4 ms·

> Hard to become a superpower when you are antagonizing your neighbors. Er, is this true? I'd have thought quite the opposite: hard to become a superpower _wit

> Hard to become a superpower when you are antagonizing your neighbors. Er, is this true? I'd have thought quite the opposite: hard to become a superpower _without_ antagonizing neighbors.

arvinsim 7y ago
Yeah but superpowers do try to avoid it, not actively foment it.
maratd 7y ago
Do you truly feel that the US has antagonized Canada and Mexico within the past 100 years? I'm pretty sure they're our closest allies.
- davidgay 7y ago
  It's technically (just) more than 100 years, but the Zimmerman Telegram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram) is not something your (potential) enemy sends to one of your "closest allies".
- saghm 7y ago
  I definitely think there has been some antagonism from the US government towards Mexico a lot more recently than 100 years ago
- jcranmer 7y ago
  The line of 100 years just misses the US occupation of Veracruz and the Zimmerman Telegram (or the Mexican Revolution in general), which was one of the lowest points of US-Mexico relations. US-Canada relations were pretty testy in the pre-WWI era as well, and the declassification of War Plan Red [1] did cause a brief stir. Then again, the US has antagonized many countries simply by electing Donald Trump. [1] In the inter-war period, the US military used a series of color classification schemes to sketch out what the US response to wars with various countries would look like. Red was Britain. And in event of war with the UK, the US plan was to invade Canada, irrespective of Canada declaring neutrality (which was Canada's plan in such a scenario).
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Which countries has it antagonized? China? Canada and Mexico have signed onto the USMCA. Japan and India's leaders both seem to adore Trump. Watching Trump at the U.N. two weeks ago, he seemed to be a very capable diplomat and seems to have good relations with most nations.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      Canada and Mexico signed the USMCA not so much because they felt it was better than NAFTA but because they didn't want Trump to do any worse. And it's not like Canada is happy about Trump's emergency steel tariffs that hit Canada's exports--the fact that USMCA would cause Trump to lift them was one of they reasons to sign it, and Trump certainly was in no rush to lift them afterwords. Not to mention there's lots of dislike towards Trump's tendency to rip up treaties just because Obama signed them--Vietnam wasn't happy about Trump dropping TPP, Europe was not a fan of him leaving the Paris climate treaty or the Iran nuclear treaty, etc.
    - soperj 7y ago
      "I'm altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further." But yes, totally okay with USMCA, that's why we decided to put the US first in the name.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  100 years seems like an arbitrary cutoff, and we sure as hell "antagonized" Mexico on our way to becoming a superpower not that much earlier than that by... Taking half their territory. Canada has almost always been a virtual non-entity due to things like their incredible population sparsity and longitudinal cultural/economic integration with regions of the US. They are a counterexample, but the pattern very much points in my direction IMO. On top of that, we're talking about _becoming_ a superpower, not being one. Once you're already a superpower, your neighbors often become varying degrees of vassal, which is why Mexico and Canada are among our closest allies. You're hardly a superpower if you haven't neutralized your neighbors (diplomatically or otherwise). Look at the blood feuds over tiny bits of land in the rest of the world, and consider how cool Mexico seemingly is with their land's massive, unprovoked conquest. They accepted it (and their good relationship with us) because they didn't have a better choice. How many superpowers can you think of that didn't antagonize their neighbors, especially on their way to becoming one? Rome? Persia? Britain? Russia?
bigpumpkin 7y ago
Considering the three past superpower: UK, USSR, and USA. I find that the degree of which they antagonize their neighbors depend on their geography. UK is an island and a seabased power whose primary interest in Europe was to prevent the creation of a dominant European power which could overpower it. Therefore it created a number of alliances and rivalries to serve this purpose. On other continents, however, it were more aggressive to secure trade and colonies. The USSR as a landbased Empire that had a flat border to the west, was fairly hostile to its western neighbors in Eastern Europe and even to China to the East. Although a Russian would argue that they created buffer states in response to the memory of being invaded twice by Napoleon and Hitler. The USA is a sea based empire with a continent behind it. Therefore it originally was very hostile against its neighbors, be they Native American or European colonies. After securing the continent by reaching the Pacific, it ensured the dominance of the Caribbean through the Monroe Doctrine (similar to China's position vis-a-vis the South China Sea) today. And then afterwards played Balance of Power against any major power from emerging on Eurasia. China has a number of formidable foes on its immediate periphery. It is almost impossible to dominate them all militarily, especially with the US against it. Therefore it will attempt to establish economic dominance over Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The Belt and Road initiative alleviates it from a over reliance on Sea based imports of oil (especially through the Strait of Malacca which the US navy could easily blockade).

> Hard to become a superpower when you are antagonizing your neighbors. Er, is this true? I'd have thought quite the opposite: hard to become a superpower _without_ antagonizing neighbors.

arvinsim 7y ago

Yeah but superpowers do try to avoid it, not actively foment it.

maratd 7y ago

Do you truly feel that the US has antagonized Canada and Mexico within the past 100 years? I'm pretty sure they're our closest allies.

davidgay 7y ago
It's technically (just) more than 100 years, but the Zimmerman Telegram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram) is not something your (potential) enemy sends to one of your "closest allies".
saghm 7y ago
I definitely think there has been some antagonism from the US government towards Mexico a lot more recently than 100 years ago
jcranmer 7y ago
The line of 100 years just misses the US occupation of Veracruz and the Zimmerman Telegram (or the Mexican Revolution in general), which was one of the lowest points of US-Mexico relations. US-Canada relations were pretty testy in the pre-WWI era as well, and the declassification of War Plan Red [1] did cause a brief stir. Then again, the US has antagonized many countries simply by electing Donald Trump. [1] In the inter-war period, the US military used a series of color classification schemes to sketch out what the US response to wars with various countries would look like. Red was Britain. And in event of war with the UK, the US plan was to invade Canada, irrespective of Canada declaring neutrality (which was Canada's plan in such a scenario).
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Which countries has it antagonized? China? Canada and Mexico have signed onto the USMCA. Japan and India's leaders both seem to adore Trump. Watching Trump at the U.N. two weeks ago, he seemed to be a very capable diplomat and seems to have good relations with most nations.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Canada and Mexico signed the USMCA not so much because they felt it was better than NAFTA but because they didn't want Trump to do any worse. And it's not like Canada is happy about Trump's emergency steel tariffs that hit Canada's exports--the fact that USMCA would cause Trump to lift them was one of they reasons to sign it, and Trump certainly was in no rush to lift them afterwords. Not to mention there's lots of dislike towards Trump's tendency to rip up treaties just because Obama signed them--Vietnam wasn't happy about Trump dropping TPP, Europe was not a fan of him leaving the Paris climate treaty or the Iran nuclear treaty, etc.
  - soperj 7y ago
    "I'm altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further." But yes, totally okay with USMCA, that's why we decided to put the US first in the name.
wutbrodo 7y ago
100 years seems like an arbitrary cutoff, and we sure as hell "antagonized" Mexico on our way to becoming a superpower not that much earlier than that by... Taking half their territory. Canada has almost always been a virtual non-entity due to things like their incredible population sparsity and longitudinal cultural/economic integration with regions of the US. They are a counterexample, but the pattern very much points in my direction IMO. On top of that, we're talking about _becoming_ a superpower, not being one. Once you're already a superpower, your neighbors often become varying degrees of vassal, which is why Mexico and Canada are among our closest allies. You're hardly a superpower if you haven't neutralized your neighbors (diplomatically or otherwise). Look at the blood feuds over tiny bits of land in the rest of the world, and consider how cool Mexico seemingly is with their land's massive, unprovoked conquest. They accepted it (and their good relationship with us) because they didn't have a better choice. How many superpowers can you think of that didn't antagonize their neighbors, especially on their way to becoming one? Rome? Persia? Britain? Russia?

bigpumpkin 7y ago

Considering the three past superpower: UK, USSR, and USA. I find that the degree of which they antagonize their neighbors depend on their geography. UK is an island and a seabased power whose primary interest in Europe was to prevent the creation of a dominant European power which could overpower it. Therefore it created a number of alliances and rivalries to serve this purpose. On other continents, however, it were more aggressive to secure trade and colonies. The USSR as a landbased Empire that had a flat border to the west, was fairly hostile to its western neighbors in Eastern Europe and even to China to the East. Although a Russian would argue that they created buffer states in response to the memory of being invaded twice by Napoleon and Hitler. The USA is a sea based empire with a continent behind it. Therefore it originally was very hostile against its neighbors, be they Native American or European colonies. After securing the continent by reaching the Pacific, it ensured the dominance of the Caribbean through the Monroe Doctrine (similar to China's position vis-a-vis the South China Sea) today. And then afterwards played Balance of Power against any major power from emerging on Eurasia. China has a number of formidable foes on its immediate periphery. It is almost impossible to dominate them all militarily, especially with the US against it. Therefore it will attempt to establish economic dominance over Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The Belt and Road initiative alleviates it from a over reliance on Sea based imports of oil (especially through the Strait of Malacca which the US navy could easily blockade).