The US has previously worked to help reduce nuclear proliferation partly by offering security in exchange (e.g. Budapest Memorandum whereby Ukraine gave up their nukes). Of course there's a short term (& short sighted?) benefit to the US if it can reduce the military budget significantly, and/or redeploy assets from supporting NATO partners to areas felt to be more important to current US interests, BUT this comes at a cost ... NATO members, and others - like Ukraine - believing themselves to be under a US security umbrella will now realize that such promises mean little to nothing - having an expiration date at the end of the US administration that negotiated them - and they have to take care of themselves. Is it really in the US's long term interest to have ROW more heavily militarized and more countries developing/proliferating nuclear weapons for their own protection?
As far as technology goes, putting a hard embargo on US exports of AI-supporting hardware is only going to further accelerate China's push to develop home-grown alternatives, and in a world where the US is isolating itself and new alliances are forming, such as China-Russia, this means that future US attempts to prevent cutting edge technology getting into the hands of others will be increasingly futile since these non-US alliances will support each other.
Yes, potentially a very bad thing if it accelerates isolationist policies and further erodes US/world relations.
The sentiment I’ve seen increasingly that goes something like “but they’re freeloading” completely misses the nuance of decades of foreign policy and why the interdependence between allies and enemies alike has maintained relative peace.
If you’re worried about world wars, you should worry about the US undermining itself.
Did you write this, review it, then post it as if that's a bad thing? wow
edit: grammar