NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16843382/site/newsweek/

In a provocative essay in Foreign Policy three years ago, the British historian Niall Ferguson speculated that the end of American hegemony might not fuel an orderly shift to a multipolar system but a descent into a world of highly fragmented powers, with no one exercising any global leadership. He called this "apolarity." "Apolarity could turn out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age," Ferguson wrote, "an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism, of economic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions, of economic stagnation, and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves." That might be a little farfetched. But for those who have been fondly waiting for the waning of American dominance—be careful what you wish for.

Does anyone think that this prediction of a post U.S. superpower world is possible? If so then probable?

Yes and yes.

I do agree with him on the increasing fragmentation, if there really was a void after the hypethetically lost its hegemony.
However, I can't really see that void happening... There are several nations and federations now who are large enough and have the economic and military power to replace the US in that respect.

No, the outcome would not be at all gloomy. The US is the major party responsible for partaking in the economic plundering of the "world's forgotten regions." It is also the cause of much of the prevalent religious fanaticism visible today. Without it as a global influence, the world would automatically adjust itself to a more stable and tenable state. Fragmentation would not lead to war, but rather be a positive aspect, as one power could not unduly influence the course taken by the entire planet. Perhaps there would be an increase in conflict and tension, but unilateral manipulation of weaker nations would, to some extent, diminish, and there would certainly not be any consequent stagnation. All in all, it would result in a positive outcome for humanity, not the apocalyptic scenario described in the quote.

No, the outcome would not be at all gloomy. The US is the major party responsible for partaking in the economic plundering of the "world's forgotten regions."
Which country alone gives the most aid to places like the middle east and Africa? I'll let you figure that one out.

It is also the cause of much of the prevalent religious fanaticism visible today.
Are you saying that there wasn't religious fanaticism before the U.S.? Are you saying that religious fanaticism occurs only b/c of the U.S.? Are you saying that they use the U.S. to justify their religious beliefs and not the Quran?

Without it as a global influence, the world would automatically adjust itself to a more stable and tenable state. Fragmentation would not lead to war, but rather be a positive aspect, as one power could not unduly influence the course taken by the entire planet.
What if intervention is needed? What if a country invades another to take it over? Would it not be good to have a world power like the U.S. to stop that imperialism?

Perhaps there would be an increase in conflict and tension, but unilateral manipulation of weaker nations would, to some extent, diminish, and there would certainly not be any consequent stagnation. All in all, it would result in a positive outcome for humanity, not the apocalyptic scenario described in the quote.
There has been one case of unilateral manipulation of weaker nations (and it is complete speculation that it is manipulation) in recent times where as there have been many many wars between lesser powers costing many more lives.

Which country alone gives the most aid to places like the middle east and Africa? I'll let you figure that one out.


Are you saying that there wasn't religious fanaticism before the U.S.? Are you saying that religious fanaticism occurs only b/c of the U.S.? Are you saying that they use the U.S. to justify their religious beliefs and not the Quran?


What if intervention is needed? What if a country invades another to take it over? Would it not be good to have a world power like the U.S. to stop that imperialism?


There has been one case of unilateral manipulation of weaker nations (and it is complete speculation that it is manipulation) in recent times where as there have been many many wars between lesser powers costing many more lives.

Oh, so you were just looking for a nice "The US is so great" flamefest, then. Sorry to have provided a serious answer. Have fun with your thread.

Oh, so you were just looking for a nice "The US is so great" flamefest, then. Sorry to have provided a serious answer. Have fun with your thread.

Not at all. All he did was bash the U.S. in what i thought was an unfair manner. You made a point about what you thought the world would be like and i happen to agree with you completely.

Not at all. All he did was bash the U.S. in what i thought was an unfair manner. You made a point about what you thought the world would be like and i happen to agree with you completely.

He correctly identified the USA as the one major influence on both external and in some cases even internal politics of each and every country on the planet, be that by conscious political action from the side of the US or be it as a simple byproduct of its massive influence.
And he pointed out the downsides of said influence.

Sending aid to Nigeria and at the same time forcing them to drop their customs on the import of rice and sugar, leading to a collapse of the local market for those goods.. you tell me how much that helps the country. I'm not bashing anyone, mind. I'm just pointing out that the influence the US has is far from balanced in many cases.

No, because the world is too interconnected and too interdependent to suffer that kind of instability. The situations that led to the Dark Ages of the past do not exist anymore, and there are a number of nations that could inherit the position of the US should it be possible.

utter claptrap based solely on Niall Ferguson looking at something from a different view (something he does often and mostly quite well I might add) its just being trumpeted because it makes Americans feel important in an article that calls it “flexible” on the environment whilst calling France “inflexible” because its not willing to destroy its valuable farming market

Pay no attention one guy sitting on everyone else is never stable

edit: whereas a group of 3+ people who can’t do anything big because of the guys around them is

Post-U.S. world

Can't come soon enough.

Oh dear, here we go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-F-X1DGAQ

Which country alone gives the most aid to places like the middle east and Africa? I'll let you figure that one out.

That's because the US is practically rolling in its wealth. It can afford to sacrifice some for humanitarian efforts, as opposed to poorer countries whose money is either squandered by inept governments or goes to promoting the welfare of their own citizens, who are subjected to substandard conditions. Which country wreaked the most havoc in Africa and the Middle East (no, it's not Israel)? Look at Iran in the 1950s for an example of American exploitation of Middle-Eastern countries. We drain their natural resources with our ever-growing appetite for oil and give them precious little in return. We impose dictators upon them to feed our insatiable avarice.

Are you saying that there wasn't religious fanaticism before the U.S.? Are you saying that religious fanaticism occurs only b/c of the U.S.? Are you saying that they use the U.S. to justify their religious beliefs and not the Quran?

I am stating that the US exacerbated the problems of religious fanaticism by adding fuel to the fundamentalist fire. Do you think that the "war" declared by various jihadist groups against the US is just for show or dictated by the Koran? Our interference in the affairs of other countries is despised by certain individuals who convert that hate into a destructive force, aimed against the US. Had the US not existed, the threat of terrorism would not have been as great.

What if intervention is needed? What if a country invades another to take it over? Would it not be good to have a world power like the U.S. to stop that imperialism?

If the US invades a country, then there is nothing to stop it. If, on the other hand, a country invades another without reason, a global consensus may be reached and several equally powerful nations can attempt to subdue the aggressor instead of relying on unilateral action.

There has been one case of unilateral manipulation of weaker nations (and it is complete speculation that it is manipulation) in recent times where as there have been many many wars between lesser powers costing many more lives.

Maybe that's true if you're assuming that "recent times" is the past 5 years and that "manipulation" is strictly defined as unfair military intervention, but there were numerous instances of such transgressions within the past two decades, for example. Also, name those wars between lesser powers to which you refer. And keep in mind that the US was one of the main backers of the instigator of the costly Iran-Iraq war, as it not only supported Saddam politically, but also sold armaments to him.

Well, unless either of these other federations *coughChinaEUcough* can match the consumer base of the United States, something like this can definitely happen.

A definative yes to the first and a "certainly is possible" to the second question. While saying that there are several other nations/federations which could possibly replace the US is true; the problem lies in that there are multiple polities which could believe that it is their responseability to do so.

Good Lord, someone needs to put the crack pipe down if they seriously think the end to American dominance on the global stage would cause anarchy. The absence of major superpowers is a direct result of American foriegn policy and an end to American dominance would see a return of "global power"

Well, unless either of these other federations *coughChinaEUcough* can match the consumer base of the United States, something like this can definitely happen.

Oh, they can. With both India and China developing, we're talking over 2 billion consumers coming in to the market in the near future. That's a lot of people, and a lot of money.

And the EU has an economy bigger than the US; they're not going anywhere any time soon.

Yes, I think it is possible for the downfall of the American hegemonic system, and yes, I think it is also probable, but not in the method that was shown in the article.

I think that the downfall of American dominance will be due to economics. And in that case, the successor state will be China. In another decade, China will have surpassed the US in economic power, they already have over 4 times the available consumption market and are one of the largest producers of goods. The US will continue on for a while but eventually will be unable to compete on the international level.

This fall will lead to a contention of two different powers, much like the US/USSR clashes, but it will be between The European Union and China. The EU has a greater tech advantage but China has more production capability. Instead of proxy wars, these two regions will use economic wars, price fixes, currency pegs, consumption bases, etc. . .

If it stays that way, the EU will win. China currently has a fixed economy with a basket to peg against, the only problem is that their currency is on market value less to the euro then their fixed official price dictates. That means that China has over-valued its currency. And with European/western states dominating the WTO, they can force China to market value its currecy eventually which will lead to one of two things: a weakening of the Yuan, or a Chinese economic collapse, neither of which is good for the US because China owns most of our debt.


So yes. There will be a post US world, but it will not be grim an lawless, it will be about the same, just with two seperate powers competing for the post of the world's economic super-power. The military powers won't really matter anymore because everyone follows the money.

Oh dear, here we go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-F-X1DGAQ

That song never did grow on me.

He's just a Yankophile...

And no one ever takes me into account of the world superpower thing...

I do agree with him on the increasing fragmentation, if there really was a void after the hypethetically lost its hegemony.
However, I can't really see that void happening... There are several nations and federations now who are large enough and have the economic and military power to replace the US in that respect.

But all of you here who think it is wrong for the US to be doing it with their economic and military power why is it that another should step in? Would that not be just as wrong? Would it not be better for the descent into the darkness? And if not what makes it right for another to become the Superpower say the Eu just for example? What makes their pushing their weight around any better then the way you all slam the US for their "pushing their weight around"?

Yes, I think it is possible for the downfall of the American hegemonic system, and yes, I think it is also probable, but not in the method that was shown in the article.

I think that the downfall of American dominance will be due to economics. And in that case, the successor state will be China. In another decade, China will have surpassed the US in economic power, they already have over 4 times the available consumption market and are one of the largest producers of goods. The US will continue on for a while but eventually will be unable to compete on the international level.

This fall will lead to a contention of two different powers, much like the US/USSR clashes, but it will be between The European Union and China. The EU has a greater tech advantage but China has more production capability. Instead of proxy wars, these two regions will use economic wars, price fixes, currency pegs, consumption bases, etc. . .

If it stays that way, the EU will win. China currently has a fixed economy with a basket to peg against, the only problem is that their currency is on market value less to the euro then their fixed official price dictates. That means that China has over-valued its currency. And with European/western states dominating the WTO, they can force China to market value its currecy eventually which will lead to one of two things: a weakening of the Yuan, or a Chinese economic collapse, neither of which is good for the US because China owns most of our debt.


So yes. There will be a post US world, but it will not be grim an lawless, it will be about the same, just with two seperate powers competing for the post of the world's economic super-power. The military powers won't really matter anymore because everyone follows the money.
I see no reason why the US would fall and the EU would survive. All the reasons that you've listed for the US falling to China could easily happen to Europe.
I predict something along what you said, except I think it would be the US vs. China, rather than the EU.

I see no reason why the US would fall and the EU would survive. All the reasons that you've listed for the US falling to China could easily happen to Europe.
I predict something along what you said, except I think it would be the US vs. China, rather than the EU.

I am going to have to agree with Demon on this one... Part of globalization is interdependence on other economies, so if the US economy took a dive, this would adversely effect the EU economy as well as that of China..... (who is buying all your exports?) The US, while not viewed as playing as hegemonic a role, will continue to lead for a long time.. after all, we are the "lighted city upon a hill" that Reagan spoke of..

If America's power wanes down then don't blame any other countries or non-Christian religions to scapegoat. So many non-western nations are rising in both power and economy but not even close to tie with America. To make a great deal out of this by western scholars shows something, and that is, there's no way are western governments will share any power and wealth with non western people. If that idea (non western countries are rising in power and wealth) bothers these people then that’s too bad for you but how does that concern the majority of the people in the world. Whether you like it or not even Europeans are trying to balance the world's only single power (America) with the making of the EU. So many people would want to see an alliance between China, India, and Russia to thwart off America's appetite in Asia. Just look at the close relationship between Iran and Syria thanks to America's threatening pose towards the Middle East. Most people admit that the world is not safe anymore ever since the Iraq war. The only people that are going to miss America's power are those corrupt and abusive rulers that America supports for it own "interests", yeah, those rulers you always imagine "why haven't the people risen up and overthrow these dictators?" or "Why America isn't all over certain countries' human rights cases” or "for a backward nation they sure can afford American weapons ;)" Besides, I doubt Americans cared that Europe’s power was decreasing ever since WWI or the Ottoman Empire was split by European nations, this is a cycle and the rise of great nations started from the East and went westward and it’s finally returning to the East.

Post-U.S. world

Can't come soon enough.

Careful, we might move over there.

Don't worry folks, Canada is poised to step in and take the global reins. We shall rule with self-effacing humility, overwhelming politeness (get used to thanking vending machines, m'kay?) and our bestest weapon...BC weed.

That's because the US is practically rolling in its wealth. It can afford to sacrifice some for humanitarian efforts, as opposed to poorer countries whose money is either squandered by inept governments or goes to promoting the welfare of their own citizens, who are subjected to substandard conditions. Which country wreaked the most havoc in Africa and the Middle East (no, it's not Israel)? Look at Iran in the 1950s for an example of American exploitation of Middle-Eastern countries. We drain their natural resources with our ever-growing appetite for oil and give them precious little in return. We impose dictators upon them to feed our insatiable avarice. .

The US is rolling in it's wealth? That maybe be but most of the people worked hard to earn that wealth and it is not up to another to decide that we can afford it or we should do it just because we have it. It is done because we feel it is the proper thing to do to help fellow human beings. We do not "have " to do anything just because we can. Following your own line of thought there we would be perfectly justified in using our money to promote the welfare of our own citizens and their are millions who think we should rather then send our money to other nations , many of whom are ungrateful about the help they receive or even more despite the help do nothing but bad mouth those who help them. There is an old saying "do not bite the hand that feeds you". Guess it does not apply to the US? And if you call buying something like oil draining them then they should not offer it up for sale. France and Spain and many other European countries in the old days of Colonialism drained precious resources without return they simply "took" what they wanted. Maybe Spain and the other europeans should give back all the gold and other things they stole from central and south america in repatriations for having stole it, who cares if it bankrupts them it is fair right?


I am stating that the US exacerbated the problems of religious fanaticism by adding fuel to the fundamentalist fire. Do you think that the "war" declared by various jihadist groups against the US is just for show or dictated by the Koran? Our interference in the affairs of other countries is despised by certain individuals who convert that hate into a destructive force, aimed against the US. Had the US not existed, the threat of terrorism would not have been as great..

If you think exacberating them by giving aid to Israel so that they are not destroyed outright by their neighbors then yes, we are guilty. Is this dictated by the Koran? No. The Koran preached acceptance of other religions and living together with others. It was not until the begining of the 20th century and the middle 20th century that hatred of the West and Jews came up. In WW1 the germans incited the Arabs to war against the British and their allies in hopes of defeating them in war. And again during WW2 the Germans again encouraged incited hatred of the British and also of the Jews in an attempt to defeat the British in Africa and the Middle East and to gain the precious oil resources for their own use, and also in their hatred for the jews. Those same radical groups encouraged by the germans are the ones still preaching their hate.....but hey it must be the fault of the US could not be anyone else despite historical evidence to that.

If the US invades a country, then there is nothing to stop it. If, on the other hand, a country invades another without reason, a global consensus may be reached and several equally powerful nations can attempt to subdue the aggressor instead of relying on unilateral action..

And what global concensus would that be? those same global consensus caused 2 world wars.....and really more if you think about it. Counting the sevens years war, the 100 years war, the varying crusades, etc, etc.


Maybe that's true if you're assuming that "recent times" is the past 5 years and that "manipulation" is strictly defined as unfair military intervention, but there were numerous instances of such transgressions within the past two decades, for example. Also, name those wars between lesser powers to which you refer. And keep in mind that the US was one of the main backers of the instigator of the costly Iran-Iraq war, as it not only supported Saddam politically, but also sold armaments to him.

Right who cares if the majority of weapons used in that conflict were sold to both sides by the USSR and if you look around the world there are more weapons out there being used in conflicts that have been sold by the USSR then by the #2 arms dealer the US. But hey we do not want to lay any blame on the USSR, not and ruin your "hate the US" campaign.

I see no reason why the US would fall and the EU would survive. All the reasons that you've listed for the US falling to China could easily happen to Europe.
I predict something along what you said, except I think it would be the US vs. China, rather than the EU.

Actually no, Europe does not have big of a trade debt with China as the US does, the euro is also a stronger currency with more nations taking baskets against it and the Yen. The dollar is fading internationally. The US may, for a short time go against China, but in reality, the US by that point will no longer have the economic strength or the consumption base to wage any sort of economic struggle against China. That is why I am guessing that US will fall, but not in the literal sense. I am guessing that it will more or less be edged out of the main players on the international arena just because it can't quite keep up.

after all, we are the "lighted city upon a hill" that Reagan spoke of..

With the current warmonger in charge, it appears to be that that lighted city is lighted cause it's on fire.

Actually no, Europe does not have big of a trade debt with China as the US does, the euro is also a stronger currency with more nations taking baskets against it and the Yen. The dollar is fading internationally. The US may, for a short time go against China, but in reality, the US by that point will no longer have the economic strength or the consumption base to wage any sort of economic struggle against China. That is why I am guessing that US will fall, but not in the literal sense. I am guessing that it will more or less be edged out of the main players on the international arena just because it can't quite keep up.

You are correct about the Euro being stronger, but I do beleive the pound is stronger then the euro, and the US dollar will spend anywhere in the world at this moment everyone takes it, but not everyone will take the euro, nor will any other currency be accepted every where else....except that horrible US dollar.Maybe that says something about it's inherint strength? So I would not count the dollar out yet, it seems to have a habit of bouncing back when people least expect it to.

With the current warmonger in charge, it appears to be that that lighted city is lighted cause it's on fire.

While I disagree fundamentally with your comment, there is nothing better than seeing the word(s) WARMONGER.....

you gotta like how that sounds.... I believe in Indonesian it is

Penghasut Perang (correct me if I am wrong).... Lord knows why I know that.

On the account of possible, yes. On the account of probable, not currently determinable.

Although, following the downfall of the two pre-existing multi-national hegemons (Rome and Britain), a situation has developed where non-polarity and inter-state violence has become the dominant feature. One of which resulted in a delusional religious fervor and millenium of non-polarity.

The other resulted in a pair of global wars, the deaths of countless millions, a terrifying Cold War where all of humanity faced nuclear annihilation and other general weirdness.

So, the possibility is there, the probability, though, is unknown. It's over a decade and a half before it's even predictable, so, honestly, I can't say.

Don't worry folks, Canada is poised to step in and take the global reins. We shall rule with self-effacing humility, overwhelming politeness (get used to thanking vending machines, m'kay?) and our bestest weapon...BC weed.

C'mon, you know you already rule the world. Drop the charade. You've got a Tim Horton's in Kabul for goodness sakes.





Yes. The sole reason for invading Afghanistan was to make it so that a Tim Horton's could be installed in Kabul.

But all of you here who think it is wrong for the US to be doing it with their economic and military power why is it that another should step in? Would that not be just as wrong? Would it not be better for the descent into the darkness? And if not what makes it right for another to become the Superpower say the Eu just for example? What makes their pushing their weight around any better then the way you all slam the US for their "pushing their weight around"?

I never said that this is what should happen. I said it's what might happen.
If you're asking my moral opinion, the best possible scenario would be 5 - 6 large powers (instead of one mega-power), which largely agree politically, but compete economically without one being able to take the lead for long.
I don't care who these powers might turn out to be, possibly the EU, Japan, USA&Canada in a loose Union, China and India. But that's just to give you an idea of the scenario I'm talking about.

Post-U.S. world

Can't come soon enough.

Now THAT'S a truly ignorant comment, indeed.

Wonder whatever happened to Baguetten. I guess I got my answer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16843382/site/newsweek/



Does anyone think that this prediction of a post U.S. superpower world is possible? If so then probable?

not only possible but inevitable. every political entity rises and falls. it may take a long time or a short one, but nations are just as mortal as life itself.

a world in which, what is today squandered on military paranoia is instead invested in environmentaly compatable infrastructure, is possible as well.

every condition that exists because humans have created it, humans can chainge, and it is only a matter of time before humans or god and nature, or some combination of the two or three, eventualy do.

again this may take so long for no one to see it in thier own life times, but we do seem to be at a cuspy period when many things no adult believed they would ever live to see chainge when i was a child, have chainged and are chainging.

just as rail and steel build america's dominance over a century ago, the demise of cheep oil, along with a number of other factors, can, and likely will, chainge the world picture.

and the planet does NOT NEED super powers!

it got along at least as well as it does today without them, and can and likely will do so in times to come.

right now america is the elephant in the living room that makes it difficult for many to immagine any other kind of a world, but again, the perminance of any political balance is illusary.

rome fell. dynasty after dynasty of ancient china fell and were replaced, untill finaly a quasi-marxism replaced all of them, and then now, something resembling that structure but playing lip service to the pretension of equating "market forces" with freedom has to a signifagent degree made a face of replacing that. and these are the longest lived examples of political structures on this planet. by comparison, america's few hundred years are but a flash of passing moment.

and compared to the ten thousand or more years of indiginous cultures acclimating to sacredness of the land on which they dwell, even this is but a passing moment. and then there's the history of life, or even our own species, not to mention rocks and astronomical objects.

it is a big universe and any one culture's collective ego is still small chainge next to it.

diversity has always been, as long as there has been a been to have been, and every tyrannt that has beaten their head against it, has fallen first and nature's diversity keeps rolling along.

and if we, as a species are to survive, continue to roll along nature's diversity must, for we are no less dependent on it for our very existence, then any other form of life in it, however much we are able to deceive ourselves thanks to so completely having surrounded ourselves with artifacts of innovation which are the only contribution of our species uniquely our own.

a world without freeways, gas station or tickey tacky housing developments. where power is no longer sufficiently concentrated to enforce immigration restrictions or building codes. a world, without so much of what we take for granted, but with so much, even more, most of us have never even begun to dream of.

that is what i came to nation states in the hope of roll playing. not a world of constant brutality and wars.

wars there may continue to be. or not.
nukes and poisons will still be arround untill the are used up or otherwise disoulved in nature's constant churning and self renewal.

and of course there are problems to be inheireted that will still have to be faced and delt with, that may not immediately go away.

there is a great deal that remains to be seen. but a world perhapse with a united nations, but one without today's "security council" or need for it!

a world where monetary economics is once again a local option rather then an international standard.

a world where you probably will have to walk a lot more, maybe live up in the hills where you won't need as much air conditioning.

were you may have to limit your electrical consumption to one refrigerator and one computer, or one way or another generate it yourself.

oh how awefull, oh no,
oh massa, please don't throw me in dat briar patch.

oh how could we ever get along without the tyranny of the dominance of aggressiveness?

watch and live, and maybe, if we're all lucky, you might just get to see.

=^^=
.../\...

It is a matter of time that American power fails. Everytime the dominant power gets overtaken in history, we get conflicts. It happened after Rome fell, as mentioned. For the Holy Roman Empire we had the 30 Years War. With France there was the Napoleonic Wars. To an extent it happened when German military power declined (in relative terms) prior to WWI. It happened when British power weakened in WWII. Hell, look at the Balkans after the Turkish decline.

However, America has plenty of space to expand yet; it's got a relatively low population and a massive lead in space. So yeah, second guessing the timeframe is meaningless (although that might be just my wishful thinking... Pax Americana is preferable to WWIII to me).

It is a matter of time that American power fails. Everytime the dominant power gets overtaken in history, we get conflicts. It happened after Rome fell, as mentioned. For the Holy Roman Empire we had the 30 Years War. With France there was the Napoleonic Wars. To an extent it happened when German military power declined (in relative terms) prior to WWI. It happened when British power weakened in WWII. Hell, look at the Balkans after the Turkish decline.

However, America has plenty of space to expand yet; it's got a relatively low population and a massive lead in space. So yeah, second guessing the timeframe is meaningless (although that might be just my wishful thinking... Pax Americana is preferable to WWIII to me).

unless of course "pax americana" = WWIII, which is precisely what it seems to be working on!

=^^=
.../\...

Ah, kind of, isn't it?

But compared to the past the 'War On Terror' has been and still is far less bloody. It took only 6 years to kill 60 million during WWII, you know. The goal of terrorism is to cause fear; it does not fundamentally damage the country in any meaningful physical sense. Wars, on the other hand, destroys anything in its path (look at Iraq... and it was done by a coalition mindful of domestic anti-war critics).

As long as no country on this planet can match the American military on a conventional battlefield, this is still a nicer world (generally) than what came before. Although I do wish the West think a little bit more about other parts of the world; sending their armies to stop genocides would have been a heck of a lot more meaningful than disposing Saddam Hussein, as criminal as he was.

IMHO, the historician quoted in the OP is way too catastrophist. Look, in Europe we've had superpowers for a long time - first France, then Great Britain, the Habsburg Empire etc... and we've had lots of wars. Since WW2, no european country has a superpower role in the european area, and we've had only small-scale wars in the Balkans. No more Germany vs France, Italy vs Austria, England vs Netherlands, Sweden vs Poles... I think that "apolarity" could lead - if well controlled by diplomacy and solidarity - to a more peaceful age.

........Europe was the heart of the Cold War between United States and Soviet Union. The fact that one existed outside of Europe does not negate the fact that half of Europe was under its sphere of influence.

Between 1914-1939, Europe was not under the domination of any great power. Look what happened.

Well despite comments I have made on US foreign policy on this forum, I fundamentally believe that the US has much positive things to contribute in foreign policy both bi/tri-laterally and in the UN. I think the US with it's size, power and money represents a power for progressing things in the world, such as education and social conditions. And I think if the US hegemony decreases, either through isolationist policies or whatnot, that the world will suffer for it.

I feel myself agreeing with former head of state Henry Kissinger who spoke recently regarding Iraq, that diplomacy is needed. I believe that the US in relation to Iraq and elsewhere has overrated military force as an option to the exclusion of diplomacy. Diplomacy, and in particular US diplomacy is not impotent , because it can be backed up with money and support etc, so it's effectiveness is never to be downplayed. Kissinger himself did not care for global concepts of good and evil, and believed the only constant was making the world a safer and more free world.

I believe this can be applied to Iran/Syria, sure you don't like their ideals or what their doing, but once upon a time the US negotiated and made treaties with the USSR and others, and has dealt with regimes far more brutal and oppressive. Remember that is was the neocons who made up all this false military data about the Soviets in order to hard line Reagan's stance. And again I fundamentally believe that this neocon propaganda has driven this 'terrorism' panic, and that people should never bow to the politics of fear, we should never resign ourselves that ideals are not possible. Provocation and fear-mongering for a political agenda, as well as outdated concepts of evil and good in such a contradicting political world are the enemies of peace and freedom.

No, because the world is too interconnected and too interdependent to suffer that kind of instability. The situations that led to the Dark Ages of the past do not exist anymore, and there are a number of nations that could inherit the position of the US should it be possible.

Actually, that interconnection can be a curse as well. Take a look at how alliance networks caused WWI. And how the depression of the 1930s spread across the world. Remember that this was BEFORE large-scale aviation and the internet, just think how quickly it could all come crashing down. If the US goes, the global economy goes, because everything is connected to it. A few places would ride it out, sure.

But by and large it'd be an unmitigated economic disaster, particularly if the causation was a severe oil shortage of some kind (there goes JIT delivery, cross-global manufacturing lines and most food supply lines in a hit one hit). Unfortunately it'd almost certainly result in a world war - fighting with the last of the oil for the last of the oil (when the better plan would be trying to use the last of it to at least get food production and distribution away from oil).

There would be no winner, and the lack of oil to power industrial society would result in a dark age (maybe we wouldn't go as far back as some think, but we'd go back at least to the age of steam. And given how far we've actually come since then, that's a LONG way to fall. Should we fall further...

Actually, that interconnection can be a curse as well. Take a look at how alliance networks caused WWI. And how the depression of the 1930s spread across the world. Remember that this was BEFORE large-scale aviation and the internet, just think how quickly it could all come crashing down. If the US goes, the global economy goes, because everything is connected to it. A few places would ride it out, sure.

But by and large it'd be an unmitigated economic disaster, particularly if the causation was a severe oil shortage of some kind (there goes JIT delivery, cross-global manufacturing lines and most food supply lines in a hit one hit). Unfortunately it'd almost certainly result in a world war - fighting with the last of the oil for the last of the oil (when the better plan would be trying to use the last of it to at least get food production and distribution away from oil).

There would be no winner, and the lack of oil to power industrial society would result in a dark age (maybe we wouldn't go as far back as some think, but we'd go back at least to the age of steam. And given how far we've actually come since then, that's a LONG way to fall. Should we fall further...

I think you assume that the US would go in a sort of overnight scenario, leaving a big empty whole. In which case, you'd be right of course.
I don't think that's very likely to happen, though.

What I assumed was a steady decline of US influence, politcally, militarily and economically. In that scenario, which seems way more likely to me, there would be no great big void where the US used to be. Rather, as the US would decline, other powers would rise.

We won't know until we see it, though, and I have severe doubts that any of us will.

What I assumed was a steady decline of US influence, politcally, militarily and economically. In that scenario, which seems way more likely to me, there would be no great big void where the US used to be. Rather, as the US would decline, other powers would rise.

We won't know until we see it, though, and I have severe doubts that any of us will.

Of course, that's a fairly accurate description of the immediately pre-war period, where Britain had suffered a long, slow decline in relative power in comparison to Germany.

"Another stone-age would hardly be an improvement."

"Nothing so drastic... a dark-age... an age of city-states, craftsmen... government on a scale comprehensible to its citizens..."



Course me, I usually just merged with Helios since I know best ^^

I think you assume that the US would go in a sort of overnight scenario, leaving a big empty whole. In which case, you'd be right of course.
I don't think that's very likely to happen, though.

What I assumed was a steady decline of US influence, politcally, militarily and economically. In that scenario, which seems way more likely to me, there would be no great big void where the US used to be. Rather, as the US would decline, other powers would rise.

We won't know until we see it, though, and I have severe doubts that any of us will.

If any fundamental resource (particularly oil) it'll happen relatively quick. Sure, I see it taking a few years for the problem to overcome America's sheer inertia, but once that happens, it'll drop like a rock.

If any sort of supply line fell, the US would not last long, the Just-in-Time inventory system will see to that (lack of food causes riots etc. Police overstep the mark, things would get bloody rather quickly if it happened).

The main problem is the sheer mass of America in terms of the world's economy (it's something like 30% of global activity, or some such figure, with none of the others being truly close).

if you lose even 10% (say the American economy slid back by 1/3, large numbers I know, but I'm using this for the sake of the argument) Everything would collapse around you pretty quick.

One thing that would truly pwn the US economy would be China dumping it's US$ reserves - something that COULD happen in the future. It'd bring the exported inflation home to roost, people would lose faith in the US $ and it'd be toast.

There are so many other factors pointing to the fact that the US has become overstretched (both militarily and economically) - record debt levels and the like - that are rather concerning. People say (and even the government does) that this means nothing, but this is a matter of sweeping under the rug something that NEEDS to be considered.

Otherwise, we'll all be sore and sorry when the next World War arrives. It's quite clearly on the horizon. It may be a couple of decades yet, but it's definitely forming, and it all it takes for it to hit the fan is for one group or person to do something foolish or rash and the house of cards starts tumbling down.

You're right, it wouldn't NECESSARILY happen this way, and quite frankly I hope that it doesn't, but it is a most frightful possibility, and one that needs to at least be given thought.

China continues to buy massive amounts of US dollars and US dollar assets, and hordes reserves because China's benefits from doing so. The interest rates the Bank of China pays on its bonds are lower than American interest rates, so the Bank of China makes a profit buying US bonds/assets (increasing foreign reserves) while selling Chinese bonds. As long as US interest rates are higher, the current exchange rate regime stays very profitable for China. Since the gap in interest rates between the two countries is rather large, it is highly unlikely China would ever dump its US reserves (why kill a golden goose egg?).

The world would just split into the EU, the Chinese Empire, Not-quite-Soviet Russia, and a South American Union with everything else still as fucked up as it is now, well whatever the Chinese havn't declared as part of their empire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16843382/site/newsweek/



Does anyone think that this prediction of a post U.S. superpower world is possible? If so then probable?

Here's the article: A World Without Power (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/vac.htm).

I expect almost nobody will actually read it.

He argues:

1) The Us cannot maintain it's hegomny due to increasing dependence of foreign capital, a lack of troops, and a lack of willingness to enage in locng term foreign military endevours.

2) Europe's international influance will decline due to it's aging population.

3) China will run into a Japan style economic crisis, "unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires."

4) Islam is too diffuse and divided to become a hegemon.

He then argues that the last time the world saw this state oif affairs was the 9th and 10th centuries - both the Western and Eastern Roman empires, the Abbasid caliphate, and the Ta'ng had either collapsed or were in decline, and colud not exert a stabilising influance, which resulted in small localised, disconnected, and introvereted "empires" and city states which were targeted by the "barbarians" at the proverbial gates.

If ya'll're going argue over thge guys thesis, at least know what he's on about...

In this era, the remains of the Roman Empire—Rome and Byzantium—receded from the height of their power. The leadership of the West was divided between the pope, who led Christendom, and the heirs of Charlemagne, who divided up his short-lived empire under the Treaty of Verdun in 843. No credible claimant to the title of emperor emerged until Otto was crowned in 962, and even he was merely a German prince with pretensions (never realized) to rule Italy. Byzantium, meanwhile, was dealing with the Bulgar rebellion to the north.

By 900, the Abbasid caliphate initially established by Abu al-Abbas in 750 had passed its peak; it was in steep decline by the middle of the 10th century. In China, too, imperial power was in a dip between the T'ang and Sung dynasties. Both these empires had splendid capitals—Baghdad and Ch'ang-an—but neither had serious aspirations of territorial expansion.

The weakness of the old empires allowed new and smaller entities to flourish. When the Khazar tribe converted to Judaism in 740, their khanate occupied a Eurasian power vacuum between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. In Kiev, far from the reach of Byzantium, the regent Olga laid the foundation for the future Russian Empire in 957 when she converted to the Orthodox Church. The Seljuks—forebears of the Ottoman Turks—carved the Sultanate of Rum as the Abbasid caliphate lost its grip over Asia Minor. Africa had its mini-empire in Ghana; Central America had its Mayan civilization. Connections between these entities were minimal or nonexistent. This condition was the antithesis of globalization. It was a world broken up into disconnected, introverted civilizations.

I do not agree with his historical analysis. For, at the time of the Abbasid decline, the Fatimids succeeded in building an Empire that lasted for three hundred years, albeit in different forms. During this time, they became one of the major powers, and at times even the major power in the Mediterranean region. Still, they had to deal with powerful competitors in their vicinity. From the beginning of the tenth century up until the twelfth century we can discern four major powers in the region, three of which were Muslim, namely the Fatimids in the Maghreb, the Abbasids in the Mashreq and the Umayyads in the Iberian Peninsula. The other mayor power in the region, the Byzantine Empire, encompassing contemporary Greece, large parts of contemporary Italy and Anatolia, was a Christian Empire. Given the importance of religion at the time, one might expect that conflict would predominantly arise between the Muslim powers and the Christian Power, yet this is not the case. For, the Fatimids had remarkably cordial relations with Byzantine.

Ah, kind of, isn't it?

But compared to the past the 'War On Terror' has been and still is far less bloody. It took only 6 years to kill 60 million during WWII, you know. The goal of terrorism is to cause fear; it does not fundamentally damage the country in any meaningful physical sense. Wars, on the other hand, destroys anything in its path (look at Iraq... and it was done by a coalition mindful of domestic anti-war critics).

As long as no country on this planet can match the American military on a conventional battlefield, this is still a nicer world (generally) than what came before. Although I do wish the West think a little bit more about other parts of the world; sending their armies to stop genocides would have been a heck of a lot more meaningful than disposing Saddam Hussein, as criminal as he was.

You do realize Saddam had been working on the Genocide of the Kurds for quite awhile now right? So I guess the deposeing of Saddam is genocide intervention right? Not to mention the Killing of thousands of shias..... the recent 2005 findings of 2 new mass graves in Kuwait with over 5000 bodies dating to Saddams take over of Kuwait in 1991. Does any of that sound worth stopping?