applied economics wrote:
When a large military allows a nation to acquire-steal valuable real estate from another nation, the victor nation gains real estate supposedly with either valuable land for animals, lumber, minerals, oil & natural gas and/or valuable real estate for farming. Acquiring real estate obviously will reach the point of Diminishing Returns. A Military Industrial Complex develops. It occurred with Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, British Empire and Soviet Empire. Thing is poster, U.S. is supposed to be a leader of democracy and free trade. U.S. is no longer supposed to acquire-steal real estate. Poster, if a military is not allowed to acquire-steal real estate, WHAT IS THE R.O.I? All four empires I stated acquired-stole real estate. Since U.S. does not steal real estate currently, might as well spend tax payer dollars within U.S. Would not that be wise?
Global trade networks have never been as important to quality of life as they have been now. Securing those is of great economic importance to the US. This is done through diplomacy, diplomacy backed with military might, and sometimes just military might. Thinking that military might is only worthwhile if you can physically take from others would be quality geopolitics in like 1500, I guess.
Our allies look to us to generally push back against military aggression -- it's bad for business -- and being the de facto world superpower allows us to (often) set our own terms in trading (when we care to... isolationists seem to prefer poverty to collaboration).
Does the US's foriegn policy always actually do the above? Certainly not. We have a bad track record. Is there room to cut spending -- yes! Is have the world's strongest military good? Absolutely.
And remember the golden rule of poasting: if you can't be right, be the last one to post.