6 ms·

Isn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has br

Isn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling new radar arrays, hybrid warships, autonomous drones, practical railguns, missile adhoc networks and intelligent interception, material science bringing in new stealth materials and body armor, satellite kill systems, not to mention advancements in electronic warfare. There is constant pressure on the US, because it is the second largest arms dealer around the world, to constantly build better military equipment. And there is constant pressure to do the same because the US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich. The Washington Consensus chose 25 years ago to continue the investment of military with a pivot in tactics and to uses its military might in tandem with 'soft power', financial leverage, social disruption, culture export, etc in an attempt to fix its success and the success of its allies with "minimal bloodshed" - but a form of colonialism nonetheless. It will continually sell off old equipment to aid in funding new research and development. The US is a world empire - and while this can be seen by looking at a map of military locale it is better seen as a Capitalistic one. It uses its host of leverage, import-export bank, 'structural adjustment programs', 'value sharing initiatives' and the like. The US's foreign policy is wrapped up intrinsically in providing energy security to the first world, which means constant interventionism in the Middle East. It also has a huge number of security and military obligations around the world - e.g. right now we're promised to go to nuclear war were there to be an attack on Latvia. The US has many reasons to be militaristic - its waning economic dominance but continued military commitments and global footprint, its obligations and its own incentives to fix its success during continued globalization. Military contractors feed this fire, yes. They benefit from it, yes. But it is not as simple as military contractors lobbying successfully.

tim333 12y ago
>US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started. The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.
- philwelch 12y ago
  The US military also effectively subsidizes the national defense of a large portion of the world, much of which we trade with. It's because of our treaty obligation to defend South Korea that, instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, they can afford to manufacture cell phones and cars and televisions and trade them to us. Likewise for Japan and the NATO members.
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    > instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, NK is so poor they can barely stay alive. I don't believe there could be any sort of meaningful arms race...
    - smcl 12y ago
      Agreed. When they have to assemble fake artillery out of logs + rocks, I think it's safe to say there's no arms race to speak of whatsoever: http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/fake-artillery.jpg http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/fake-artillery.jpg
    - adventured 12y ago
      You mean other than the problem where they have nuclear weapons (and of course S.Korea does not), are actively developing more powerful nuclear weapons? Besides that, who needs an arms race when you have enough artillery to kill millions of people in Seoul in the first inning of a war? North Korea doesn't need to be advanced to decimate South Korea, unfortunately.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      NK is starving because they're investing all their wealth into their army.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  For example she provides energy security for Europe (why is the UAE such good friends with us - do we benefit from this relationship?), she backs her commitments with military promises (she can and does negotiate treaties and agreements, even between other countries, that fix things in her favor), her dollar is trusted more because her military is stronger (this investment is crucial), she uses her military to enforce international trade rules that benefit her (more than just 'peace' but international law - but specific international law), her military gives her access to native areas in Latin America and the Pacific that are not hers (Guam, Chile, Phillipines, etc), her military is used as a deterrent that enables her to use other strategies to break nations (she contracts and pays to kindle revolutions around the world that benefit her), she exports her old weapons and systems (a huge US export), she intervenes in nations due to natural, homegrown and installed conflict to fix a stability and peace where US companies and country have the first investment opportunities in natural resource extraction.
adventured 12y ago
The US isn't suffering waning economic dominance. In fact it's gaining economic power right now. The US Dollar is stronger than it has been in 20 years, the global reserve standard is firmly in place. The Euro and Yen present no threat to that; and the Yuan, a second tier currency, is currently being backed up by the greatest accumulation of debt in world history in China. Since 2007 the US has added around $3.x trillion to its annual GDP, while Europe has added zero and has failed to climb above the peak before the great recession. The US will hit $18 trillion in GDP in 2015, or over nine times the size of Russia, which used to be its primary superpower competitor. While US GDP has continued to climb, most countries in Europe have been flat for ~7 years (eg Germany's or France's GDP hasn't moved since 2008). The US share of global GDP hasn't gone down in 35 years, and is still where it was in 1995/96. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/US_share_of_world_GDP_since_1980.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/US_share_of_wo... (and that's during a time, since 1980, in which both Japan and China came on line as global economic powers - to maintain the US share of GDP, the US had to keep up with China, Brazil, Japan, India and countless other countries that saw economic booms since 1980)
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  The US _is_ doing better economically than it had been during the great recession and the lead up to it - but when one looks on a longer time horizon and when looks at more than proxy measures in the short term things do not look as well. This is not to say the US is going to go belly up. It is suffering waning economic dominance. The two are not mutually exclusive. Declining dominance means that it is losing its lead and will be overtaken. A sprinter can run faster than any other leg of a race and still be overtaken. That is what we are talking about here. From all accounts the Renminbi is doing quite well and many allies despite pressure from the US are joining to AIIB, etc. Every criticism of the Renminbi you've put forward applies equally or greater to the dollar. Europe is not a fair comparison. Nor is Russia (it waned into collapse the same time you start your 'comparisons'). Nor is Japan (can you fairly compare to a lost generation?). These are misleading 20th century comparisons. Always be careful of charts and data that capture narrow slices and proxy measures - especially when they are not sourced and when the data isn't published alongside methodology. Proxy measures are extremely dangerous. Though it may explain why you feel confident using Japan as a reasonable example? When we speak of declining dominance, it is in fact the US and its relationship to the stagnating EU, Commonwealth and Japan that informs this. The growth is not in the old world. By all accounts, bankers, financiers, politicians, advisors - the next half century will be driven economically and politically by the Asia-Pacific. By the same accounts there are significant challenges to the world order set in WWII. Thus the US's pivot to Asia, to the rise of China and of the Pacific.

tim333 12y ago

>US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started. The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.

philwelch 12y ago
The US military also effectively subsidizes the national defense of a large portion of the world, much of which we trade with. It's because of our treaty obligation to defend South Korea that, instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, they can afford to manufacture cell phones and cars and televisions and trade them to us. Likewise for Japan and the NATO members.
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, NK is so poor they can barely stay alive. I don't believe there could be any sort of meaningful arms race...
  - smcl 12y ago
    Agreed. When they have to assemble fake artillery out of logs + rocks, I think it's safe to say there's no arms race to speak of whatsoever: http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/fake-artillery.jpg http://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/fake-artillery.jpg
  - adventured 12y ago
    You mean other than the problem where they have nuclear weapons (and of course S.Korea does not), are actively developing more powerful nuclear weapons? Besides that, who needs an arms race when you have enough artillery to kill millions of people in Seoul in the first inning of a war? North Korea doesn't need to be advanced to decimate South Korea, unfortunately.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    NK is starving because they're investing all their wealth into their army.
xnull2guest 12y ago
For example she provides energy security for Europe (why is the UAE such good friends with us - do we benefit from this relationship?), she backs her commitments with military promises (she can and does negotiate treaties and agreements, even between other countries, that fix things in her favor), her dollar is trusted more because her military is stronger (this investment is crucial), she uses her military to enforce international trade rules that benefit her (more than just 'peace' but international law - but specific international law), her military gives her access to native areas in Latin America and the Pacific that are not hers (Guam, Chile, Phillipines, etc), her military is used as a deterrent that enables her to use other strategies to break nations (she contracts and pays to kindle revolutions around the world that benefit her), she exports her old weapons and systems (a huge US export), she intervenes in nations due to natural, homegrown and installed conflict to fix a stability and peace where US companies and country have the first investment opportunities in natural resource extraction.

adventured 12y ago

The US isn't suffering waning economic dominance. In fact it's gaining economic power right now. The US Dollar is stronger than it has been in 20 years, the global reserve standard is firmly in place. The Euro and Yen present no threat to that; and the Yuan, a second tier currency, is currently being backed up by the greatest accumulation of debt in world history in China. Since 2007 the US has added around $3.x trillion to its annual GDP, while Europe has added zero and has failed to climb above the peak before the great recession. The US will hit $18 trillion in GDP in 2015, or over nine times the size of Russia, which used to be its primary superpower competitor. While US GDP has continued to climb, most countries in Europe have been flat for ~7 years (eg Germany's or France's GDP hasn't moved since 2008). The US share of global GDP hasn't gone down in 35 years, and is still where it was in 1995/96. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/US_share_of_world_GDP_since_1980.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/US_share_of_wo... (and that's during a time, since 1980, in which both Japan and China came on line as global economic powers - to maintain the US share of GDP, the US had to keep up with China, Brazil, Japan, India and countless other countries that saw economic booms since 1980)

xnull2guest 12y ago
The US _is_ doing better economically than it had been during the great recession and the lead up to it - but when one looks on a longer time horizon and when looks at more than proxy measures in the short term things do not look as well. This is not to say the US is going to go belly up. It is suffering waning economic dominance. The two are not mutually exclusive. Declining dominance means that it is losing its lead and will be overtaken. A sprinter can run faster than any other leg of a race and still be overtaken. That is what we are talking about here. From all accounts the Renminbi is doing quite well and many allies despite pressure from the US are joining to AIIB, etc. Every criticism of the Renminbi you've put forward applies equally or greater to the dollar. Europe is not a fair comparison. Nor is Russia (it waned into collapse the same time you start your 'comparisons'). Nor is Japan (can you fairly compare to a lost generation?). These are misleading 20th century comparisons. Always be careful of charts and data that capture narrow slices and proxy measures - especially when they are not sourced and when the data isn't published alongside methodology. Proxy measures are extremely dangerous. Though it may explain why you feel confident using Japan as a reasonable example? When we speak of declining dominance, it is in fact the US and its relationship to the stagnating EU, Commonwealth and Japan that informs this. The growth is not in the old world. By all accounts, bankers, financiers, politicians, advisors - the next half century will be driven economically and politically by the Asia-Pacific. By the same accounts there are significant challenges to the world order set in WWII. Thus the US's pivot to Asia, to the rise of China and of the Pacific.