REDWAVE
Urban Jungle Dweller
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2001
- Posts
- 6,013
OK, political junkies, this is something a little different. I'm curious to see how it works out.
Currently, the U.S. is "the world's only superpower." But students of history know that global stability (or at least some semblance of it) requires a balance of powers. An excellent example is Great Britain's longstanding policy, especially during its imperialist heyday (18th & 19th centuries), of preventing any one nation from dominating continental Europe. Bush's aggressive drive to militarily dominate Central Asia and the Middle East, and thus effectively dominate the entire world, is sure to provoke opposition from other powers. But of all the many countries which have "interests" in the area, no one alone has the power to effectively challenge the U.S. Russia is a power in decline; Russian society is in chaos. China is a rising nation, but still very backward economically and technologically compared to the U.S. By 2050 they may be a powerhouse, but they still need a lot of time to catch up. Japan's economy is second only to that of the U.S., but it has been in recession for over ten years now, is militarily weak, and like Germany has a deep-seated pacifism among its populace resulting from WWII. India has a huge population, but is even less developed than China.
None of the western European nations can challenge the U.S. alone either. Germany is an economic superpower, having the world's third largest economy, but is weak militarily. England has nukes, but is an economic basket case. France has both a fairly strong economy and nukes, but still can't begin to match the U.S. by itself. Only a united Europe can do that. The current European Union already has a larger economy than the U.S., and it doesn't encompass anywhere near all of Europe (mostly western Europe). The EU is a weird entity. It's not a nation, it's maybe a loose confederation of nations-- it's hard to say what the hell it is exactly. It already has some of the trappings of nationhood-- a central bank (given a lot of power, at least on paper, by the Maastricht agreement), a currency (the euro), and is setting up a 60,000 man Rapid Deployment Force (RDF)-- the beginnings of a European military force.
In order to really challenge U.S. global hegemony, Europe needs a charismatic leader who can forge the EU into one nation, rapidly build up its military, and launch massive public works projects to provide full (or near full) employment to keep the workers content. A program of "European socialism," if you will.
Comments? Reactions? How far should the borders of a united Europe stretch? All the way to the Urals? Or restricted to the current EU? How far east should it extend, keeping in mind eastern Europe is much more impoverished and much less developed than western Europe?
Currently, the U.S. is "the world's only superpower." But students of history know that global stability (or at least some semblance of it) requires a balance of powers. An excellent example is Great Britain's longstanding policy, especially during its imperialist heyday (18th & 19th centuries), of preventing any one nation from dominating continental Europe. Bush's aggressive drive to militarily dominate Central Asia and the Middle East, and thus effectively dominate the entire world, is sure to provoke opposition from other powers. But of all the many countries which have "interests" in the area, no one alone has the power to effectively challenge the U.S. Russia is a power in decline; Russian society is in chaos. China is a rising nation, but still very backward economically and technologically compared to the U.S. By 2050 they may be a powerhouse, but they still need a lot of time to catch up. Japan's economy is second only to that of the U.S., but it has been in recession for over ten years now, is militarily weak, and like Germany has a deep-seated pacifism among its populace resulting from WWII. India has a huge population, but is even less developed than China.
None of the western European nations can challenge the U.S. alone either. Germany is an economic superpower, having the world's third largest economy, but is weak militarily. England has nukes, but is an economic basket case. France has both a fairly strong economy and nukes, but still can't begin to match the U.S. by itself. Only a united Europe can do that. The current European Union already has a larger economy than the U.S., and it doesn't encompass anywhere near all of Europe (mostly western Europe). The EU is a weird entity. It's not a nation, it's maybe a loose confederation of nations-- it's hard to say what the hell it is exactly. It already has some of the trappings of nationhood-- a central bank (given a lot of power, at least on paper, by the Maastricht agreement), a currency (the euro), and is setting up a 60,000 man Rapid Deployment Force (RDF)-- the beginnings of a European military force.
In order to really challenge U.S. global hegemony, Europe needs a charismatic leader who can forge the EU into one nation, rapidly build up its military, and launch massive public works projects to provide full (or near full) employment to keep the workers content. A program of "European socialism," if you will.
Comments? Reactions? How far should the borders of a united Europe stretch? All the way to the Urals? Or restricted to the current EU? How far east should it extend, keeping in mind eastern Europe is much more impoverished and much less developed than western Europe?
Last edited:
