4 ms·

There is a reasonable school of thought that argues the world would be a much safer place if the number of military superpowers in it was zero, and that as the

There is a reasonable school of thought that argues the world would be a much safer place if the number of military superpowers in it was zero, and that as the only old-school military superpower remaining, the US is therefore a negative factor on global stability and peaceful relations. So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1? That world wasn't exactly peaceful either. You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers. Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars. And in the end, a superpower or two (Spain and Portugal, France and Britain, USA and USSR) always emerges. In fact, it's the periods between superpower domination that have been the bloodiest, as declining superpowers and regional powers jockey to see who will be the next global hegemon.

Silhouette 12y ago
So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1? I didn't say that. You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers. I didn't actually say that either. I'm commenting on one particular theory, not expressing any sort of personal preference. Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars. If you look far enough back through history, that is true. Then again, periods with a single superpower that became aggressive have probably led to more death and damage than any other periods in modern history except for the World Wars, while two superpowers playing poker gets you the Cuban Missile Crisis. Given the developments in both international diplomacy and military power since those historical periods, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a lack of superpowers would necessarily have the same result in the future.

Silhouette 12y ago

So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1? I didn't say that. You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers. I didn't actually say that either. I'm commenting on one particular theory, not expressing any sort of personal preference. Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars. If you look far enough back through history, that is true. Then again, periods with a single superpower that became aggressive have probably led to more death and damage than any other periods in modern history except for the World Wars, while two superpowers playing poker gets you the Cuban Missile Crisis. Given the developments in both international diplomacy and military power since those historical periods, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a lack of superpowers would necessarily have the same result in the future.