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.
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.