5 ms·

Perhaps it would be better if nobody was the hegemon eh?

ericmay 4y ago
Loosely speaking, probably not right now. A lot of countries avoid war because they are worried about the potential response from the United States. With an isolationist-focused US that isn't the dominant military power (in order for the US to not be the dominant power it'll have to undertake more isolationist tendencies like reducing military spending) there's nothing to fear from invading your neighbor. But this is just an examination of practical reality. Ideally we wouldn't have a hegemon. Ideally maybe we wouldn't have countries either.
throwaway6734 4y ago
multipolar worlds have not worked well in the past. As an American, I would love for the EU to get more unified and take the reins, but in the mean time, a US hegemon is required for global stability
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"US hegemon is required for global stability" This is laughable. The US initiated way too many wars and other offensive / disruptive actions. If you call this stability then I have a bridge to sell. The only stability it provides is it's own. Well maybe some to the allies.
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    The US Navy ensures that global shipping routes stay open and safe, the US economy provides the globe with advanced technological research and products, and the US's natural resources allow for it to export tons of commodities including food and energy. During pax americana, we've seen massive increases in quality of life around the world. Do you think the world is going to be more stable as the US retreats and other players fill the power vacuum and we have to deal with the rising threat of climate change?
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance. This will insure competition and cooperation between our "masters" and will keep them on their toes.
      - wholien 4y ago
        a multipolar world means more instability and wars, though. When you say it will "insure competition", that means conflict for sure.
        FpUser 4y ago
        Conflict does not have to be military. I do not think the US looking forward to attack Russia or China for example. Non military conflicts could be better than being poodle under the threat of war which will happen if the world is ran by a single country
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        When there are multiple major players conflicts between them often occur.
        FpUser 4y ago
        I appreciate your desire for the world to be ruled by the US. I do not think the rest of the world will agree. And if you enforce it using military means you are no better then the rest. Are you American by any chance?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        I think if the choice is China or America, the majority of the world would choose America. America is less hostile to other countries than China. Do you think the world would rather have China in charge? I assume you are going to claim that we can either have no major power or that the EU could be that major power. I highly doubt either of those could occur. I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just. The idea that military use has to be bad is ridiculous.
ethbr0 4y ago
Is that possible? The wildly different allocation of resources and population (on a country border basis) suggests some country will always have the means to be hegemonic (especially if other contenders all decide not to be). Which in practice means there will always be a hegemony. If the US ceded its role tomorrow, China would step into it. If China ceded it the day after, Russia or the EU would step into it. (I'm skipping over India and Japan, as both seem to have cultural aversions to strongly projecting power overseas)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Loosely speaking, probably not right now. A lot of countries avoid war because they are worried about the potential response from the United States. With an isolationist-focused US that isn't the dominant military power (in order for the US to not be the dominant power it'll have to undertake more isolationist tendencies like reducing military spending) there's nothing to fear from invading your neighbor. But this is just an examination of practical reality. Ideally we wouldn't have a hegemon. Ideally maybe we wouldn't have countries either.

throwaway6734 4y ago

multipolar worlds have not worked well in the past. As an American, I would love for the EU to get more unified and take the reins, but in the mean time, a US hegemon is required for global stability

FpUser 4y ago
>"US hegemon is required for global stability" This is laughable. The US initiated way too many wars and other offensive / disruptive actions. If you call this stability then I have a bridge to sell. The only stability it provides is it's own. Well maybe some to the allies.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  The US Navy ensures that global shipping routes stay open and safe, the US economy provides the globe with advanced technological research and products, and the US's natural resources allow for it to export tons of commodities including food and energy. During pax americana, we've seen massive increases in quality of life around the world. Do you think the world is going to be more stable as the US retreats and other players fill the power vacuum and we have to deal with the rising threat of climate change?
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance. This will insure competition and cooperation between our "masters" and will keep them on their toes.
    - wholien 4y ago
      a multipolar world means more instability and wars, though. When you say it will "insure competition", that means conflict for sure.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        Conflict does not have to be military. I do not think the US looking forward to attack Russia or China for example. Non military conflicts could be better than being poodle under the threat of war which will happen if the world is ran by a single country
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      When there are multiple major players conflicts between them often occur.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        I appreciate your desire for the world to be ruled by the US. I do not think the rest of the world will agree. And if you enforce it using military means you are no better then the rest. Are you American by any chance?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        I think if the choice is China or America, the majority of the world would choose America. America is less hostile to other countries than China. Do you think the world would rather have China in charge? I assume you are going to claim that we can either have no major power or that the EU could be that major power. I highly doubt either of those could occur. I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just. The idea that military use has to be bad is ridiculous.

ethbr0 4y ago

Is that possible? The wildly different allocation of resources and population (on a country border basis) suggests some country will always have the means to be hegemonic (especially if other contenders all decide not to be). Which in practice means there will always be a hegemony. If the US ceded its role tomorrow, China would step into it. If China ceded it the day after, Russia or the EU would step into it. (I'm skipping over India and Japan, as both seem to have cultural aversions to strongly projecting power overseas)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]