If America no longer leads, what comes next?

[pecksniff]

If the U.S. is no longer Leader of the Free World, then what is left is a multipolar world, the main poles being the U.S., Russia, China, India, and the European Union -- not including the UK, which is no longer one of the main poles, sorry, old chaps, hard cheese!

Which means a complex and shifting web of alliances and hostilities among those poles will develop. It will be much like Europe in the runup to WWI. Knock wood and spit.

 

[pecksniff]

Then there is the Islamic world, which is too disunited to form a main pole. Likewise with Africa and Latin America. Most of those countries eventually will become hangers-on of one main pole or another; those which don't will wish they had.

 

[ll74]

If the U.S. is no longer Leader of the Free World, then what is left is a multipolar world, the main poles being the U.S., Russia, China, India, and the European Union -- not including the UK, which is no longer one of the main poles, sorry, old chaps, hard cheese!

Which means a complex and shifting web of alliances and hostilities among those poles will develop. It will be much like Europe in the runup to WWI. Knock wood and spit.

You should stop posting so much......you're the leftist bullshit factory equivalent of Sylent.

 

[CornusKousa]

You should stop posting so much......you're the leftist bullshit factory equivalent of Sylent.

He's just got some honesty about himself....unlike most lefties.

You know, like voting for Democrat's and shilling for their anti-American politics all the time but also claiming to not support anything they do when called on it.

 

[ll74]

He's just got some honesty about himself....unlike most lefties.

You know, like voting for Democrat's and shilling for their anti-American politics all the time but also claiming to not support anything they do when called on it.

Fuck off

 

[pecksniff]

The OP does pose an important issue. The most important we'll see in our lifetimes.

 

[rae121452]

If the U.S. is no longer Leader of the Free World, then what is left is a multipolar world, the main poles being the U.S., Russia, China, India, and the European Union -- not including the UK, which is no longer one of the main poles, sorry, old chaps, hard cheese!

Which means a complex and shifting web of alliances and hostilities among those poles will develop. It will be much like Europe in the runup to WWI. Knock wood and spit.

the 21st century is going to be the asian century, led by china. the u s will recede to its role in the 19th century (the british century). china is already making inroads all over the world with infrastructure and banking packages. south america and cuba will become part of the china family. in fact, china is just the u s in the 20th century but with a different governing philosophy, they're following the plan we laid out. everyone (including the u s) is going to be dependent on china.

it will be like edwardian europe, the difference being that everybody in the world has nuclear weapons and no one wants to stir up that shit storm.

 

[WillJ8787]

If the U.S. is no longer Leader of the Free World, then what is left is a multipolar world, the main poles being the U.S., Russia, China, India, and the European Union -- not including the UK, which is no longer one of the main poles, sorry, old chaps, hard cheese!

Which means a complex and shifting web of alliances and hostilities among those poles will develop. It will be much like Europe in the runup to WWI. Knock wood and spit.

What we already see....massive poverty in inner cities and also in rural rust belt America.

The Chinese have this figured out as do many Scandinavian countries....maybe we should pay attention and get to it?

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Just about every futurist and sci-fi writer ever has said China will ultimately be the sole superpower and Mandarin would be the most used if not official language of the world.

 

[pecksniff]

What we already see....massive poverty in inner cities and also in rural rust belt America.

Did our former prosperity depend on geopolitical dominance?

 

[CornusKousa]

What we already see....massive poverty in inner cities and also in rural rust belt America.

That's just bad (D) management.

China looks much the same.

The Chinese have this figured out as do many Scandinavian countries....maybe we should pay attention and get to it?

Become a commie shit hole??

No...sorry WillJ, not going to happen, no free lunch for you.

Just move to China, Venezuela or Cuba if that's what you want.

 

[CornusKousa]

Did our former prosperity depend on geopolitical dominance?

Define "former". Because some of it certainly did.

But not all of it, also depends on the time frame.

 

[pecksniff]

Define "former". Because some of it certainly did.

But not all of it, also depends on the time frame.

I was thinking of the days when manufacturing jobs in the U.S. were abundant and provided a middle-class income. Before the Rust Belt was the Rust Belt. That prosperity depended mainly on 1) strong labor unions; 2) a world where most countries that fought WWII had been devastated by it and not entirely recovered, leaving the global manufactures market to the U.S.; 3) American corporations that had not yet discovered outsourcing, offshoring, and automation. But none of those factors depended on American military hegemony.

 

[TJX]

Does anybody remember Japan in the 70s. Everybody thought they were going to take over the economic world. China today looks like a rerun. The majority of their population is poor and uneducated and most of what they build is reverse engineered form other countries. China looks all new and glamorous and explosive, until it burns out.

 

[pecksniff]

Does anybody remember Japan in the 70s. Everybody thought they were going to take over the economic world. China today looks like a rerun. The majority of their population is poor and uneducated and most of what they build is reverse engineered form other countries. China looks all new and glamorous and explosive, until it burns out.

Gordon Chang wrote The Coming Collapse of China in 2001, but it looks no nearer now.

And, I suspect a democratic mainland would still be aiming at hegemony in East Asia, just because that's what China had for most of its history.

 

[CornusKousa]

And, I suspect a democratic mainland would still be aiming at hegemony in East Asia, just because that's what China had for most of its history.

Not to mention, it's just what authoritarian control freaks do!!

 

[pecksniff]

Not to mention, it's just what authoritarian control freaks do!!

For most of its history China was Confucian . . . I guess that's a kind of authoritarian control freak . . . At any rate, it assumes and defends a definite social hierarchy.

 

[WillJ8787]

Just about every futurist and sci-fi writer ever has said China will ultimately be the sole superpower and Mandarin would be the most used if not official language of the world.

I'm sure our resident historian(he knows history better than I) will chime in about China's ten quiet centuries of dominance. All it takes is a slight shift towards a more aggressive posture in the world and China will be just that.

Our military doesn't stand a chance...if it came to that. Out matched, outgunned, out maned.

 

[WillJ8787]

Just about every futurist and sci-fi writer ever has said China will ultimately be the sole superpower and Mandarin would be the most used if not official language of the world.

Did our former prosperity depend on geopolitical dominance?

Sort of...we blundered into it as a result of not being that affected/devasted as many other countries were after WWII.

Ps...I see your response.PS....yep, that is a good assessment.

 

[CornusKousa]

Our military doesn't stand a chance...if it came to that. Out matched, outgunned, out maned.

Not with Biden and the woke crew at the helm.

They would be to concerned about how racist it would be to kill the Chinese invaders and decide to just lay down arms and surrender.

Because (D)'s gotta (D).

 

[pecksniff]

Not with Biden and the woke crew at the helm.

I don't see them dismantling the MIC. Somebody should, but it never seems to be a ballot option.

 

[magicalmoments]

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the UK, thay still have nukes and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world.
Them and Russia are pretty much in the same boat, not the powers they once were, not able to sustain an any sort of major concerted conflict for any length of time but still got a shit load of nukes.

 

[CornusKousa]

I don't see them dismantling the MIC.

Who said anything about that???

Somebody should,

Why??

but it never seems to be a ballot option.

That's because it's so stupid not even the (D)'s would try to push it.

 

[pecksniff]

Why??

Because this republic does not need an empire. We do not need global military hegemony. We do not need the mightiest and most expensive military establishment in human history. We do not need to spend as much on defense as the next 11 biggest-spending nations combined. We do not need a global network of 800 military bases. And we do not need a nuclear stockpile.

 

[Rightguide]

If the U.S. is no longer Leader of the Free World, then what is left is a multipolar world, the main poles being the U.S., Russia, China, India, and the European Union -- not including the UK, which is no longer one of the main poles, sorry, old chaps, hard cheese!

Which means a complex and shifting web of alliances and hostilities among those poles will develop. It will be much like Europe in the runup to WWI. Knock wood and spit.

China leads and the free world dies a slow death. The US is the only defender strong enough to stand against Chinese and other forms of international totalitarianism. We are, in fact, the land of the free and the home of the brave.