so unilaterally would definitely weaken the US military edge over the long term.
@Pants-of-dog it's quite clear they want the US to stop its missile defense efforts. A ridiculous ask, at that, given there are literally zero guarantees it would encourage a positive change in Chinese or Russian policy. If anything, I'd say it would encourage hastening their own missile efforts to catch up to the US (whose edge is far from being overwhelming either).