3 ms·

The end of the US hegemony and the unstable regime in the US makes decoupling the best strategy.

kulahan 1mo ago
Does anyone in power anywhere actually think China has finally overtaken the US hegemony? Or are we pretending someone else might somehow hold that position?
- bergen 1mo ago
  China is making trade deals and integration left and right and even Canada and Mexico are looking in other directions and cooperate more closely with china and eu. Maybe not a single power has to hold power
  - kulahan 1mo ago
    Even Canada and Mexico aren't stupid enough to align with China, and if you think a power vacuum will simply exist and remain in balance in perpetuity, I've got a bridge to sell you. If you're just talking about the relatively brief period before it's clear who will emerge as the default hegemony, I don't really care about that period and am discussing after.
    - bergen 28d ago
      Nothing says a hegemony has to form, this is not a given. Power vacuums can be filled by different actors at once.
- grey-area 1mo ago
  The end of hegemony isn’t usually immediately followed by the appointment of a new leader, usually it means fragmented power and war. Yes, China is a likely eventual successor and in some parts is the world has replaced the US in being the influential superpower.
  - kulahan 1mo ago
    Nobody appointed the US leader of the world, what are you talking about? It's just a matter of "whoever is most powerful and influential". There's no war needed, and the US never conquered the planet. I'm not doubting that China is the likely eventual successor, I'm doubting that they can succeed anything at this particular point in time. Nobody wants China in charge. It would make any issues experienced with the US in charge like a joke. Maybe once their dictator dies?
- kergonath 1mo ago
  > Does anyone in power anywhere actually think China has finally overtaken the US hegemony? No, not really. For now we are headed towards a multipolar world rather than a hegemony.
- somenameforme 1mo ago
  China has historically been the most powerful nation in the world multiple times, but always remained relatively inward looking, while acting as more of a merchant towards the rest of the world. I don't see any reason to think that will substantially change. So the most likely scenario is we end up, and arguably are already in, a truly multipolar world where no individual nation is the hegemon.
  - Lio 1mo ago
    I think it will change. China is currently trying to take control of the whole South China Sea. They’re in a cold war with the Philippines and Vietnam. Next it will go for Taiwan. Then either Siberian or Indian territory with the same “these used to be ours” justifications. At the same time I think will use shadow fleets to take as much fish stocks from around the world as it can. Not acting yet is not the same as not being expansionist. With all that “we’ll smash your head on the concrete” rhetoric China’s wolf warriors are very clear on where they’re headed.
  - kulahan 1mo ago
    Everyone is just gonna stop trying to acquire influence for some reason...? Or do you just think that, for some reason, this would now magically balance itself out any time any world leader thinks "wow that's a huge vacuum that needs filling!"
    - somenameforme 1mo ago
      Empires expand when the benefit exceeds the cost. The US is currently doing quite poorly against Iran. The US military is not incompetent, nor is the Iranian army supercompetent, so why? It's technology. The traditional way the US invaded countries was by assassinating the leadership, gaining air superiority, and then basically playing shoot fish in a barrel. Iran, and likely all major US adversaries now, were/are fully prepared for the US assassinations. And gaining full air superiority is no longer possible in the era of drones, because you're no longer shooting down a small number of high value targets (like planes), but instead a practically infinite amount of low value targets that can be readily replenished. Spending interceptors that cost millions of dollars to shoot down drones that cost thousands of dollars just doesn't work. We might be able to obtain air superiority in terms of e.g. Iran being unable to fly fighter jets over their own country, but that says nothing about their ability to launch endless drones and otherwise inflict a severe toll on any invading army. So it's likely that modern war has mostly gone back to times long since past where the bottleneck is no longer cost in $$, but cost in lives. And that makes militarism far less attractive for every single country, even moreso in the era of plummeting fertility rates when the people who are going to be killed are precisely those who are supposed to be birthing and raising your next generation. So there will certainly be wars when nations see the benefit as being especially high, but I think the idea of trying to casually 'project strength' half way around the globe is probably already dead. The cost is too high, and the benefit too low.
- expedition32 1mo ago
  Europe-China trade has already overtaken the US. If only you knew how bad things really are... As for hegemony? Well the Chinese actually don't want to be world police.
mdp2021 1mo ago
> unstable Well. Not sure. Untrustable system, maybe. (The whole chain that brought to this stage is improper - and the damaging factors are still active.) -- Edit: Again. First, that the current regime in the usa would be unstable is an idea to be justified. Especially given the efforts made before the 2024 elections already to plan its stabilization. Then, from a system engineering perspective, the political system in the usa remains broken by design. See the 2000 elections as a strong demonstration. Then, if there have been progress to fix the issues, show it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49573845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49573845
- grey-area 1mo ago
  You’re not sure that Trump is unstable?
  - mdp2021 1mo ago
    I take it that you are joking ;) I am not sure that the regime they have created will disappear with their fronter.
    - grey-area 1mo ago
      Oh I see. Well these do seem like end times for US democracy, very similar to the fall of Rome. So yes the problems are broader than Trump and probably won’t end with him, but he is the most dangerous character so far and I’m entirely unsurprised that other countries are disengaging As we’ve seen from the violated norms so far and the attack on the capital building, it would not be a big step to dictatorship disguised as firm leadership in time of war or civil disturbance.

Does anyone in power anywhere actually think China has finally overtaken the US hegemony? Or are we pretending someone else might somehow hold that position?

bergen 1mo ago
China is making trade deals and integration left and right and even Canada and Mexico are looking in other directions and cooperate more closely with china and eu. Maybe not a single power has to hold power
- kulahan 1mo ago
  Even Canada and Mexico aren't stupid enough to align with China, and if you think a power vacuum will simply exist and remain in balance in perpetuity, I've got a bridge to sell you. If you're just talking about the relatively brief period before it's clear who will emerge as the default hegemony, I don't really care about that period and am discussing after.
  - bergen 28d ago
    Nothing says a hegemony has to form, this is not a given. Power vacuums can be filled by different actors at once.
grey-area 1mo ago
The end of hegemony isn’t usually immediately followed by the appointment of a new leader, usually it means fragmented power and war. Yes, China is a likely eventual successor and in some parts is the world has replaced the US in being the influential superpower.
- kulahan 1mo ago
  Nobody appointed the US leader of the world, what are you talking about? It's just a matter of "whoever is most powerful and influential". There's no war needed, and the US never conquered the planet. I'm not doubting that China is the likely eventual successor, I'm doubting that they can succeed anything at this particular point in time. Nobody wants China in charge. It would make any issues experienced with the US in charge like a joke. Maybe once their dictator dies?
kergonath 1mo ago
> Does anyone in power anywhere actually think China has finally overtaken the US hegemony? No, not really. For now we are headed towards a multipolar world rather than a hegemony.
somenameforme 1mo ago
China has historically been the most powerful nation in the world multiple times, but always remained relatively inward looking, while acting as more of a merchant towards the rest of the world. I don't see any reason to think that will substantially change. So the most likely scenario is we end up, and arguably are already in, a truly multipolar world where no individual nation is the hegemon.
- Lio 1mo ago
  I think it will change. China is currently trying to take control of the whole South China Sea. They’re in a cold war with the Philippines and Vietnam. Next it will go for Taiwan. Then either Siberian or Indian territory with the same “these used to be ours” justifications. At the same time I think will use shadow fleets to take as much fish stocks from around the world as it can. Not acting yet is not the same as not being expansionist. With all that “we’ll smash your head on the concrete” rhetoric China’s wolf warriors are very clear on where they’re headed.
- kulahan 1mo ago
  Everyone is just gonna stop trying to acquire influence for some reason...? Or do you just think that, for some reason, this would now magically balance itself out any time any world leader thinks "wow that's a huge vacuum that needs filling!"
  - somenameforme 1mo ago
    Empires expand when the benefit exceeds the cost. The US is currently doing quite poorly against Iran. The US military is not incompetent, nor is the Iranian army supercompetent, so why? It's technology. The traditional way the US invaded countries was by assassinating the leadership, gaining air superiority, and then basically playing shoot fish in a barrel. Iran, and likely all major US adversaries now, were/are fully prepared for the US assassinations. And gaining full air superiority is no longer possible in the era of drones, because you're no longer shooting down a small number of high value targets (like planes), but instead a practically infinite amount of low value targets that can be readily replenished. Spending interceptors that cost millions of dollars to shoot down drones that cost thousands of dollars just doesn't work. We might be able to obtain air superiority in terms of e.g. Iran being unable to fly fighter jets over their own country, but that says nothing about their ability to launch endless drones and otherwise inflict a severe toll on any invading army. So it's likely that modern war has mostly gone back to times long since past where the bottleneck is no longer cost in $$, but cost in lives. And that makes militarism far less attractive for every single country, even moreso in the era of plummeting fertility rates when the people who are going to be killed are precisely those who are supposed to be birthing and raising your next generation. So there will certainly be wars when nations see the benefit as being especially high, but I think the idea of trying to casually 'project strength' half way around the globe is probably already dead. The cost is too high, and the benefit too low.
expedition32 1mo ago
Europe-China trade has already overtaken the US. If only you knew how bad things really are... As for hegemony? Well the Chinese actually don't want to be world police.

mdp2021 1mo ago

> unstable Well. Not sure. Untrustable system, maybe. (The whole chain that brought to this stage is improper - and the damaging factors are still active.) -- Edit: Again. First, that the current regime in the usa would be unstable is an idea to be justified. Especially given the efforts made before the 2024 elections already to plan its stabilization. Then, from a system engineering perspective, the political system in the usa remains broken by design. See the 2000 elections as a strong demonstration. Then, if there have been progress to fix the issues, show it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49573845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49573845

grey-area 1mo ago
You’re not sure that Trump is unstable?
- mdp2021 1mo ago
  I take it that you are joking ;) I am not sure that the regime they have created will disappear with their fronter.
  - grey-area 1mo ago
    Oh I see. Well these do seem like end times for US democracy, very similar to the fall of Rome. So yes the problems are broader than Trump and probably won’t end with him, but he is the most dangerous character so far and I’m entirely unsurprised that other countries are disengaging As we’ve seen from the violated norms so far and the attack on the capital building, it would not be a big step to dictatorship disguised as firm leadership in time of war or civil disturbance.