US Hegemony Doesn’t Make the World More Peaceful, It Makes It More Dangerous | Hacker News Reader

US Hegemony Doesn’t Make the World More Peaceful, It Makes It More Dangerous

caitlinjohnstone.com

7 points1cvmask6 comments

If US (Soviet/postSoviet Russia should get some stability credit here too) hegemony started in, say, 1950, then the number of global per-capita deaths from conflict have declined by about a factor of 10^2 (a hundred) during this period, if I’m reading this graph correctly

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-yea...

If two orders of magnitude reduction in deaths due to war over almost three generation lengths is how you define “more dangerous”, then danger starts to sound like a good thing.

It seems to me that we are in 1914 and Russia is the Austro Habsburg Empire, Ukraine is Serbia, the US is the British Empire and China is Kaiser Germany/US and that the war game is on. The establishment is arguing for a first-use nuclear attack on Russia:

A Republican senator who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee stated on a Tuesday Fox News appearance that he strongly supports keeping US military action on the table if Russia invades Ukraine, up to and including a first-use nuclear attack.

“I would not rule out military action,” Senator Roger Wicker told Fox News host Neil Cavuto. “I think we start making a mistake when we take options off the table. So I would hope the president keeps that option on the table.”

“What does military action mean, senator?” Cavuto asked.

“Well, military action could mean that we standoff with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction on Russian military capability,” the senator replied. “It could mean that. It could mean that we participate – and I would not rule that out – I would not rule out American troops on the ground. You know we don’t rule out first-use nuclear action. We don’t think it will happen. But there’s certain things in negotiations – if you’re going to be tough – that you don’t take off the table.”

Wicker emphasized that his position was entirely bipartisan.

"The establishment is arguing for a first-use nuclear attack on Russia"

No it's not, as shown by your own quote.

He says: and including a first-use nuclear attack.

It's like the phrasing of invading a country and bombing with nuclear weapons is "all options are on the table."

This is a case where some modern history and perspective might be useful. I recommend reading some objectively written history texts about the Cold War and notice the rhetoric used in the period, and realize where that led us (relative peace, freedom and prosperity). The Russians had their “Black Colonels”, the US had their Curtis LeMays. It’s all just diplospeak. Border states are a general pain in the rear (Cuba, Turkey, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc.) but they are where the ever-evolving notions of global peace are actually worked out among the major players.

Are the major players going to continue to act like grown-ups? They have so far, and there is little reason to think they will suddenly change. Jaw, jaw is better than starve, starve which is better than bang, bang which is better than BOOM.

He says. "He" != "the establishment". Sure, he's a member of the establishment. He's not setting the direction for the whole thing, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com