Lots of countries depend on larger, more powerful nations for their defence. Just like fiat, this seems a good idea at first but is dangerous in the long-term.
It saves money and energy to outsource defence. But both have to be paid back multifold by any country pursuing this strategy.
The money that is saved can be used by the government for programs that are popular with citizens. Programs that get politicians reelected, like healthcare and welfare programs.
This is good for the reelected politicians, bad for the country. It is exactly the same as fiat money…
Fiat money allows governments to “help” its citizens by alleviating (perceived) economic pains. Artificially low interest rates and budget deficits is how this is done.
The long term consequences of this “money printing” are a weaker economy (due to misallocation of capital) and a weaker population (due to savings being inflated away).
In a similar way, the consequences of depending on others for defence weakens a country. It puts its sovereignty at risk. It also puts its economy at risk.
It is fiat in that the defence of that country depends on the whims of others. The king decides and the king can tomorrow decide to withdraw his military commitments.
Where does this leave the country being “protected”? Exactly…f*cked!
Not only can a country lose its sovereignty when it is left defenceless at the mercy of its (potential) enemies. It also leaves it at a severe disadvantage vis a vis the nation doing the defending.
The nation doing the defending has all the leverage…
Ask yourself what Germany’s reaction would have been to the blowing up of Nordstream if it didn’t have 30,000 US troops on its soil.
Or how Japan would have behaved in its trade spat with the US in the 80s if it didn’t have 54 US military bases on its territory.
For nations to be healthy, they need hard money and build an independent military.
