Militaries don't create good results, they only remove impediments to good results. You can't grow an economy by bombing infrastructure and killing people.
Where your analysis is incomplete is that military might is not the only reason that people will avoid fighting. A strong military is a negative incentive ("I might lose or die"), but there are plenty of positive incentives for nations to avoid warfare.
In fact, international relations tend to be dominated by positive incentives, which is why "cheeseburger diplomacy" is such a reliable concept, and open warfare is historically rare, even before Pax Americana.
Google is a much smaller and younger entity than the U.S. military, so you might still be technically right on total quantitative impact. But that's not really a fair way to look at it.
> In fact, international relations tend to be dominated by positive incentives, which is why "cheeseburger diplomacy" is such a reliable concept
“Cheeseburger diplomacy” is not a reliable concept, either the Obama practice to which the media gave the name or Friedman's McDonald's peace theory, which makes more sense in the context of your comment.
I was referring to the Friedman thing. While he was stupid enough to frame his rule as an absolute (thus it has been violated), the reality is that McDonalds is in 119 countries and the number of wars between those countries over the past 50 years can be counted using your fingers.
That was just an example, though. My main point is that the peoples and nations of the world, given the opportunity, overwhelmingly prefer to pursue relationships of peaceful mutual benefit, rather than military threat. The purpose of a military is merely to preserve or restore that opportunity.
The notion that trade has a negative correlation with war is a well-accepted concept in international relations, and one of the reasons national governments exert themselves to grow international economic relationships.
Where your analysis is incomplete is that military might is not the only reason that people will avoid fighting. A strong military is a negative incentive ("I might lose or die"), but there are plenty of positive incentives for nations to avoid warfare.
In fact, international relations tend to be dominated by positive incentives, which is why "cheeseburger diplomacy" is such a reliable concept, and open warfare is historically rare, even before Pax Americana.
Google is a much smaller and younger entity than the U.S. military, so you might still be technically right on total quantitative impact. But that's not really a fair way to look at it.