7 ms·

Why the decline of US power has been greatly exaggerated

21 points by hackandthink 3y ago

hunglee2 3y ago
"It is the US that asserts a policy of isolation and punishment of China, not vice versa. So long as the US is maintaining a “defense perimeter” in the East and South China Seas that extends to a few kilometres from mainland China, it is not dealing with a peer, it is threatening a recalcitrant" Perfectly put. US is hegemon and has been since end of WWII when all competing powers, including those in the victorious side, were so grievously damaged that US became the only country capable of refinancing and rebuilding the rest of the world. US is in decline only in relative terms, as China and India rise from grinding poverty to something like middle income
- refurb 3y ago
  > So long as the US is maintaining a “defense perimeter” in the East and South China Seas that extends to a few kilometres from mainland China, it is not dealing with a peer, it is threatening a recalcitrant The US isn't maintaining a defense perimeter for the sake of it. it does so in partnership with nations from Australia all the way up to Japan.
JCharante 3y ago
Okay, but as a citizen I don't care about our military might. I want affordable housing. Affordable healthcare. High speed rail. Better zoning laws. New subway lines. Other countries with less military power have that, why can't we?
- EduardoBautista 3y ago
  I can’t name a single country that has all of the items you mentioned at the same time. Especially affordable housing.
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    Austria, for one.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Austria strongly relies on the fact that it is located in a "safe" region, where none of its neighbours is likely to ever attack it. Austrian military expenses are very meager.
      - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
        Aren't the US in a safe region as well? They choose to spend a lot in military to project their force globally, not because they need to protect themselves.
        devilbunny 3y ago
        Withdraw the US Navy and watch how fast that evaporates. Someone has to, or you get piracy. A lot of it. And I don’t mean movies. We have the most to lose from impaired trade, so we pay for it. We have floating airbases all over the world. As Madeleine Albright said to the president of China, “Jiang Zemin, one of my favorite men, but when you’re not so sweet, I send the Seventh Fleet.” Nukes mean that no nation-state will attack us openly. The Navy means that fucking with the US is a personal death sentence.
        pastacacioepepe 3y ago
        I wonder why do you have the perception that half the world would attack the US if they didn't have the largest military force. Why doesn't that happen to Austria, for example, or China? Perhaps "fucking" with the world is what caused the US to be considered an enemy by so many countries. Almost like the more they impose their force globally, the more other countries feel the need to resist it.
        3y ago
- raccoonDivider 3y ago
  Because these countries rely on the US military for protection? All the EU does against Russia. Japan and south-east Asian countries do against China. Look up how underfunded Germany’s Bundeswehr has been these past few years, how France’s push to build up European defenses is going, how Eastern European countries rely on NATO. When you get defense for “free” from an overstretched US military, you obviously have more budget to develop your own country.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Unfortunately you are right and here in Central Europe, Putin's invasion of Ukraine caused a lot of anguish. At least initially, plenty of people were afraid that he is going to steamroll Ukraine, and then continue towards the Baltic/Poland, in order to restore the entire imperial zone of influence of the former USSR, or at least as much of it as practical (so, without the former GDR, probably; with AfD in his pocket, he could gain a lot of soft power there anyway). In that case, if the US decided that they don't really care about a potential nuclear war for the sake of some distant Eastern European countries, we would be caught with our pants down. Only Poland was somewhat prepared. Many European countries grew fatter and lazier under the American defense umbrella. It was easier to stuff money into popular projects than into guns and soldiers. Only, it turns out, sometimes you really need those guns and soldiers even in the 21st century. "Si vis pacem, para bellum."
    - ttyprintk 3y ago
      Another HN post puts this in terms of civilian casualties: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579988 The average people in powerful democracies have a responsibility to avoid the circumstances which historically have led to mass civilian casualties. For USA, the toll of nuclear strikes is an approachable example. Other great powers have a worse record in avoiding malicious mass suffering. The part relevant to your comment is that the US military now needs to prevent war rather than excel at it. And it has chosen to look as formidable as possible to rational enemies. I think Europe agrees with this, but I don’t know if there are other ways.
  - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kalleboo 3y ago
  Because your population isn't electing a government that is working toward that.
  - JCharante 3y ago
    Yup. I think the US will suffer brain drain as skilled professionals realize they can move abroad for a better QOL. I'm not talking about FIRE in Thailand but moving to a Western European country or East Asian country where there is lots of developed infrastructure and expat groups (e.g. immigrant communities)
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      That is nowhere near happening yet. The USA still benefits from brain drain from those countries to the USA for some reason. Denmark, for example, just produces too many computer scientists to utilize locally, so lots of them wind up in the US.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  [flagged]
fleshfly 3y ago
[dead]
Phoenix12052023 3y ago
The problem is not raw American power, it is continuous gross mismanagement. That's what a lot of Americans are so fundamentally irritated about.
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  I’m not sure about that. If I were a single-issue voter it would be on the potential for competence, and I see myself as a vanishing minority. For example, going into the 2016 election, more Americans claimed to value honesty highest among the qualities of candidates. That did not signal to the future President what trait he should pursue to gain support for re-election. He stood to claim credit for winning a War on Coronavirus by following career policy people (the safest thing, rely on their competence), but chose to vilify them instead. I know CEOs, and none would have been so incompetent. When it comes to the legislative branch, the way it apparently works is: the process of forming regulations bestows congresspeople with insider-trading knowledge. Some congresspeople choose to believe wingnut lobbyists whose industries depend on subsidies, and then privately hedge. Others take the regulatory lessons back to their district and essentially spread the insider-trading knowledge around. This is their only job —- they don’t make “hard choices” —- yet Americans choose ten qualities before competence.

21 points by hackandthink 3y ago

"It is the US that asserts a policy of isolation and punishment of China, not vice versa. So long as the US is maintaining a “defense perimeter” in the East and South China Seas that extends to a few kilometres from mainland China, it is not dealing with a peer, it is threatening a recalcitrant" Perfectly put. US is hegemon and has been since end of WWII when all competing powers, including those in the victorious side, were so grievously damaged that US became the only country capable of refinancing and rebuilding the rest of the world. US is in decline only in relative terms, as China and India rise from grinding poverty to something like middle income

refurb 3y ago
> So long as the US is maintaining a “defense perimeter” in the East and South China Seas that extends to a few kilometres from mainland China, it is not dealing with a peer, it is threatening a recalcitrant The US isn't maintaining a defense perimeter for the sake of it. it does so in partnership with nations from Australia all the way up to Japan.

JCharante 3y ago

Okay, but as a citizen I don't care about our military might. I want affordable housing. Affordable healthcare. High speed rail. Better zoning laws. New subway lines. Other countries with less military power have that, why can't we?

EduardoBautista 3y ago
I can’t name a single country that has all of the items you mentioned at the same time. Especially affordable housing.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  Austria, for one.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Austria strongly relies on the fact that it is located in a "safe" region, where none of its neighbours is likely to ever attack it. Austrian military expenses are very meager.
    - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
      Aren't the US in a safe region as well? They choose to spend a lot in military to project their force globally, not because they need to protect themselves.
      - devilbunny 3y ago
        Withdraw the US Navy and watch how fast that evaporates. Someone has to, or you get piracy. A lot of it. And I don’t mean movies. We have the most to lose from impaired trade, so we pay for it. We have floating airbases all over the world. As Madeleine Albright said to the president of China, “Jiang Zemin, one of my favorite men, but when you’re not so sweet, I send the Seventh Fleet.” Nukes mean that no nation-state will attack us openly. The Navy means that fucking with the US is a personal death sentence.
        pastacacioepepe 3y ago
        I wonder why do you have the perception that half the world would attack the US if they didn't have the largest military force. Why doesn't that happen to Austria, for example, or China? Perhaps "fucking" with the world is what caused the US to be considered an enemy by so many countries. Almost like the more they impose their force globally, the more other countries feel the need to resist it.
        3y ago
raccoonDivider 3y ago
Because these countries rely on the US military for protection? All the EU does against Russia. Japan and south-east Asian countries do against China. Look up how underfunded Germany’s Bundeswehr has been these past few years, how France’s push to build up European defenses is going, how Eastern European countries rely on NATO. When you get defense for “free” from an overstretched US military, you obviously have more budget to develop your own country.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Unfortunately you are right and here in Central Europe, Putin's invasion of Ukraine caused a lot of anguish. At least initially, plenty of people were afraid that he is going to steamroll Ukraine, and then continue towards the Baltic/Poland, in order to restore the entire imperial zone of influence of the former USSR, or at least as much of it as practical (so, without the former GDR, probably; with AfD in his pocket, he could gain a lot of soft power there anyway). In that case, if the US decided that they don't really care about a potential nuclear war for the sake of some distant Eastern European countries, we would be caught with our pants down. Only Poland was somewhat prepared. Many European countries grew fatter and lazier under the American defense umbrella. It was easier to stuff money into popular projects than into guns and soldiers. Only, it turns out, sometimes you really need those guns and soldiers even in the 21st century. "Si vis pacem, para bellum."
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    Another HN post puts this in terms of civilian casualties: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579988 The average people in powerful democracies have a responsibility to avoid the circumstances which historically have led to mass civilian casualties. For USA, the toll of nuclear strikes is an approachable example. Other great powers have a worse record in avoiding malicious mass suffering. The part relevant to your comment is that the US military now needs to prevent war rather than excel at it. And it has chosen to look as formidable as possible to rational enemies. I think Europe agrees with this, but I don’t know if there are other ways.
- 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kalleboo 3y ago
Because your population isn't electing a government that is working toward that.
- JCharante 3y ago
  Yup. I think the US will suffer brain drain as skilled professionals realize they can move abroad for a better QOL. I'm not talking about FIRE in Thailand but moving to a Western European country or East Asian country where there is lots of developed infrastructure and expat groups (e.g. immigrant communities)
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    That is nowhere near happening yet. The USA still benefits from brain drain from those countries to the USA for some reason. Denmark, for example, just produces too many computer scientists to utilize locally, so lots of them wind up in the US.
Log_out_ 3y ago
[flagged]

fleshfly 3y ago

[dead]

Phoenix12052023 3y ago

The problem is not raw American power, it is continuous gross mismanagement. That's what a lot of Americans are so fundamentally irritated about.

ttyprintk 3y ago
I’m not sure about that. If I were a single-issue voter it would be on the potential for competence, and I see myself as a vanishing minority. For example, going into the 2016 election, more Americans claimed to value honesty highest among the qualities of candidates. That did not signal to the future President what trait he should pursue to gain support for re-election. He stood to claim credit for winning a War on Coronavirus by following career policy people (the safest thing, rely on their competence), but chose to vilify them instead. I know CEOs, and none would have been so incompetent. When it comes to the legislative branch, the way it apparently works is: the process of forming regulations bestows congresspeople with insider-trading knowledge. Some congresspeople choose to believe wingnut lobbyists whose industries depend on subsidies, and then privately hedge. Others take the regulatory lessons back to their district and essentially spread the insider-trading knowledge around. This is their only job —- they don’t make “hard choices” —- yet Americans choose ten qualities before competence.