About US global dominance 'set to wane' Page 4
|November 25th, 2008||#31|
| || |
The problems facing the world these days are not ones of an expansionist nature but ones of an economic and social nature (the ever growing power of industry and terrorist groups, gangs organised crime etc.) and for that you do not need America's firepower you just need a functioning police force.
The USA thrived while the world had a real enemy that required nations to get together in defence pacts, the day the USSR died American military influence began to wane and nations switched to economic alliances (free trade agreements and the like).
The one outlier in all of this is the potential for military conflict as raw materials move into short supply but even these will be fueled by economic reasons.
I agree completely, I think it is a very interesting report.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Last edited by MontyB; November 25th, 2008 at 18:36..
|November 25th, 2008||#32|
| || |
No, a Chinese threat would be more regional so the EU won't have anything to do with it. It's close enough for America to be concerned but as far as Europe, it's not their deal. If they do get involved, it'll probably be in order to aid Australia.
|November 25th, 2008||#33|
| || |
We are a lot less dependent on other global players to earn a descend living. And if you look at the Dutch major export products, heck we are hardly depend on foreign oil etc. We deal in tulips, cheese and building dams all over the planet. So we are principally working in the primary and tertiary economic sector. We leave to producing of things to others....
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill
|November 25th, 2008||#34|
| || |
MontyB - ref your :-
"There is a problem with this argument and it is that it relies heavily on having a credible enemy. "
I rather see the challenges below, which I have already posted on this thread; leading to chaotic situations that have not, in scale, been experienced before. This is where I see USA being sadly missed, if indeed, they are to be in a position of withdrawal from leadership and major influence. You have to admit that eyes are already focussing on Obama regarding world challenges.
The global economy. Energy supplies and prices are stressing all industrialized economies, and they risk undermining less developed and weaker economies. To say nothing of how the global crisis in food production and soaring prices for agricultural commodities could exacerbate conflict in Asia and Africa. Then there's the critical issue of the uneven distribution of wealth and persistent poverty in a belt of countries stretching from southern Africa, across the Middle East and South Asia, to parts of Southeast Asia. Not to mention, a growing instability of international financial markets. The next president cannot ignore these things. Energy, finances, commodities, and poverty are a witches' brew capable of undermining other national security objectives and creating new conflicts to worry about. Therefore, they demand new and imaginative approaches.
Inadequate governance. Governments throughout the world are struggling to ensure the security of their citizens and keep order within their boundaries. Some states have failed; some are fragile; and some are so brittle that they could collapse with a hard push. The consequences of failed states are multiple--sudden or endless migrations, increased poverty, ethnic strife, and civil conflict--and can prove destabilizing both regionally and globally. It's a problem that goes far beyond the distracting fascination with "promoting democracy." Effective and efficient governance that even modestly responds to citizens' needs would put many countries further along the development path than they currently reside.
Identity as a source of conflict. It's too often wrongly assumed that conflicts over ethnicity, nationality, and religion are a reflection of an underlying economic or political clash, with identity simply being manipulated to play out that more fundamental struggle. If anything, the last 20 years worth of conflict in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia have made clear that identity has its own standing as a source of conflict. Identity may be connected to economic and political disagreements, but it can be an equal cause of such disagreements. As such, it needs to be addressed in its own right.
The weakening of national boundaries. A growing share of today's challenges are transnational, problems which, by their nature, flow across national boundaries. They include the current wave of terrorist attacks by organizations that are generally organized independently of states, are often funded privately, and act without state permission or approval. They also involve fundamental cross-national challenges such as migrating populations, international crime and narcotics trafficking, infectious diseases, and a degraded environment and climate change.
English by the grace of God.
|November 26th, 2008||#35|
| || |
|November 26th, 2008||#36|
| || |
Conflict with large economic nations that have allies (as opposed to bullying ones that are small or unpopular) is bad for economies. China, the US and the EU are dependent on one another and don't want to upset the apple cart. I think the days of large scale conflict between dominant economies are unlikely if only because they can gain more through trade rather than conflict.
I'm all in favour of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters. Frank Lloyd Wright
|November 26th, 2008||#37|
| || |
|November 27th, 2008||#38|
| || |
|Global Hawk Provides Imagery In Ike's Aftermath|
|Reduced Dominance Is Predicted For U.S.|
|Mullen Directs DOD To Assess Security Impacts Of Global Food Crisis|
|Bill Ties Climate To National Security|