If the US were expecting a war against e.g. China (e.g. over Taiwan), then reducing dependence on China (e.g. by making imports from China more expensive so it's cheaper to buy from elsewhere and companies switch) would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it?
Oh that explains why the tariffs are focused on China.. Oh wait, that is what Biden did.
Trump? Yeah, no, he is just a moron, and prefers to tariff our allies, which means eventually we don't have allies, which makes your war against China abit more challenging, eh?
On the highest level, the US's action to end global trade with the US would be necessary to threaten war with credibility. On the ground level, going by typical norms, an actual war would be required for an electorate to tolerate such a large price or tax increase for essential goods.
Here are a few options taken from recent headlines:
- A war with Iran that would result in international sanctions, including steep sanctions from their trading partners.
- A direct conflict with China.
- The international sanctions resulting from that forced annexation of Greenland that they won't stop talking about for some reason.
- The same for Canada. (!?)
- Basically any other unilateral military action, since most of the world was a major trading partner of the US in the Obama era.
From my memory, Trump wants actual plans for an invasion of Panama, wants to make Canada a state, and he wants to annex Greenland. All of these claims, are threats of war.
Well, I'm the original poster. I think all of these responses cover different aspects of the range of possibility - the US is turning away from the benefits of peace.
Well, I can absolutely get behind the statement that the tariffs don't promote peace.
FWIW, this was a real question I had, I wasn't among the downvoters. The part that I disagree with is that this is a deliberate/planned precursor to war. Donald Trump views his life (and presidency) as a series of deals and 'hard' negotiating tactics. War would be a failure of that.
His methods are misguided and a caricature of actual negotiation.
Believe it or not, the US is still a republic with diffuse power. While the president can have a whim to do something, the rest of the system still needs a reason to allow it. I don't think explanations that rely on total alignment with an individual personality are complete.
Preparing for a war and preparing to threaten it with good credibility are exactly the same thing. That is what the US and the USSR were doing when the end of life on Earth (or at least all life in New York or Moscow) was regularly bluffed against. In the modern world deliberate wars are quite rare, at least as the theory goes they are failed attempts at bluffing. Obviously no country would start a war without first trying to threaten it unless their intent was genocidal.
After the 1000th time of threatening the advisors will start to say, "we will look weak if it doesn't happen."
I have it on very good authority (Fox News if you want to know) that Trump just says these things.
With the stock market down 5 or so trillion dollars, I am sure the president is very busy using his renowned financial acumen to get things under control. He doesn't have time for war.
