The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2370 Damn it! I'm totally mentally exhausted from revising this… and it still hasn't been released! Requesting monthly votes!
With the Apocalypse's attack yielding tremendous results, the situation quickly spiraled out of control!

Many things in this world are interconnected. In the Amazon rainforest of South America, a butterfly's seemingly insignificant flapping of its wings could potentially cause a catastrophic hurricane in Texas two weeks later. This is because the butterfly's wing movements alter the surrounding air system, creating subtle airflows. These airflows, in turn, cause corresponding changes in the surrounding air and other systems, triggering a chain reaction that ultimately leads to significant changes in other systems. Scientists jokingly call this phenomenon the "butterfly effect," meaning that seemingly unrelated and insignificant events can lead to enormous changes.

The concept of the "butterfly effect" was proposed in 1963 by Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist at MIT. On December 29, 1979, in a speech at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., Lorenz pointed out that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil could potentially cause a hurricane in Texas. His speech and conclusion left a profound impression. Since then, the so-called "butterfly effect" has spread rapidly and become widely known.

"A small difference can lead to a huge error" is one of the key characteristics of the "butterfly effect." A tiny change in initial conditions, amplified over time, can have an enormous impact on future outcomes. A Western folk song vividly illustrates this: "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of a horse, the rider was lost; for want of a rider, the battle was lost; for want of a battle, the kingdom was lost."

World situations are often strongly correlated!
Geopolitics shapes the international landscape and global competition by fundamentally influencing national power through geographical location. As the underlying logic of global competition, geopolitics profoundly shapes the international order and the global competitive landscape. By deeply understanding the connotation and extension of geopolitics, we can more clearly grasp the direction of the international situation and understand the strategies and movements of various countries in the game. It reveals a core viewpoint: geographical location has a fundamental impact on national power. Geographical environmental factors such as resources, territory, and topography have a profound impact on a country's development path and foreign relations. Geopolitical thought can be traced back to ancient Greece, evolving into a discipline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The evolution of geopolitics was not instantaneous; its history can be traced back to ancient Greece. At that time, Thucydides already recognized the important role of geographical factors in warfare. However, it was a few scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who truly elevated geopolitics to a discipline.

Modern geopolitical theories such as sea power, land power, and air power have influenced international relations. The sea power theory of American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan argued that control of the seas meant control of the lifeline of world trade. Britain, through naval hegemony, established the "empire on which the sun never sets," further developing this concept. Mackinder's "heartland" theory and its subsequent "periphery" theory influenced the development of land power theory. With the advancement of technology, theories of air power and space power have also been continuously refined, becoming an indispensable part of modern warfare.

Geopolitics is closely related to national security, with geographical location and natural barriers shaping national strategies. For example, countries lacking natural barriers face greater security challenges due to their location on the Eurasian Plain, while Britain, leveraging its maritime dominance, established global hegemony. Strategic resources such as energy and minerals constitute the lifeline of the economy, influencing interstate competition. Geopolitics not only affects national security but also profoundly shapes economic development. Strategic resources such as energy, minerals, and shipping routes have become crucial to economic lifelines. For instance, the Middle East has become a global focal point of competition due to its oil resources. Contemporary geopolitics encompasses a comprehensive contest across land, sea, air, and space. Modern geopolitics has expanded from a two-dimensional plane to a three-dimensional space, with various theories intertwined, becoming a reflection of the comprehensive national power of regions and nations.

The same is true now.

Apocalypse's actions ripped away the last fig leaf of American imperialism.

With its naval power completely gone, the United States can only maintain its international influence by relying on its past prestige.

But prestige... how should I put it?

The United States cannot be said to have none, but it certainly has limited resources.

After all, it is an imperialist power, and ultimately it still has to rely on force to deter others.

The ultimate goal of finance is force; without military might, where does hegemony come from?

The foundation of American hegemony lies in its military strength, not the amount of US debt issued. Even an increase in US debt issuance will not weaken its hegemonic position. Military strength is key to maintaining America's global dominance. As long as American military hegemony exists, even a high level of US debt issuance will hardly shake its position. Historically, Britain, as the "empire on which the sun never sets," maintained its global hegemony despite economic losses after World War I, thanks to its powerful navy. It was only after World War II, with its military strength declining, that it was replaced by the United States. Therefore, to dismantle American hegemony, the only way is to enhance the military strength of other countries and defeat the United States; there is no other way. Military strength is key to maintaining America's global dominance. Strong military strength not only ensures America's influence globally but also provides security for its economic, political, and other developments.

In today's ever-changing international arena, a nation's military strength acts as a stabilizing force, playing a crucial role. It is not only a solid bulwark of national security but also a powerful defender of national interests, exerting a profound influence on many fields, including international politics, economics, and diplomacy. A nation's primary task is to safeguard the lives and property of its people and its territorial integrity, and a strong military is key to achieving this goal. History has shown us this through countless examples. Looking back at modern China, its weak military made it vulnerable to the superior weaponry of foreign powers, leading to the signing of a series of humiliating treaties that ceded its sovereignty and plunged its people into misery. Conversely, the United States, with its powerful military, avoided large-scale warfare on its homeland during both World Wars, providing a favorable environment for its rapid economic development and social stability. Today, while peace and development are the themes of our time, the world is not entirely peaceful, with local conflicts and wars occurring frequently. Threats such as terrorism and separatism continue to emerge. Only with a strong military can a nation effectively resist external aggression, combat various security threats, and ensure national peace and stability. For example, facing pressure from NATO's eastward expansion, Russia resolutely defended its strategic space and national interests with its powerful military. Military strength is a strong backing for a nation's diplomacy: on the international diplomatic stage, military power is a crucial support for a nation's discourse power. "A weak nation has no diplomacy"—this is an irrefutable truth. The stronger a nation's military, the more confident it is at the international negotiating table and the better it can protect its interests. The United States often uses military force as a deterrent in international affairs to advance its foreign policy. Whether it's military intervention in the Middle East or diplomatic maneuvering with other major powers, its powerful military presence forces other countries to take the US position seriously.

The navy is the most important part of this.

But now?

The problem is, nobody wants to be the first to try something new!

After all, what if? Right?

Even a wrecked ship has three pounds of nails!

Moreover, it's not just the US Navy that's being cut; everyone's being cut, so it's as if nobody's been cut at all!

Therefore, everyone continued to maintain the status quo based on inertia.

But Apocalypse's leap was different.

Despite the United States' frantic condemnations and warnings.

The problem is that Apocalypse doesn't take it seriously at all!

Even if the US Navy were gone and its global projection capabilities were lost, Apocalypse Tank wouldn't be afraid!
For Tianqi, "I am the state." So what if the United States bombs the entire country? Tianqi can still live a good life. What's there to be afraid of? He can just move to another place and continue to rule!

Apocalypse wasn't worried about this at all.

There are plenty of chaotic countries in this world!

So no matter what the US says, Apocalypse simply won't listen.

And all these sanctions? My country is so poor, I'm even thinking of defaulting on my debts! And you still want to sanction me?

If you push me too far, I'll just renege on my debt!

In reality, the US can only engage in empty rhetoric.

The reason is simple and honest: I have no money!

As the saying goes, "When the cannons roar, gold flows like water," the financial drain of war exceeds the imagination of many ordinary people. Especially after the emergence of the concept of "modern warfare," weapon prices were further inflated, significantly increasing the financial burden of war. The first universally recognized modern war was the Gulf War fought by the United States in 1991. Excluding the pre-war preparation phase, this war actually lasted 42 days. So how much did the United States spend in those 42 days? The answer is approximately $600 billion, equivalent to an average of $14 billion per day for the US military on the front lines. The main reason this war was so expensive was, of course, the high cost of various modern weapons. For example, the purchase price of one Tomahawk missile was $120 million, and the United States used nearly 300 in those 42 days, "burning" over $3 million on Tomahawk missiles alone.

So it's fortunate that the US fought the Gulf War quickly, ending the war in just 42 days.

During the subsequent 20-year "Middle East wars" waged by the United States, the amount of money spent reached a staggering $6.4 trillion.

By comparing the $600 billion spent on the Gulf War in its 42 days, we can understand how expensive a protracted war can be.

Aside from missiles, the prices of other American weapons are also beyond the public's imagination. For example, the most common Mk 82 aerial bomb (500 lb/200 kg) costs $4000 per piece. A single air raid would require thousands of such bombs, costing tens of millions of dollars just for the bombs alone. And these are just the prices of "consumables." Many other weapons are not consumables but have relatively high operating costs. Tanks, for instance. Tanks burn fuel; when a tank accelerates, the fuel swirls like a vortex. The American M1A2 main battle tank, traveling at 40-50 km/h, consumes nearly 6 liters of fuel per kilometer.

According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 1994, the price of one gallon (3.78541 liters) of diesel in the United States was about $1.10.

In other words, the fuel cost for a US M1A2 tank is approximately $2 per kilometer. During the Gulf War, the US deployed approximately 2000 tanks and armored vehicles of various types. The fuel costs consumed by these "steel torrents" on the battlefield were naturally calculated in the hundreds of millions. And this only includes tanks; the large number of fighter jets, warships, and other weapons deployed by the US in the Gulf War also required enormous fuel costs.

The above only refers to the visible "money." In fact, the United States also paid many "hidden costs" in the Gulf War.

For example, in preparation for the Gulf War, the United States adjusted its aircraft carrier deployments before and after the war, resulting in a weakening of its naval power for a period afterward—a cost in itself. After high-intensity combat operations, US aircraft carriers require more time for maintenance and repair. In other words, after a high-intensity war, the US will find itself with many aircraft carriers unable to conduct global strategic deployments, creating a period of vulnerability for its naval power.

Fortunately, the United States doesn't need to worry anymore, because it no longer has a navy!
Starting a war would be even more expensive!
The only force left that can be used is the air force (without the navy, how can the army deploy troops?).
Since the advent of airplanes, and through a century of warfare, this aerial weapon, capable of ignoring terrain obstacles, has become a crucial factor in dominating the course of war. Even now, the debate over whether an air force can win a war single-handedly continues to intensify. Historically, since World War II, there has never been a war in which an army with absolute air superiority has lost on the battlefield.

The changes that airplanes bring to the battlefield are not just tactical. Before the invention of airplanes, artillery, tanks, heavy machine guns, and so on were only used to gain tactical advantages on the front lines. Airplanes, on the other hand, can cross the front lines and terrain obstacles to carry out strategic strikes, attacking the enemy's heavy industry, political and cultural centers from the air. Airplanes can obtain strategic advantages that the army and navy cannot achieve with the greatest efficiency and the lowest cost.

But it's very difficult for the air force to win a war alone!
The army often plays a crucial role in conquering and seizing territory. Tasks such as capturing enemy ports and controlling enemy airfield facilities are only achievable by the army. Warships without ports lose their ability to sustain combat operations for extended periods, and the air force without airfields finds it difficult to extend its reach into inland areas.

I'm exhausted from revising it! The review process is too harsh!