This is getting downvoted, but if I'm wrong, then please do explain to me what is this argument supposed to mean? I mean the one that's usually very explicitly

This is getting downvoted, but if I'm wrong, then please do explain to me what is this argument supposed to mean? I mean the one that's usually very explicitly phrased as "the value of the dollar is backed by the US military", which gets said all the time when people compare the value proposition of fiat currency to cryptocurrencies. I've always understood this to mean "if people stop accepting the USD, the military will make them do so by force". But by all means, do tell me of what other ways aircraft carriers can be used to support the value of the dollar. I'm not even saying that this is factually incorrect (though I don't know if it is). I'm just pointing out the perversity of this argument. It gets brought up surrounding the current inflation debate all the time too. I don't like the casual-ness with which people can say what amounts to, essentially, "don't worry, we can always resort to deadly violence if we need to."