5 ms·

The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: there are

The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: there are some cogent arguments that the lengthy peace enjoyed in Europe since WWII has been largely due to the constantly present American military force and economic hegemony. Countries in Europe and Asia are willing to stomach U.S. presence because the U.S. has not been an imperial power since Palau in 1947 (and, excluding Liberia circa 1840-something, it has never had a mainland colony). It's obvious that the U.S. will never try to wrest sovereignty from a stable Western-style representative government, so countries are willing to let the U.S. solve the so-called "Security Dilemma" for them. If this means giving them effective veto power over U.N. resolutions for such time as they retain a military hegemony, so be it. There are a lot of benefits to having a hegemon in power, and as Empires go, the American Empire is relatively benign unless you think that American cultural influence will destroy the world or something.

saraid216 14y ago
> The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Um. This isn't true according to an Economist article I'm having trouble finding. Switching over to Wikipedia, China has the largest active military by a good 8.3 million troops; you'd have to find some explanation that can convincingly say that America has more power by another measure. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
- majorlazer 14y ago
  I think you meant 830k (not 8.3M) troops. Military size is only a small factor when comparing world super powers. Going by that Wikipedia list, North Korea's military isn't too far from the US military. But we all know how that war would go.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Yeah, sorry about that. I was pretty tired last night.
accountswu 14y ago
>It's obvious that the U.S. will never try to wrest sovereignty from a stable Western-style representative government, so countries are willing to let the U.S. solve the so-called "Security Dilemma" for them. You must be kidding! Do you not know about the dozens of civilian leaders elected by majority of the citizens which the US assassinated or kidnapped to install a puppet client dictator? You mean when we had to destroy the villages in order to save them? Here is a tiny snapshot from the list of coups by US against popular elected leaders of the world: https://www.google.com/webhp?q=We%20had%20to%20destroy%20the%20village%20in%20order%20to%20save%20it https://www.google.com/webhp?q=We%20had%20to%20destroy%20the... https://www.google.com/search?q=1953+iran+coup+cia+mi6 https://www.google.com/search?q=1953+iran+coup+cia+mi6 (a brutal puppet dictator King Raza Shah Pehlvi was installed in 1953, the Iranians overthrew the tyrant in 1979 and they have been under sanctions since then, Saddam was given weapons in 1980s to kill the Iranians, i.e. before Iraq was the target of sanctions in 1990s) https://www.google.com/search?q=1954+guatemala+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1954+guatemala+coup+cia Remember when Vietnam was denied the right to democracy and instead 4 million Vietnamese bombed and killed, to solve their "security dilemma?" 1954 Dwight Eisenhower: "80% of the population in Vietnam would have voted for the Communist "Ho Chi Minh" over the Emperor Bảo Đại" https://www.google.com/search?q=1955-1973+Cambodia+laos+bombing https://www.google.com/search?q=1955-1973+Cambodia+laos+bomb... <--roughly half million peasants killed to solve the "security dilemma" https://www.google.com/search?q=1960+patrice+lumumba+assassination+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1960+patrice+lumumba+assassi... <-- first elected President of Congo https://www.google.com/search?q=1962+guyana+riots+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1962+guyana+riots+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1964+brazil+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1964+brazil+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1973+chile+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1973+chile+coup+cia <-- that was 9/11/1973 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ "Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)" Just imagine someone saying, "3000 American civilians died on 9/11/01 but the cost was worth it." When it's half a million brown / non-European white kids the cost was definitely worth it.

saraid216 14y ago

> The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Um. This isn't true according to an Economist article I'm having trouble finding. Switching over to Wikipedia, China has the largest active military by a good 8.3 million troops; you'd have to find some explanation that can convincingly say that America has more power by another measure. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

majorlazer 14y ago
I think you meant 830k (not 8.3M) troops. Military size is only a small factor when comparing world super powers. Going by that Wikipedia list, North Korea's military isn't too far from the US military. But we all know how that war would go.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Yeah, sorry about that. I was pretty tired last night.

accountswu 14y ago

>It's obvious that the U.S. will never try to wrest sovereignty from a stable Western-style representative government, so countries are willing to let the U.S. solve the so-called "Security Dilemma" for them. You must be kidding! Do you not know about the dozens of civilian leaders elected by majority of the citizens which the US assassinated or kidnapped to install a puppet client dictator? You mean when we had to destroy the villages in order to save them? Here is a tiny snapshot from the list of coups by US against popular elected leaders of the world: https://www.google.com/webhp?q=We%20had%20to%20destroy%20the%20village%20in%20order%20to%20save%20it https://www.google.com/webhp?q=We%20had%20to%20destroy%20the... https://www.google.com/search?q=1953+iran+coup+cia+mi6 https://www.google.com/search?q=1953+iran+coup+cia+mi6 (a brutal puppet dictator King Raza Shah Pehlvi was installed in 1953, the Iranians overthrew the tyrant in 1979 and they have been under sanctions since then, Saddam was given weapons in 1980s to kill the Iranians, i.e. before Iraq was the target of sanctions in 1990s) https://www.google.com/search?q=1954+guatemala+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1954+guatemala+coup+cia Remember when Vietnam was denied the right to democracy and instead 4 million Vietnamese bombed and killed, to solve their "security dilemma?" 1954 Dwight Eisenhower: "80% of the population in Vietnam would have voted for the Communist "Ho Chi Minh" over the Emperor Bảo Đại" https://www.google.com/search?q=1955-1973+Cambodia+laos+bombing https://www.google.com/search?q=1955-1973+Cambodia+laos+bomb... <--roughly half million peasants killed to solve the "security dilemma" https://www.google.com/search?q=1960+patrice+lumumba+assassination+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1960+patrice+lumumba+assassi... <-- first elected President of Congo https://www.google.com/search?q=1962+guyana+riots+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1962+guyana+riots+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1964+brazil+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1964+brazil+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1973+chile+coup+cia https://www.google.com/search?q=1973+chile+coup+cia <-- that was 9/11/1973 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ "Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)" Just imagine someone saying, "3000 American civilians died on 9/11/01 but the cost was worth it." When it's half a million brown / non-European white kids the cost was definitely worth it.