If a disease with anything close to a 50% case fatality rate spreads far and wide, it’ll collapse human civilization. There won’t be anyone to collect the debt afterward. Those who survive would have to rebuild society from the ground up.

If it doesn’t spread far and wide and it’s only a small number of people who end in ICU, yeah they’ll need to hire a bankrupcty lawyer once they recover.

It’s a bit complicated. That survival rate primarily includes people who become severely ill and seek medical attention. Since it’s the most severe cases, the case fatality rate (CFR) will appear higher.

HOWEVER, what also needs to be emphasized is that a disease with like a 10% CFR is probably a civilization (as we know it) ending disease. I believe covid 19 was between like 1-2% and we saw how it nearly broke our health care system, and that was with people more competent than RFK in charge.

If a disease emerges that spreads as easily as COVID did and with a CFR rate 3 to 4X as worse, it’d obliterate the health care system very, very quickly. Then people are going to start dying en masse from preventable diseases, like common infections, moderate injuries (e.g. broken leg) etc.

If a disease emerges that spreads as fast and far as COVID and has a 50% CFR, yeah that’d collapse most societies completely. Maybe some societies that can truly lock down and enforce social distancing, like China, could survive long enough for a vaccine or other solution to become available.

True, sticks won’t bring about world peace on their own. Might save Europe from getting whacked for now.

Hopefully we reach a war-free era in the not so distant future and humanity prospers.

There were three guys with sticks. China couldn’t project power far but Soviet-Sino relations were strained and the risk of war was high because they share borders.

I’d love for there to be a world with no sticks period but humanity is a long way from that. Europe becoming the forth guy with a stick could force everyone else, and especially Russia, to be more cautious. And if it comes to blows, the EU/UK are gonna want to have that stick.

If you’re EU/UK and multiple parties are around you with big sticks, would you rather be defenseless or have a stick?

I mean yeah, it can work exactly that way. The Cold War was horrifically bloody in many countries and regions, but the USA and USSR directly slugging it out would have bathed the world in much more blood. Likewise, the Soviets and China going at it in a full scale war after the Soviet-Sino split would have been horrific.

It’s a high risk strategy but not one without rewards.

Sure. And that reinforces my point, better for Europe to have its own stick.

Beyond which, amid AI, aging populations, global warming, blah blah, many countries are going to face serious internal challenges. At least for the USA, the pressure will make the global hegemony harder to sustain. Amid surging debt, it’s not hard to envision a world where the USA literally can’t afford to shield Europe. Get saner minds than Trump leading the USA, and it may be possible to establish a more equal and mutually beneficial relationship of peers.

I mean, if Europe doesn’t need the USA, that’s good for them? Like, congrats?

The reserve currency is a tricky thing and will likely hurt the USA in the long run. If nothing else, America won’t be able to export its inflation.

But if that leads to more options for international trade, it’s possible that the world as a whole benefits.

I loathe the idea of agreeing with Trump and friends, but I do think he is right in pushing for Europe to be more self reliant and battle ready. I distinctly remember Obama pushing Europe to increase defense spending and he got some pledges but I don’t think they bore much fruit. Trump’s harder stance may have and might be forcing Europe to step up a bit more. Even if so, he still could have handled the whole situation a bit better. Less public belittling and NATO bashing, for example, even if he and this representatives are taking a harder stance behind the scenes.