Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[Glassfan]

IMHO, Americans care less about being world leaders anymore. The "Greatest Generation" who concerned themselves with such things are gone now. The Cold War is over. NATO is considered irrelavant by many. Relatively few care about the space program anymore. The Large Hadron Collider was eventually built in Europe because the US Congress lost interest and voted against building one here.

Instead of proactive leadership, we seem to be reactively protecting our interests. But I suppose if a real planetary emergency were to emerge, the US might still lead (with help) the fire brigade.

As for Communist China, while it's true that their economy might soon overtake the US, and they may become the dominant regional military power, is there any real belief that they might become true world leaders?

Perhaps we should define leadership. For a generation or so, the US looked beyond it's own narrow domestic interests and helped around the world - WW II, CARE, the Marshall Plan, the UN, USAID. It recognized the greater good. And for a time it had vision - it cured diseases, explored the ocean depths, sent men to the moon.

Forinstance, America/Britain led in Dessert Storm to redress a balance - defeat an occupation (and yes, protect an energy source). Would anyone actually follow China in such a war of liberation? Would China actually engage itself in a true liberation (Tibet?). Perhaps I'm just lacking imagination, but it seems to me China doesn't yet have that vision - it would have to grow a bit to be respected and followed and trusted as a world leader.

 

[Borachio]

Does this mean you take my point?

I'm not sure. I'd tend to think that raw GDP power is all that really counts. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Incidentally, I think China's domestic political situation is interesting for exactly the reason that economic and political power are virtually indistinguishable. By liberalizing the market system, I think China must inevitably be at least diffusing the political power into the growing middle class, to an extent. If not leading directly to democracy immediately.

 

[Leoreth]

As for Communist China, while it's true that their economy might soon overtake the US, and they may become the dominant regional military power, is there any real belief that they might become true world leaders?

I don't think many people believe this. At the moment China doesn't even have the ambition to become a world leader.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Glad you finally recognise China will be the largest economy soon. Whether you like it or not, thats a huge thing in international relations. It is a South East-Asian Pacific regional power at the moment sure, but not forever. With a larger economy then the states it will gain the means to match American military might (if it wishes). It may want too sit quietly in Asia and become rich and ignore the rest of the world, something which the US couldn't .

I wouldn't say having a large economy is the biggest factor in international relations, I'd say alliances, military power and reach are much more important. America has a massive network of allies, bases, and friendly nations across the globe. You can probably count China's "allies" on one hand.

Even with a giant economy, its not going to match American military might. Sure, they might have money to spend on all the new toys, but those toys are 1) not going to match the massive tech advantage America has (and will continue to do so), and 2) have skilled operators behind it. The American military has a hell of a lot of experience of fighting modern wars and actually using their equipment in combat situations.

What modern wars has China fought in? None, that always be China's massive disadvantage unless they want to start invading people like there's no tomorrow, which ain't going to happen. You can't just buy yourself a quality army/airforce/navy/whatever

And as for the last part, sure, they can do that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what they're doing right now. Its not going to net them #1 status or whatever you want to call it. They'll just be the rich giant that is still forced to bend when the American wind blows.

Diplmomatically, well, it has an equal say to the states on the UN council and has so since 1971. Plus, it doesn't have a toxic reputation around the world. China has a lot of potential.
I think comparing guns is a stupid thing. At the end of the day if China and America get into a proper war it will be the end of the world, so it doesnt really matter anyway.

Well, so does Russia, but I don't see many predicting anything about Russia becoming the next hegemonic power. The most that they're doing right now is carving their own little sphere of influence with neighboring states.

China can wield their powers and be a SC obstacle if they want, but that's not going to net them any more allies then they already have.

Also end of the world?

Many countries growth has slowed down over the past few years. China did not even enter a recession, whilst American output fell and the economy shrank - China was growing about 8%. Sure, it might be slowing down from 9% to 7%(i can't be bothered to check, lets jsut take your word for it) but in the grand scheme that means nothing, China will still gain pre-eminence just a few years later.

I'm no economist, not even close, but from what I understand China's going through a massive bubble right now (just look at all the ghost towns they've built). And if I know bubbles correctly, it's going to pop, and it's not going to be pretty.

China's economy will grow, but its not going to gain "pre-eminence" over the U.S. anytime soon. They're going to be a regional power for a long time in the near future

 

[Murky]

Instead of proactive leadership, we seem to be reactively protecting our interests. But I suppose if a real planetary emergency were to emerge, the US might still lead (with help) the fire brigade.

In case you haven't noticed, we are in a planetary emergency and so far both the USA and China are dragging their feet.
Europe is leading the fire brigade so far.

Scientists: It's worse than we thought.
http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate

GOP Senator: It's all a hoax.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-out-underwhelming-campaign-to-slash-the-epa/

 

[Glassfan]

In case you haven't noticed, we are in a planetary emergency and so far both the USA and China are dragging their feet.
Europe is leading the fire brigade so far.

I thought exactly this the moment after I wrote the words, planetary emergency. At the time I was thinking of more traditional emergencies. But yes, another indicator.

 

[Arakhor]

That would be fellacious.

Well, I would say that that sucks, but rather it blows.

 

[Patroklos]

If you need examples of what the US can still do in the world that can't be rivaled by any one or even group of nations one need only look at many of the most catastrophic acute disasters.

During the Thiland/etc. tsunami we were by far the largest aid contributor in both material and dollars and led the international response.

The same can be said for the recent Japanese earthquake/tsunami.

In the end while our economic position provided for a lot of that in a nebulous sense, it was really our military capabilities that provided the means and makes our current responses unparalleled.

Its not all economics, its how you use your economy both past and present.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And a giant chunk of that military/quasi-economic heavy lifting power is in Naval and Air Power.

That's something that can't be built up or replaced quickly. Even if China does overtake the United States economically (and that's something that takes a lot more then having a larger aggregate GDP), it would take decades to physically construct a fleet and airforce, and supporting infrastructure to match ours.

At the end of the day, the United States still decides which planes and boats can go where in the world, and that grants them a status no one else in the world has.

 

[ace99]

I'm tired of these insults!

 

[Crezth]

I'm not going to give a complete lecture on the reasons why countries/regios rise and fall here.

Oh, please do. Can you throw in a "and how all history is predetermined" sublecture too?

 

[Phrossack]

What does "decline" even mean when applied to geopolitics or whatever anyway?

It means that people start losing the rights to boast about how they were born on a piece of land occupied by a group of people whose government officials claimed and controlled more land, money, and power than others. "Declining" means loss of bragging rights on issues over which most people have little to no control or influence (like land area, military size, military victories, engineering achievements), yet still claim collective credit.

For example, a Briton in, say, 1910 might have boasted of how the British Empire spanned a quarter of the globe, won many wars, was a center of industry, science, engineering, and technology. He'd feel proud to be British despite not actually being personally responsible for any of these achievements in any noticeable way. Come 1960 or so, however, and the Empire had lost most of its territory and been eclipsed by the US and USSR in many aspects of military and technological achievement. Never mind the fact that his standard of living was higher then than in 1910, his football team's losingEmpire is no longer supreme! He might say, "Look at the Empire disintegrating! We used to rule the world after we defeated Napoleon!", using that "we" as though he himself fought at Waterloo.

This rant wasn't really meant for you, of course, just at the belief that countries must be #1 in various and largely irrelevant categories, and that if they achieve this their citizens can take credit for this and feel a little better about themselves as though they are responsible. [/Rant].

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I am of the opinion that people who vote in democratic societies can actually claim some responsibilty for the greatness of their country.

 

[ace99]

I am of the opinion that people who vote in democratic societies can actually claim some responsibilty for the greatness of their country.

Talking to the average voter should dissuade you otherwise.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Talking to the average voter should dissuade you otherwise.

Or not. It's actually worked pretty well for us so far I think.

Edit:
Or, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Or something something something FREEDOM!

 

[ace99]

Or not. It's actually worked pretty well for us so far I think.

You must not have many Republican friends.


More to the point, not everyone votes, and more than that not everyone votes for a reason, even I confess that on occasions when I don't know anything about the candidate I vote based on party affiliation. "Oh he's on Working Families ticket? Yeah must be decent enough."

To give me credit for something like unemployment dropping/increasing is I think giving too much importance the the voter and their influence on the system.

I'm not going to suggest that the socio-economic elite control everything, I'm merely going to say that the socio-economic elite control everything.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you need examples of what the US can still do in the world that can't be rivaled by any one or even group of nations one need only look at many of the most catastrophic acute disasters.

During the Thiland/etc. tsunami we were by far the largest aid contributor in both material and dollars and led the international response.

The same can be said for the recent Japanese earthquake/tsunami.

In the end while our economic position provided for a lot of that in a nebulous sense, it was really our military capabilities that provided the means and makes our current responses unparalleled.

Its not all economics, its how you use your economy both past and present.

You shouldn't try comparing apples to oranges in such an absurd manner:

Disasters Statistics > Tsunami > Funds pledged (per $ GDP) (most recent) by country

#1 Kuwait $2.093 per $1000
#25 US $.077 per $1000

In regard to Tsunami disaster relief funding per GDP, we contributed 3.7% as much as Kuwait, 11% as much as Australia, and 25% as much as Canada. We rank between Cyprus and Portugal. Bankrupt Greece provided almost as much aid as we did based on GDP, and so did Libya.

Our funding of international projects and response to disasters is a disgrace compared to many other modern countries.

 

[strijder20]

Oh, please do. Can you throw in a "and how all history is predetermined" sublecture too?

Good luck proving time is NOT predetermined
And you know more about the subject than I do, AFAIK (you took my post a bit out of context by only quoting half of it). Why is Europe declining faster than the U.S. is? And why are both (relatively) declining?

 

[Crezth]

Good luck proving time is NOT predetermined

I daresay the onus is not on me, here.

And you know more about the subject than I do, AFAIK (you took my post a bit out of context by only quoting half of it). Why is Europe declining faster than the U.S. is? And why are both (relatively) declining?

Well, first of all, I'm not really the guy to ask. I mean there are scores of people on these forums with umpteen times as much knowledge on this subject as myself.

That said, to answer your question really requires knowing what is meant by "declining." Then you'd have to relate that back to history, as opposed to the apparently more salient economics (and I still wouldn't be the guy to ask about that). By certain metrics, both Europe and the US are still pretty well-off, and will be for the foreseeable future. But whyever that may be, I'm afraid you've still lost me when you try to say that any advantage they stand to lose is due to a historical inevitability.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All this talk about economy and military might. The greatness of the country is determined by it's creaminess. And only Denmark comes close to the Netherlands in that regard.