8 ms·
"Saying that the US has no threats is forgetting about the 195 other countries in the world who are aspiring to be as much powerful as possible." I believe tha
by Zirro 11y ago
"Saying that the US has no threats is forgetting about the 195 other countries in the world who are aspiring to be as much powerful as possible."
I believe that this is exactly the way of thinking that is being criticized in the article. Very few of those 195 nations dream of removing the US from the position of world power, and even fewer are capable of it.
- classicsnoot 11y agoSo are you of the opinion that if the US made an exit from the world stage today, there would be no power struggle?
- Zirro 11y agoIt is hard to tell what you mean by "making an exit", but if it means that the US were to reduce its military spending to a tenth of its current amount for the foreseeable future - yes, I don't think it would hurt the US very much at all. In fact, the money gained from such an action could be used to strengthen the nation against economic threats which currently are far greater than any military ones.
- classicsnoot 11y agoThe point i was making is that the US, for all of its abundant faults, is not exceptional. Sitting on top of the pile does not make the pile disappear.
- zanny 11y agoIf the US withdrew as global police, I would hope the UN would step up the peacekeepers to fill that role. Thats what they are supposed to do at least. Yes, I know they suck and are incompetent. They only get away with it because they have big brother US to back them up. If they actually had to do their job they might get their act together. Or maybe not? I still don't see, in the absence of grotesque military spending, anyone going batshit insane with conquest. We still have the nuclear threat to keep people in line. Russia, for example, almost certainly does not fear a ground incursion from any European power or the US for aggressively annexing Ukraine / Georgia. Why would you waste money on that? You can economically cripple them. If they went insane and attacked a first world power they would see the immediate return of the nuclear threat. And really, total annihilation and mutually assured destruction should be deterrents enough to stop anything radical, while our globalized economic system has bound everyone so much together that you do not need the threat of soldiers to wreck a country. Consider how China is being kept out of all these secret trade agreements because they have "overstepped their bounds" of those with the money and power to influence these negotiations. That doesn't mean you don't have any military, but you don't need to spend the GDP of Turkey or Saudi Arabia every year on it, or try spreading ideology through imperialism, or have military bases in almost every country on Earth.
- zanny 11y agoIf the US withdrew as global police, I would hope the UN would step up the peacekeepers to fill that role. Thats what they are supposed to do at least. Yes, I know they suck and are incompetent. They only get away with it because they have big brother US to back them up. If they actually had to do their job they might get their act together. Or maybe not? I still don't see, in the absence of grotesque military spending, anyone going batshit insane with conquest. We still have the nuclear threat to keep people in line. Russia, for example, almost certainly does not fear a ground incursion from any European power or the US for aggressively annexing Ukraine / Georgia. Why would you waste money on that? You can economically cripple them. If they went insane and attacked a first world power they would see the immediate return of the nuclear threat. And really, total annihilation and mutually assured destruction should be deterrents enough to stop anything radical, while our globalized economic system has bound everyone so much together that you do not need the threat of soldiers to wreck a country. Consider how China is being kept out of all these secret trade agreements because they have "overstepped their bounds" of those with the money and power to influence these negotiations. That doesn't mean you don't have any military, but you don't need to spend the GDP of Turkey or Saudi Arabia every year on it, or try spreading ideology through imperialism, or have military bases in almost every country on Earth.
- cyphunk 11y agoIf your husband or wife were to make an exit from the world stage today, certainly there would be other partners that may wish to take their place... its no reason to live your life in paranoia in the present. Its also foolhardy to assume because someone would take your place when your gone that everyone of them are itching to do so now.
- classicsnoot 11y agoI think i see what you are saying, but you are comparing a single man in a world of ~7 billion actors, 99.99% of which are completely unknown to each other, and a single country in a world of 195 actors that are completely known to each other. My counter: assuming you are good at what you do, if you disappeared today would someone else apply for your job tomorrow?
- danbruc 11y agoObvious question - what are the roles the USA fills and what are the potentially (negative) consequences that could or would occur if someone else took over these roles?
- ende 11y agoFreedom of the Seas. Kiss that goodbye under Chinese or Russian hegemony.
- danbruc 11y agoCare to elaborate? How does the USA play a special role in maritime law? And why would China or Russia want to change the status quo?
- classicsnoot 11y agoFrance and the US do more to safeguard international shipping than any other country IIRC. Looking up sources, but this is hard to pin down...
- r0naa 11y agoI have re-formulated my comment to correct some grammar mistakes etc... I agree with you but I think I failed to convey the point I was making. It is very US-centric perspective, any country has to deal with rivalries and struggle for power. Depending on their size and existing power those struggles are fought at the local, regional or worldwide level.