When thinking about the benefits of the military it is appropriate to ponder the broken window fallacy [0]. Economically speaking, building a rocket and blowing up a foreigner is strictly worse than paying everyone in the economic chain the same amount of money and using the raw physical resources of the rocket to do something else.

So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.

The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military doesn't generate wealth in and of itself.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

> So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.

That's not a complete list. For example, one of the key functions of the U.S. Navy for a long time was suppressing piracy, which hindered overseas trade. It's basically a policing function--keeping things stable to enable commerce to happen. The function of the U.S. military today can be seen as an outgrowth of that.

We don't care about terrorism because we want their resources or because we think they'll take our resources. It's because terrorism is a threat to a world order that is very beneficial for us. The cumulative economic cost of 9/11 globally was estimated at up to $2 trillion: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-world-after-911-part-....

Then why are you calling it 'policing' when you seem to be quite aware that it is imperialism by violence. I dont think the distinction is subtle.

Calling U.S. military efforts "imperialism" is a rhetorical technique that does more to obfuscate than illuminate. Policing is more accurate than imperialism. Imperialism historically refers to directly taking control over other countries, often for purposes of diverting resources from the vassal states to the empire. What the U.S. does is materially different. We didn't go into Iraq and make it a province of the U.S., shipping oil back to the U.S. (Note that I was against the Iraq war. I think it was a waste of U.S. money. But calling it "imperialism" is lazy rhetoric.)

That seems an overly narrow definition that conflates the 'thing' with the means of achieving the 'thing'. The British empire was softer than most that came before it or where its contemporaries (Belgium say). It would not have been very hard to define 'imperialism' in a way to exclude the British but apply to the others. US is not an empire in the same mould as that of the British but essence remains the same.

As for policing goes the subjects signed up for it even if that wasnt individually.

> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions and direct interventions into other countries.

The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S. There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention

Historically, the goal has not been to ensure that you have a regime that's more likely to trade with the U.S., but to ensure that your regime doesn't interfere with neighbors who are trading with the U.S.

No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions and direct interventions into other countries.

> The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime.

I believe the Iranians would like to have a word with you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...

I am looking forward to understand from you which part of your

"For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country."

does the CIA sponsored coup against fledgling Iranian democracy not fit.

> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different.

... like pressuring India to loosen its standards for agricultural seeds so that US companies can flood the huge market with theirs that have germination rate of 65% whereas the indian minimum standard was high 90%. Free trade when it is beneficial to US companies, protected if not, or else regime change.

... like forcing India to remove the separation of investment banking and consumer banking. These dont look any different from forcing ones way into markets and access to resources that they would not have achieved otherwise.

... like locating dangerous chemical plant with safety mechanisms deliberately omitted to cut cost that otherwise would not have been possible in their own country and using that to post higher profits (at the expense of locals bearing the brunt of the Bhopal disaster).

I dont perceive the difference that you are trying to point out. Unless you really believe the point of the ladt iraq war was spreading democracy, if you buy that I doubt we would gain much by a conversation.

EDIT: I am intrigued that this hasnt been responded to for an hour whereas responses were pretty quick before.

> I am intrigued that this hasnt been responded to for an hour whereas responses were pretty quick before.

Without taking sides (I haven't read the whole conversation), I should note that HN has a "cool-down" feature:

"there is a delay before the reply link appears on deeply nested comments, in order to create drag on flamewars."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=880844 (pg is the creator of the site)

Yup I know. I meant time after the appearance of "reply" link. I have interacted with rayiner before and find him rational so was curious about how he thinks abut the things I had pointed out.

It is indeed worth pondering over, sooner we start the better. Its also a complicated affair: there is the aspect of distribution of taxes to cronies, there is creation of artificial demand, there externalities like people subsidizing the war by putting their own wellbeing on the line, may be for a shot at citizenship - thanks to selective service and poverty draft

"rational" "securing access to ... resources" "opportunity cost"

All this phrasing hints that human beings are, or should be, purely rational and profit-driven robots without any social, ethical or moral value.

There's a word for this: sociopathy.

Is there any evidence that the people who make decisions that involve thousands, if not millions, of purposeful deaths are not sociopaths?

At that scale the people who don't think in sociopathic terms will struggle to make decisions. How does someone purposefully cause even 1 death while reflecting on the general wonder of life? They'd have to be stupid. Anyone who wasn't thinking in sociopathic terms would have to choose 'more negotiation' and 'do without' over military engagement. And that isn't what happens in practice.

Huh?

I have similar thoughts but state them rather more bluntly, that the US military is 20%~ a program for national defence and 80%~ a socially acceptable public-jobs program in a society which is phobic of "socialism" but nevertheless needs wealth-redistribution in the economically productive forms of education and life-experience/connections for those involved in order to thrive on the macro level.

It's wealth redistribution all right, but it distributes wealth to the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Yes selling weapons is profitable. But if your own country is at war with an equally strong opponent, then its not. Economy is in shambles for both players no matter who wins. Also tax rates during war time are really high.

Wars and other catastrophes are equalizing wealth distribution and are not distributing wealth to the top.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...

History shows that many people made rich by war were able to buy their way into a neutral country and live safely.

Borders do not apply to very rich people.

You are right about the person itself. But their assets are often hard to move.

I just dont think that rich people in general have an interest in a (serious) war.

I rather think conflicts are used to distract from other problems and create "unity". But not with the goal to make money. Obviously some peope will try to profit from it while its going on and some will also lobby for new ones. I just dont thinks that this influence is that big

> an equally strong opponent

describes a small fraction of the conflicts the US was involved in in the last 100 years.

True enough, but that fraction has the biggest impact though.