https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
> The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in the United Kingdom in 1909
> Angell argued that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J.D.B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[3] The economic interdependence between industrial countries meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive to produce [of the local population] would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation."[3]
...
He was partially right though
> Angell said that arms build-up, for example the naval race that was happening as he wrote the book in the early 1910s, was not going to secure peace. Instead, it would lead to increased insecurity and thus increase the likelihood of war.
As an interesting aside, I'm no fan of wealth inequality. However, if it looks like it's the primary mechanism that is prolonging relative global peace (as in no biological or nuclear weapons being used), I may accept the tradeoff.
There's a balance, to be a bit vulgar, between "alright we need to pay this" and "fuck this debt, we're storming the castle"
A cheap plane would not nearly be as effective.
If we are going to settle for less than the F-22, then we should just buy the stealth-upgraded F-15. It's cheaper than the F-35.