[throwaway_9168]

As someone who neither resides in the US (or its supposedly adversary countries), nor works at BigTech, I don't think I have any bias here except I hope humanity doesn't end up obliterating itself with nukes.

But your comment is, at best, a fraction of the full picture.

1 No country has ever been as ready to "spread democracy via force" as the US

2 No country has borrowed as much money to run its spendthrift military budget to carry out #1. You combine #1 and #2, and the money lenders are wondering, "Wait, WTF are you doing with all my money?"

3 No country has a tech sector with tentacles that spread as far. That's all fine (for the other countries) if you happen to be, say, neutral and generally non-aggressive Switzerland, but not so if you are a bonafide empire and keep trying to continue being an empire.

4 No country has so many immigrants working in their tech sector. Some of these immigrants are probably wondering "Wait, so I am developing weapons so people I don't know are going to bomb and kill people I actually know?"

5 Last, and certainly not least, "The first casualty of war is truth". A nerd is a nerd because he/she probably knows this very deep in their psyche somewhere. So this nerd ends up in a massive state of cognitive dissonance when asked to develop weapons of war. Its like telling them "Yeah, we won't actually tell you what we might use it for. And you have to just believe any spin we put on the whole issue. Not to mention, we might end up attacking your kith and kin. But its all OK, because WE are the country of DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM".

>> its companies can be counted on to be supportive and/or loyal in the event of conflict.

That's probably a smaller question, as seen by a neutral. A bigger question at this point is, can the USA, which managed to elect Donald Trump, by counted on to be a stable and reliable superpower or should all the other countries already start taking an "every country for itself approach", which is what I think is happening?

[novaleaf]

no offense, but it doesn't sound like your opinion is very neutral.

I would agree that the USA has it's faults, but unfortunately so do the other superpowers, and just about every other country out there (except those nordics maybe?)

Not that saying "everyone has problems" is meant to dismiss your arguments, rather you should consider if at least some of your list are actually problems of the USA or symptoms of global inequality, or even perhaps beneficial aspects of the USA.

Specific rebuttals:

#1: yes, but that ended in the 80's. Iraq or after isn't about democracy. The causes of USA's direct military intervention is complicated. Simplifying to "spread of democracy" is just about the definition of biased, though I agree the interventions are mostly not justified.

#2: yes but the USA is the police for it's allies neighborhoods, for various, complicated, reasons. Projection of power isn't cheap, and it's not just to burn money.

#3: USA's culture and economic impact are global, and it's spread is organic. I would personally call this net benefit, so curious why you feel it's nefarious.

#4: Why focus on immigrants/usa? This is story of anybody working for any big company anywhere?

#5: it seems like you have a lot of strong feelings going on here....

[anticodon]

English is not my first language and maybe I misunderstood you. But #3 is net positive only for USA. Of course, if you live in USA and watch and read only us media, it's self assuring to believe "we do it for greater good". But it's not.

[novaleaf]

I think you could argue that cultural domination is bad. I was mostly thinking of technological and scientific improvements that came out of the USA: from nuclear to gps to smartphones.

[gberger]

> No country has so many immigrants working in their tech sector.

Usually the kind of tech+military work that actually gets people bombed and killed is reserved for US citizens with security clearance.

Unless you're implying that, like, deploying Office is equivalent to developing killer drone tech.

[bvttf]

So much software is dual purpose, though. "We need this moving object recognition for, uh, cars. So it knows where a moving person is, so it can avoid them."

"Yes, that's a thing we're totally doing. Cars."

[sammorrowdrums]

This. Companies and academia too.

This has been a huge part of academic investment by government too. Yes we'll sponsor your PHD in this area because (often without the academics direct knowledge) we have a need in a certain area and we think this might help.

That might be signal reflection calculation (like more precise GPS in a place with tall buildings).

It might be a new kind of harder material (carbon nanotubes/ graphene).

Or perhaps it's a better understanding of a drug / mental health / the mind that has a side-effect of having nefarious applications as well as helpful ones being considered.

Even if the result is that it doesn't work, the armed forces and clandestine services are very interested in the outcomes of research that might fix a piece of their puzzle.

[moron4hire]

It would get a lot of people in management sent to prison to do something like that.

[known]

The USP of USA is that it promotes your self-actualization in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_need...