Rath said:
starcraft said:
Reasonable said:
starcraft said:
Anyone that thinks the United States, a country that forms the backbone of the global economy, ensures wars between countries like Iraq and Kuwait (until recently), China and Taiwan, Russia and Chechnya and a tonne of other conflicts dont occur simply through the presence of it's fleets and acts as the world's second-largest functional democracy is a source of instability, is simply full of irrational hate.
|
The funny thing is your argument actual makes the USA seem like the most likely choice - i.e. if it's that influential then it is also the greatest point of potential instability; rather like the idea of a Keystone without which the entire bridge would fall down. For example many would argue that the current economic instability has its roots in the USA and that therefore the USA is a potentially huge source of instability.
|
You're (as are many others in this thread) arguing about the potential instability that could be generated by the USA. But the thing is, that instability only comes to pass if the USA either collapses or bypasses it's own democratic values in an epically serious way. But they are not a threat to stability unless either of these things is likely, and neither of them are.
On the economic question, consider this. We have the current crisis stemming (but in no way limited too) a lack of regulation in the US mortgage market, stood up against the enormous stability created for decades by US consumerism, the strength of the dollar as a universal purchasing mechanism, and US funding of the IMF and World Bank's activities.
I recently read a fictional novel by an Australian author called Without Warning: America is Gone that illustrated what I consider to be a fairly realistic notion of what would happen to the world in the event mainstream USA simply disappeared (set in the obviously fictional 2003 world just prior to the invasion of Iraq). It was carnage. Even if events didn't play out as that book outlined, it is perfectly reasonable to belief much of the world would collapse, not just economically but into absolute anarchism if America's stabilising influence disappeared.
You have essentially argued against yourself. By arguing America's disappearance as a stabilising influence would result in crisis, you're asserting the fact that for decades America has been, and in all likelihood for decades will be, the greatest source of stability this world has.
|
For decades? Two decades perhaps. During the Cold War, America was a source of instability. As was the USSR.
Stability only occurs in the world when there is a dominant super-power. I still think that the West will remain the dominant super-power but its not the USA alone that is currently giving the world stability, its the fact that the Western world is politically, economically and militarily more powerful than any other power.
Also you are looking at the stability of the world if a place simply stopped existing, that is a very unrealistic scenario for a sudden death and would play out just as disastrously in other places. What would the world do if China stopped existing? It would be financial chaos as the world would not be able to take over its role as a manufacturer quickly enough.
|
Oh I don't know. There was certainly something to be said for some periods of time during the cold war where dual super-powers together generated stability throughout much of the world. China ceasing to exist WOULD be catastrophic economically, but not nearly as much as if the USA did. The USA is the world's source of income. It would still desire goods if China disappeared (in the medium-long term at least, in the short-term it would be cataclysm everywhere), and other countries seeing that income would quickly begin to produce them.
As an aside, can anyone point to significant instances recently where the EU has proven capable of uniting and throwing ANY real economic or military weight around?
