3 ms·

> The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries. After WWII there were only two great powers left. Now there's one. It has nothing t

by maratd 12y ago

> The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries. After WWII there were only two great powers left. Now there's one. It has nothing to do with appetite. The military budget of the US dwarfs the other countries. It would be suicidal to start a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in. Welcome to Pax Americana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

jacquesm 12y ago
That's a very limited view of the world. The military budget of the US may dwarf that of the other countries but as Iraq has shown it is easier to start a war than to finish it on terms that you like. By all counts that matter (except the bank accounts of the profiteers) that war was a disaster. Right now there are many 'great powers' simply because power is a function of distance from its source. The US is able to project its power across the globe but would have a very hard time taking on Russia, China or even North Korea or Iran on their own or neighbouring soil. Power is (very much) limited by distance. So even if starting a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in may be folly several such wars at the same time could easily overwhelm the capacity available. The safe bet seems to be to only wage war where there is no oil in the ground, then you can do almost whatever you please.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
pbz 12y ago
When taking nukes into consideration, how much one spends for the rest of the army is irrelevant. Several countries have enough to destroy the entire planet.
dragontamer 12y ago
Historically though, the great power would have declared imperialism and began conquering the world at this point. (Mongols, Romans, Alexander the Great, Babylonians, Assyrians... etc. etc.) It is historically very unusual for a great power to care so much about how others think of them. Part of it is Hollywood. The US naively wants to be loved. A major component of the misguided Iraqi War was that we'd be loved by the Iraqis once we toppled Saddam. Outside of Pax Romana, I don't think any of the other great eras of peace were characterized by this "loved by the lesser barbarians" attitude. Instead, they were characterized by massive armies conquering the world with an iron fist. This was of course a seriously misguided concept. But believe me, the naivete of the Bush Administration has been recorded, and the US seems to have learned its lesson... for now anyway.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > for now anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-2016_n_6340244.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-2016_n_634...
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  How many countries has Obama had bombed at this point? (hint: it's a bunch).
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    How many people did Ghengis Khan literally enslave and then raped by his 6th year in tenure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia_and_Eastern_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia_a... As usual, the artisans were sent back to Mongolia, young women and children were given to the Mongol soldiers as slaves, and the rest of the population was massacred. A lot more than Obama... I'm sure. I'm talking about historical norms here. In the great eras of single-power world dominance (US, British, Spanish, Romans, Mongolians, Chinese, Babylonian, etc. etc.), the US, the British, and the Romans were the most peaceful, in approximately that order. US wins vs Brits because we aren't using Gatling guns against spearmen and conquering entire continents (erm... anymore). If you disagree, name me a great period of single-power dominance and I'll offer a counter-example.
    - zanny 12y ago
      It is about reward structure. Ghengis Khan had gold and fortune to pillage from all the nations he conquered. He forced his ideals upon others but his will was absolute and his moral compass never involved giving a shit about those you crush in battle. The US is still somewhat run by people - a lot of work has gone into dismantling legitimate democracy in America, but fundamentally I doubt even in the gerrymandered guaranteed seat no choice electorate system the US has today, that the people would idly allow the American military to pillage nations around the globe for gold and jewels. At least, they could not do it as fast as Ghengis did. I do understand a lot of looting happened in Iraq / Afghanistan and in a large part the motivations to go to war there were over possessions of a different kind.

by maratd 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

That's a very limited view of the world. The military budget of the US may dwarf that of the other countries but as Iraq has shown it is easier to start a war than to finish it on terms that you like. By all counts that matter (except the bank accounts of the profiteers) that war was a disaster. Right now there are many 'great powers' simply because power is a function of distance from its source. The US is able to project its power across the globe but would have a very hard time taking on Russia, China or even North Korea or Iran on their own or neighbouring soil. Power is (very much) limited by distance. So even if starting a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in may be folly several such wars at the same time could easily overwhelm the capacity available. The safe bet seems to be to only wage war where there is no oil in the ground, then you can do almost whatever you please.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pbz 12y ago

When taking nukes into consideration, how much one spends for the rest of the army is irrelevant. Several countries have enough to destroy the entire planet.

dragontamer 12y ago

Historically though, the great power would have declared imperialism and began conquering the world at this point. (Mongols, Romans, Alexander the Great, Babylonians, Assyrians... etc. etc.) It is historically very unusual for a great power to care so much about how others think of them. Part of it is Hollywood. The US naively wants to be loved. A major component of the misguided Iraqi War was that we'd be loved by the Iraqis once we toppled Saddam. Outside of Pax Romana, I don't think any of the other great eras of peace were characterized by this "loved by the lesser barbarians" attitude. Instead, they were characterized by massive armies conquering the world with an iron fist. This was of course a seriously misguided concept. But believe me, the naivete of the Bush Administration has been recorded, and the US seems to have learned its lesson... for now anyway.

jacquesm 12y ago
> for now anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-2016_n_6340244.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-2016_n_634...
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
How many countries has Obama had bombed at this point? (hint: it's a bunch).
- dragontamer 12y ago
  How many people did Ghengis Khan literally enslave and then raped by his 6th year in tenure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia_and_Eastern_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia_a... As usual, the artisans were sent back to Mongolia, young women and children were given to the Mongol soldiers as slaves, and the rest of the population was massacred. A lot more than Obama... I'm sure. I'm talking about historical norms here. In the great eras of single-power world dominance (US, British, Spanish, Romans, Mongolians, Chinese, Babylonian, etc. etc.), the US, the British, and the Romans were the most peaceful, in approximately that order. US wins vs Brits because we aren't using Gatling guns against spearmen and conquering entire continents (erm... anymore). If you disagree, name me a great period of single-power dominance and I'll offer a counter-example.
  - zanny 12y ago
    It is about reward structure. Ghengis Khan had gold and fortune to pillage from all the nations he conquered. He forced his ideals upon others but his will was absolute and his moral compass never involved giving a shit about those you crush in battle. The US is still somewhat run by people - a lot of work has gone into dismantling legitimate democracy in America, but fundamentally I doubt even in the gerrymandered guaranteed seat no choice electorate system the US has today, that the people would idly allow the American military to pillage nations around the globe for gold and jewels. At least, they could not do it as fast as Ghengis did. I do understand a lot of looting happened in Iraq / Afghanistan and in a large part the motivations to go to war there were over possessions of a different kind.