On the other hand free trade stops wars. If each party is specialized in a needed item that the other side no longer knows how to produce, its much harder to go to war.
The fact that the US will always need steel helps ensure that they _will_ always be friends with China, so long as they also specialize in something that China needs.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
The Germans did suffer terribly from shortages, particularly of petroleum, during the war. In fact, one could argue fairly well that the shortage of petroleum ensured their defeat.
Their inability to produce high octane gasoline was also instrumental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, as it meant their aircraft could not perform up to the level of the Allied aircraft.
The Japanese in WW2 also failed to secure a supply of oil, with similar results.
Yes, there's no doubt it was a major problem for Axis nations. However, it didn't prevent them from going to war. In the case of the Japanese one could argue securing their own source of petroleum and other resources was a major driving factor behind their expansionist policy.
On the other side, the US supplied Britain with all the arms, food and gas they needed. The whole point of the U-Boot campaign was to cut that off, which would have caused the defeat of Britain.
The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope we never find out if that is true or not the hard way.
I'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept.
If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that.
I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank defeated 50 Russian tanks in the battle of Kursk, if I remember correctly.
But the cheaper, mass produced tanks of the allies won out because they could be fielded in much greater numbers.
> Insurgents continue to fight, and the usa just cannot completely win.
The US cannot win those because it is unwilling to do what is necessary (indiscriminate killing) to win.
> A war is won on ideology, not weapons.
I don't see much evidence for that in the history of warfare. For example, during WW1, the fortunes of the armies ebbed and flowed with the ebb and flow of who had the technical advantage in the air war.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
I think the last 80 years have been the most peaceful in recorded human history in spite of, or perhaps because of the constant threat of nuclear Armageddon.
Globalization is a part of it, but I don't think it's sufficient in itself to keep the peace.
The first 50 years of that peace was Europe being split between two nuclear superpowers. So the “peace” (more like a standoff) isn’t entirely our (European) fault.
Given that China invests gigantic sums of money in the US and has vast segments of industry dedicated to selling goods to the US, it is not very clear to me how you've concluded that.
That's the whole argument of comparative advantage though, even if China is better at everything its still in their best interest to trade because everyone comes out ahead if they specialize in what they're best at.
The fact that the US will always need steel helps ensure that they _will_ always be friends with China, so long as they also specialize in something that China needs.