4 ms·

> there isn't much alternative for world leadership. I strongly suggest you glance through the Accidental Superpower. Take what it says with a grain of salt,

> there isn't much alternative for world leadership. I strongly suggest you glance through the Accidental Superpower. Take what it says with a grain of salt, but it lays out a pretty strong case that the US's role in global politics is going away and that everything will be returning to a pre-Bretton Woods, "every people for themselves" world.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> US's role in global politics is going away and that everything will be returning to a pre-Bretton Woods, "every people for themselves" world We're pretty much there. We don't need to be peaceful hegemony to project power where necessary. It's personally aggravating to see legitimate attempts as peacekeeping cast as colonialism. If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside from morality. And that standard is flexible in any civilization.
- barelysapient 3y ago
  I want this so bad. Can. We. Just. Fucking. Stop. Seriously. Ukraine and Russia? None of our business. Palestine and Israel? None of our business. Defense of Europe and NATO membership? None of our business. Let the world figure out their own shit.
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    It’s none of the US’s business until it is. If China takes over Asia you think they will stop there? Kill a monster when it’s small. Defense in depth. Also shipping lanes.
    - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
      If a nation takes unilateral action that the world wishes to prevent, then maybe it's the world's shared responsibility to respond. I have no problem with the US being an equal partner in that, but right now we're doing nearly everything, and the American tax payer is paying for it.
      - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
        The US does it because a) it's one of the few countries with global force projection capability b) it's in both its long and/or short term interest to do so Today, the US under Biden is pretty selective about intervention. For example, it isn't intervening on the the behalf of the Saudis anymore as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be Riyadh--specifically, MBS--is also being petulant and immature in taking for granted American support. There is remarkable symmetry between Netanyahu and MBS in this respect, e.g. the former trashing Israel's formerly bipartisan image by allying with the GOP under Obama and Trump.
        wing-_-nuts 3y ago
        A) That costs money. More than 800 BILLION dollars a year, to be exact. B) Extremely debatable. There's a lot we could do with 800B that would have a much more tangible impact on the average American. If it's in our interest, it's in the worlds interest as well. Something tells me it wouldn't be too long before the UN had a maritime task force capable of defending shipping.
        TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
        All the UN's military power is provide by its member nations. If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability To put this into context, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 38 overseas bases, 130,000 troops overseas and nukes [1]. Turkey has 1, 12 and 60,000, respectively; Russia 1, 10 and 50,000 (exempting Ukraine, I think). You have to go from China to Australia--through India, Japan, France, Italy and the U.K.--to get to America's aircraft carrier fleet. U.K., Turkey and France for bases (this one is plausible). And none of this counts the massive logistics reserve the U.S. military has compared to the world. America has built and funded a military designed to check global hegemony. It doesn't produce it, even if our policymakers sometimes pretend it does. But it prevents a global hegemony from emerging, with regional hegemons kept from dominating their neighbors. In general, it is difficult to read history without concluding this is the right approach. It's basically antitrust as geopolitics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_projection_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_project...
    - barelysapient 3y ago
      No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? Communism doesn't have a great track record of building empires that span a millennia.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years i.e. multiple human lifetimes. Carthage and Athens were thriving polities. The potential fruits of their minds were permanently lost.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? USA is a land-grab expanding empire, they still exist. Do you think USA will end just because it is the result of massive land grabs and conquest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    Now imagine what we could accomplish with even half of the 800+B dollar defense budget here at home. For those saying there's no way we could afford it, we already spend 1.9T. If we spent the same as the UK with it's NHS it'd only be 1.6T, so you could argue we'd even save money.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Let the world figure out their own shit Isolationism has its limits. The world will figure out its own shit without you. Eventually, it will start figuring out yours. America alone would be poor and impotent. America overstretched, the same.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > Let the world figure out their own shit. Price of owning the world is interfering in everyone's shit. If america stops doing that they start getting treated like a normal country instead of a super-power, which would bring a rude awakening to many ordinary americans.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >If america stops doing that they start getting treated like a normal country instead of a super-power, which would bring a rude awakening to many ordinary americans. I'm not reading a downside, yet.
- bojan 3y ago
  > If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside Are you sure about that? America benefits a lot I think from the world being relatively peaceful and, more importantly, predictable place. An instable free-for-all world is more difficult to navigate, and probably devastating for the economy.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Are you sure about that? America benefits a lot I think from the world being relatively peaceful and, more importantly, predictable place No, I'm being hyperbolic. (Sorry.) We lose from isolation. But sometimes going down together--America, isolationist and the world in turmoil--seems like the preference of the ignorant.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside from morality. Instability tends to ignore borders, not least in the floods of migrants it unleashes towards more stable and prosperous countries.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Colonialism is good. It brought a high standard of living to the natives and increased life expectancy.
  - nextaccountic 3y ago
    it brought exploitation and in some cases extermination of natives and pretty much extracted wealth from the colonies. It would be much better for the natives to merely trade their valuables in order to get access to western goods and technologies (and of course they had trade goods; that's the whole point of colonialism)
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I've always taken Zeihan's assertions that world trade will collapse without the US playing world police as pretty laughable. It's in pretty much everyone's interest that world trade be protected. Even if the US were to sink into the ocean I could see the UN raising a fleet to ensure shipping was protected from piracy and harassment the next day.
- legitster 3y ago
  But we are already seeing huge trade disruptions in the Gulf and the Black Sea and the UN is not even close to doing anything about it. > It's in pretty much everyone's interest that world trade be protected. That's not necessarily true. There are prominent exemptions - Russia, India, the US, and Iran, among others.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    Huge disruptions? Really? If we're seeing 'huge' disruptions, you'd think the world would care enough to do something about it no? Why is it always our responsibility?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> US's role in global politics is going away and that everything will be returning to a pre-Bretton Woods, "every people for themselves" world We're pretty much there. We don't need to be peaceful hegemony to project power where necessary. It's personally aggravating to see legitimate attempts as peacekeeping cast as colonialism. If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside from morality. And that standard is flexible in any civilization.

barelysapient 3y ago
I want this so bad. Can. We. Just. Fucking. Stop. Seriously. Ukraine and Russia? None of our business. Palestine and Israel? None of our business. Defense of Europe and NATO membership? None of our business. Let the world figure out their own shit.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  It’s none of the US’s business until it is. If China takes over Asia you think they will stop there? Kill a monster when it’s small. Defense in depth. Also shipping lanes.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    If a nation takes unilateral action that the world wishes to prevent, then maybe it's the world's shared responsibility to respond. I have no problem with the US being an equal partner in that, but right now we're doing nearly everything, and the American tax payer is paying for it.
    - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
      The US does it because a) it's one of the few countries with global force projection capability b) it's in both its long and/or short term interest to do so Today, the US under Biden is pretty selective about intervention. For example, it isn't intervening on the the behalf of the Saudis anymore as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be Riyadh--specifically, MBS--is also being petulant and immature in taking for granted American support. There is remarkable symmetry between Netanyahu and MBS in this respect, e.g. the former trashing Israel's formerly bipartisan image by allying with the GOP under Obama and Trump.
      - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
        A) That costs money. More than 800 BILLION dollars a year, to be exact. B) Extremely debatable. There's a lot we could do with 800B that would have a much more tangible impact on the average American. If it's in our interest, it's in the worlds interest as well. Something tells me it wouldn't be too long before the UN had a maritime task force capable of defending shipping.
        TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
        All the UN's military power is provide by its member nations. If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability To put this into context, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 38 overseas bases, 130,000 troops overseas and nukes [1]. Turkey has 1, 12 and 60,000, respectively; Russia 1, 10 and 50,000 (exempting Ukraine, I think). You have to go from China to Australia--through India, Japan, France, Italy and the U.K.--to get to America's aircraft carrier fleet. U.K., Turkey and France for bases (this one is plausible). And none of this counts the massive logistics reserve the U.S. military has compared to the world. America has built and funded a military designed to check global hegemony. It doesn't produce it, even if our policymakers sometimes pretend it does. But it prevents a global hegemony from emerging, with regional hegemons kept from dominating their neighbors. In general, it is difficult to read history without concluding this is the right approach. It's basically antitrust as geopolitics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_projection_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_project...
  - barelysapient 3y ago
    No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? Communism doesn't have a great track record of building empires that span a millennia.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years i.e. multiple human lifetimes. Carthage and Athens were thriving polities. The potential fruits of their minds were permanently lost.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > No land-grab expanding empire from history has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. What makes us think that China would? USA is a land-grab expanding empire, they still exist. Do you think USA will end just because it is the result of massive land grabs and conquest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  Now imagine what we could accomplish with even half of the 800+B dollar defense budget here at home. For those saying there's no way we could afford it, we already spend 1.9T. If we spent the same as the UK with it's NHS it'd only be 1.6T, so you could argue we'd even save money.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Let the world figure out their own shit Isolationism has its limits. The world will figure out its own shit without you. Eventually, it will start figuring out yours. America alone would be poor and impotent. America overstretched, the same.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > Let the world figure out their own shit. Price of owning the world is interfering in everyone's shit. If america stops doing that they start getting treated like a normal country instead of a super-power, which would bring a rude awakening to many ordinary americans.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >If america stops doing that they start getting treated like a normal country instead of a super-power, which would bring a rude awakening to many ordinary americans. I'm not reading a downside, yet.
bojan 3y ago
> If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside Are you sure about that? America benefits a lot I think from the world being relatively peaceful and, more importantly, predictable place. An instable free-for-all world is more difficult to navigate, and probably devastating for the economy.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Are you sure about that? America benefits a lot I think from the world being relatively peaceful and, more importantly, predictable place No, I'm being hyperbolic. (Sorry.) We lose from isolation. But sometimes going down together--America, isolationist and the world in turmoil--seems like the preference of the ignorant.
jcranmer 3y ago
> If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside from morality. Instability tends to ignore borders, not least in the floods of migrants it unleashes towards more stable and prosperous countries.
ipaddr 3y ago
Colonialism is good. It brought a high standard of living to the natives and increased life expectancy.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  it brought exploitation and in some cases extermination of natives and pretty much extracted wealth from the colonies. It would be much better for the natives to merely trade their valuables in order to get access to western goods and technologies (and of course they had trade goods; that's the whole point of colonialism)

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

I've always taken Zeihan's assertions that world trade will collapse without the US playing world police as pretty laughable. It's in pretty much everyone's interest that world trade be protected. Even if the US were to sink into the ocean I could see the UN raising a fleet to ensure shipping was protected from piracy and harassment the next day.

legitster 3y ago
But we are already seeing huge trade disruptions in the Gulf and the Black Sea and the UN is not even close to doing anything about it. > It's in pretty much everyone's interest that world trade be protected. That's not necessarily true. There are prominent exemptions - Russia, India, the US, and Iran, among others.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  Huge disruptions? Really? If we're seeing 'huge' disruptions, you'd think the world would care enough to do something about it no? Why is it always our responsibility?