Hacker News Reader

Comment by mr_spothawk | Hacker News Reader

> US military dominance shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Should it be taken as positive on the whole, though? Dominance is a reality that we live with, and one that the US certainly benefits in some ways from. However, there are another 7b (or so) people on the planet who suffer the consequences of our military dominion (their backyards), national interests (their natural resources), etc...

> Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres.

there's a bias on HN towards blaming "the tech" for all "the things"... how about: social unrest, resource extraction, and empire building? these are much less tech-centric, yet real and studied causes for geopolitical reshapement.

View on HN

My comment on military dominance was a neutral one - I was making no judgment on it being a good or bad thing. However, if you are an American, you almost certainly would rather have it where your country is in command versus the other possibility (Note: I am a first generation American who has served in the Marine Corps as an infantryman).

My comment on technology is not just confined to electronics - there is a long history of military technology affecting battles, and perceived advantages/disadvantages of countries, which results in decisions being made according to that calculus. One small slice of that history is the introduction of guns to Native Americans. I purposefully did not say it was the only cause, and it is a complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise.

There is a lot of money being dumped into war capabilities, and as an American I would rather it go into making lives directly better rather then killing for unclear overall benefits.

to your point... there are ~350m "Americans" and all the rest of +7b humans aren't. Whatever the desire of Americans in their country, democracy would suggest that +7b people want something that looks like their country in a dominant position.

> complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise.

great... I didn't say otherwise.

I bet if you looked at all the possible universes following World War 2, the Marshall Plan and ensuing US hegemony sorts fairly high even when accounting for the entire world.

"sorts fairly high" from whose perspective? Certainly that worked out well for the US, Allies, etc...

what about the Palestinians? the Syrians? The Yememi? The Chileans? The Colombians? The Vietnamese? The North Koreans?

take a look at a history of US meddling in the world... and consider sort of world we might have it the US military and its industry (and those of its allies) hadn't nosed it's way into all corners of the world pushing for hegemony of "Democracy", the US dollar, and their economic interests.

I said sorts fairly high even when accounting for the entire world. to begin with, I didn't edit that in or anything.

In a whole bunch of possible outcomes you have Soviet failure everywhere.

yes, there are lots of instances of technological progress, improved medicine, etc...

> In a whole bunch of possible outcomes

in a whole bunch of actual outcomes, you have US failure everywhere

“We are the ally of the US not because they are powerful, but because we share their values. I am not surprised by anti-Americanism; but it is a foolish indulgence. For all their faults and all nations have them, the US are a force for good; they have liberal and democratic traditions of which any nation can be proud. I sometimes think it is a good rule of thumb to ask of a country: are people trying to get into it or out of it? It’s not a bad guide to what sort of country it is.”

- Tony Blair

Reply on news.ycombinator.com