We are ideological allies. I agree with the sentiment. I agree that sometimes conflicts an only be resolved with force and that it is better to have the force t

We are ideological allies. I agree with the sentiment. I agree that sometimes conflicts an only be resolved with force and that it is better to have the force than have force used against you. Philosophically, I have some dissonance. My first piece of dissonance is that if we model the world under the game of prisoners dilemma, having too much relative power creates a situation where our optimum strategy is to defect, because even when someone else defects, we can still win through superior force. This is the mathematical model behind "absolute power corrupts absolutely." So if we generate an arsenal of democracy, which is at it's core power, what prevents us from arbitrarily using it? What prevents an arsenal of democracy from becoming an arsenal of totalitarianism through democratic decay and fascist seizing of power? My second piece of dissonance is that on one hand I believe in the 2nd amendment, but on the other hand, if we bring the idea of the 2nd amendment to the world stage, using the same logic, every country should be well armed and have nukes so that they can fight the oppressors of their state. Every country should be able to practice MAD. Why not? Who shouldn't get nukes (and using that same rule, who shouldn't get guns?)? The third piece of dissonance is mostly pedantry: A democracy could choose to oppress or enslave others. The US was founded as a democracy, yet we had slaves. If our founding fathers had an "arsenal of democracy," what prevents them from using that arsenal to go to Africa, load people into boats, and make them labor with the threat of force here? The 3/5ths compromise is a product of flawed democracy, so "democracy" seems like a philosophically flawed idea to reference. What is good in America is rule of law (prevention of arbitrary uses of power) and human rights protected by that law. Democracy allows for a tyranny of the majority. "Equal rights under law" is the idea that gives us freedom. My core critique of your post, while still agreeing with it and still considering myself your ideological ally, is that we have an unhanded fascism problem at home and it is very much a larger problem than a genocidal China. Without dealing with our problem at home this "arsenal of democracy" seems too easily turned into the "aresenal of oppression." Furthermore, if we dealt with this problem at home, those same power structures we have to deal with are the one's that result in Chinese and Russians being slaves to their governments. In summary: "leading by example" is probably going to have better outcomes when our example is fighting fascism at home and having the highest quality of life rather than if our example is "build the most amazing tools of destruction so that when there is a conflict about freedom, we get to be the arbiter."