Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

WW3 will not happen soon, first and foremost, because of Pax Americana

Challenge my argument that what prevents WWIII is, above all, the unchallenged global hegemony of the US.

American unipolarity is maintained by spending only around 3.5-4% of its GDP on defense.

Unipolarity is then reinforced further by NATO, but even without NATO support the US would be able to withstand any combined aggression on its own if its economic resources were put into the state of total war.

"Shining City Upon a Hill" remains unchallenged.

Attachment not found

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 1

Chucke1992

defence spending means nothing. after all a lot of that money goes into private pockets. as everywhere.

Reply 2

almighty_crj

I'd say more likely the large quantity of nuclear weapons & the Mutually Assured Destruction policy prevents WWIII.

Reply 3

username358506

Original post by Mill Hill

"Shining City Upon a Hill" remains unchallenged.

Incorrect.

The U.S. is too heavily reliant upon imports that it would not be able to wage a protracted war against the rest of the world.

Also, comparing the effectiveness of the world's militaries in terms of defence spending alone is quite moronic for many reasons:

(1) There is no official audit on U.S. military spending, and therefore an enormous amount of money is wasted each year;

(2) Defence spending in dollars does not take into account the fact that one dollar spent in Russia will go considerably further than one in the U.S.:

(3) Militaries are built differently - some are, largely, built to counter others, and, consequently, can achieve their aims on smaller budgets.

Lastly, and to challenge your argument that, "what prevents WWIII is, above all, the unchallenged global hegemony of the US."

The U.S. is not an unchallenged global hegemon, because it is neither unchallenged, nor a global hegemon.

We live in a multi-polar world where the U.S. (and the interest groups that control its politicians), China, and Russia effectively call the shots, and where each power dominates its own region; but each power cannot dominate a region that is dominated by one of the aforementioned powers.

What prevents the outbreak of WWIII is mutually assured destruction, which is why no great powers have gone to war with one another overtly since the end of WWII and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 4

AngeryPenguin

Original post by Stalin

The U.S. is too heavily reliant upon imports that it would not be able to wage a protracted war against the rest of the world.

Which is why the US undermines other countries to ensure that can't happen - e.g. oil and the various coups, assassinations, and invasions the US conjured up to keep it flowing.

(1) There is no official audit on U.S. military spending, and therefore an enormous amount of money is wasted each year

(2) Defence spending in dollars does not take into account the fact that one dollar spent in Russia will go considerably further than one in the U.S.

Depends how corrupt/inept other countries are. I'd wager the US has one of the most streamlined militaries on Earth.

The U.S. is not an unchallenged global hegemon, because it neither unchallenged, nor a global hegemon.

We live in a multi-polar world where the U.S., China, and Russia effectively call the shots, and where each power dominates its own region; but each power cannot dominate a region that is dominated by one of the aforementioned powers.

Russia is a shadow of the USSR's glory.

China is a threat to the US hegemony, but its power is concentrated in Asia, with few allies except corrupt politicians in banana republics. The US is pretty much everywhere, and has very willing servants in the form of the UK and most of NATO.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but the US is still far more powerful than China, for the moment.

Reply 5

username358506

Original post by AngeryPenguin

Which is why the US undermines other countries to ensure that can't happen - e.g. oil and the various coups, assassinations, and invasions the US conjured up to keep it flowing.

I agree.

But in the OP's scenario it is the U.S. vs the R.O.W. The notion that the U.S. can wage total war and win against the R.O.W. without imports is absurd.

Depends how corrupt/inept other countries are. I'd wager the US has one of the most streamlined militaries on Earth.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-one-cheap-submarine-sweden-sank-the-us-navy-battle-25639

Russia is a shadow of the USSR's glory.

I do not dispute this, however, Russia has effectively blocked U.S. interests in Syria, and is too powerful in Eastern Europe/Central Asia that the notion of unchallenged U.S. global hegemony is absurd.

China is a threat to the US hegemony, but its power is concentrated in Asia, with few allies except corrupt politicians in banana republics. The US is pretty much everywhere, and has very willing servants in the form of the UK and most of NATO.

U.S. hegemony certainly existed during the 90s and early 2000s, but is no longer applicable as a term to portray the current balance of power due to China's dramatic rise, as well as Russia's resurgence in world politics.

If you pay attention to China's ambitions in East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, the Indian Ocean, Europe, Africa, and Latin America, it will become clear that China is not limited to a few allies and corrupt politicians in banana republics. In addition, the yuan will become the world's reserve currency in the not-so-distant future, which will effectively make China a global superpower, much to the chagrin of the West.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but the US is still far more powerful than China, for the moment.

In military terms, yes, the U.S. remains number one, however, the gap between it and its closest rival - China - is closing by the day.

We no longer live in the 90s, when U.S. power was at its zenith, but neither have we arrived at the stage where Beijing is on par with Washington; we currently find ourselves in a multi-polar era, where the U.S. remains the foremost military, but its days are numbered due to the integration of much of Eurasia led by China and Russia.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 6

Drewski

While I appreciate that a lot of time has passed, it is worth noting that the two previous world wars got well under way before the US got involved.

Reply 7

Napp

Original post by Mill Hill

"Shining City Upon a Hill" remains unchallenged.

Attachment not found

I'm trying to think of anyone who would agree with this statement... I cant think of a single person.
Whilst the US is undoubtedly the most powerful nation in the world there is no unipolarity to it. You yourself admit that with your mention of NATO.