Thank you, Chris, for taking the time to explain your perspective and share your observations. I think I now better understand what you are trying to say. I have explained tariffs and protectionism in a generic sense, while also taking the recent U.S. tariffs as an example, which is why I may have misinterpreted your response as addressing both.

Economic and military security may not be the same thing, but they are interrelated. Thus, opportunity costs should be evaluated, and ideally, a balance should be reached when formulating a trade policy or changing an existing one.

I also went back to your earlier response and realize that you mentioned “maintaining” domestic capacity. I will agree that another reason why a country may follow protectionism may be to guard its current domestic capacity, besides just for strategic resources. However, I feel that this should only be the case if there is significant evidence that the capacity is on a decline (and thus, also a threat to national security). If not, then why adopt trade barriers? If true, then the extent of protectionism should be reasonable, keeping in mind other factors — apart from economic ones — such as international relations (for you can’t completely disregard them even if there are chances that they may break due to other reasons). If this isn’t considered, then I will reiterate that protectionist measures may cause the other nation to become hostile. I should clarify here, that I use the term in a general sense and not to refer to only military hostility.