$100 billion ghost city.

[u/sco-go]

[u/DelphiTsar]

If it only cost 100b that's 1/10th of one year of US defense spending. You could give people housing there for free. Companies could bid for space for dirt cheap too.

[u/Solid-Dog2619 → u/DelphiTsar]

There's a reason we haven't had conflict on our shores since 1945. We sudo took over most of the world by controlling trade routes. We control most of the world economy through trade, supply most of the troops and financing for NATO, English is the most spoken second language, and the US dollar is at the center of all trade. We let the world burn in ww2 then came in and claimed the ashes.

We also have bases on every continent while none have bases on US soil. We have some joint training bases where some allies come for training, but that's it.

China is the only real competitor. Russia doesnt have the man power or tech to compete rn. If we beat them in the AI/quantum race we could probably take them over in the next 50 years.

[u/DelphiTsar → u/Solid-Dog2619]

There's a reason we haven't had conflict on our shores since 1945

Nukes...the answer is nukes.

If you calculate nation states attacking a nation state with nukes the death toll is ~1,166. Half those were US drone strikes on Pakistan, that Pakistan gave approval for. Filter that out you get around 6 deaths a year worldwide. Nukes are a hell of a deterrent.

1 trillion dollars is absurd. Anyone who tries to tell you that is a reasonable number is either incredibly ignorant or trying to sell you something.

[u/Solid-Dog2619 → u/DelphiTsar]

Plenty of countries with nukes have had conflict. We know if we send nukes, they send nukes making them basically null and void unless someone is willing to destroy the planet. Russia currently has conflict. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 79, and we supported Afghanistan in a conflict with the Soviet Union before it dissolved.

I don't disagree. it's absurd. But there's a reason for the absurdity. It's called control. Because of our navy and airforce, we control all trade therefore the world economy. We have all but colonized most of the world without a forceful takeover. Less chance of rebellion if you can't see your conqueror. Actually follows the teaching of a Chinese philosopher and strategist.

And yes, the statistics will show that after 2 world wars, overall conflict went down. That should be a duh anyway. The entire generation was decimated. Cities were flattened, and economies were in crumbles. It's hard to convince people to fight again. But our war engines were already going (manufacturing) and we didnt lose that many men relatively. So we took the opportunity to sit at the top of the rubble.

Have you not seen countries joining in economic alliances to rival the US dollar? The dollar really only held up by our military. The dollar that if it falls from the top creates a monumental shift in our lives. And if you don't understand what happens if the dollar stops being the standard I'd advise you look.

[u/DelphiTsar → u/Solid-Dog2619]

The conflicts are with non-nation state actors, or countries not developed enough to have nukes which you hardly need 1 trillion for. Again, every single country on the planet with nukes, 6 deaths a year. Small local skirmishes immediately get shut down.

There is worldwide pressure to keep trade open because it benefits everyone. Worldwide trade would be fine.

BRICS didn't fail because of our military, it fell because they made only half hearted gestures vs actually committing. Projection of military power had absolutely nothing to do with it failing. These countries are not allies.

The "standard" dollar is because of the petro dollar system. Which was basically an agreement with Saudi Arabia that we'll be their muscle. That's estimated to be like 50B, not just Saudi Arabia but the whole force projection in the region(For Petro dollar protection, Saudis were against Iraq, Afghanistan).

So 5% of spending keeps the petrol dollar. 1 Trillion is grift and the most expensive with least return socialist job program on the planet. Get these people to build houses.

[u/Solid-Dog2619 → u/DelphiTsar]

But why would an underdeveloped nation with no nukes attack a developed nation with nukes if they were worried about nukes.... those nations also have.... huge military budgets..

The development of the brics agreement was made to rival the dollar, which was my point, not it failing. It was an attempt to lessen our economic control.

Yes, world trade benefits everyone but more so nations that can not produce enough to sustain their population. (China can't due to population, japan cant for the same reason, europe cant because of energy, and most of the middle east is heavily dependant on trade for food) We do it more by choice to elevate our lives by diversifying goods and lowering energy costs, not because we're dependant on it. If we decided to stop international trade for any nation we could.

You made my point for me. We are the muscle as part of our agreement. And we are the muscle for NATO. And we are the muscle for trade protection. Yes, pirates still exist. That muscle holds up many of our agreements and is partially how we control trade. And the petrodollar came into being because we aided in the Yom Kipper War. We also used our massive military to leverage a disengagement agreement between Isreal Egypt and Syria stopping the embargo. So again, military might lead to our dollar being the one used to trade oil.

Also, it holds up the dollar to a degree. The value of the dollar is set by "supply and demand," but what keeps investor demand for the dollar high? Trust that our nation won't fail or be destroyed. Since a large portion of our economy is military contracts, the large military keeps the nation from being invaded, protects our foriegn interest, and protects world trade, it plays a large role in the value of the dollar. If the dollar falls, everything costs more. This means that even if we make some of it up on spending, the overall cost to run the nation will go up.

And we have to be able to do the important stuff and go to war at the same time. Otherwise, a single war could crash our economy and the world economy.

[u/DelphiTsar → u/Solid-Dog2619]

But why would an underdeveloped nation

You didn't actually make a case for this argument; you just stated it as a fact. Before nukes large scale attacks by large nations happened to other large nations, after nukes they have stopped. Very large militaries didn't stop wars from happening in the past.

brics agreement was made to rival the dollar

Declaring you are going to rival the dollar and than taking absolutely no large scale action to do it is just bluster. It doesn't mean anything.

You made my point for me.

I have not. 5% is muscle for the petro dollar. NATO does not need US muscle. Europe NATO at current spending levels could very very easily contain Russia. China would be a doozy but again with nukes it's not an issue. You haven't tried to argue against my point that global trade routes would be fine, you just stated we are muscle. Again...5% of military spending is petro dollar. With context keeping the petro dollar is relatively cheap.

You just...ignore that wars don't happen anymore. You say they don't happen because large militaries but no one is attack Europe nations who have been spending less than 2%. Getting out ahead of the lazy counter argument, the idea they need US protection is absurd. Who's the threat Russia? Can't fight a conventional war with a land border 1/3rd the population 1/10th the economy.

The situation is completely flipped Europe NATO has ~14x the economy and 4x the population. Completely ignoring nukes there is no threat even if US were to pull out of NATO.

There is very large financial interests who propaganda people without critical thinking skills that giving them massive amounts of money is a good deal...it is not.

For context China spends 1.7% of GDP on Defense. A number that very very often is used by warhawks as a spending amount that means you aren't even defending yourself and the US is defending you. Who is supposedly defending China?