Just thinking: Who would lead the world should the U.S. falter? Would it be anew superpower? Would it be a consortium/conglomerate/federation? Please comment as to politics, military and economics. The three are tied to together so this could get interesting.

The way things are heading, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see China begin to take a leading role. They have the world's largest military, and the world's fastest growing economy. But they are a bit of a political unknown. They've been so internally focused for so long, it will take a radical shift in their thinking for them to focus on issues outside of China...

I don't think its China. My guess would be India or the European Union. China really isn't that far behind the US.

What do you believe to be the net outcomes? Besides XXXX being the new Big Dog, how will it affect the U.S., Europe, the world? Ex: If we fall, we cannot guarantee the shipping lanes (we are struggling now), so who picks up that slack, or do they?

The EU is a receding force. Economically, demographically, those nations have thrown in the towel.

I don't think China will ever have the same kind of global power the US had from 1945-75, or even since then, but I do think it will be big-dog on the block. This will happen in the next 50 years or so. For people who have resented and b*tched about the American "hegemony", being confronted with an expansionist, imperialistic China will be a very sobering wake-up call.

China is just now getting started. Give 'em time...

But I agree they won't have as big a global impact. They're so internally focused, and have been since the intelligencia revolution that ended their naval supremacy shortly before European explorers began arriving in China by sea...

(04-21-2011 10:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The EU is a receding force. Economically, demographically, those nations have thrown in the towel.

I don't think China will ever have the same kind of global power the US had from 1945-75, or even since then, but I do think it will be big-dog on the block. This will happen in the next 50 years or so. For people who have resented and b*tched about the American "hegemony", being confronted with an expansionist, imperialistic China will be a very sobering wake-up call.

For good or ill? I'm assuming you are referring to the Pacific rim region, please correct me if I'm wrong.

How do you see the Chinese influnce throughout Asia and/or Africa?

(04-19-2011 03:20 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  What do you believe to be the net outcomes? Besides XXXX being the new Big Dog, how will it affect the U.S., Europe, the world? Ex: If we fall, we cannot guarantee the shipping lanes (we are struggling now), so who picks up that slack, or do they?

Some of the slack will be picked up, some of it won't be. I think "shipping lanes" (for example) will be far more reliant on private security and mercenary-type agencies to keep the coast clear. The UK and US won't be able to do it, at least not to the same extent as in past generations. China, IMHO, will be unwilling to do it for anyone except itself and its allies, and third parties who pay $$$ for the privilege of their friendship.

(04-21-2011 12:48 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 10:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't think China will ever have the same kind of global power the US had from 1945-75, or even since then, but I do think it will be big-dog on the block. This will happen in the next 50 years or so. For people who have resented and b*tched about the American "hegemony", being confronted with an expansionist, imperialistic China will be a very sobering wake-up call.

For good or ill? I'm assuming you are referring to the Pacific rim region, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, obviously China's main sphere of influence will always be the "Pacific Rim", broadly defined. But it's not like they won't venture forth beyond that area.

For Good or ill? In some ways both. I don't want to say that China is a force purely for good or purely for ill, but By and By, I think it will be much more forward and aggressive in defending its interests and expanding its reach, than either America was in the 20th Century or Britain was in the 19th. I think China will be far less concerned about "Human Rights" or so-called "World Opinion" when weighing the pros and cons of a proposed policy or action, as compared to the US or the UK during its periods of dominance.

When has the United States worried about "Human Rights" or so-called "World Opinion" when weighing the pros and cons of a proposed policy or action? That's a good part of why the majority of the world looks upon the U.S. with skepticism...

(04-21-2011 01:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 12:48 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 10:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't think China will ever have the same kind of global power the US had from 1945-75, or even since then, but I do think it will be big-dog on the block. This will happen in the next 50 years or so. For people who have resented and b*tched about the American "hegemony", being confronted with an expansionist, imperialistic China will be a very sobering wake-up call.

For good or ill? I'm assuming you are referring to the Pacific rim region, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, obviously China's main sphere of influence will always be the "Pacific Rim", broadly defined. But it's not like they won't venture forth beyond that area.

For Good or ill? In some ways both. I don't want to say that China is a force purely for good or purely for ill, but By and By, I think it will be much more forward and aggressive in defending its interests and expanding its reach, than either America was in the 20th Century or Britain was in the 19th. I think China will be far less concerned about "Human Rights" or so-called "World Opinion" when weighing the pros and cons of a proposed policy or action, as compared to the US or the UK during its periods of dominance.

When you state that China will be aggressive in defending its intrests, are you referring to use of force (military) or more aggressive economic arm twisting, or both?

I agree China will be less apt to care what the world thinks of their behavior. I believe that China will seek wars to increase their influence and secure resources for their economic benefit, much the way Japan did pre-WWII (the early 1930's). This in turn will require, at some point, U.S. involvement to defend our interests, even if relatively isolationist at that time. History repeating itself.

(04-21-2011 02:22 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  When has the United States worried about "Human Rights" or so-called "World Opinion" when weighing the pros and cons of a proposed policy or action? That's a good part of why the majority of the world looks upon the U.S. with skepticism...

Though the U.S. has been more inclined to observe and protect human rights than most other nations, in the end, the U.S. has done, and should do, what is in the best interest of the U.S.

It beats what the Soviets/Russians and Chinese have done and will continue to do.

As to world opinion, who cares? Really, if you have a chance to weaken an opponent or his position, you take the opportunity. When a nation wants to take action against another nation, the permanent members of the Security Council usually in-fight and do nothing. This keeps the status quo, for the most part. We don't approve of Russian or Chinese action, they don't approve of U.S. or British action. The French don't act (Libya excepted) and don't approve of anyone's actions.

One country's opinion is based on what they perceive to be in their best interests. This reults in disapproving of others actions more often than not. Besides, most countries don't want to get involved in place A so they can act in place B, again, in their best interest.

(04-21-2011 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 03:20 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  What do you believe to be the net outcomes? Besides XXXX being the new Big Dog, how will it affect the U.S., Europe, the world? Ex: If we fall, we cannot guarantee the shipping lanes (we are struggling now), so who picks up that slack, or do they?

Some of the slack will be picked up, some of it won't be. I think "shipping lanes" (for example) will be far more reliant on private security and mercenary-type agencies to keep the coast clear. The UK and US won't be able to do it, at least not to the same extent as in past generations. China, IMHO, will be unwilling to do it for anyone except itself and its allies, and third parties who pay $$$ for the privilege of their friendship.

Not sure I want private security firms "protecting" goods. They are just as corruptible as anyone else.

I agree on China, if it is not in their interest to protect something, they will not do so. China will benefit one way or another if they are to protect anything.

(04-21-2011 02:22 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  When has the United States worried about "Human Rights" or so-called "World Opinion" when weighing the pros and cons of a proposed policy or action?

Those have been constant concerns for US policy-makers since the end of WWII.

Two examples, chosen purely at random:

Eisenhower's decision to oppose the Israeli/British/French attempt to keep Suez Canal open in 1956. A "World Opinion"-influenced decision.

Reagan's decision to withdraw support from the Marcos dictatorship in the Phillipines in 1986. A "Human Rights" and "World Opinion" influenced decision.