5 ms·

It’s a flawed question. The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution. Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII. It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to assert their spheres of influence.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
  Humans rejected that and now we’re headed into a global ochlocracy Hope you folks are ready (you’re not)
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > Hope you folks are ready (you’re not) I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Revoking Pax Americana (and the rules-based international order it was built on, aspirational as it may have often been) just means our elites can go back to 19th-century rules.
    - AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
      …Which will kick off a new set of revolutions worldwide where small groups of well armed people can compete with state on a more equal footing
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > where small groups of well armed people can compete with state on a more equal footing Yes. This is happening in Sudan, the DRC, Burma, Yemen, Nicaragua, et cetera. It entertains some people from afar, but is generally a miserable state of affairs for the people on the ground.
        AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
        It’s not bad enough yet for anyone to make any meaningful change apparently
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      > I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Two years ago, I would have agreed. Today? Given what Trump is doing? Kicking out military personal for being trans, his poor choice for (not only but in this topic specifically) Defence Secretary, his demand to redesign stealth warships because he won't accept the un-"aesthetic" look is driven by functional requirements, demanding a return of battleships this time with a railgun (to go with the lasers)? I think there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military. Well, I say "risk": I'm European, so for me it's a good thing if the person who is trying to break up my home is more interested in flashy demos than functional weapons.
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military Totally agree. That said, Russia's military is a joke. It's still more than capable of making messes. Messes which were once constrained by the rules-based international order.
idiotsecant 10mo ago
Oh, so you figured out a way to make people not be terrible. Awesome. How's that work?
- AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
  Just need to make everyone have to look into the black mirror

> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution. Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII. It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to assert their spheres of influence.

AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
Humans rejected that and now we’re headed into a global ochlocracy Hope you folks are ready (you’re not)
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Hope you folks are ready (you’re not) I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Revoking Pax Americana (and the rules-based international order it was built on, aspirational as it may have often been) just means our elites can go back to 19th-century rules.
  - AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
    …Which will kick off a new set of revolutions worldwide where small groups of well armed people can compete with state on a more equal footing
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > where small groups of well armed people can compete with state on a more equal footing Yes. This is happening in Sudan, the DRC, Burma, Yemen, Nicaragua, et cetera. It entertains some people from afar, but is generally a miserable state of affairs for the people on the ground.
      - AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
        It’s not bad enough yet for anyone to make any meaningful change apparently
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Two years ago, I would have agreed. Today? Given what Trump is doing? Kicking out military personal for being trans, his poor choice for (not only but in this topic specifically) Defence Secretary, his demand to redesign stealth warships because he won't accept the un-"aesthetic" look is driven by functional requirements, demanding a return of battleships this time with a railgun (to go with the lasers)? I think there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military. Well, I say "risk": I'm European, so for me it's a good thing if the person who is trying to break up my home is more interested in flashy demos than functional weapons.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military Totally agree. That said, Russia's military is a joke. It's still more than capable of making messes. Messes which were once constrained by the rules-based international order.

idiotsecant 10mo ago

Oh, so you figured out a way to make people not be terrible. Awesome. How's that work?

AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
Just need to make everyone have to look into the black mirror