[astrange]

You're asking for sea shipping to stop working because naval piracy is going to come back. The "military industrial complex" isn't real and isn't a significant part of the economy (military spending as % US GDP has continually fallen over time), but the Navy patrolling the entire world's oceans for free has been real until now.

[lossolo]

> You're asking for sea shipping to stop working because naval piracy is going to come back.

That's a huge exaggeration. Who would commit naval piracy in the current age? Somalia, with their little boats and AK-47s? China already has a bigger fleet than the US and can easily take on the burden of securing trade routes, since they are the biggest beneficiary.

[astrange]

China isn't going to secure anyone /else's/ trade routes, only theirs. They only protect their own ships in those routes too.

[lossolo]

You are mistaken. If the US decided to give up its role, there would be a void, a void that anyone who filled it would gain soft power from. China would be very interested in taking the place of the US in securing global trade routes, because doing so would not only provide soft power but also signal that China had replaced the US as the world’s hegemon.

[astrange]

China (at least its current incarnation with Xi) doesn't care about soft power and thinks the only reason anyone else tries it is they're overly sentimental losers. That's why they have that wolf warrior diplomacy program where they just had diplomats insult everyone.

We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.

[lossolo]

> China (at least its current incarnation with Xi) doesn't care about soft power

That’s just wrong. Xi has explicitly ordered cadres to "tell China’s story well"[1] and build "discourse power" that’s textbook soft-power ambition. Surveys show it’s working, China jumped to #3 in 2024 and #2 in 2025 on brand finance’s global soft power index.

1. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspec...

> We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.

This is NOT piracy. Under UNCLOS Art. 101, piracy requires acts "for private ends" on the high seas. The Houthi campaign is openly political/armed-conflict behavior, so it doesn’t meet the piracy definition (even though it looks like it to laypeople).

[themafia]

Nonsense. I'm asking for other nations to pay for their own defense. You seem to believe, without any evidence, that if the US Navy can't patrol the oceans, then no one can. Which is such an insane position to take I can't believe you're being anything but flippant or perhaps that you work for the Navy itself.

The "military industrial complex" is absolutely real. You just don't seem to realize that the MIC is into buying software and social media networks these days and not so much carriers and jet fighters. So your spending analysis is flawed and your outcome analysis is wildly out of touch with actual reality.

It's an extremely infantile view. Bought and paid for by the MIC itself. No wonder you can't recognize the reality of it.

[astrange]

No one else is going to because no one else has a deep water navy they're going to use for this. Whereas it's the first thing the US ever did (in the Barbary Wars). Everyone else pays for it by using our currency and trading with us for cheap.

> Bought and paid for by the MIC itself.

One thing you can always use to spot low-trust conspiratorial types is they insist that all bad things are caused by "corporations" and involve money in some vague way, but then they never believe any actual specific information if it conflicts with their vague ideas of evil corporations doing things out there, vaguely.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...