Hacker News Reader

Comment by lostlogin | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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)

> 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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com