Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

People need to remember that as late as the early 1900s, the foreign policy of world powers was described as "The Great Game". (Look it up, I kid you not). Thousands of soldiers would march forward and die in unknown foreign soil in the name of Imperialism and conquest.

It was under these politics of world conquest that WW1 and WW2 were fought upon. All countries... US included, fell into the trap of imperialism. Expanding during the Spanish American war, gaining the Philippines, Guam and other territories.

The current world has no apatite for imperialism, although I guess this can change quickly. But... knock on wood... lets hope the great powers of the world continue to refuse a direct fight with each other. The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries.

View on HN

No appetite for imperialism? I don't think there has been a huge change. The defense of colonies is strong and the likes of the Ukranian/Crimea debacle have happened. But further afield and longer ago there was Iraq, Afganistan, the sabre rattling of Russian and the U.S. over Georgia. Look at the Chinese relationship with Africa. The Trans Pacific Partnership and The Five Eyes are are thing down here in New Zealand. Things may be slightly more subtle and less bloody, but the behavior isn't much improved.

But it's more subtle these days. Or at least the past looks clearer from a distance.

There's no modern equivalent to "Manifest Destiny" for the US. We've conquered the continental US and are sufficiently happy with ourselves.

China and Russia do wish to expand, but they're not going to do it while the US is in power at least.

The closest we've got is "spread democracy to the world", which is less a "conquer the world" spirit, and more of a "make the world like our way of thinking" cultural expansion. We do it through movies, literature, debates, exchange programs and so forth.

And... erm... conquest. But only rarely (Iraq, South Korea). And whenever we do it by conquest, the US Population seems to get really pissed in general. Its why we had such a "hands off" approach in Libya and Syria so far... and why we're trying to get Iraq out of our hair. (Iraq seems to be a "we broke it we bought it" situation at this point)

> and more of a "make the world like our way of thinking" cultural expansion

I guess that's one way to put it. I could think of less favourable ways.

> China and Russia do wish to expand

What evidence is there for China wanting to expand? It seems like they have made claims to disputed territories based on historical claims. They have a claim on Taiwan and and some disputed islands, all which had been under Chinese control in sometime in the past. That's not imperialism or colonialism. Look at Japan's behavior early 20th century. They took Korea, large parts of China and south pacific islands, things they never had a claim to and that is imperialism. Even Tibet had been under Chinese rule throughout centuries of history.

It seems like to me that China is only interested in achieving the same kind of cultural dominance and influence they've had through history. I've never read anything about China wanting to expand territory outside of traditional China.

If France or Germany were laying claim to lands that had been under their control "some time in the past", it would certainly be fair to call that imperialism. Not to mention Mongolia.

Just because China once had some claim to certain seas doesn't mean they have any right whatsoever to them now.

And I'm sure Russia only wishes to be as big as it was back when it was the USSR.

Historically, yes, Crimea and Ukraine were all under strong Russian influence. But expanding to its historical size is an expansion from the current norm nonetheless.

Same with China. Do remember that Japan and Korea were historically claimed by China. Its unlikely that the US will let China expand to its historical size... and gobble up Japan and Korea while its at it.

It is almost certain that the old appetites are still there. The big changes are probably that democracies tend to be less expansionist (democracies don't like needless wars, voters die) and that all the countries that aren't the US basically imploded in World War II.

Most of history isn't a great guide for what happens next because of technology changes. Up until "recently" wars were won by logistics, numbers and training. In the modern age, logistics requires a very complicated industrial system capable of producing, eg, nuclear weapons and satellites. So far, only the US has pulled this off and only the EU has come close to (maybe they have managed as well, I don't know).

Life may get more tense when a new challenger to the US emerges. Maybe China.

So someone else has nukes and satellites, then what? Are they seriously going to engage in mutually assured destruction trying to go to war with America? That is the primary reason why I find all the bullshit excuses about having a trillion dollar annual military in the US disgusting - no nation will ever again attempt to invade American soil, because to do so would be to at least end their nation and at most end life on the planet.

that's what people were saying after WWI.

And then we dropped two atomic bombs on the next guys to attack American soil. Now everyone knows, one, what nuclear arms are capable of, and two, that the US will use them.

sure you can drop bombs but, one, that doesn't mean that US will not get hurt, two, you imply that war will be a traditional one, where, for example, it's clear who the enemy is. My point is that people should not exclude the possibility of a war in the west

Oh the modern world still has a taste for imperialism. The techniques of imperialism are not even that different than that of centuries old, though with modern spins. Plus WWI and WWII were not the result of imperialism or at least not as much as you imply in your comment. Current foreign policy is still called "The Great Game" - though when said now it is meant to convey the modern game in context of the history of the middle 1800s into the 1900s continuing into the Cold Wars.

The big difference now seems to be that the type of total warfare used in the early and middle 1900s between great powers is not palatable to the world today - much in line with the Einstein quote the destruction both to civilian life and to infrastructure would be absolutely terrifying. The Great Game continues today with proxy wars, economic warfare, subterfuge including sabotage and intelligence warfare (much of it network and satellite today), and with stability warfare (trying to pull the support of people from beneath their governance).

Point. I'll give you that.

But I feel like a major aspect of the "Great Game" was using superior technology to massacre civilians and other soft targets. The invention and use of Gatling Guns, Explosives, and Chemical Warfare through that period was truly terrifying.

Certainly new technology and unprecedented populations were major aspects of warfare during this time period. I would add poison gases to your list.

Remember though that many other (non-destructive) technologies made their entrance during these wars: blimps, new classes of naval vehicles (the so called battlecruiser) and also submarines, precision bombing, new types of artillery, the first tanks, trains for transporting goods and troops, radar...

And remember that the tactics of the time changed as much or more than the technology. In WWI a prevailing tactic was troop attrition - the infamous Battle of Verdun being a sick but paragon example. WW II saw the advent of the term 'strategic bombing' which in essence was the idea that if you directly kill huge numbers of civilians it will demoralize the enemy, cause them to withdraw, and end the war faster - in the end supposedly saving lives. Of course it didn't work out that way, but the belief that it would contributed to the constant bombing raids and huge civilian bombardments that WWII was famous for.

as late as the early 1900s, the foreign policy of world powers was described as "The Great Game".

According to reports, this terminology is still being used today:

Under the sub-heading "Rude language a la British", she wrote that "[Prince Andrew] railed at British anti-corruption investigators, who had had the 'idiocy' of almost scuttling the Al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia".

She said the prince also criticised Guardian journalists - "who poke their noses everywhere" - for investigating the deal.

Ms Gfoeller said Prince Andrew told her that the UK, Western Europe and the US were now "back in the thick of playing the Great Game" - a reference to the 19th Century struggle between the British and Russian Empires for control of Central Asia.

"More animated than ever, he stated cockily 'and this time we aim to win'," she wrote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11870581

While true, it seems more of a historical reference of the term rather than a good description of today's foreign policy decisions.

The Brits were literally trying to outplay Russia, and both countries were knee-deep in Imperialism. They fought to physically control territory and claim land... an idea that is seen as quaint and naive today.

They fought to physically control territory and claim land... an idea that is seen as quaint and naive today.

Well, count me among the quaintly naive then. We must read from very different news sources.

Some people say that we're living in a "peace bubble", implying that it will return to the mean (much less peaceful times). See e.g. http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/primacy-f...

"We tend to take peace for granted in most of today’s world, but the broader historical record suggests peace is an occasional luxury and never a guarantee. Standards of living have repeatedly regressed throughout human history, and very often war and its associated catastrophes have been primary causes behind these misfortunes. "

PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

http://www.richardgingras.com/devilsdictionary/

> The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries.

After WWII there were only two great powers left. Now there's one. It has nothing to do with appetite. The military budget of the US dwarfs the other countries. It would be suicidal to start a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in. Welcome to Pax Americana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

That's a very limited view of the world. The military budget of the US may dwarf that of the other countries but as Iraq has shown it is easier to start a war than to finish it on terms that you like. By all counts that matter (except the bank accounts of the profiteers) that war was a disaster.

Right now there are many 'great powers' simply because power is a function of distance from its source. The US is able to project its power across the globe but would have a very hard time taking on Russia, China or even North Korea or Iran on their own or neighbouring soil. Power is (very much) limited by distance.

So even if starting a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in may be folly several such wars at the same time could easily overwhelm the capacity available. The safe bet seems to be to only wage war where there is no oil in the ground, then you can do almost whatever you please.

When taking nukes into consideration, how much one spends for the rest of the army is irrelevant. Several countries have enough to destroy the entire planet.

Historically though, the great power would have declared imperialism and began conquering the world at this point. (Mongols, Romans, Alexander the Great, Babylonians, Assyrians... etc. etc.)

It is historically very unusual for a great power to care so much about how others think of them. Part of it is Hollywood. The US naively wants to be loved. A major component of the misguided Iraqi War was that we'd be loved by the Iraqis once we toppled Saddam.

Outside of Pax Romana, I don't think any of the other great eras of peace were characterized by this "loved by the lesser barbarians" attitude. Instead, they were characterized by massive armies conquering the world with an iron fist.

This was of course a seriously misguided concept. But believe me, the naivete of the Bush Administration has been recorded, and the US seems to have learned its lesson... for now anyway.

> for now anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-2016_n_634...

How many countries has Obama had bombed at this point? (hint: it's a bunch).

How many people did Ghengis Khan literally enslave and then raped by his 6th year in tenure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia_a...

    As usual, the artisans were sent back to Mongolia, young women and children were given to the Mongol soldiers as slaves, and the rest of the population was massacred.

A lot more than Obama... I'm sure.

I'm talking about historical norms here. In the great eras of single-power world dominance (US, British, Spanish, Romans, Mongolians, Chinese, Babylonian, etc. etc.), the US, the British, and the Romans were the most peaceful, in approximately that order.

US wins vs Brits because we aren't using Gatling guns against spearmen and conquering entire continents (erm... anymore).

If you disagree, name me a great period of single-power dominance and I'll offer a counter-example.

It is about reward structure. Ghengis Khan had gold and fortune to pillage from all the nations he conquered. He forced his ideals upon others but his will was absolute and his moral compass never involved giving a shit about those you crush in battle.

The US is still somewhat run by people - a lot of work has gone into dismantling legitimate democracy in America, but fundamentally I doubt even in the gerrymandered guaranteed seat no choice electorate system the US has today, that the people would idly allow the American military to pillage nations around the globe for gold and jewels.

At least, they could not do it as fast as Ghengis did. I do understand a lot of looting happened in Iraq / Afghanistan and in a large part the motivations to go to war there were over possessions of a different kind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com