Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Sorry that you kind of got ganged up on this one, miami. I do enjoy discussing with you, and usually it is us on the left who have to argue against the majority on these forums.
I guess the fundamental disagreement we have is on whether
a) It is our job to defend Europe and Asia from imperialist forces
b) Whether the US hegemony is the only thing protecting other nations from imperialist forces
c) Whether nuclear weapons fundamentally changed foreign policy
LOL, no problem. I appreciate the admission. I'm just not equipped to spend all day answering back like some cat lovers do.
Not sure how to answer a or b because neither of them have easy answers.
C is probably the easiest. If you only think in terms of military warfare (tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, submarines) then rsp is exactly correct that this is not 1940 and the equation has fundamentally changed. Nuclear weapons are the difference. Conventional power is important for localized conflicts or even regional conflicts but not a world war. That is why I say militarily OR economically. Prussia formed the German Empire in 1871 without attacking a single Hessian, Hannoverian, Bavarian, etc. Those regions joined Prussia out of sheer economic necessity. In effect, they didn't have a choice because they were economically defeated. So, IMHO, nuclear weapons require some creativity to overcome but will not fundamentally alter human nature's basic desire to rule over other humans.
A is too much up in the air. It was our job. Is it still our job? I'm not sure.
B is not asking the right question. If it is not US hegemony, it will be (fill in the blank) hegemony. I believe there will always be a dominant power. For me, the better question is who do you prefer over your own nation? I'd rather live in an American Empire, with its inherent faults, than in a Chinese (or fill in the blank) Empire. Maybe that's selfish but it is the truth.