Agreed, but if they thought that the war would cost them a great bit of money personally would they have pushed so hard for the war?
We very much so are the world's police force at least the police force of the west. It helps us drive policies that benefit us economically. In that way we do have financial interest in some of our conflicts but I wouldn't go Oliver Stone about it though JFK was a grea movie
How is Russia wanting to get back to its heyday of the USSR a fairy tale when Putin himself says that was a great time for Russia and that Russia should return to being as powerful as it was then? Yes war can be very profitable for weapons manufacturers and those with government contracts. Modern warfare though isn’t remotely profitable for killing off the poor to reduce the welfare burden. It’s very expensive to train and equip soldiers and US casualties in recent wars are a minuscule when compared to the amount of those living in poverty in the US. A lot of that is owned to better medical care which isn’t cheap. For example flying a critically wounded soldier from Afghanistan to Germany is very expensive. Also the VA, GI bill and other veteran programs aren’t cheap. That’s the opposite of trying to wipe out the burden of poorer people. That would be an argument against war as international competition and cooperation is essential for privatizing space. Many private businesses use Russian and Chinese rockets and facilities. If we’re at war with them our businesses don’t have access to that infrastructure. Yes and I don’t think the US is as bloodthirsty as is often portrayed. Different administrations have different tolerances for using troops. While Obama used drones a lot he was very adverse to use of US forces. For example he basically allowed Russia and Syria to violate redlines he laid out regarding the use of chemical weapons.
WWI and WWII were fought while the US had the Gold standard. Those were far more total and brutal than anything g we’ve fought in since. In fact we haven’t had a declared war since the US dropped gold.
The best financial situation from an arms manufacturer would be a Cold War where there is massive military spending but there isn’t an actual war fought where resources become scarce and trade routes are threatened.
It sounds like he’s calling for Socialism in war making. The state owns the means of production for the war
War can also carry a massive financial disincentive. For example one of the big reasons why the PRC hasn’t invaded Taiwan is that it would be devastating to their economy. There is a lot of trade and investment between the two and Taiwan being the leader in chip design and manufacture means destroying that industry would have dire implications on the global economy. The PRC still depends on exports and couldn’t survive if their trading partners economy was also on terrible shape. this is another reason why war between the PRC and the US might never happen.
This just comes off really naive in the face of human nature and human history. Sometimes war is necessary, which is an unfortunate bug of humanity.
