4 ms·

A better question is why America became a super-power in the first place? I think many of the assumptions of American exceptionalism are not root causes, as th

A better question is why America became a super-power in the first place? I think many of the assumptions of American exceptionalism are not root causes, as the majority of the reasons for why America, and the west in general, have risen to global domination are embedded in, how should I put it, conflict creation, and not conflict resolution. The west has benefited tremendously from the deliberate, and sometimes accidental ability to create conflict around the world, and gain profits from it including in China. This isn't some controversial claim, this is pure, and simple Nationalism, and enlightenment ideas of State. However as the industrial dregs settle down, and as Imperial might whimpers, we're seeing the rise of countries that were left destitute in the past 150-200 years, regaining a sense of internal stability. The result of this new founded stability around the world unfortunately, or fortunately, creates a new world where the center is other than the west. Already India, and China are talking about a polycentric world that activity eschews the hegemony of the west, in favor for a more equal world, because let's face it the west is the 1%. Even if we deny all that it would be very difficult to refute that America has in the past 100 years been an incredibly stable nation compared to the entire world, and coupled with an active participation in global economies. It was perhaps the only nation on the planet that was internally stable, and had a strong external presence. All other nations eventually declined, had internal struggles, or were just emerging as global economies. This alone gave America an unprecedented advantage over the last 100 years, and that advantage is slowly becoming meaningless as the entire globe is stabilizing.

thatsjustcrazy 12y ago
These are good points but I would disagree specifically that other nations want "a more equal world". My take is that they want to wear the crown next, not share it.
- thevardanian 12y ago
  Well a more equal world is in the economic interests of those nation, because it will allow them far greater power than they currently have. However a multipolar world is not in favor of the US as it will mean that there's greater competition. Greater competition means that USA has decreased political capabilities, way less influence in geopolitical matters, and a decreased ability to "protect American interests", we can already see this happening to an extent. BRICs banding together amongst each other to create economic prosperity is the only means for these countries to increase their living standards, and so cooperation is incentivized. Competition is a zero sum game for these countries, and they know that. Here's an interesting article. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/in-rday-message-china-tells-india-dont-fall-into-trap-laid-by-us/article6823793.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/in-rday-mes...
Htsthbjig 12y ago
Conflict creation for profit is something inherent to humans, not the West alone. We are predators, we eat bunnies, and because bunnies don't kill us in return, we think that it is ok. For example, Spanish conquered South and Central America, but the people that lived there were not conflict free. In fact, if you compare Spanish with Mayans that will extract the heart out of their alive enemies, or their skin, Spanish were saints in comparison. Spanish used the help of subordinates Indians to remove the people in power. Let's not talk about China's History: it is probably as violent or more violent than the West's. For certain intrigues were way more sophisticated as central planning was way bigger. We can mention Shaka Zulu, or Muslims in Africa. The main difference was technology advancing so fast as to make non west people bunnies in comparison. Arrows against repetition rifles, or tanks and planes against horses.
- meric 12y ago
  China had only a few types of enemies prior to fighting Europeans - its historical rivals were never fully united and organised states. And it's not like China didn't embrace technology. They in fact did, and used guns and rifles to great effect against tribes in the northwest prior to European "harassment". The only technology they didn't foresee was the steamship, but there was no way to foresee that in the 1750's. It was in fact European organisation that made its military so superior to China's. With good leadership and training, Chinese weapons is sufficient to defeat European forces, sans steamship, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859). It was corruption and ineffective leadership and organisation that meant even when China had resource and technological edge, it would lose devastatingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) "The lack of training was a direct result of a serious lack of ammunition. Corruption seems also to have played a major role; many Chinese shells appear to have been filled with cement or porcelain, or were the wrong caliber and could not be fired. Philo McGiffin noted that many of the gunpowder charges were "thirteen years old and condemned."[2] What little ammunition was available was to be preserved for a real battle. Live ammunition training was rarely carried out." And of course, corruption and ineffective organisation are qualities that states will gain over time - the longer a state is in power the more corrupt it will become, until one day it collapses. Chinese technology is perfectly capable of defeating Europeans with superior technology in battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay The key as always is organisation and leadership. Technology means naught without it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

thatsjustcrazy 12y ago

These are good points but I would disagree specifically that other nations want "a more equal world". My take is that they want to wear the crown next, not share it.

thevardanian 12y ago
Well a more equal world is in the economic interests of those nation, because it will allow them far greater power than they currently have. However a multipolar world is not in favor of the US as it will mean that there's greater competition. Greater competition means that USA has decreased political capabilities, way less influence in geopolitical matters, and a decreased ability to "protect American interests", we can already see this happening to an extent. BRICs banding together amongst each other to create economic prosperity is the only means for these countries to increase their living standards, and so cooperation is incentivized. Competition is a zero sum game for these countries, and they know that. Here's an interesting article. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/in-rday-message-china-tells-india-dont-fall-into-trap-laid-by-us/article6823793.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/in-rday-mes...

Htsthbjig 12y ago

Conflict creation for profit is something inherent to humans, not the West alone. We are predators, we eat bunnies, and because bunnies don't kill us in return, we think that it is ok. For example, Spanish conquered South and Central America, but the people that lived there were not conflict free. In fact, if you compare Spanish with Mayans that will extract the heart out of their alive enemies, or their skin, Spanish were saints in comparison. Spanish used the help of subordinates Indians to remove the people in power. Let's not talk about China's History: it is probably as violent or more violent than the West's. For certain intrigues were way more sophisticated as central planning was way bigger. We can mention Shaka Zulu, or Muslims in Africa. The main difference was technology advancing so fast as to make non west people bunnies in comparison. Arrows against repetition rifles, or tanks and planes against horses.

meric 12y ago
China had only a few types of enemies prior to fighting Europeans - its historical rivals were never fully united and organised states. And it's not like China didn't embrace technology. They in fact did, and used guns and rifles to great effect against tribes in the northwest prior to European "harassment". The only technology they didn't foresee was the steamship, but there was no way to foresee that in the 1750's. It was in fact European organisation that made its military so superior to China's. With good leadership and training, Chinese weapons is sufficient to defeat European forces, sans steamship, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859). It was corruption and ineffective leadership and organisation that meant even when China had resource and technological edge, it would lose devastatingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) "The lack of training was a direct result of a serious lack of ammunition. Corruption seems also to have played a major role; many Chinese shells appear to have been filled with cement or porcelain, or were the wrong caliber and could not be fired. Philo McGiffin noted that many of the gunpowder charges were "thirteen years old and condemned."[2] What little ammunition was available was to be preserved for a real battle. Live ammunition training was rarely carried out." And of course, corruption and ineffective organisation are qualities that states will gain over time - the longer a state is in power the more corrupt it will become, until one day it collapses. Chinese technology is perfectly capable of defeating Europeans with superior technology in battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay The key as always is organisation and leadership. Technology means naught without it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]