Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If the U.S. was no longer a superpower

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:04:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?
In brief? Power vacuum. That sums it up quite nicely.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 1:04:52 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?
In brief? Power vacuum. That sums it up quite nicely.

But what impact would that actually have on the US people and the people of the world?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:15:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/30/2013 1:04:52 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?
In brief? Power vacuum. That sums it up quite nicely.

But what impact would that actually have on the US people and the people of the world?

There is a movie on netflix that explores this question called, "The World without America"

Essentially, alot of sh!t would go down that isnt good because the U S. Is the chief/main deterrant from countries initiating conflict against our allies around the world. Some notable countries being Japan, taiwan, kuwait, etc. Countries in which we are essentially their military defense capabilities
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:15:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/30/2013 1:04:52 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?
In brief? Power vacuum. That sums it up quite nicely.

But what impact would that actually have on the US people and the people of the world?

A large part of our economy is the military industrial complex, so high unemployment in America.

Around the world, it would be chaos. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Israel, would all be seriously fvcked.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:41:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:15:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/30/2013 1:04:52 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?
In brief? Power vacuum. That sums it up quite nicely.

But what impact would that actually have on the US people and the people of the world?
The US? Your guess is as good as mine.

The rest of the world? Scramble to fill in the holes of American influence(economically, politically, and militarily) and a rush to put replace the US dollar with their own country's currency(or to create a new one). There would likely be some immediate, short term economic consequences of the decreased value of the dollar.

Earth is a complex place with millions of variables we can't account for and/or don't have personal knowledge about. Any kind of specific answers that are provided and/or wanted are probably going to be wrong.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:48:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

If?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

We would not have as much influence in the world. Our military strength (or lack there of) would no longer act as a deterrent against war, and our allies would also become vulnerable to attack as a result. The volume of trade between the US and the rest of the world would decline because the US would no longer be economically influential. Overall it would suck.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 4:01:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:48:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

If?

WTF? The US is still a superpower. We are still the world's only superpower. There are emerging superpowers, which still cannot compete with the US individually, but in a decade or so they might gain superpower status.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 4:08:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the dollar didn't reign supreme we'd see higher gas/oil prices, less military Keynesianism we'd be like the UK
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

For startes a sh*t load of rouge nations would not hesitate to declare wars on nearby enemies, several wars would probably spring up in the Middle East, Africa, maybe parts of East Europe such as what used to be Yugoslavia.

Then, nations that are economically well off would hit the sh*t since the US buys and exports a ton of goods from China and various countries all over Western Europe. Canada and Mexico would also take quite a hit. Several countries throughout Latin America also may drift closer to war now that the powerhouse that was the US is no longer a big threat in their own backyard like it used to

Pakistan and India may go at each other just for old times sake too

Just about everything would be hit pretty hard.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 6:28:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:38:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
A large part of our economy is the military industrial complex, so high unemployment in America.

In the 1990s there was bipartisan agreement that with the Cold War over there was no reason to maintain a large military. Clinton signed off on cutting 600,000 troops. congress approved a base closure commission that shut down a large percentage of military facilities. The economy boomed nonetheless. Government spending of any kind is a drag on the economy, because money is spent more productively in the private sector. The rule is "the military should get ever penny it needs, and not a penny more."

Around the world, it would be chaos. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Israel, would all be seriously fvcked.

About 40 countries currently not having having nuclear weapons have the technical ability to build them. Most of them would nuke up. With nukes so common, terrorists would be very likely to acquire them. I think China would fill the superpower vacuum and set the agenda for the world. How that plays out is hard to predict. The US is now withdrawing from world leadership, so the young people on DDO are likely to see how it comes out.
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 9:27:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 6:28:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:38:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
A large part of our economy is the military industrial complex, so high unemployment in America.

In the 1990s there was bipartisan agreement that with the Cold War over there was no reason to maintain a large military. Clinton signed off on cutting 600,000 troops. congress approved a base closure commission that shut down a large percentage of military facilities. The economy boomed nonetheless. Government spending of any kind is a drag on the economy, because money is spent more productively in the private sector. The rule is "the military should get ever penny it needs, and not a penny more."

Around the world, it would be chaos. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Israel, would all be seriously fvcked.

About 40 countries currently not having having nuclear weapons have the technical ability to build them. Most of them would nuke up. With nukes so common, terrorists would be very likely to acquire them. I think China would fill the superpower vacuum and set the agenda for the world. How that plays out is hard to predict. The US is now withdrawing from world leadership, so the young people on DDO are likely to see how it comes out.

I don't think the U.S. is withdrawing from world leadership. The post-war period has been filled with conflicts of interest where the US didn't get its way or was forced to compromised. The U.S. is still the economic center of the world, still is front and center on global foreign policy agenda (e.g. Syria, Egypt, Libya), still is far and away the largest military power, and still has a huge cultural influence on the globe.

There may be some flattening of geopolitical power going on as economic prosperity becomes more widely dispersed, the U.S. certainly doesnt have the massive economic and military edge it did in 1950's or immediately following the end of the Cold War. But the U.S. is still very active in promoting its interests and managing global affairs.

I also don't think any other country has the capacity to replace the U.S. China is big but it would just be a regional superpower.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 12:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 9:27:03 AM, Raisor wrote:
I don't think the U.S. is withdrawing from world leadership. The post-war period has been filled with conflicts of interest where the US didn't get its way or was forced to compromised. The U.S. is still the economic center of the world, still is front and center on global foreign policy agenda (e.g. Syria, Egypt, Libya), still is far and away the largest military power, and still has a huge cultural influence on the globe.

I don't understand what you mean by "conflicts of interest" resulting in being forced to compromise. I agree that the US is still the economic center of the world. At present, the US has no credibility whatsoever in foreign affairs. Who worries about what the US thinks? The military is so thoroughly decimated it poses little deterrent. Until the 90s, the policy was to be able to be prepared to fight two wars simultaneously with 500,000 soldiers in each. Now a total of 200,000 soldiers cannot be supported.

I admit there is risk in projecting current trends. The Chinese economy is expected to pass the US by 2020, but some say it will be much sooner. The US has adopted state control through regulation, and that's fatal to growth. The US could change course, but both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that the purpose of government is to "solve problems" through regulation. The Chinese could revert to economic authoritarianism and kill their economy, but they seem to prefer prosperity over the equality of poverty.

There may be some flattening of geopolitical power going on as economic prosperity becomes more widely dispersed, the U.S. certainly doesnt have the massive economic and military edge it did in 1950's or immediately following the end of the Cold War. But the U.S. is still very active in promoting its interests and managing global affairs.

The vision of President Obama is to be mediocre in all things. Mediocrity is the liberal embodiment of justice and equality. That vision is so widely shared, I don't think it can be overcome.

It is possible that there will be no superpower in the future. If that happens, then the likely outcome is regional disputes between nuclear-armed states.
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 1:15:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 12:21:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I don't understand what you mean by "conflicts of interest" resulting in being forced to compromise...Who worries about what the US thinks?

I mean that people have this idea that once upon a time international actors tiptoed around U.S. opinion, but this has never been the case. You can look de Daulle's policy in France, Iraq's behavior under Hussein, post-Shah Iran. People have always challenged U.S. interests and now is no different.

Countries are still very mindful of what the U.S. thinks- that's why New Zealand and the Philippines pushed for US war exercises in the Pacific, why the U.S. is crucial to TPP negotiations and preceded a wave of international interest in the agreement, why the U.S. pushed through UN resolutions allowing unilateral action by the US in Libya.

The military is so thoroughly decimated it poses little deterrent...
Until the 90s, the policy was to be able to be prepared to fight two wars simultaneously with 500,000 soldiers in each. Now a total of 200,000 soldiers cannot be supported.

2+1 military strategy dates back to the Cold War when the US was concerned military engagement with Russia or China would necessarily involve the other. After the Russo-Sino split this strategy was abandoned by Nixon. It was resumed by Reagan and has been carried on as a legacy. The strategy isn't dogma, it makes sense to re-evaluate what level of military preparedness is necessary.


I admit there is risk in projecting current trends. The Chinese economy is expected to pass the US by 2020, but some say it will be much sooner. The US has adopted state control...

I don't want to get into domestic politics, but the US economy would have to undergo severe stagnation to jeopardize US hegemony.

China is a concern, but I am skeptical that they will ever be able to exert the kind of influence the US does so long as Russia is strong. This is just my opinion, but I think history bears out that regional great powers tend to balance each other.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 1:47:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:48:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

If?

"If" you're implying that the US is not a world superpower, I think burden of proof would be on you. Status quo, especially given US military interventions and occupations globally, would easily equate the US to "world superpower," although obviously that would boil down to how you'd define the term.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 2:08:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 9:27:03 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 8/30/2013 6:28:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:38:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
A large part of our economy is the military industrial complex, so high unemployment in America.

In the 1990s there was bipartisan agreement that with the Cold War over there was no reason to maintain a large military. Clinton signed off on cutting 600,000 troops. congress approved a base closure commission that shut down a large percentage of military facilities. The economy boomed nonetheless. Government spending of any kind is a drag on the economy, because money is spent more productively in the private sector. The rule is "the military should get ever penny it needs, and not a penny more."

Around the world, it would be chaos. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Israel, would all be seriously fvcked.

About 40 countries currently not having having nuclear weapons have the technical ability to build them. Most of them would nuke up. With nukes so common, terrorists would be very likely to acquire them. I think China would fill the superpower vacuum and set the agenda for the world. How that plays out is hard to predict. The US is now withdrawing from world leadership, so the young people on DDO are likely to see how it comes out.

I don't think the U.S. is withdrawing from world leadership. The post-war period has been filled with conflicts of interest where the US didn't get its way or was forced to compromised. The U.S. is still the economic center of the world, still is front and center on global foreign policy agenda (e.g. Syria, Egypt, Libya), still is far and away the largest military power, and still has a huge cultural influence on the globe.

There may be some flattening of geopolitical power going on as economic prosperity becomes more widely dispersed, the U.S. certainly doesnt have the massive economic and military edge it did in 1950's or immediately following the end of the Cold War. But the U.S. is still very active in promoting its interests and managing global affairs.

I also don't think any other country has the capacity to replace the U.S. China is big but it would just be a regional superpower.

I agree with most of the talking points in Roy's and Raisor's comments, but I disagree with Raisor's thesis, and I disagree with Roy's point about China setting the global agenda (i.e. the bolded).

The US IS indeed withdrawing from world leadership, and IMHO Raisor succinctly (albeit ironically) lays out exactly why I think so. What the US will more than likely experience going forward is a "first among citizens" status in the world, but no longer the sole role as the "world's policeman". This state of affairs would most certainly be a regression in terms of relative power relationships internationally.

China will more than likely grow, and in the next 50 years will seriously challenge American eminence in all things global. We got a taste of this during the 2008 financial crisis, with China advocating usurping dollar hegemony for more global representation of world currencies. However, I don't see China usurping the American position overall as IMHO that would require that the Chinese meet and exceed American standards of living on top of geopolitical advantage, although with each passing year, it becomes more and more a likelihood. Within 100 years, it's easily conceivable that such an usurpation would be a near-certainty. In the end, you'd have a country with 4 times the population of America, and a culture that prizes education above all else, thereby making it much more feasible to lead any ostensibly information-technology-based economy and society.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 5:34:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 1:47:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 3:48:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

If?

"If" you're implying that the US is not a world superpower, I think burden of proof would be on you. Status quo, especially given US military interventions and occupations globally, would easily equate the US to "world superpower," although obviously that would boil down to how you'd define the term.

I mean more in the sense of "when."

What the consequences of when the US is no longer a superpower.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 8:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Everybody would attack Israel and nobody would give a sh!t about warlords in developing countries. Other than that, nothing. The US has an inflated opinion of itself. China, Russia and Iran have better things to do with their time than conquer the world. The spoiled brat in charge of North Korea might try to, but everybody else would put him down pretty quickly.

Look at the ancient world. The big empires always kept each other in check. The Egyptians fought the Hittites, but both sides eventually realised it was pointless and made an alliance instead. Nobody bothered to invade Arabia, because it was out of the way and still good for trading. It was the little guys in the center, like Canaan and Syria, who got smacked around.

China and Russia are the big empires. They won't fight because it's pointless. Israel is small and in the way. With nobody policing the world, it'll become part of somebody else's empire. The US, once it stops being an empire, becomes like Arabia was - too far away to care about, and more valuable in one piece. The Russians and Chinese aren't going to invade the US just because it loses its superpower status.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 11:05:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 6:28:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:38:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
A large part of our economy is the military industrial complex, so high unemployment in America.

In the 1990s there was bipartisan agreement that with the Cold War over there was no reason to maintain a large military. Clinton signed off on cutting 600,000 troops. congress approved a base closure commission that shut down a large percentage of military facilities. The economy boomed nonetheless. Government spending of any kind is a drag on the economy, because money is spent more productively in the private sector. The rule is "the military should get ever penny it needs, and not a penny more."

Around the world, it would be chaos. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Israel, would all be seriously fvcked.

About 40 countries currently not having having nuclear weapons have the technical ability to build them. Most of them would nuke up. With nukes so common, terrorists would be very likely to acquire them. I think China would fill the superpower vacuum and set the agenda for the world. How that plays out is hard to predict. The US is now withdrawing from world leadership, so the young people on DDO are likely to see how it comes out.

Really? I think that Obama has stepped up our geopolitical preponderance rather than "withdrawing" from the role that the US plays. We're much more involved than we were in the 90's, when Clinton had enough leeway to send troops on "humanitarian missions" into Somalia and Haiti on a whim.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:38:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

When people talk about US hegemony they mean global Hegemony. If the US declines there won't be a global Hegemon, there will be regional powers
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:45:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 9:38:43 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

When people talk about US hegemony they mean global Hegemony. If the US declines there won't be a global Hegemon, there will be regional powers

I think the concept of regional powers no longer applies. Regionality suited an era when people's exposure to the world was limited to region. That's since changed. Given that a global hegemony is possible, the stage for power plays is thus global.

The status quo would easily corroborate this perspective. Ever since European powers figured out exactly what the "globe" was, it sought global power, and many of its states achieved it in large measure. There have been no "regional powers" since this development.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:46:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 9:38:43 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

When people talk about US hegemony they mean global Hegemony. If the US declines there won't be a global Hegemon, there will be regional powers

Anyway, not sure why you phrased your first sentence thus. This thread is about the US standing as a global superpower, of course discussion of hegemony would be in a global context.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 6:43:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

Why? What's stopping the world from becoming multipolar again?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 9:55:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 6:43:57 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

Why? What's stopping the world from becoming multipolar again?

First of all, multipolarity is a possibility that is inherent in my statement, especially the part about a "coalition," although I consider a coalition to be undesirable without a clear leading power.

In the past, as European power and influence expanded globally, multipolarity resulted in wars expanding from intra-European conflicts into world wars, most of which were in reality wars determining hegemony in which the US eventually won out. The next world war will be Armageddon, which gives massive disincentive for establishing a multipolar world going forward.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 11:16:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 9:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:43:57 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

Why? What's stopping the world from becoming multipolar again?

First of all, multipolarity is a possibility that is inherent in my statement, especially the part about a "coalition," although I consider a coalition to be undesirable without a clear leading power.

What conceivable coalition could take the US's place? Europe would split down the middle, China is stagnating anyway, Russia would be free to do what it liked but wouldn't be able to get power on a scale that it had during the USSR days, and certainly no coalition could emerge from Africa, the Middle East, or South America. No country or geopolitical entity even comes close to having the geographical, economic, and security advantages that the US does.

In the past, as European power and influence expanded globally, multipolarity resulted in wars expanding from intra-European conflicts into world wars, most of which were in reality wars determining hegemony in which the US eventually won out. The next world war will be Armageddon, which gives massive disincentive for establishing a multipolar world going forward.

As if the US wasn't already in the perfect position to dominate the Western world within fifty years; with or without a world war. European power came from their worldwide colonies (which could never have lasted through the century) and their superior arms and technology. America was one nation, stretching across an entire continent, with coasts on both major oceans and huge agricultural, industrial, and geographical factors in its favor. I would say that the ascension of the US to global preponderance was certainly inevitable by 1900.

Yer also kind of assuming that multipolarity entails war. It doesn't, any more than the bipolarity of the Cold War made nuclear Armageddon guaranteed. I expect that rivalries between nuclear powers would be settled in much the same way, and even during the Cold War the US and China fought a direct limited war against each other in Korea.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 11:25:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 11:16:35 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 9:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:43:57 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:32:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 11:02:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:41:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/30/2013 7:48:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
What would the ramifications on the world and the U.S. be if the U.S. was not a world superpower?

Simple. Power would still equal 100%, so given that the US would not be a plurality/majority holder of this power, someone else would.

Not necessarily. Why? I imagine that the globe would descend into chaos.

The US losing hegemony does not predicate global chaos. It's probable, but not a certainty.

Regardless, if the US does not have hegemony, someone else will have it. That I do deem to be a necessary condition. It may be a coalition instead of one nation (similar to what the US has now actually)...regardless one way or another that power vacuum will fill up.

Why? What's stopping the world from becoming multipolar again?

First of all, multipolarity is a possibility that is inherent in my statement, especially the part about a "coalition," although I consider a coalition to be undesirable without a clear leading power.

What conceivable coalition could take the US's place? Europe would split down the middle, China is stagnating anyway, Russia would be free to do what it liked but wouldn't be able to get power on a scale that it had during the USSR days, and certainly no coalition could emerge from Africa, the Middle East, or South America. No country or geopolitical entity even comes close to having the geographical, economic, and security advantages that the US does.

1) Stagnation is relative. China's level of stagnation still equates to an enviable 7.5% GDP growth.
2) Sino-Russian alliance is a strong coalition even currently. As China's economy continues to grow, such an alliance, especially if it encompasses a fully developed east/SE/South Asian region, would become formidable.

In the past, as European power and influence expanded globally, multipolarity resulted in wars expanding from intra-European conflicts into world wars, most of which were in reality wars determining hegemony in which the US eventually won out. The next world war will be Armageddon, which gives massive disincentive for establishing a multipolar world going forward.

As if the US wasn't already in the perfect position to dominate the Western world within fifty years; with or without a world war. European power came from their worldwide colonies (which could never have lasted through the century) and their superior arms and technology. America was one nation, stretching across an entire continent, with coasts on both major oceans and huge agricultural, industrial, and geographical factors in its favor. I would say that the ascension of the US to global preponderance was certainly inevitable by 1900.

It was obviously not inevitable in 1900, else it would have occurred in 1900.

Yer also kind of assuming that multipolarity entails war. It doesn't, any more than the bipolarity of the Cold War made nuclear Armageddon guaranteed. I expect that rivalries between nuclear powers would be settled in much the same way, and even during the Cold War the US and China fought a direct limited war against each other in Korea.

1) Korea was a proxy war the main sides being the USSR and the US. China and Korea were merely the proxies.

2) Substantiate that multipolarity does not entail war. I will point to 200-300 years of European history where wars were rampant.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Bottom line, multipolarity typically results in war.

On the Cold war, you have a point there, although IMHO with more parties involved, there become exponentially more opportunities for miscommunication that would lead to war. Think of it as the network effect, except that instead of a virtuous cycle, you have the opposite.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?