[manigandham]

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. The world isn't static so of course there were consequences.

I'm not saying the military is perfect or that everything it does is right (and much of that is due to the whims of leadership), but that having a strong military is an option that most wish they had because they see first-hand what it's like without. There is no substitute for that power and it's easy to overlook in the several decades and generations of relative peace that has endured so far.

[gaius]

When America was defeated in Vietnam, the next thing that happened was not the NVA burning down the White House. In fact there was never any possibility of that happening nor a threat to the US mainland.

[manigandham]

So every other country is some tiny 3rd world nation? You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force? Or do you think they’re just being nice?

[gaius]

You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force?

Do you think they are deterred by observing American success in the ground campaigns it keeps losing or by the nuclear arsenal?

[manigandham]

Nuclear arsenals are part of the military, and what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?

Let's not conflate foreign policy and politics with military might. Things can go wrong from bad leadership regardless of what powers are at command, but those powers at the same time guarantee a certain level of safety and capability on behalf of the nation's interests. I don't see how you can deny that with any sense of reality.

[gaius]

what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?

There's no sign of a stable liberal secular democracy emerging anytime soon in Afghanistan or Iraq is there? At the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars if you only want to focus on material things. But you can point at an American campaign, Somalia, Vietnam as I've mentioned, any adventures in Latin America... And then there's Ukraine, whose territorial integrity America guaranteed in return for giving up its own nuclear weapons, and yet the Russians waltzed in an annexed the Crimea without any trouble at all.

America does all these things when it is in no danger itself, and millions upon millions of innocent people die because of it, and that is why people have misgivings about working on drone targeting.

[manigandham]

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.

I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate power and capabilities from its application.