• BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    You guys should start bulking up your militaries. At best, the US will completely abandon you, and I really don’t want to think about worst-case scenario as I live in the US.

    • tht@social.pwned.page
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think Europe can defend itself, it’s not useless most countries have some military

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      completely abandon you

      You write “attack you for water/oil” weird. Or did I write the quiet-part worst case out loud?

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Europe has very little in the way of oil reserves. Norway has the most at 7 billion barrels. Greenland has 18. Saudi Arabia 267 billion. Venezuela 300 billion. If I was Venezuelan I’d be sweating pretty hard right now.

        • Followupquestion@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Venezuelan oil is “dirty” IIRC. Apparently it’s good for bunker fuel (imagine the dirtiest sludge ever used for pushing giant ships around the ocean and you’ve got a good idea of bunker fuel), but requires significantly more refining than Saudi or US crude oil. So yay for Venezuela, but also the US would rather just replace the government with the help of that three-letter agency that shall not be named and deal with someone who went to an Ivy but is “Venezuelan enough”.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Unlikely. The cost/benefit doesn’t work for an assault on the EU. Most countries in the EU have to import oil and gas (Norway being a notable exception), which is why cutting off gas from Russia has been such a big deal. The cost of invading wouldn’t be offset by the oil gains unless oil got really scarce. A smarter move–if we had a president that didn’t give a fuck about our European allies–would be abandoning NATO, stop selling arms to EU members, and then buy oil and gas from Russia at a discount while Russia invades EU countries. (If, say, China didn’t beat this entirely hypothetical US president to the punch.) As far as water goes, it would be cheaper to built massive desalination plants than it would be to move water by supertanker.

        'Course, climate change is going to render most of this moot in 50 years or so.

      • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        i dont get this comment, at the hypothetical best case scenario wouldnt abandoning be “better” than attacked for oil? therefore attacked for oil not being the best case scenario?