War is foreordained: what no one is saying about a republican presidency.

[cheyanne]

Trump (and all other repub candidates) is promising exploding economic growth and millions of new jobs based on the republican economic fantasy. When that doesn't happen, what will the "Winner" be forced to do?

What all demagogues do: declare war. Nothing raises an economy as much as putting the nation on war standing.

This will be the only option that he will have, and he has been preparing the country for it, because unconsciously he knows that he will have to do it.

[raging moderate]

1. Maybe not unconsciously.

It is, after all, their default setting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. The notion that war improves the economy has been well debunked by economoists.

The improvement in the American economy associated with WWII was the result of massive government spending to rebuild companies shattered by the great depressions.
These companies were rebuilt and updated. The day the war ended, they turned to making products usable by civilians.

This did not last forever, since a new recession began in November of 1948.

[cheyanne]

5. I agree that a war will not be a lasting boost to the economy.

But do you think it will provide at least a temporary boom in war-related industries that will stave off the debacle of republican economic policy for awhile?

It will also be used as an excuse for more divisive racial politics: scape goating, internment, etc.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. In a recession, we take 100 billion dollars and spend it on infrastructure, loans to business, and

funding support for those that lose jobs to get them back in the work place.

or

We spend 100 billion on a war, and the bulk of that money goes to American Industries, moving men and equipment into the theater of war, buying equipment for soldiers and the bulk goes back into our economy.

In both cases, a lot of the money works as a stimulus to the economy, where the government takes the place of business and commerce.

If both do the same job, what is the point of the war?

We should only fight a war for national survival, an equally critical national interest, or to assist an ally with whom we have a treaty. If you can spend $100 billion dollars without killing a chunk of a generation of our young citizens, it works out better.

One big problem with war is that whatever short term gain comes form greater spending is lost because war pulls resources that would be used to enrich and improve the lives of a nations citizens and blows it out of a gun or up as bombs. Any stimulus is temporary.

Most wars lead to economic problems. The Falklands war fought by the British against Argentina was a classic case. Before that war, England was in good economic shape. By the end of that war, they were in recession with high unemployment.

[TheUndecider]

3. War is Peace

[leveymg]

4. This holds true equally for a Hillary presidency. Just listen to what she's been saying for years:

"Obliterate Iran" (2008);
"Syria No-fly zone" (2016);
"We came, we saw, he died" (Libya, 2012);
"If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.” (2015)
“I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger” (Iran again, 2015); and, of course,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002