@ Batlord
I would argue it's not just an empathy problem. We actually have more empathy for countries we're at war with than we did previously.
But it's easy to oppose something you see as egregious when the consequences for your opposition are nil. It's easy to oppose interventionist wars that you view as having a negative affect on us anyway. It's not so easy to ignore Hitler when you fear you will have to deal with his empire in the post war environment.
Which brings us back the conversation on collateral damage. You say if we went to war with another serious world power like China, we would go back to the strategy of total war; maximum chaos and destruction.
In a post 1945 world, that would mean nuclear war. Which risks destroying the planet for humans. Hence why we didn't end up going to war with the Soviets. Where as historically, when the stakes were large, the cold war would've almost certainly turned hot.
Which brings us back to the global US empire. If the stakes of abandoning it are that we live under the heel of China or anyone else, I sorta prefer the current set up. And I think most Americans would feel the same.
Most citizens of any country would probably rather be on the winning side of that sort of arrangement. So that's why the pragmatic concerns are inescapable. Because the alternative could have an actual impact on us that most of us would rather avoid.
|