International Trade and Rational War

 Back at the turn of the 20th century, the UK Merchant Marine brought the rich Brits luxury items, food, collectables, etc., from all over the world. The European nations were trading with each other, and, to a lesser extent, with the US. The European Empires did most of their trading inside the Empire. Goodies from the colonies went to the European Imperial Powers, and the colonials got manufactured goods at exorbitant prices (but colonials were prohibited from manufacturing, so they had to buy European manufactured goods).

But because of what was far more international trade than any European could recall, in 1910 Norman Angell wrote The Great Illusion, that proved that a rational war was no longer possible.

The notion of a rational war was an 18th century concept pioneered by Bernoulli. War had to paid for in gold, no printed money accepted back then unless backed by gold. So Bernoulli said one must carefully calculate the probability of winning and the total financial gains from reparations and territory and other benefits ceded, and the probability of loss and the total cost, then calculate the Expected Value of the War. If the Expected Value was positive, the war was rational. If the Expected Value was negative, the war was irrational.

But by 1910, trade was so large (though minuscule by 2019 standards) that the Expected Value of every war was a huge negative number, counting the cost of trade disruption. So no rational war was possible, and no leader could possibly be stupid enough to wage an irrational war.

Of course, Angell greatly miscalculated just how stupid world leaders could be in 1914 (not to mention 2022, when international trade made that in 1914 seem insignificant, and the US European puppets agreed to start a war with Russia with costs that are crippling their economies, but they must follow the US rules to their utter ruin).

Neo-colonialism

 The Europeans practised colonialism. A European was the resident Head of State, and the European Head of State was the ultimate Head of State. So a British Queen or King was the official Head of State of India as well as about 25% of the world.

The Americans always practised neocolonialism. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine, all of Latin America belonged to the US. The US picked a tiny minority--the Criollos--to be the rulers, gave them lots of money and weapons, and they let the US take all the natural resources from their country, paying starvation wages to the peons who did all the actual work.

Then, after WWII, the US applied the same to everything outside the Warsaw Pact. Vietnam did not work out all that well, but, starting with Reagan, the US transformed the brutal dictatorships and state sponsors of terror--Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya--into peaceful and prosperous Democracies! Maybe the Grenadians, Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Afghans, and Libyans do not agree, but they are not allowed to participate in the discussion.

Now the world has 2 powers that challenge the US of A: Russia and the PRC, and both must be utterly destroyed.

Sadly, in the Ukraine, Russia has massive logistical advantages, allowing Russia to defeat the US-backed Ukrainians. Terrible.

And the PRC are now militarily superior to the US (at a tiny fraction the cost).

In 1941, the US wanted to destroy Japan, so they ordered a complete blockade (an act of war) and Japan responded by sinking the entire US Pacific fleet.

After which, Americans who'd been starving and would not go to work (because no one would offer them a job) were drafted into the US military and US defence plants, and in 6 months, the US had a new fleet, that engaged in a battle with Japan that sank both the Japanese fleet and the US fleet. But after 6 months, the US had a new fleet and Japan did not, and the US was able to bomb Japan and eventually nuke Japan.

Sadly, Russia and the PRC ain't Japan. The PRC, if the US and PRC fleets go into battle and sink each other, can and will build a new fleet faster than the US can. And Russia have far more nukes than the US. Russia are a 'No First Use' nation (unlike the US), but that should (unless our leaders are stark raving mad, which I fear they might be) prevent Russia from being first to use a nuke, but the Russkies figure the US might use one, and they are ready to respond.