We’re becoming not quite the ‘800 Pound Gorilla’ anymore…'more like a mean 140 pound
Chimp staring down a few Baby Gorillas that haven’t grown up yet.
[quote]Karado wrote:
We’re becoming not quite the ‘800 Pound Gorilla’ anymore…'more like a mean 140 pound
Chimp staring down a few Baby Gorillas that haven’t grown up yet.[/quote]
Yeah, but we can still fling poo like nobody else in the world.
.
NO! We’re #1! because we said so. We don’t need a bunch of statistics and other countries to compare ourselves to. We’re # 1 Damnit!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
I’ve heard some plausible scenarios for China imploding before it gain its predicted preeminence.
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I’m inclined to agree. China is a classic example of how GNP can be a deceptive statistic in determining the overall strength of a state’s economy. Economic might, along with a large population, are the bedrock of military power. Sure, their GNP is huge and it is growing, but compare their per-capita income to that of the United States and it becomes clear that they have a long way to go before they begin to possess the same latent power as the United States. ($ 50,700 compared to $ 9,300, respectively) To put that in perspective, China is ranked right above the Cook Islands and right below Jamaica. To be sure, the Chinese have huge potential, but potential isn’t something written in stone, especially when one considers the political and societal issues that plague China.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’s pretty obvious America will not maintain sole super power status for long. It makes sense and is probably better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist. I forget the pol-sci term for it.
A lot of the article sensationalist junk to sell his book though. At least that’s my opinion of the piece.
[/quote]
Multi-polarity. It actually increases the probability of conflict in the international system, particularly in unbalanced multi-polarity, in which one state’s relative power is markedly greater than that of its peers. [/quote]
Beat me to it. [/quote]
How so? There’s been an awful lot of conflict during times of 1 or 2 powers.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
Me neither. But I do know that Africa won’t be able to support its current population growth and famine and disease will be on an epic scale.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’s pretty obvious America will not maintain sole super power status for long. It makes sense and is probably better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist. I forget the pol-sci term for it.
A lot of the article sensationalist junk to sell his book though. At least that’s my opinion of the piece.
[/quote]
Multi-polarity. It actually increases the probability of conflict in the international system, particularly in unbalanced multi-polarity, in which one state’s relative power is markedly greater than that of its peers. [/quote]
Beat me to it. [/quote]
How so? There’s been an awful lot of conflict during times of 1 or 2 powers. [/quote]
What happened to your belief that it’s probably “better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist”? The main cause of war lies in the structure of the international system. Put simply, this is the number of great powers and the amount of power each controls. Structure can take several forms.
- Unipolarity is characterized by the presence of one regional hegemon.(Arguably the United States in the post Cold War era)
- Bipolarity is characterized by two great powers roughly equal in power (The U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War)
- Balanced multipolarity is characterized by three or more great powers of roughly equal strength in which there is no potential hegemon. (Europe in the later half of the 19th century)
- Unbalanced multipolarity is characterized by the three or more great powers. The difference in power between the leading state and its closest competitor makes it a potential hegemon. Potential hegemons are likely to go to war with all of the great powers in the system. These wars are bound to be both long and enormously costly in both blood and treasure. (Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, and 1939 Nazi Germany)
Bipolarity is the most stable, unbalanced multipolarity is the most likely to lead to war, and balanced polarity is somewhere in between.
This is due to primarily to three factors.
First, there are more opportunities for war in a multipolar system. This is due to the presence of more potential conflict dyads between great powers. In bipolarity, there are only two great powers, and thus there is only one conflict dyad directly involving them. In a multipolar system of say, three great powers, we have three conflict diads. A can fight B, A can fight C, and B can fight C. Following this logic, a system with five great powers has ten conflict diads. Hopefully, it’s clear that the more great powers there are, the greater the odds that their vital national interests will meet and erupt at various geopolitical fault lines. I haven’t even included the complications that the addition of minor power conflict diads brings to the equation.
Second, imbalances in power are more likely in a multipolar system, making deterrence more difficult and war more likely. If a state possesses markedly greater military capabilities than its rivals, it will be more incentivized to use force to facilitate its interests.
Third, the potential for miscalculation is greater in multipolarity. Norms of behavior are much easier to establish between two parties, as opposed to many. The anarchic nature of the international system is amplified by the ambiguities created by multiple states vying simultaneously to maximize their relative power to one another.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Bipolarity is the most stable…
[/quote]
Yeah like Rome and Carthage…oh.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Bipolarity is the most stable…
[/quote]
Yeah like Rome and Carthage…oh.[/quote]
There were other great powers at that time besides those two.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What happened to your belief that it’s probably “better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist”?
[/quote]
Nothing, I asked a question.
I still think it’s true based on many of the same reasons I think 2, 3, or more competitors are far superior to a Monopoly.
I would content it has no, or at least very little, to do with the structure of the internation system. It’s my opinion war is a product of the human condition the majority of the time.
Civil wars has nothing to do with the internation system.
Genocide has nothing to do with the internation system.
All of the above sounds like a great opinion on the subject. To say with absolute certainty that, “Bipolarity is the most stable, unbalanced multipolarity is the most likely to lead to war, and balanced polarity is somewhere in between,” is conjecture. War occurs during and within every struture you mentioned.
War, especially between “powers,” is complex and I don’t think “power status” plays much of a role.
Team America! Fuck Yeah!
Some of you seem to know this already, but having spoken to people who literally fled here from China, do you realize how much it sucks there? They don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle necessary to usurp the throne.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Some of you seem to know this already, but having spoken to people who literally fled here from China, do you realize how much it sucks there? They don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle necessary to usurp the throne.[/quote]
The same goes for India as well.
[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Team America! Fuck Yeah![/quote]
