AX: World Dominance

10 posts

Flag Post

The Axiom for this thread is: The United States of America will soon lose it’s dominance over the world (A.K.A. English language and American Dollar). What area do you think will take over? China? The Middle East? Brazil? Germany? I wonder what people think.

 
Flag Post

If the US departed there wouldn’t be a replacement. Not within the foreseeable future anyway.

None of the ones you listed could do it in a generally peaceful manner. China can’t even control its own population without fear and oppression and doesn’t seem sustainable, Brazil is semi-developed and reliant on wealthier nations for growth, Germany alone is too small and the Middle East is too busy blowing itself up to exert external influence.

Europe seems best-placed, not as individual nations but as a group. It has wealth, population, resources (to a degree), technology and some degree of political integration. And France, Spain and the UK already have good links to and in some cases influence over most of their old colonial possessions.

English wouldn’t go away though. That would stay in a European-dominated world.

 
Flag Post

That is pretty smart. That would make me think that the E.U. would probably take our place.

 
Flag Post

The United States does not and never did really hold dominance over the world. It had its sphere of Influence which became pretty big after WW2, but much of that influence was based on its Allies. After the end of the Cold war the USA thought it could Dominate the world, including its Allies. That did not work out as well as the USA thought.
With the threat of east block crumbling, the greatest reasons for US Allies to tolerate the common lack of sensibility on part of the US fell away, too. While a over appeasing thankfulness is still common in many Politicians that grew up in the cold war Era, the younger generations don´t see that as a valid excuse to ignore the shady and darker sides of US foreign policy.

The greatest strength the US has remaining is the big domestic market, which together with the markets of other English speaking countries makes English the leading Language it is. Chinese is practically the only language that could have a chance of replacing English from place one in the near future, but that is not very Dependant on the US future and more on the Chinese future.

Currently it does not look as if any country will be able to become a world Dominating Country (aka superpower status). To many Players of sufficient size to counter any one country becoming so overpowering.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The United States does not and never did really hold dominance over the world. It had its sphere of Influence which became pretty big after WW2, but much of that influence was based on its Allies. After the end of the Cold war the USA thought it could Dominate the world, including its Allies. That did not work out as well as the USA thought.

What planet are you from? lol, seriously? You’re talking about US Foreign Policy in the hindsight of the last decade of increasing criticism. What about the several decades before that? Were people ignorant about, say, US involvement in Israel? No, not really. Was it something people were talking about, writing books and articles and newspaper headlines, organizing protests over? Absolutely not. We know NOW that their machinations did nothing more than delay nasty political problems into today (ie. propping up dictators), but that spirit of inquiry and openness is a post 9/11 development. They were most certainly a dominating superpower through most of the latter half of the twentieth century; I find it bizarre that you’d try to shake that off. It’s akin to pretending that Britain didn’t really count as a superpower because of all the nasty things they did during the Colonization era. In your case though, it smells pungently of envy, which, as a Canadian I’m somewhat accustomed to.

Anyway, the topic reminds me of Vonnegut’s Hocus Pocus, which was basically about the US going so far to seed that other countries, notably Japan and China, begin buying up huge tracts of lands inside the US, including buying (privatizing) prisons and whatnot. What it amounts to is that the biggest traders always become the new superpowers, militarily and economically, since they can’t easily trade with an unstable state. Once the US really goes downhill, once they don’t have the budget to spend on military assets, then the alliances they’ve made with developing countries will break down, and when that happens, someone will have to move in to pick up the pieces. Countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia have one thing in common: they need something like the US to keep the heat off them, to keep giving them funding and at least the threat of military support. The difference is that whoever takes over is still going to need to support the Saudis for their oil, whereas they don’t particularly need Israel to keep together.

As far as language goes, I doubt colonization is going to be enough to keep English as the standard, especially in the far East where they don’t particularly give a damn about English literacy anyhow. Countries like Korea and Japan still go through the motions of educating in English, but their literacy rates keep dropping because people in those countries don’t speak it that much. English doesn’t have the same currency in most countries the way that say, french does in the African Maghreb – it’s not embedded into their cultures as the main state language. You’ve got the British to blame there because, perhaps ironically, they didn’t want to aggressively force English down their subject’s throats the way the French/Dutch/Germans did for fear that local resentment would harm trade.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by randomperson2864:

The Axiom for this thread is: The United States of America will soon lose it’s dominance over the world (A.K.A. English language and American Dollar). What area do you think will take over? China? The Middle East? Brazil? Germany? I wonder what people think.

American dominance is due to a foreign language and a weak currency?

I think you should go learn some economics before making threads

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The United States does not and never did really hold dominance over the world. It had its sphere of Influence which became pretty big after WW2, but much of that influence was based on its Allies. After the end of the Cold war the USA thought it could Dominate the world, including its Allies. That did not work out as well as the USA thought.

What planet are you from? lol, seriously? You’re talking about US Foreign Policy in the hindsight of the last decade of increasing criticism. What about the several decades before that?

I live on the planet where the cold war ended in 1991, minus the last decade that does not leave that many decades does it? And even then there was criticism even back then, for stuff know. But it was much more contained not because off lack of hind/foresight, but because there was a common overshadowing Threat to point at (the eastern-block). Which at that time gave a much better reason than today´s Terrorism Threat, to pretend to not notice or rationalize the acts as necessary evil.

They were most certainly a dominating superpower through most of the latter half of the twentieth century; I find it bizarre that you’d try to shake that off.

I am not trying too. Just like missing that the part you were trying to criticize was specifically about after the cold-war era, you fail to notice that i am talking about a world dominating superpower (see the OP) and not about a dominating superpower or a world influencing superpower. There have always been to many super players for any one to be world dominating. But specifically after the fall of the Estern-Block and with China introverted at the time, the USA thought it could become the world dominating superpower(and there are people who actually believe they did, see OP).

 
Flag Post

Hence why I date it to post 9/11 instead of post-Communism. The criticisms didn’t take off until after 9/11. Yes, they were there but got nowhere near the attention they do nowadays.

Terrorism is a much better threat than the Cold War ever was. At least in the Cold War there was some semblance or orderliness. If you were going to be attacked, it would be the end of civilization, not some random train explosion that kills or maims a couple dozen. The idea that you can be blown up in London or Michigan was like a wake-up call to the hidden threat. The problem is, that without a state-centered enemy to focus on, people looked inward and wondered who’s fault it was that they were getting blown up. And that led back to the US.

The part people like yourself seem to have missed is that all the nasty plotting and dictator-propping that happened during the cold war was designed to stave off Soviet victory. That’s not rationalization or appeasement, it’s why a lot of that shit happened, that and Trade, which as I already, is directly linked to warfare. We don’t know what would’ve happened if, say, the US hadn’t screwed up Iran’s flirtation with democracy half a century ago, though at the time it seemed necessary because he was edging towards socialism. But in hindsight we can gawk and jeer at the irony of the first democracy trampling over a new democracy in the name of capitalism. Your trendy critiques of the US are no more substantial than the genuine Cold Warrior apologists who think the Soviets are ultimately to blame for Al-Qaeda and every other threat the US has had to deal with lately.

I am not trying too. Just like missing that the part you were trying to criticize was specifically about after the cold-war era, you fail to notice that i am talking about a world dominating superpower (see the OP) and not about a dominating superpower or a world influencing superpower.

semantics.

There have always been to many super players for any one to be world dominating. But specifically after the fall of the Estern-Block and with China introverted at the time, the USA thought it could become the world dominating superpower(and there are people who actually believe they did, see OP).

Bad history.

Theres never been a problem of too many super-powers. During the world wars there were certainly ‘powers’ or collections of powers, like the Allies/Axis, and during the British Empire era there were certainly rival empires, but only during the Cold War were there two rival super-powers of approximately the same size and dominance (or thought to be at the time). The French empire wasn’t a ‘superpower’ the way the British were; the closest they got was Napoleon, and it’s not a coincidence that after Napoleon the British became virtually unchallenged. Before Britain arose, the Dutch were the major power, and as Britain expanded, the Dutch decreased in stature. Swing up to the present and the problem still isn’t too many superpowers, it’s that after the US, it might take awhile for a new one to emerge.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Hence why I date it to post 9/11 instead of post-Communism. The criticisms didn’t take off until after 9/11. Yes, they were there but got nowhere near the attention they do nowadays.

Thats more due to the US keeping on its Coalition of the Willing track. I remember comments about how the US was reaping what it sew, when 9/11 happened or even how the US would have deserved if the attacks only had done major property damage (comparing it to the instance where the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory was destroyed).
The wide spread Attention US foreign politics have been gaining are due to the major wars, that directly involved the countries of many Allies in a tangible way. But the Fact i am pointing to is that after the cold-war era the threat of the East-block fell away, which both lead to more freedom for Allies to criticize the USA and the USA underestimating its reliance on its Allies.

Terrorism is a much better threat than the Cold War ever was.

Seriously, Bullshit. One comparison of the laws of most European countries back then and now shows how different the Quality of threats where. The laws back then make the new anti-terror laws look like a great step up for liberty.

The part people like yourself seem to have missed is that all the nasty plotting and dictator-propping that happened during the cold war was designed to stave off Soviet victory. That’s not rationalization or appeasement, it’s why a lot of that shit happened, that and Trade, which as I already, is directly linked to warfare.

Thats bullshit. Might want too look into the history of the involvement of the USA in south American and western/south African Politics for a bit.

I will comment the rest later. Go to go.

 
Flag Post

Russia would dominate the Middle East, and Central Asia. China would have considerably more influence over Indochina, Korea, Japan, and Indonesia. The EU would stay in charge of most of Europe, with Germany, France, and Britain dictating most policies that are involved, given that they’re the main engines of economic growth in the EU. Africa would be pretty much the same, same with Australia and New Zealand. Mexico will see some increased influence over Central America, and also the Caribbean. South America would likely find itself in a mix-match of “who’s in charge” between the countries that exist there. I could possibly see a more aggressive Venezuela, Brazil, and MAYBE Columbia as well. It’d be pretty difficult for US-Canadian relations to change, even with US being knocked out of the world stage.

Overall, it wouldn’t be good, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world, either.