NationStates

I think that there needs to be some definition of terms. Because while clearly the United States wields a lot of influence in the modern world, when we talk about 'leading it' and being 'dominant', what exactly are we talking about?

Looking through the thread, it seems that we're predominantly talking about our military power and presence.

In the last few decades, with all of our military superiority, with all of our power, we've managed to get ourselves drug through wars with postage stamp sized countries that have a fraction of our spending, our 'solutions' to previous problems have turned around to be bigger problems than what they supposedly solved, and we've created a giant tax dollar sinkhole that is somehow a political third rail.

What has this 'leadership' done for us? Slightly cheaper gas than the rest of the 'free' world?

What is the return on investment of this 'leadership'? What are even getting out of it?

Right now I feel like it's the over-yolked guy at the gym flexing in front of the mirror and laughing at all the fit cats doing cardio.


...alright, that wasn't a very good analogy.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Miyager wrote:
Could battleships be utilized anywhere in the world in 15 minutes time to completely level a city?

I understand the situation before WW1, and the thing is it had been a catastrophe waiting to happen for years prior.

I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have at that time to now. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.

I think it's always a pivotal moment. We can make choices that affect future outcomes, we can like always make negative or positive choices.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Miyager wrote:
Could battleships be utilized anywhere in the world in 15 minutes time to completely level a city?

I understand the situation before WW1, and the thing is it had been a catastrophe waiting to happen for years prior.

I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.

Certainly not the entire situation we're in now is unique. I'm not arguing that. But the world we're in now can't really be compared to before WW1, atleast not now, because we haven't hit that type of geopolitical setup yet.

Is America capable of leading the West? Yes.

Should it? No. Here, let me tell you how I see it. I live in an obscure country in the middle of nowhere. It just so happens I'd like my country to lead itself, not be lead by others. To quote Rise Against, "I don't need your help, I can stand my own ground." All the world's small insignificant nations would like to agree. We don't need America, or anyone, to lead us.

Arglorand wrote:Is America capable of leading the West? Yes.

Should it? No. Here, let me tell you how I see it. I live in an obscure country in the middle of nowhere. It just so happens I'd like my country to lead itself, not be lead by others. To quote Rise Against, "I don't need your help, I can stand my own ground." All the world's small insignificant nations would like to agree. We don't need America, or anyone, to lead us.

But you need someone to defend you.

United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have at that time to now. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.

I think it's always a pivotal moment. We can make choices that affect future outcomes, we can like always make negative or positive choices.

Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.

In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.

Miyager wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.

Certainly not the entire situation we're in now is unique. I'm not arguing that. But the world we're in now can't really be compared to before WW1, atleast not now, because we haven't hit that type of geopolitical setup yet.

Oh, I don't think a major war will happen anytime soon. I never said that. But I don't think nukes are forever going to remain deterrents. I think we will eventually use them. And when I say we I mean people in general.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:I think it's always a pivotal moment. We can make choices that affect future outcomes, we can like always make negative or positive choices.

Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.

In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.

I have to believe in something, so I choose humanity.

Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?

United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.

In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.

I have to believe in something, so I choose humanity.

I kind of struggle between my hopes for humanity and my cynicism of it, so I understand.

United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.

In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.

I have to believe in something, so I choose humanity.

I stopped believing in humanity long ago. The largest group I believe in is the American people.

Voldoviana wrote:Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?

Because it didn't work the first time we tried it, and it didn't work after we tried it again.

Voldoviana wrote:Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?

Having poorer countries buy our crap makes corporations money.

Trollgaard wrote:

Arglorand wrote:Is America capable of leading the West? Yes.

Should it? No. Here, let me tell you how I see it. I live in an obscure country in the middle of nowhere. It just so happens I'd like my country to lead itself, not be lead by others. To quote Rise Against, "I don't need your help, I can stand my own ground." All the world's small insignificant nations would like to agree. We don't need America, or anyone, to lead us.

But you need someone to defend you.

We have no one to be defended from. See, here's the thing. Unlike America, Russia and China, which involve themselves in imperialist expansion throughout the world, small countries have no enemies because we create no enemies except for other small countries, and that's growing ever rarer.

Not to mention, I never said anything about military cooperation. I'm perfectly fine with, say, NATO when it's a defensive alliance and not a way of dragging Europe into America's wars.

Leave us alone, pls, and let us find our own path.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Miyager wrote:
Certainly not the entire situation we're in now is unique. I'm not arguing that. But the world we're in now can't really be compared to before WW1, atleast not now, because we haven't hit that type of geopolitical setup yet.

Oh, I don't think a major war will happen anytime soon. I never said that. But I don't think nukes are forever going to remain deterrents. I think we will eventually use them. And when I say we I mean people in general.

I don't think nukes per se are going to remain our deterrent's forever either. I just don't see a wide-scale use of them as feared in say, the 80's. We'll eventually hit a point where we can negate their effectiveness and from there it'll go.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Miyager wrote:
Except we now live in a time where even with a once more multipolar world, everything is so vastly different that it can't be compared.

I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.

Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.

Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.

It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".

Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.

Nonetheless, how long is America's preponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?

EnragedMaldivians wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.

Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.

Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.

It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".

Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.

Nonetheless, how long is America's preponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?

What do you think will happen?

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Voldoviana wrote:Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?

Because it didn't work the first time we tried it, and it didn't work after we tried it again.

When exactly was that? During the majority of its history, when we were just fine? Or right after WWI, where a depression caused by unpaid war debt and devastation of farm land caused catastrophe?

EnragedMaldivians wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.

Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.

Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.

It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".

Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.

Nonetheless, how long as America's pre-ponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?

Thank you!

And I agree. But our hegemony won't last forever, and I fear with multi-polarity does rise again, we'll have several wars, until it worsens and we have a big one.

United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:

Voldoviana wrote:Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?

Having poorer countries buy our crap makes corporations money.

Can't we let people sell shit and not get the government involved? Or is that too alien a concept now in days?

Voldoviana wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Because it didn't work the first time we tried it, and it didn't work after we tried it again.

When exactly was that? During the majority of its history, when we were just fine? Or right after WWI, where a depression caused by unpaid war debt and devastation of farm land caused catastrophe?

First, isolationism is an illusion. The US has never been "isolationist." From two wars we had with the greatest empire (Britain), to our involvement in the Pacific (the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, China) to a war with Mexico, the US has never been isolationist. So there's nothing back to return to.

Second, simply hoping the world fixes itself doesn't mean it will. And eventually that war will spill onto you, it can be something as direct as an invasion of your neighbor or something as slight as obstructing trade. But it will happen. And I'd rather be prepared when it does than having my thumb up my bum screaming isolationism.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".

Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.

Nonetheless, how long as America's pre-ponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?

Thank you!

And I agree. But our hegemony won't last forever, and I fear with multi-polarity does rise again, we'll have several wars, until it worsens and we have a big one.

The only really promising concept IR offers is the democratic-peace thesis. No liberal democracy has every gone to war with each other, and that's certainly something to consider.

Investing in democratization seems to be the best bet the world has for lasting peace, even though I am wary of the zeal with which (genuine) Neo-Cons such as Donald Kagan want to pursue that goal.

Trollgaard wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".

Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.

Nonetheless, how long is America's preponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?

What do you think will happen?

I don't know. I would probably say more conflict. Without the American deterrent factor I fear the Saudis and the Iranians may eventually come to blows over their competing interests in Bahrain or Syria for instance. I don't know enough about East Asia to even guesstimate.

If not them, who else?

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Voldoviana wrote:When exactly was that? During the majority of its history, when we were just fine? Or right after WWI, where a depression caused by unpaid war debt and devastation of farm land caused catastrophe?

First, isolationism is an illusion. The US has never been "isolationist." From two wars we had with the greatest empire (Britain), to our involvement in the Pacific (the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, China) to a war with Mexico, the US has never been isolationist. So there's nothing back to return to.

Second, simply hoping the world fixes itself doesn't mean it will. And eventually that war will spill onto you, it can be something as direct as an invasion of your neighbor or something as slight as obstructing trade. But it will happen. And I'd rather be prepared when it does than having my thumb up my bum screaming isolationism.

Saying that being isolationist denies any sort of military buildup or interest ignores the concept of isolationism is simply staying out of everyone else's business unless it directly impacts you. That does not include turning a blind eye to the world around you and plodding along as bombs go off, it means keeping a close eye at the gun on your hip while you refuse to take sides until someone directly throws the first punch. You make it seem like isolationism is just having the government herpaderp around as the nukes fall.

Secondly, yes, the US has been isolationism on an off. The examples you listed were either wars of founding or wars and operations undertaken at the turn of the century, war that have, for the most part, negatively impacted the US.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Fortunagen wrote:Does anyone else believe in the possible rise of Brazil?

Brazil's infrastructure seems to be improving and the overall quality of life is higher than the majority of the rest of South America. Plus, it is a huge market in a resource-rich region with no real entanglements in the rest of the outside World.

Brazil, India and Turkey are countries I think will rise to the status of world powers.

Are you sure about India? I've been there, and it was the most disgusting place I've ever seen. The small amount of educated there may be trying to advance, but the rest of the population doesn't care. Anyways, I love your perspective.