I disagree. The situation in China is going to lead to a government that, although it retains an authoritarian cast, is going to institute more and more moderation in order to pursue economic growth and integration, growth and integration that they have to pursue in order to keep their people happy, employed, and away from their picket signs (or more extreme methods of defiance).

China has moved into Bureaucracy, and they are going to do exactly what a bureaucracy does when left to its own devices: maintain the status quo, especially in terms of domestic matters.

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.

Vatican City

Canada.


what do they want. just sitting up there minding their own business.They are planning something. and it will be bad

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?

I would argue that two super-powers was inherently unstable. You ended up very near nuclear oblivion at least twice in the Cold War, the world was unstable - it was pure luck that the instability didn't lead to disaster.

Also for the EU thing, the Euro had massive economic effects for the world. I agree however that the EU is not a military super-power. Not really the aim of the thing though.

Also notice that I didn't mention the EU in my posts, I mentioned Europe as a whole. Even if not entirely united they are still economic (and sometimes military) forces in the world and for the most part they fall into the general category of 'the West' which in my opinion is essentially made up of America north of Mexico, Europe west of the old iron curtain, Australia and New Zealand.

And don't our two glorious countries just ooze influence and power on a daily basis?

Easily Luxembourg.

Actually, I pointed out I didn't think it was USA but that your comments are exactly the type of comments that make people feel it could be.

If you tell people, as you did, that the USA is fantastically important then you are leading them to build a picture where it becomes the vital 'weak' spot.  Which, in a sense it is.  After all the OT wasn't which country is the most likely threat - i.e. which is most likely to cause trouble, but which is the biggest threat.  This implies no importance of probability, which does leave the way open for USA to be seriously considered, as while it is very unlikely it would be destabilising, if it did become so, for example if the USA totally collapsed, then its absence would be hugely destabilising.

I however was referring to the psychology of how people make opinions - also, to be honest you tried to get in your views in a blocking way.  The OT was what do you think...?  You responded by declaring what you feel is the wrong answer.  Not only is this unfair and manipulative, basically telling other posters 'the answer is not the USA and if you put that then you are wrong', it was, as I pointed out, ironically only more likely to get people saying what you were trying to block.

Read carefully and don't assume.