5 ms·

Fascinating how protected by their geography are USA, Canada, Ireland and maybe UK. The remaining countries have too many neighbors and, accordingly, potential

Fascinating how protected by their geography are USA, Canada, Ireland and maybe UK. The remaining countries have too many neighbors and, accordingly, potential opponents. Look at the Balkans or part of Africa. I live in Sofia, Bulgaria and it has always seemed silly to me that the reason our city was chosen as the capital was the fact that it is surrounded by mountains on all sides. Now with this war in Ukraine, this idea seems genius to me.

malwrar 4y ago
I wouldn't draw too strong of conclusions from this map. It does show relative proximity to things like oceans but doesn't show lakes, rivers, mountains (as you note), jungles, and other natural features that, from a geopolitical standpoint, have created and prevented conflict throughout history.
anonporridge 4y ago
The geography of the USA, bordered by massive oceans and weak/friendly neighbors along with being a huge and productive landmass with a unified culture, is one of the many reasons why it is unbelievably overpowered as a country, and unlikely to lose its dominance anytime soon. China might be competitive in terms of massive, productive landmass, but it simply will never be as secure in its borders as the US with strong and less friendly neighbors all around it. That will hold it back from surpassing the US as the dominant superpower. Ditto India, Russia, Brazil, and any potential rising powers in Africa. By far, the biggest threat to US dominance is balkanization. Fracturing the union and creating deeper geographic divides in American culture would create enough internal strife to hamstring its power. Maybe that's inevitable over time for such a large landmass and the unique conditions of American colonization were never going to last more than a couple hundred years before it started falling apart.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Why exactly does having strong rivals on your borders make you any less likely to become a superpower? Is your argument that before China gets strong enough to be considered a superpower, their neighbors will invade them? Or is that they’ll feel insecure about their borders, and allocate resources to their military rather than economic development? Both arguments seem far-fetched. War with one’s neighbors is never guaranteed, even though there’s a risk of it. And they’d have to spend an unrealistically huge portion of their gdp on border defense for that to make development impossible.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Honestly, it might not be as significant of a problem anymore, because nukes changed the game. Russia and China, or India and China, will never outright invade each other ever again, because of mutually assured destruction. Only countries without nukes have to worry about their sovereignty being violated, e.g. Ukraine. This also means that the geopolitical Schelling point, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory), is that every nation state must either 1) have nukes or 2) vassal themselves to a nuclear power, e.g. non nuclear powers in NATO. Again we see an instructive example in Ukraine. They surrendered their nukes after the Soviet Union collapsed for the promise of sovereignty. But promises don't mean anything on the question of sovereignty. Only real world power matters. Might makes right. But large borders with populous and powerful neighbors still matter, because you still have to commit resources to control those borders to prevent unchecked migration from disrupting your internal economies. The US experiences that problem with Mexico. I imagine a future where India starts experiencing wet bulb temperature events where hundreds of thousands or millions die overnight, which triggers mass migration north. Or perhaps a future where Siberia becomes more temperate and hospitable draws Chinese people try to move north as well.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      >Only real world power matters. Might makes right. The latter isn't just a rephrasing of the former but an expression of assent to it, and most people probably don't mean that.
      - anonporridge 4y ago
        It's often hard to tell if a person making an ugly statement is saying it with approval that this is the way things ought to be, or if they are saying it as an observation of harsh reality and they aren't attaching a moral judgement to that observation. Many people then assume the former and label the speaker as malicious when they are simply sharing their observation. In my view, "might makes right" is simply an observation of harsh reality. Ignoring that reality is folly.
  - 4y ago
xkcd1963 4y ago
Well in ancient and medieval times many cities were built in easy to defend locations. UK got invaded on several occasions historically speaking. USA/Canada are relatively new countries and had not enough time to diversivy in order to create competing ethnicities.
gat1 4y ago
France's geography is actually also insane as a protection : ocean, seas, mountains or vast forest.

malwrar 4y ago

I wouldn't draw too strong of conclusions from this map. It does show relative proximity to things like oceans but doesn't show lakes, rivers, mountains (as you note), jungles, and other natural features that, from a geopolitical standpoint, have created and prevented conflict throughout history.

anonporridge 4y ago

The geography of the USA, bordered by massive oceans and weak/friendly neighbors along with being a huge and productive landmass with a unified culture, is one of the many reasons why it is unbelievably overpowered as a country, and unlikely to lose its dominance anytime soon. China might be competitive in terms of massive, productive landmass, but it simply will never be as secure in its borders as the US with strong and less friendly neighbors all around it. That will hold it back from surpassing the US as the dominant superpower. Ditto India, Russia, Brazil, and any potential rising powers in Africa. By far, the biggest threat to US dominance is balkanization. Fracturing the union and creating deeper geographic divides in American culture would create enough internal strife to hamstring its power. Maybe that's inevitable over time for such a large landmass and the unique conditions of American colonization were never going to last more than a couple hundred years before it started falling apart.

School-Cotton 4y ago
Why exactly does having strong rivals on your borders make you any less likely to become a superpower? Is your argument that before China gets strong enough to be considered a superpower, their neighbors will invade them? Or is that they’ll feel insecure about their borders, and allocate resources to their military rather than economic development? Both arguments seem far-fetched. War with one’s neighbors is never guaranteed, even though there’s a risk of it. And they’d have to spend an unrealistically huge portion of their gdp on border defense for that to make development impossible.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Honestly, it might not be as significant of a problem anymore, because nukes changed the game. Russia and China, or India and China, will never outright invade each other ever again, because of mutually assured destruction. Only countries without nukes have to worry about their sovereignty being violated, e.g. Ukraine. This also means that the geopolitical Schelling point, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory), is that every nation state must either 1) have nukes or 2) vassal themselves to a nuclear power, e.g. non nuclear powers in NATO. Again we see an instructive example in Ukraine. They surrendered their nukes after the Soviet Union collapsed for the promise of sovereignty. But promises don't mean anything on the question of sovereignty. Only real world power matters. Might makes right. But large borders with populous and powerful neighbors still matter, because you still have to commit resources to control those borders to prevent unchecked migration from disrupting your internal economies. The US experiences that problem with Mexico. I imagine a future where India starts experiencing wet bulb temperature events where hundreds of thousands or millions die overnight, which triggers mass migration north. Or perhaps a future where Siberia becomes more temperate and hospitable draws Chinese people try to move north as well.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    >Only real world power matters. Might makes right. The latter isn't just a rephrasing of the former but an expression of assent to it, and most people probably don't mean that.
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      It's often hard to tell if a person making an ugly statement is saying it with approval that this is the way things ought to be, or if they are saying it as an observation of harsh reality and they aren't attaching a moral judgement to that observation. Many people then assume the former and label the speaker as malicious when they are simply sharing their observation. In my view, "might makes right" is simply an observation of harsh reality. Ignoring that reality is folly.
- 4y ago

xkcd1963 4y ago

Well in ancient and medieval times many cities were built in easy to defend locations. UK got invaded on several occasions historically speaking. USA/Canada are relatively new countries and had not enough time to diversivy in order to create competing ethnicities.

gat1 4y ago

France's geography is actually also insane as a protection : ocean, seas, mountains or vast forest.