>> I want USA to do whatever it needs to be the top player
> Are you sure?
Would you rather have someone else / some other country (other than the US) be the hegemon? If so, who? And are they willing to do it?
> Are you sure?
Would you rather have someone else / some other country (other than the US) be the hegemon? If so, who? And are they willing to do it?
But this is just an examination of practical reality. Ideally we wouldn't have a hegemon. Ideally maybe we wouldn't have countries either.
As an American, I would love for the EU to get more unified and take the reins, but in the mean time, a US hegemon is required for global stability
This is laughable. The US initiated way too many wars and other offensive / disruptive actions. If you call this stability then I have a bridge to sell. The only stability it provides is it's own. Well maybe some to the allies.
During pax americana, we've seen massive increases in quality of life around the world. Do you think the world is going to be more stable as the US retreats and other players fill the power vacuum and we have to deal with the rising threat of climate change?
Non military conflicts could be better than being poodle under the threat of war which will happen if the world is ran by a single country
Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?
I assume you are going to claim that we can either have no major power or that the EU could be that major power. I highly doubt either of those could occur.
I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just. The idea that military use has to be bad is ridiculous.
>"Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?"
I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone.
>"I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just."
Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?
Typically when that happens I have to click the time posted on a post and then I have the option to reply. Not sure what causes that.
>I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone.
I don't think that is possible.
Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time when there were multiple major powers but they were so far away they couldn't reach the other, assuming they even knew the other existed.
If you do not have any examples of this occurring, why do you think it would work in the present?
>Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?
I am not suggesting that the US has only done good and just things. Only that the US is better than China.
China is currently taking over Hong Kong (despite having a 50 year agreement for autonomy starting in 1997), attempting to take land from India, trying to dam a river that provides water to India, is consistently threatening Taiwan, etc. China does the same crap. And all of that is within the last few years. If you want to go back further we can.
I would also note several of the US invasions were not in fact US invasion but NATO invasions. This likely means one of those blocks of country you support to be a world power were involved with these invasions.
Let's talk about internal affairs. China has a terrible record and potentially holds the record for causing the most deaths of its own citizens. Obviously they don't care about the people. What about freedom? Do Chinese citizens have more freedom than US citizens? Why would China treat people who are not its own citizens better than the citizens?
The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China.
Once again you are pushing a choice that should not be there in a first place. I do not want to choose between either. Period. If you let any country run free and control the others it will devolve to a dictator. So I prefer to have the US, Europe, China, BRICS and whatever else is coming.
Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time when there were multiple major powers but they were so far away they couldn't reach the other, assuming they even knew the other existed.
Also, you are advocating for more than 2 blocks. As far as I can tell there are only two super powers right now.
You can believe whatever you want. We have totally different point of view on subject and do not have to agree.
Until one thinks they can get an edge over another one by jumping them:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_c...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_p...
You have your own take on a subject and we do not have to agree
The wildly different allocation of resources and population (on a country border basis) suggests some country will always have the means to be hegemonic (especially if other contenders all decide not to be).
Which in practice means there will always be a hegemony.
If the US ceded its role tomorrow, China would step into it. If China ceded it the day after, Russia or the EU would step into it. (I'm skipping over India and Japan, as both seem to have cultural aversions to strongly projecting power overseas)
And many top players.
MAD, as insane as it may sound, actually works. Everyone being fearful of massive retaliatory strikes keeps everyone in line. You get all sorts of bad behavior when nations have no fear of massive retaliatory strikes.
Regional powers (which is what we would devolve to) are demonstrating exactly what the world would look like without America running the show: conquest and genocide in Ukraine, saber rattling in the south china sea, genocide of the Kurds.
We don't have an interest in solving for all the world's ills, and we are the source of many.
But the world has been less stable and more dangerous in the past.
What you are espousing is a luxury belief.
The only difference is that they were careful to not do it directly, or do it in secret. Exactly the same way they are doing in Ukraine now, where they avoid giving the weapons directly to Ukraine, but instead they use the well exercised muscle of influence.
Promoting a better way for countries to adopt, partnering with them in economic activity and education, and helping them to defend themselves when neighbors try to use aggression to oppose that partnership is a much better mechanism for bettering the world than outright war and conquering other nations.
Does the US do shady stuff that bites them later? Yes. Is the world overall better with the US as one of the biggest out there for now? Also yes. Both things can be true.
By all means shine a light on, and oppose the shady stuff but don't make the mistake of thinking that the world doesn't need a strong entity who can both promote and also defend better ways to govern.
We're less extractive than the alternative, and the US having an effective monopoly on violence has been a stabilizing force.
Europeans really don't deserve a voice in this whole conversation given that they rely entirely on the US for protection. Germany's decision to build Nord Stream 2 demonstrates how detached they are from realpolitik.
Meanwhile with America running the show: entire regions - South America and Middle East - largely destroyed, with tens of millions of victims.
America isn’t the “world police”, they are just the main bully.
Middle East has also been invaded by Europe and Russia
China has been running concentration camps on middle eastern (for now the ones within their borders)
The effect of their existence as a power base then cascading into politics, etc.
That said, most of South America's recent woes have generally been economic (Guatamala, Venezuela), and the rise of Chavez (and the US not directly acting against his movement for decades) undercuts the "US is responsible for what happens in South America" position.
War is a constant.
It was in the past.
It is a constant today.
And it will be in the future.
All nations are, at heart, "evil" in this regard. Essentially, nations are just scaled up street gangs with more destructive weapons.
The only proven method of keeping these street gangs from getting too far out of hand, of keeping all our war at the level of low intensity conflict, is MAD. Nations behave only at the barrel of a gun. To argue that America is "evil" is as irrelevant as it is to argue that America is "good".
For instance, I know that all nations can be said to be "evil" at root, and "good" at root. Here's the thing though, do you think it matters to me if China is "evil" and "good"? Of course not, they're just a different street gang. The US has a responsibility to humanity to keep them in line. Should it matter to China that the US street gang is "evil" and "good"? No. They have a responsibility to humanity to keep the US in line.
In the age of weapons of mass destruction, only mutually assured destruction has ensured these street gangs don't come into conflict. Relying on sunshine and rainbows and unicorns that crap out skittles is nonsense. This is not a children's game of "good guys-bad guys". There are no good guys or bad guys. Only nations, (street gangs), pursuing interests. They are kept in line only at the barrel of a gun. Take that gun away and they will run rampant.
The best way, in my mind to minimize conflict is through a global monopoly on violence, one street gang to rule them all
This is what the last 30 years have been
Only they haven't.
The reason the US and Russia haven't run rampant the last 30 years is because the US and Russia can blow each other away. So Russia satisfies itself with Georgia and now Ukraine. And the US satisfies itself with those nations in the MidEast region. Remove Russia, and the US would have been all over the yard. Remove the US, and Russia would have been all over the yard.
And now with the rise of China, mankind is even safer. Not only that, but more of mankind have begun to enjoy the benefits of safety. The US and Russia were perfectly willing to fight a proxy war in Korea 70 years ago. They wouldn't dare do that today. Why? The Chinese presence in any MAD calculations.
Today Africa is much safer, it is developing much faster. A large part of the reason for that is the presence of China. Now instead of proxy wars, the great powers compete to see who can deliver Africa the most undersea bandwidth for instance. This is a much better situation for Africans than the situation that existed when only the US and Russia were superpowers. And this situation exists because of MAD. It proves that an armed society is a polite society.
The US, China and Russia are all fulfilling their responsibility to keep the peace by maintaining lethal arsenals of weapons of mass destruction so that they are each confident in their own ability to destroy the others. And that is good for all of us "little people" in the world. Whether we are American, Chinese or Russian. (And even good for us if we are Korean, African, or from South America.)
North Korea is insane in its own way, but hereditary personality cults do have a history of acting in the interest of self-preservation.
Basically, betting that there were scenarios where the US wouldn't risk escalation to nuclear war in response to a calibrated Russian tactical nuclear strike in a third party country, thus allowing Russian nuclear effects to nullify superior western precision weapons without consequence.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russian-military-doctrine-ca...
At this point there is no support for the idea that US weapons have superior precision. The Russian campaign is showing the opposite.
A) NATO's air campaign in the Kosovo War (1999) certainly scared the shit out of Russia.
B) That Russia is currently bombarding Ukrainian cities with repurposed surface to air missiles doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their ability to produce sufficient quantities of precision missiles for even a moderate scale conflict.
C) The majority of Ukrainian platforms at this point still aren't Western, and thus incapable of firing NATO precision ordinance.
Here’s a good video showing the difference.
https://mobile.twitter.com/revishvilig/status/15402647613292...
"Stable" in some kind of Platonic absolute sense, or "more stable that things would have otherwise been"?