If the Americans had even 10% of the imperialistic mentality of the Roman Empire, British Empire, Ottoman Empire, Japanese Empire, Mughal Empire, etc., the entire world would be a single imperial state.

That certainly doesn't justify the numerous crimes that the American military has done, but context is key, and like should be compared with like.

The approach of the modern superpower is much more effective: decentralized power but overall alignment. There's no coincidence to America's approach. It isn't ideological. It's pragmatic.

1) Much of that expertise has come directly from US involvement. See: Western Europe, Japan, Korea.

2) Much of the other expertise developed specifically because of US non-involvement. See: the Soviet Union and the states it influenced and supported. There were even plans to attack/nuke the Soviets, who were the only real rival post-WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Had the U.S. wished to, it could have easily formed an imperial state following WW2. That would have been in-line with essentially every large state in human history. Thankfully, they didn't, and the world is better off for it.

The tools of modern warfare are too widespread and easy to adopt. You can’t do it anymore, the old school empire is just as dead as old school fortresses. Technology has broken it.

I have friends who served in Afghanistan. I’m not unfamiliar with how powerful the US military is. But even that power is too weak.

America’s approach is way more resilient and the control exerted is much easier to retain.

Every empire since the year dot captured land, with peasants farming it, who could be taxed, to pay the soldiers, to capture land... that was the business model. A little profit was left over to pay for cities, palaces, pyramids, etc.

This flow of money from country to towns was reversed by the industrial revolution. Within almost every country now, the cities are taxed to pay the rural voter base (or to pay off the rural might-be-revolutionaries, in places with less voting).

Not the only thing going on, of course -- changes in weapons matter to the balance, as mentioned. So does the rise of literacy & nationalism, which made the idea of rulers who are too distant (by ethnicity, language, or religion) from the population base (as they were in empires, almost by definition) into a rallying point. And thus raised the cost of holding land.

You're right that you can't hold an empire with only force, but I would argue that was just as true during the days of the Roman empire as it is today.

Sure, the Romans used (for the time) overwhelmingly advanced technology and amazingly brutal tactics to conquer Gaul and Britain, but they maintained their hold over those territories by culturally assimilating the native populations. Gallic and Britanic Romans spoke Latin, wore Roman dress, and even followed Roman sanitary customs -- there's a reason there's a town called Bath in southwestern England.

That culture continued to exert influence long after Rome fell as a central military power.

Imagine, for a moment, that each one of these had nukes. What's the probability they'd use them to make a point as an aggressor/opressor? Even risking MAD?

Given everything, I think the highest likelihood outcome is that they behave similarly.

Also: MAD only exists if you let your opponents acquire nukes too.

Can you name a street gang that pays your college?

My intention was to draw attention to the ethics though.

But armies of the past would have no problems taking out 20% of a population as a comparison.

The rate at which children are harmed by drones is largely a consequence of strategies outside of American control once you posit that the targets are targeted justly.

I am not saying that stupid mistakes and civilian death don't happen.

That is because most popular depiction of military amount to propaganda and is designed to make you feel good about military. It does not show the ugly or boring or realistic parts of it.

You pretty much never see movie from point of view of civilians living in the place where military operates. Military would not be so cool looking there.

Even death in combat or mistreating civilians is depicted in a way that makes you want to join fight. More realistic (and less popular) depictions don't have thay effect.

What you wrote is just propaganda internalized.

There were those sad movies about kids in war time too.

No, the war was not unambiguous cool good as far as I remember. I never perceived it as cool technology only, it was never framed to me that way.

My grandma used to say that war is horrible. The grandparents generally did not liked it and did not liked movies with shooting and bombing. They added details only later, the stuff they personally seen, when I was adult, but when I was kid they would at least generally say it was bad.

Some things had a horrible magnificence like when the US bombed Los Alamo's US soldiers and the men in a documentary talked about how beautiful it was, or the terrifying effect of white phosphorus.

After writing this, I think I liked the idea of the power and leanness of the military ( wanted their gear because milspec means hardy), but also thought they had the coolest toys to play with.

And there is no war without massive suffering. Pretty much any of them displaces people, interrupts food distribution and generally makes people living in that area suffer.

Pick up the one you want, you find all that.

I have too, which is precisely why I'm greatly in favor of an extremely strong military. Sovereignty is a privilege enjoyed only by those with the means to enforce it.