And I'm also not saying Rome wasn't willing, at points, to be staggeringly brutal in keeping its allies in line. But that brutality had limits - Rome couldn't hold Italy by pure force of arms alone, and they knew it, and they didn't try. 4/
Just to the USA, not counting the cost in blood. If we assume that the near-peer conflict deterred by the 'off-the-table' effect would be of similar magnitude (I suspect it would be worse), the value of reducing its chance of happening by 10% over 50 years...14/
-
-
(avoiding fancy present-value calculations because I'm lazy) is something like $100bn per year over and above the security spending we'd be engaging in *anyway* (which, as a maritime power, would always be considerable)...15/
-
Given that framework, it seems to me we ought to be willing to make considerable sacrifices of *our* interests just to keep our alliance network intact - rather than, as the Romans did, pounding the table for a better deal and ending up in an unnecessary war 16/
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.