is NATO ready, economically speaking, for a 3-fronts proxy-war situation?

[CrusaderFrank]

The way i currently see it, the threats coming
from Russia against Ukraine, from Hamas to the Israelis, and from China towards the Taiwanese,
can be stopped, if we spend enough on an assertive international self-defense and unipolar conquest.

but can our economies handle that, i wonder..

i also recognize that China, Russia and Iran and all of their proxies have their own drive towards unipolar conquest,
and thus i can see them as the aggressive teenagers[1] on the global stage.

[1] teenagers, as in : their economies are in their foreign policy geared far too much on a unipolar conquest of their own, with them emerging as the new global leaders.
well, i just don't trust that one bit.
i'd much rather continue to stay ruled by the western nanny state, than by some (Middle-to-far-)Eastern (bunch of) autocrat(s) and/or oligarch(s).

but how about you other people here?
should we just add to the national debt and engage the (middle-to-far-)Eastern Alliance on all fronts all the time?

i fear humanity is not yet grown up enough yet (as a species found in various skintones around the world),
for us to let go of the "need" to be/become the most dominant in whatever international interactions/policy-making.

Write off Ukraine east of the Dneiper and make peace

 

[Jarlaxle]

The NATO charter makes these situations our business.

Long past time to walk away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The way i currently see it, the threats coming
from Russia against Ukraine, from Hamas to the Israelis, and from China towards the Taiwanese,
can be stopped, if we spend enough on an assertive international self-defense and unipolar conquest.

but can our economies handle that, i wonder..

i also recognize that China, Russia and Iran and all of their proxies have their own drive towards unipolar conquest,
and thus i can see them as the aggressive teenagers[1] on the global stage.

[1] teenagers, as in : their economies are in their foreign policy geared far too much on a unipolar conquest of their own, with them emerging as the new global leaders.
well, i just don't trust that one bit.
i'd much rather continue to stay ruled by the western nanny state, than by some (Middle-to-far-)Eastern (bunch of) autocrat(s) and/or oligarch(s).

but how about you other people here?
should we just add to the national debt and engage the (middle-to-far-)Eastern Alliance on all fronts all the time?

i fear humanity is not yet grown up enough yet (as a species found in various skintones around the world),
for us to let go of the "need" to be/become the most dominant in whatever international interactions/policy-making.

Look at WW2. The French built up their military because they knew what was coming. By the time it came, their military was obsolete.

NATO can produce the necessaries in a short period of time, it's not a problem.

 

[peacefan]

Look at WW2. The French built up their military because they knew what was coming. By the time it came, their military was obsolete.

ehh, in what sense was it obsolete?

NATO can produce the necessaries in a short period of time, it's not a problem.

good to hear!

 

[frigidweirdo]

ehh, in what sense was it obsolete?


good to hear!

In just about every sense.

Their aircraft for starters. They couldn't compete with the ME109 so they lost their airforce pretty quickly. The Maginot Line was made obsolete by tanks and German tactics......

France crumbled in weeks.

In the modern era it's all about drones and things anyway, and you just have to be able to mass produce the things, you can't stock pile enough for a long war, no point anyway.