alt Hacker NewsI don't understand this response.
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?