>>33200254In this day and age? Doubt it. Anyone trading nukes besides US and Russia at this point is just going to get economically and diplomatically isolated. India which used to have a great relationship with the US is now getting closer to Russia, whereas Pakistan likes the $ we send them, but certainly not our influence.
My issue is that we're basically inching ever closer to a shift in the global power balance. The US has enjoyed the benefits of exporting its inflation overseas with very little effects at home outside of financial asset prices for around 40 years (although on the opposite end, it also meant we exported our industry but that's a different topic), and this means that there are a lot of dollars floating around, scattered throughout the world. All it takes is for a crisis of confidence (which may have already started) for people to start offloading those dollars for basically anything else of value, which will make that currency flow back stateside and you can imagine what that might do. BRICS is already expanding, and a commodity-based trading standard is in the works as opposed to dollar notes backed by aircraft carrier groups.
And clearly you can see how this is a problem for our (((leaders))), because this both means unrest at home and a loss of influence overseas. Historically, whenever things aren't exactly going the way they want, "something" happens to divert attention and resources. It might be tinfoil hattery, but at some point the elites may just start a war so they can reshape things the way they feel appropriate once it's all over with. The population is already prepped, ready and locked and loaded to accept any pro-war propaganda, they just need a little push for boots on the ground.
Whatever the case the next decade is going to be incredibly tumultuous, that's for sure.