all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4 points 6 months ago*

I'd suggest scrapping it for parts and selling them, but I'm like three decades late.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Time to start seizing the assets of the politicians and oligarchs

  • source
  • 46 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 126 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Best we can do is a ballroom, oh and a new Middle Eastern war

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    And the beginnings of our very own holocaust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 92 points 6 months ago*

    Also federally defunded generations of scientists so that other countries will benefit from their expertise, ensuring that other global powers will be leading the charge and reaping the rewards of new, lucrative technologies.

    Lot more money and power going byebye for a lot longer than just the current ledger.

  • source
  • [–] 78 points 6 months ago
    [–] 39 points 6 months ago

    don't worry, it will be promptly fixed by firing people responsible for the statistics...

  • source
  • [–] 57 points 6 months ago
    [–] 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    usa entering their dying mall phase. cant wait to go to the spirit halloween at the lincoln memorial

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    yep. I'm curious what kind of country I'll be living in after. We all see ourselves as American (those of us who are such) but certainly we'd crack up into a few countries. It's always the disccussion of "It's going to collapse! It's going to collapes!" We should seriously be talking about what the region is going to look like AFTER the collapse and what we can do to prepare for it now.

    If for no other reason than the ability to do so would be gone while the reformation happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The project Squeezing America Dry (formerly Draining the Swamp) is complete.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    Looking forward to the US collapsing under the weight of its own incompetence.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 6 months ago* (18 children)

    I'm actually terrified of this. With all it's flaws and even evilness - I/we can't ignore the fact that it was keeping other major powers in check. China would far more likely invade Taiwan and likely whatever else they want, I'm in Baltics so.. Russia won't be so scared to attack it. Shipping lanes and global transportation of goods will no longer be protected by US (where credit is due, they really cared about it, up until Trump), other powers like Pakistan, Turkey and Venezuela might get funny ideas, etc.

    Ironically, world without US would look less secure to me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Ironically, world without US would look less secure to me

    On the other hand, the world wouldn't have wars and coups, caused by the USA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Sooo... Currently unstable regions get a bit less unstable and stable regions get to become unstable? I guess we would be nicely averaging out then. Is this us government communist after all? Equality for all, but not the equality anyone desired! :(

    /s incase it wasn't obvious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Do you honestly believe there would be less wars overall without US? Actually think about this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    If the US goes down, they won't be able to NIMBY over South America. Those countries can rise to prominence on the world stage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah, because the US military is just going to vanish if the government collapses.

    All those aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, and land based missiles will just leave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They'll likely be subdivided between costal states and be scrapped. A lot of that shit is non-viable to maintain if you aren't the US, if memory serves right aircraft carriers are generally built in Maine for example kinda doubt South Carolina has the infrastructure to maintain one.

    Mind you that's assuming a lot of things going a relatively specific way but I can't imagine even a reduced federal government maintaining any of the fleets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    South Carolina might not have the ships, but we got the nukes lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    My point was moreso that no individual state would have the resources or even infrastructure to properly maintain the various ships in the US Navy. I suspect that for any who would try (assuming new federations and unions don't pop up) would basically be stuck with the same issue as Russia with that one aircraft carrier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I was trying to play into it in a more macabre manner. I was hoping to imply that in the event of the collapse of the US, the states would go free for all and protect resources. I have no doubt that South Carolina would try to keep as many weapons as we manufacture. It's a fun hypothetical to think about. The level of chaos that would ensue. It's fascinating, really.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago*

    I, too, am actually terrified of this yet still looking forward to it.

    we can’t ignore the fact that it was keeping other major powers in check

    But otoh it was also always the major power stirring the pot, and more so recently. So much that that argument doesn't hold anymore imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Is it possible that your security is unsustainably expensive and comes from the exploitation of human rights in other places? Why was it necessary for the people of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, and others, to pay for your perceived security?

    I also find it hard to believe that China has had little military engagement for the last 25 years because it's worried about the US. Up until 5 years ago it was the US's top foreign Treasury security owner.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    And still have triple AAA rating 🤔

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago
    [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    This seems like a very big deal, but I'm no financialologist

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Maybe we shouldn't spend so much on the military then

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yup, definitely fulfilling the MAGAt fever dream of his running the country like his businesses, which is into the ground.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    On federal level the deficit is actually the sum of wealth the US gov injects/ed into its economy. There is no such thing as 'my taxdollar' on fed level. The gov proposes policy, congress ok's it and FedRes pays the bills. Through creation of new money from the 12 magic computers Elon discovered during his doge tenure.

    Not so on state level: states have no monopoly over a currency and have to hold up their own pants or go bankrupt. 'My taxdollar' absolutely applies on state level.

    Source: MMT/Sectoral Balances

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Israel has the US to fund their economy. The US will need a similar sponsor to turn up or fail in the worst possible manner (if it isn't already too late).

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    The United States casino.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    I'm not going to argue this is good, but debt isn't bad either. If you're taking on debt to invest in the future, it's a good idea if the expected returns are greater than the cost + interest, which it often is for the state. That's an easy balance to make.

    However, investing in missiles and shit, which are expended, is fucking stupid. You pay to build them, they cause damage (which is negative gain usually), and then they're gone. If you invest in education, healthcare, or infrastructure, it's easy to be positive. It's crazy that's so hard to get done.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Land of the free! Just not free of debt though nobody is I suppose.

  • source