[waps]

And even that is only an advantage if America then decides to attack. That's just one thing you fail to include in the calculations there.

> That's what I call complete dominance and control.

You have a complete lack of imagination and perspective. Let me help you with some history :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

To take out a few examples of complete dominance and control :

religious and ethnic cleansings over large areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

eliminating opponents and stealing everything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BD_Dynasty

or how about this, the ottoman side famous for imposing a "child tax" (not kidding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Habsburg_wars

Of course that sort of thing will only happen if America loses. The truth is that during the worst part of slavery in the US, the US treated it's slaves better than most empires after the Roman Empire treated their own citizens. Problem is, America hasn't really lost any war for almost 2 generations now, we don't really hear from the places where domination exists (e.g. Sudan, Mali, southernmost Algeria) and people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do.

Dominance and control, historically, is NOT about spreading democracy and/or getting favorable resource deals. It is about complete dominance and control : things like the ability to commit ethnic cleansings ongoing for centuries, having the entire enemy population working as slaves, imposing ethnic/religious taxes of 90%+, "death or islam", ...

Laser weapons are useless for these purposes.

[richliss]

> You have a complete lack of imagination and perspective. Let me help you with some history

> people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do.

Great way to start a civilised discourse there! Not coming off as aggressive or arrogant at all...

Of course the US population won't accept ethnic cleansing, or the like, so it won't achieve that kind of dominance you're talking about, and why would it want to? Its not profitable.

Its goal with be that no one can take an opposing stance. There are multiple ways it will try to do this, but having laser weapons makes it easier against potentially competing military powers.

For smaller countries it will probably resort to its traditional proxy war/start revolution approach, picking sides as needed that align with its views.

One last thing... these things are points of view, not insults directed at you if you don't share those views. Life will be more enjoyable if you realise this.

[waps]

Sorry about the tone of that reply. My point is that, when it comes to non-US conquests, ethnic/religious cleansing was the norm, not the exception. The muslim states are especially famous for doing that, but they're hardly alone in that.

I would argue that several parties, like, say ISIS, Iran, North Sudan or Hamas/PLA are trying to do exactly that, today. Americans by and large don't realize this is the case, assuming everyone behaves like Americans do, and then don't understand the reaction states/populations have to these "revolutions", or even more ridiculous "resistance". They don't understand that there can be no peace until these organisation have either died or abandoned their goals and most of their identity.

Europeans (and I'm one) act all high and moral, but the last times they did have the option to commit ethnic cleansing, most European states chose to do exactly that. And don't say the allies didn't do that, rather, read about the aftermath of WWII and the revenge killings (which targeted am. And no, at those times the US also had that opportunity and the US chose to not do it, and I do not have faith that they won't repeat those mistakes. Given that I grew up in an environment characterized by US military "dominance" I have to say, I'm extremely grateful for the result of said dominance.

Laser weapons on the US side may provide the option of having the military standoff that has characterized the 20th century last longer. That's a very, very good thing.

I've travelled around enough to know that what Europeans are really blaming the US for when it comes to Israel, for example, is that the US helps prevent the Palestinians do the ethnic cleansing they want to (and others), and prevent Europe from interfering (e.g. with the recent Lebanon war vs. (that was partly a proxy war with France and Iran)).

Frankly this is the reason I'm both a techie but sympathize strongly with the republicans. I don't care (at all) for their social agenda, but I don't really care about social stuff in the US at all, and the democrats have a distinct isolationist streak that the republicans never displayed. If the democrats had their way Europe and the middle east would be screwed. And not screwed in "oops we don't get the oil contract", but screwed in the "another 1000 dead today" sense.