Surely you are aware that Denmark doesn't come as a little isolated package? Your country, the US, gets a group deal. Your allies in Europe have sent soldiers to die for you very recently. Including, little Denmark.
On the back of pax Americana, supported by your allies, you have continued to live as the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. That system did not arise out of altruism. It was a strategic bargain. Allies accepted US leadership and some constraints on autonomy in exchange for security guarantees and access to the US-led economic order. The US, in return, gained disproportionate influence and long-term economic advantages.
I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
Why do you even feel the need to suggest that Denmark is irrelevant to the US? It is only technically true if Denmark was the only ally you had. I think you're smart enough to know this, so why are you saying it?
> I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
How is it "hand waving?" Whether or not the U.S. has gained "long-term economic advantages" from its leadership of NATO is a key factual question. It's the central premise of your paragraph about "pax Americana." You can't simply assume that fact is true.
The relative gaps in GDP per capita between the U.S., Denmark and the Netherlands, and France and Italy, were basically the same in 2005 as in 1825: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bdvazr/top.... France and Italy have had a rough couple of decades since the financial crisis. But in 2025, Denmark and the Netherlands basically 15-20% behind the U.S., which is exactly where they were in 1825.
So what's your response? If your theory is that the U.S. has enjoyed outsized gains from the U.S.-led economic order, why is it the case that the U.S. is in the same position relative to Western Europe as it was 200 years ago?
Let's just quote you then, for avoidance of doubt:
"Denmark isn’t an “ally.” An alliance is a mutual relationship. Denmark offers the U.S. nothing. "
You either wrote that or someone temporarily borrowed your laptop but as far as I can see there are no third options. Unless of course you have some creative definition of what you consider to be an ally but until only a short while ago the EU was given a pretty concise description of that word by the US and we all agreed on that definition.
This isn't about money or some kind of ridiculous quid-pro-quo, it is about principle.
I’m sorry for using figurative language on the internet where Dutch people are around. The full relevant part is below:
> Denmark isn’t an “ally.” An alliance is a mutual relationship. Denmark offers the U.S. nothing. It’s a country the size of Maryland…
In the construction “it’s not an X, it’s a Y,” X and Y are read in contrast to each other. Denmark isn’t an “ally” in the sense that it can’t offer meaningful aid to the U.S. in a war because it’s a tiny country. Obviously Denmark is an “ally” in the legal sense that we’re both part of NATO.
Ahh, the True Scotsman equivalent of not quite an ally. FFS man, at least own your words and stop weaseling, I have absolutely no problem with figurative language, I was speaking English before you were born.
Not a valuable, meaningful, or significant ally. Your reading of what I wrote erases the scare quotes around "ally" and renders the comparison to the size of Maryland a non-sequiter.
Why would I need to respond to a random reddit thread and few figures you throw around?
You're wanting to overturn the widely held orthodox view that pax americana worked as intended. I'm sure there is an enormous amount of literature about that you could read. I don't think the onus is on me to come up with proof that you're wrong and the orthodox view is in fact, correct.
That view is orthodox among whom? When I was young, the idea that Americans actually benefit from the empire was a view held by Bush/Cheney neocons and World Economic Forum types. Your average Gore/Kerry voter thought it was a scam to redirect money to the military industrial complex: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/d3te8h5g76htb7k...
> I pointed out that Denmark is a country the size of Maryland and couldn't meaningfully move the needle in any serious engagement involving the U.S. military. If the U.S. went to war with China, having Denmark in our camp versus not having Denmark in our camp would make literally no difference.
Destroying NATO and our relations with the western states that have heretofore been either formal allies or friends-inclined-to-cooperate with the US has much wider consequences than not having Denmark “in our camp”, both on security issues in the narrowest physical sense and on the broad range of softer issues that impact the security landscape, as the almost immediately way the current crisis over Greenland has resulted in overtures from erstwhile allies to China demonstrates pretty dramatically.
Any reasonable substantive analysis of the situation can't possibly limit itself to just the direct benefits of "having Denmark in our camp", especially considering the context of this thread. Would having the support of Denmark be the make or break factor in a war between the US and China? Almost certainly no. Would the second and third order effects of the US ending its alliance with Denmark and/or NATO, and potentially turning them into enemies, by forcibly taking over Danish territory or something similar impact the US ability to fight a war with China? Almost certainly yes.
> Why do you always respond to substantive posts with feelings and personal attacks?
You get the audience that responds to you, mate. If what you want is reasoned debate, you need to apply positive feedback when people come to you with reasoned debate. You’re negatively conditioning the “reasoned debate” population with every ideological screed.
Then there’s the willingness to violate social norms (e.g., zero respect for foreign soldiers who died for your country) and insult or denigrate people on the basis of their culture/religion/status. That probably doesn’t help you find dispassionate debate partners.
Wait—when did I “disrespect” Danish soldiers? I love Danish people. I literally use them as an example of a local optimum in civilizational development. But that doesn’t change the fact that “US + Denmark against China” is basically the same war as “US against China.” In my post I literally spelled out why Denmark is militarily insignificant: it’s got a population the size of Maryland. Obviously this wasn’t a comment on the courage of Danish soldiers.
Grown ups should be able to have a discussion about generalities without getting emotionally invested in them.
I feel like I’ve seen commenters called out here for misquoting their interlocutors before, so perhaps it’s worth noting here. (I said “zero respect” earlier, but his emotional appeal works better if I had said “disrespect.”)
So if I'm talking about how Denmark is a militarily irrelevant country because it's the size of Maryland, I need to first do a bunch of throat clearing about how brave Danish soldiers are, pound-for-pound?
You love the Danish people, but you're ok with the US threatening war against them and removing itself from NATO over a piece of land that we don't need?
There is no rationality in your position. Loving people shouldn't lead to attacking them, that's the abuser's mindset, and in that there is no real love.
No, that's a response based in fact. I have no dog in that race, I'm not Danish and strongly believe that following the USA on that particular ill advised adventure was a mistake. But the people that went went because the USA invoked article 5 and that's what allies do.
For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous. You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference between some of the worst trolls on HN and what you are putting out there. The only thing I give you credit for is that you are doing this under your own name rather than hiding behind anonymity like the bulk of the rest but that does not change the nature of what you communicate one bit.
If you want substantive posts you are going to have to stop posting what arguably is the worst kind of flamebait.
You're defining "allies" in terms of legal obligations. But obviously Denmark is legally an ally of the United States. I don't need to spell that out. My post about Denmark being the size of Maryland was clearly about whether Denmark is a meaningful ally in terms of conferring a real military advantage to the United States through the alliance.
> For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous.
I'm neither belittling it nor denying it. It's just completely irrelevant to my point.
> You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference
Because you react emotionally to discussions about uncomfortable facts.
Yes, yes, it technically didn’t but the result was largely the same, and as we all know technically correct is the best kind of correct.
> The final resolution, unanimously adopted by the North Atlantic Council on September 12, was a compromise that only contingently invoked Article 5, dependent on a later determination that the attacks had originated from abroad.[7] According to the final text of the declaration, "if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty".
It's hardly administrative trivia; the thrust of this argument is widely cited as an example of European NATO states helping to defend the US in a time of need. But the article you cited is replete with examples of US ambivalence, if not outright disinterest in a coordinated NATO action:
> On the evening of September 11, 2001, NATO's Secretary General, the Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, contacted United States Secretary of State Colin Powell with the suggestion that declaring an Article 5 contingency would be a useful political statement for the alliance to make in response to the attacks earlier that day. Powell indicated the United States had no interest in making such a request to the alliance, but would look favorably on such a declaration were NATO to independently initiate it.
[...]
> In one interagency meeting in which the option of tapping NATO forces for the planned U.S. military campaign was mentioned, U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks reportedly dismissed the idea by saying "I don't have the time to become an expert on the Danish Air Force". In a September 20, 2001 appearance before the North Atlantic Council, United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage bluntly stated that his presence was to convey information only and he "didn't come here to ask for anything".
> Several weeks later, on October 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Council issued a further resolution affirming that the September 11 attack originated from outside the United States. The United States privately dismissed the resolution, with one senior official reportedly commenting "I think it's safe to say that we won't be asking SACEUR to put together a battle plan for Afghanistan".
And indeed, immediately following your cited paragraph:
> No action resulted from NATO's September 12 resolution.
Finally:
> According to the RAND Corporation, NATO hoped that by invoking Article 5 the United States would invite NATO states to participate in its planned military response against Al Qaeda, though no such invitation ultimately materialized and "NATO did not contribute any of its collective assets to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan". American reticence to involve NATO states was due to its perception that NATO's previous intervention in the Kosovo War was an inefficient example of "war by committee". For their part, European states felt U.S. standoffishness in accepting multilateral support was emblematic of American "arrogance".
> In response to a request by the United Nations, NATO later raised and deployed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with the objective of stabilizing Afghanistan following the United States invasion of that country. ISAF operated under a NATO flag but was composed primarily of U.S. forces and was at all times under operational command of American officers. It continued operations in Afghanistan until 2014, withdrawing seven years prior to the United States' 2021 retreat and the ensuing Taliban victory.
Who cares about reputation? He's spent countless hours advocating for telcos and neutering the FCC without disclosing the significant income he earned or his work as a telco lobbyist, so why start now?
That's news to me. Citation needed, and as much as I detest Rayiner and what he stands for I think that if you make statements like that you should do it under your real account.
I've never worked as a lobbyist. I'll also point out that nobody who works for Google/Meta/etc. "discloses" that fact, even though those companies have a vested financial interest in commoditizing broadband as layer below their services: https://gwern.net/complement. Folks on HN have a strong financial industry in turning telecom infrastructure into “dumb pipes” so their employers can capture the quasi-monopoly profits at the next level up.
Also, the accusation I post on HN for self interest is hilarious. If that was true I’d pretend to be a liberal.
NATO was a thing in 1960. France and the UK spend lower proportions of their GDP than in 1960 not because of an increase in the amount of white-knighting America does on their behalf but because they are no longer administering global empires (France was in active conflict at the time), and because per capita spend isn't a great way of measuring ability to project military power either particularly not post Cold-War; the US has also cut it and is still relatively more powerful than it was in 1960.
The US military industrial complex primarily does invest domestically and sells more overseas than it buys. It employs millions of US citizens, sells more US tech than it buys and subsidised the creation of dual use technology the wider US economy does rather well out of, including an early version of the internet we're interacting over. And if it's too big or too wasteful, that's a decision made entirely by the US, which fights the wars which - for better or worse - the US wants to fight (it's actually Europe throwing lives at American wars; last time the UK actually had to defend its own territories US support was restricted to sharing intel and selling us some missiles). Same goes for the bases in Europe. The Trump administration is furiously trying to sanewash Trump's acquisitiveness into an imperative to have more bases close to Russia on European territory - if its that important, kind of hard to argue there hasn't been a benefit to any of the other bases over the past 80 years...
His comments align much more closely with the plurality of 2024 voters than do yours.
> Effectively you've departed reality and you are now in a world of your own making where the facts are no longer relevant, just how you can stretch and twist everything to make it fit your worldview.
> Americans are split about the U.S. capturing Maduro — with many still forming opinions — according to a poll conducted by The Washington Post and SSRS using text messages over the weekend. About 4 in 10 approved of the U.S. military being sent to capture Maduro, while roughly the same share were opposed. About 2 in 10 were unsure. Republicans broadly approved of the action, while Democrats were largely opposed to it.
> Nearly half of Americans, 45%, were opposed to the U.S. taking control of Venezuela and choosing a new government for the country. About 9 in 10 Americans said that the Venezuelan people should be the ones to decide the future leadership of their country.
> In December, a Quinnipiac poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters opposed U.S. military action in Venezuela. Republicans were more divided: About half were in support, while about one-third were opposed and 15% didn’t have an opinion.
