[jacquesm]

> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence.

So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.

It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view.

You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair).

But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance.

> America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II.

So?

> If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities.

You do know when the US joined WWII don't you?

And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time?

And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome?

> America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.

America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again.

> We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.

You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place.

WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?

[rayiner]

I don’t think this issue is so settled that you just get to say “research it yourself” instead of making your case. Whether the global empire makes America as a whole richer or poorer is highly disputed. And it’s not just the distribution of the spoils as you say. The longstanding view of Americans opposed to the empire has been that the empire enriches defense contractors, but is a deadweight loss for the country as a whole. Your theory could actually change the premise of the anti-empire left significantly.

> America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause

But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich. America was already the richest country by far before it used that wealth to become a military superpower. In fact the GDP per capita ratio of the U.S. to France was about the same before World War II as it is today. Heck, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about how much richer Americans were than Europeans back in the 1830s.

[jacquesm]

> The longstanding view of Americans opposed to the empire has been that the empire enriches defense contractors, but is a deadweight loss for the country as a whole.

And they are right, but for the wrong reasons: yes, the MIC enriches defense contractors. That's obvious. But that's because that is how it is all set up and it need not be set up that way, that's a conscious choice by a lot of the actors. From outside of the USA that's an internal discussion, not one that we have influence on or that we directly experience the impact of. You could of course decide to raise the minimum wage, offer free health care and start treating drug abuse like a disease or a mental issue rather than as a criminal affair. But oh gollies, that sounds like socialism, and we can't have that, better if the poor stay poor and don't have any bargaining power.

> But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich.

You can't be rich as a country without having the power to stay rich unless you are a little mountain region country or riding on the coat tails of a country that is. You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on. Alternatively you could sign a mutual defense pact but then you're right back where you started...

Some Americans are richer, just like my friend just outside of LA who drives a Ferrari. He only drives it on his own grounds (which he has plenty of) because the road that his estate borders on is so bad that he would wreck his car if he drove it and while he's wealthy he is not so wealthy that he can afford to maintain a large chunk of the local infrastructure.

Personally, I'd rather have a more modest car and a better road outside of my own grounds (or even a bike path...), and a more modest gap between the rich and the poor as well as between the rich and the middle class and the poor and the middle class.

America has had the option to spread its riches to the people but instead had the people rack up ever larger debt whilst pampering the lucky few. That works - for a while - but in the end it sets the stage for a confrontation between the haves and the have nots. The MAGA movement is ultimately a mis-direction effort to do a smash and grab to make the rich a lot richer still because the clock is running out. It's a bit like the sheep voting for the wolves, they talk so convincing, we should at least give them a chance.

What's for dinner you said?

[oa335]

> You can't be rich as a country without having the power to stay rich unless you are a little mountain region country or riding on the coat tails of a country that is.

Countries become rich because of stable, competent institutions, not because they can maintain a military empire.

Ireland, Singapore are both examples of this.

> You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on.

Protect supply lines from whom? how are military bases in Turkey, Germany, Poland, etc protecting "supply lines"?

one of the most important supply lines for europe (hydrocarbons from russia) has been stifled for the past 4 years - why havent our bases or military been able to keep it open?

similarly, why are our numerous bases in Middle East failing to protect supply lines?

i would argue that in both those cases, our aggressive military expansion (nato, israel expansion + gulf bases) caused the closure of those critical supply lines.

[jacquesm]

> Ireland, Singapore are both examples of this.

Sure, if you ignore all of their history...

> Protect supply lines from whom? how are military bases in Turkey, Germany, Poland, etc protecting "supply lines"?

Because they are on friendly territory that remains friendly on account of that. Mutual defense again, coupled with some more history. Why do you think the USA wants to use its bases in Europe for the war against Iran?

> i would argue that in both those cases, our aggressive military expansion (nato, israel expansion + gulf bases) caused the closure of those critical supply lines.

NATO is not 'aggressive military expansion' even though Trump seems to think it should be. As for Israel, that really is a US problem, Israel in part became the belligerent that it is today because it has been shielded and supported militarily well beyond defense. This is going to cause trouble for at least another century, maybe more.

[oa335]

> I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.

I don't agree with him a lot of the time but I think his request is reasonable and I share his skepticism about the idea that US military presence and interventions are somehow beneficial to the American's wellbeing, both the median American and the polity as a whole.

why should i not be skeptical? the first order effects of military are inherently destructive - why should i assume that having more military makes anyones lives better? its not obvious at all and requires a better explanation IMO.

[jacquesm]

Yes, you are right that the first order effects of the military are inherently destructive, that's why you should use them with restraint. In that sense the military is no different than other tools: use with caution and read the manual first.

But that has nothing to do with ill advised adventures of conquest, it has everything to do with mutual defense. Not to put too fine a point on it: it has nothing to do with invading Iraq or Iran because you feel like you have been given an excuse to do that which you've been hungry for. Gulf war I was somewhat justified (it really was defense), episode II was bonkers, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and lots of others were not a good use of the military from the start, and we can debate over the effectiveness of the outcome for many reasons.

More military does not make anyone's lives better if you use them to invade. But mutual defense is a very useful thing in a multi polar world. If you can trust your partners to not suddenly go 'might makes right'.