How do you think the US debt plays into that?
The federal government additionally had hurricane and flood damage events, among others, totaling a record-breaking $306 billion for 2017 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017...).
These numbers aren't going to trend downward anytime soon.
A lot of the cost is absorbed through private means -- insurance, private funds and donations, and a lot of unfortunate people just end up eating the cost -- but if the federal government were to try to cover everything related to natural disasters, it would approximately rival the interest paid each year on federal debt.
We are seeing now the beginnings of the effects that scientists started warning us about 30 years ago. They aren't going to go away. They're only going to get bigger and more expensive and, like frogs in boiling water, we'll continue debating the merits of climate science while paying for the destruction of entire communities and it won't even occur to us that the things are related.
So as US deficits continue to increase and the tax-and-spend cycle continues through several different administrations, other programs are going to get cut back in an attempt to reduce debt (or to pay for whatever administration's favorite thing is today).
People who don't live in coastal areas or areas prone to wildfire, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winter weather, or other climate-related natural disasters, might think, hey, I'll be okay.
But the money's gotta come out of somebody's pockets.
Do we save the expensive real estate or buy people out?
This will surely be made worse in that a) we're moving out of a US-centric era and toward a more multipolar world, and b) recent US politics would make any serious lender wonder how likely they are to get paid back.
But you're right because: people have faith right up until they don't.
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
Now they're on the Euro things may well be different. Never give away sovereignty over your currency.
Really what is national debt in a nation with soft (non-exchangeable for gold) sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt other than an increase in the money supply - or a commitment to make such increase when bonds mature?
You're right, I phrased it incorrectly - the US could indeed default on its "debt" if it chose too - and maybe the current administration is more inclined to consider doing so - but it would be a choice - it never has to, if it chooses not to.
One thing the US can't and won't ever do is pay down all that debt. The associated contraction in the money supply would be economically devastating, and is basically inconceivable.
To quote the last line of your linked article "As far as the debt limit is concerned, the government really shouldn’t be run like a business." Sometimes this concept is bandied around, that a government is like a household or a business and needs to balance its budget. This is wrong, a government (of a country with sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt) is a government, and should govern, adjusting the money supply to help balance the economy, letting off steam (by running a surplus, taxing more than it spends and taking money out of the economy) when the economy is running "hot" and opening the throttle (by running a deficit, spending more than it taxes and putting money into the economy) when the economy is running below capacity - excess unemployment and underemployment, productive capital laying idle etc. (The devil is of course in the detail, with different regions and sectors performing very differently, and lots of purely political distortions.)
Over time an economy that grows will naturally require more money to operate, so the default state of public finance should be deficit. It is somewhat inappropriate and unfortunate that we characterise this as "debt".
I disagree that the US couldn't pay off its debt. Back when Greenspan was running the Fed, this looked like a possible outcome. People were worried that it would be problematic if the US stopped selling T-bills, as so much is benchmarked to them. The easy solution was to keep on doing some borrowing at the same time as running a surplus elsewhere, so that the US did have some debt, but was not a net debtor. But I don't recall anybody saying it would be devastating.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFII5
It looks like it's trending up recently, but still well below 1% adjusted for inflation.
I mean I see your point, going to war to take what they want is going to be the preferred solution of some countries when things go bad but I also think for some reason that will actually make the situation worse instead of better.
Coastline shrinking, New York gone? go to war take some coastline from Canada and Old York from England!
The fact that one organization (say, USA federal gov't) owes a bunch of money to other organizations (say, other agencies or various companies) doesn't say much about how much resources we have available. Since in this regard "we" isn't about the federal government; the debt doesn't show what resources are available, it's just a measure about which organization controls how much of them.