I'm not convinced military power is actually that useful in the modern world. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, and yet it has trouble maintaining control in the poorest countries on Earth.
I'd personally be more concerned about China's economic power, but I suspect that there's a limit to how efficient China's economy can be whilst maintaining its totalitarian state.
The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, and yet it has trouble maintaining control in the poorest countries on Earth.
That's largely for ethical reasons though. The US is obsessed with minimising civilian casualties. If the US were as ruthless as the great empires of the past then there'd be no problem maintaining control. Trouble in this town? Destroy it!
On the other hand, imperialism itself isn't all that useful in the modern world. Why did the Europeans go to all the trouble of setting up all those foreign empires? Why, so they could trade with the locals! Nowadays anyone can trade with anyone, and there's really no need to have political control over India just to trade with Indians.
That's largely for ethical reasons though. The US is obsessed with minimising civilian casualties.
That's certainly part of it, and I imagine that China cares far less about civilians than the US does.
But I think it's also because properly motivated individuals can cause far more damage than they could do in the past. There's a lot more technology to take advantage of, and many more targets to, well, target.
Nowadays anyone can trade with anyone, and there's really no need to have political control over India just to trade with Indians.
I think there was a degree of "take" as well as "trade", but in general I think you're right. In the past it was easy to profit from conquest, but nowadays it isn't really cost-effective. I don't think there's been a war fought so far this century that hasn't been a huge economic loss for all involved.
> Nowadays anyone can trade with anyone, and there's really no need to have political control
You're forgetting just one small thing - oil. It's still vitally necessary to the US (and everyone else). And if OPEC is left all-powerful then they can turn off the spigot at any time for any reason. Obviously Iraq is one way of getting around OPEC's power - badly misguided IMO, but undeniably successful in the narrow goal of securing a large non-OPEC source of middle eastern oil.
The broader point, though, would be that without some kind of global naval "police" then anyone finding themselves in the position to block trade might decide to. The US navy has traditionally enforced, at least by implication, the "freedom to trade" you speak of. I wish they would stick to this rather noble goal!
I'd personally be more concerned about China's economic power, but I suspect that there's a limit to how efficient China's economy can be whilst maintaining its totalitarian state.