Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikerikson | Hacker News Reader

Shifting to a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all. Such an alliance can be more stable and productive while guarding against misuse of the single point of control.

View on HN

> a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all

Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much if you're the hegemon's neighbor.

America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony.

So it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon from further away?

>natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony

Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA.

> it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon from further away?

Objectively, yes. In no small part because maritime powers tend to knit together alliances, not annex and colonise the way land powers do.

> Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA

In both these cases, we are the regional hegemon.

This is the exact opposite of the truth. Multi-polariry always leads to war because there's no hegemon with a monopoly on force. States are in anarchy, after all. In an anarchic situation in the presence of information asymmetries and opposing interests, you always get war. Aside from nukes, unipolarity is the only reason for the unprecedented levels of peace we've seen since 1990. This is realism 101.

>States are in anarchy, after all.

World War I and World War II happened because of a multi-polar geopolitical power balance. I’d prefer not to live through World War III, now that nuclear weapons exist.

There is no organization that can prevent one state from going to war with another, I believe a multi-polar world would inevitably lead to a global scale conflict.

Not sure I agree with that in practice, but maybe my understanding of history is flawed.

Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the multi-polar world of 1919-1938?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com