It used to be that countries would produce everything they needed themselves and then serve those goods and services to their constituents. This was good because in the case of an emergency such as war. There people would not be reliant on other countries. A country could refuse to stop servicing something to a neighboring country and things would be fine.
However, with globalism, it was determined that the economies of the world should be linked. Countries that produce certain things the most effectively should export them to others in the world and so on. This made countries reliant on each other and made it politically impossible for countries to say "go to hell" to other countries.
The issue is that if you can't say go to hell, you cannot negotiate.
Resource dependencies always existed because some things are found in some places and other things are found in other places. The United States, for example, had to source its Titanium from the USSR because the ore that had the highest concentrations and which was practical to mine at that time could only be found in the USSR or China.
Likewise, before the invention of the Haber-Bosch process, Germany did not have large-scale access to nitrates, which are key to both agriculture and production of munitions.
Japan is scarce with natural resources which are key to industrialization, so they have always been dependent on imports to acquire them. Addressing this dependence was a key motivation for their imperial expansion. Their ultimate defeat was a lesson that they'll just have to rely on trade for key resources, and they have prospered by accepting that since then, as long as the US shields them.
It's sure nice to be self-sufficient, and the US is in a better position for this than most countries, but nations have gone to war over exactly these concerns - not so much the inability to acquire key materials in trade, but the fear of being denied access. "I must conquer you because you might hurt me."
Incidentally, this ("I must conquer you because you might hurt me") is the entire logic of US interventionism abroad, to the extent it's not straight-out profiteering.
ussr did that too and because of that the quality control of machinery in particular was horrible. imagine fitting different pieces of a washing machine that are made hundreds of miles apart. helped stop black marketeering but defeated the purpose overall.
It used to be that countries would produce everything they needed themselves and then serve those goods and services to their constituents. This was good because in the case of an emergency such as war. There people would not be reliant on other countries. A country could refuse to stop servicing something to a neighboring country and things would be fine.
However, with globalism, it was determined that the economies of the world should be linked. Countries that produce certain things the most effectively should export them to others in the world and so on. This made countries reliant on each other and made it politically impossible for countries to say "go to hell" to other countries.
The issue is that if you can't say go to hell, you cannot negotiate.
Resource dependencies always existed because some things are found in some places and other things are found in other places. The United States, for example, had to source its Titanium from the USSR because the ore that had the highest concentrations and which was practical to mine at that time could only be found in the USSR or China.
Likewise, before the invention of the Haber-Bosch process, Germany did not have large-scale access to nitrates, which are key to both agriculture and production of munitions.
Japan is scarce with natural resources which are key to industrialization, so they have always been dependent on imports to acquire them. Addressing this dependence was a key motivation for their imperial expansion. Their ultimate defeat was a lesson that they'll just have to rely on trade for key resources, and they have prospered by accepting that since then, as long as the US shields them.
It's sure nice to be self-sufficient, and the US is in a better position for this than most countries, but nations have gone to war over exactly these concerns - not so much the inability to acquire key materials in trade, but the fear of being denied access. "I must conquer you because you might hurt me."
Incidentally, this ("I must conquer you because you might hurt me") is the entire logic of US interventionism abroad, to the extent it's not straight-out profiteering.
Like most economic decisions, there is always a trade-off.
Being isolated and self-sufficient means denial of potential prosperity.
Being dependent means denial of control.
Countries should always strive to find the balancing point that works the best for them and their populace.
Once China is finished with Taiwan, they'll turn their attention to Japan. Their days are numbered.
ussr did that too and because of that the quality control of machinery in particular was horrible. imagine fitting different pieces of a washing machine that are made hundreds of miles apart. helped stop black marketeering but defeated the purpose overall.