There’s a kind of saving-grace-contradiction in all this. If the US economy implodes, conventional arms sales could be seen as a way out, which does mean more war but it also means recognising that nuclear war (intended to end any given war quickly) will not save the imploding economy. At that point we might see the US leading the campaign against nuclear disarmament, hoping for an alternative, expensive war, after which a new Marshall plan could save the US economy. One can daydream/daymare.
I don’t think arms productions can save US economy. There are just too many fundamentals missing now. People need things like food, healthcare, housing, and so on. I think it’s informative to look the sort of civil unrest that started during the late stages of the Vietnam invasion. The cost of the war eroded domestic standard of living, and eventually US had no choice but to pull the plug on the whole thing.
The other possibility is that US implodes economically.
There’s a kind of saving-grace-contradiction in all this. If the US economy implodes, conventional arms sales could be seen as a way out, which does mean more war but it also means recognising that nuclear war (intended to end any given war quickly) will not save the imploding economy. At that point we might see the US leading the campaign against nuclear disarmament, hoping for an alternative, expensive war, after which a new Marshall plan could save the US economy. One can daydream/daymare.
I don’t think arms productions can save US economy. There are just too many fundamentals missing now. People need things like food, healthcare, housing, and so on. I think it’s informative to look the sort of civil unrest that started during the late stages of the Vietnam invasion. The cost of the war eroded domestic standard of living, and eventually US had no choice but to pull the plug on the whole thing.
That’s more likely, tbh.