> There would be no niceness, no pleasantries. All environmental reviews would be ignored as a matter of national security, it would be a violent rush to production no matter the initial cost
How many people would you poison to, essentially, make a point against China? Besides, the whole project of demonstrating how the US is a superior place to China by, er, nationalising a mine at gunpoint, poisoning the surroundings, and disallowing people legal redress for complaints?
Isn’t that like the whole point of globalization? It’s an equalizer for all countries in the world. For the US to realistically stay competitive in rare earths it has to run similar tactics that other countries with less environmental regulations use. It’s a race to the bottom.
The same could also be said about wages and income inequality. I don’t see how globalization will prevent the bottom half of the labor force from competing against Indian peasants.
The nuclear weapons and the carrier battle groups do that, surely?
Messing around with the flow of trade goods to disrupt the economy of other countries that you're nontheless inextricable from is a form of conflict, but not a warlike one.
This is how you get things like http://nmindepth.com/2014/07/07/remembering-the-largest-radi...
How many people would you poison to, essentially, make a point against China? Besides, the whole project of demonstrating how the US is a superior place to China by, er, nationalising a mine at gunpoint, poisoning the surroundings, and disallowing people legal redress for complaints?