In short, i question the validity of your point because had we not spent trillions of dollars on war investments and establishing ourselves as global police force and instead focused that funding towards science and education, we would probably be just as prosperous and successful in a way thats more meaningful and beneficial to a larger portion of society.

Post ww2 of course.

So uh, what are we talking about?

@ vwls

well yes and i would've agreed with you at one point, but it's sort of a glass half full/glass half empty kind of situation. it's all in how you conceptualize it.

so if you say that money could be better spent somewhere else it sounds reasonable that it is an unnecessary burden we take on.

but first you should consider what we gain from the military investment. namely, our naval supremacy that we inherited from the british empire after ww2. that made them the power they once were, and it makes us the power we are today. how can you be so certain that international trade would've flowered in the same way without our being in the position to police the world's shipping lanes. the america of the 20th/21st century is very much a globalist america, rather than an insular america, and it is from that which we have built our empire.

it is all conjecture, but one point i would make is that when we decide not to act in a particular region, some would seem to think the result would be that the countries in that region would gain a new found sense of freedom and determination. but i think what actually happens is you simply free up the opportunity for other regional powers to exert their own influence in that region. see: the united states shifts its sights from the eastern bloc to the middle east, eventually russia invades several countries to shore up their own geopolitical aims.

essentially, this is a chess game that every single country is playing. opting not to play only makes your competitors more powerful.

you miss the point at your own peril, my friend.

how does an "inflated military" cause "detriment" to our "domestic economics"?

one liner after one liner.... you are fulfilling the caricature that batlord and vwls have painted you as.

and this hurts our economy how?

We're wasting a fortune (or really transferring all wealth to the richest) to build a military that's strategically useless. We can't even defeat the poorest countries on earth. It's a laughing stock.

Devaluation.

i would disagree that it's strategically useless. we might overextend ourselves and pick poor battles, but such is life. we can easily "defeat" any fighting force on this planet. we cannot eradicate the planet of islamic militants through military force, the same way you can't eradicate any other ideology in this way. that says nothing about the efficacy of our military tbh.

let me ask you guys... does it really strike you as a coincidence that america became the most powerful and prosperous country on the planet precisely after ww1 and ww2 took out virtually every other european empire which had preceded us, with the exception of the soviets who then became our natural enemy? i really don't understand what is hard to get about the fact that imperialism renders some benefits onto the imperial nation.

also.. can you give me an example of a successful civilization that has existed without a military around to protect it?