Balance in millitary power

Remove all ads!

Is there anyone more than me that fears the millitary power in the world is in to much of an imbalance? What i mean is that one single nation (United states) has far more millitary resources than any other country or alliance in the world. Currently there is nothing to fear here, because while there is not any concentrated army that rivals the US, there is still far more in total all over the world. This could suddenly change. Lets pretend the US invented a new anti-missile system which made them practically immune to missile strikes/nukes and extended their army a bit more, there would be nothing preventing them from starting WWIII, and winning. Such a war would of course benefit no one and would probably cause more than a billion causulties, but there is still a small possibility.

Im not saying that i have anything against America, or its government. What im saying is that history has demonstrated many times that in times of peace, corrupted leaders arise. If this where to happen there could very well be a WWIII. The UN or the european union would stand almost powerless, as would the rest of the world. What im getting at is millitary funding is needed to support balance. Idealy, there would be 3 main millitary powers: America, Europe and Asia aswell as dozens of minor powers. If these main powers were to have similarly strong armies, neither side could start a war expecting victory. Any thoughts on this? The questions could be: Should the EU and Asia increase millitary funding? Should the EU have an army with soldiers from all member countries? Should and international independet peacekeeping army be founded?

 

Has anyone been able to find a Canadian Army? I think we might have a few guys with shotguns, but other than that, we are so going to get our ass beaten during war.

 

What gain does america have to for example attack/invade Europe or Asia, things have been relatively quiet between those. The only war that is coming will be the one against the middle east.

And I don't think that a dictator or tiran could rise to power in a democracy, I mean there are still enough sane people right?

 

Canadian Army? I believe thats the one the Yanks try to bomb when they can (they took out some canadians doing training in Afganistan).

As re: yanks becoming too powerful: said technology would be extremely hard to keep secret from current allies and so would have to be shared. Extensions of military forces would also be noticed and either challenged or matched. I would doubt the US could outpower NATO (should the yanks leave it) and even if they could, the rest of the UN would not stand for an act of aggression from the US.

 

Apeman wrote:

So, you're saying that Germany was populated by insane people in the 1930's?
If you really think so, then why couldn't it happen again?
Is a war against Iraq the only war? Why not against North Korea? Why not against <insert name of country here>?

Twenty years ago a united Germany was almost inconceivable. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warzaw Pact was inconceivable.
The point is that we don't know how the political map will look in the near future. Power structures grow and those who control them have personal agendas. Earlier this year Greece, in a fit of insanity, declared games unlawful, remember that? Imagine if it was USA that wanted to enforce that law!

Anything can happen! An open debate is one of the best means to avoid insanity.

[ December 16, 2002, 14:23: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

No, I was asking because I was doubting, since I don't have much info about the election of Hitler I assumed he wasn't elected by a majority of people. If he was than either he hadn't reveal his extreme view toward certain people or yes there were many insane people in germany. Either that or he was extremely charismatic .

About the wars I was talking about a world war 3 and not the 'small' ones. I know they are not small, but in comparison to the first world wars they are.

 

He didnt hide most of his opinions from the people, but the situation in Germany after the peace declaration in Versailes was very grim. Massive amounts of worthless money was circulating, a bottle of water could cost a million D-mark or so. Germany was prohibited by America and Britain from having any kind of armed forces over 100,000 men. These regulations created a sense of hopelessness, combined with the lack of work the people wanted to blame someone. They got people to blame when Hitler arose to power. He was actually selected in a democratic way, but as we all know he later declared himself Führer and played dictator.
[/history lesson]

There is nothing saying that this cant happen again. Sure, there is no kind of situation like this in any powerfull country in the world, but similar things have still happened before with people like Mussolini and Franco taking power and creating new dictator based parties. This is what i mean with all this, a new madman could arise to take power in any country, and if said country has a millitary that could overthrow gowernments in the rest of the world, theres no telling what could happen.

 

Thanks

man did I hate history on school

[ December 17, 2002, 11:36: Message edited by: Apeman ]

 

Then again, there is the school of thought that says a powerful country WANTS someone who's a little mad in power. If others can't predict what reaction they'll receive, they'll be less likely to push the limits.

Before you light the flamethrowers, please note that no-where did I say that I hold to this school of thought, just that it exists!

 

I am pretty divided on this subject. But firstly I dont like it at all that one state has supreme military power and all other states are more or less on their mercy. It will be enough that one madman take power (has it already happened?) for things to turn really nasty. On the other hand would a new arms race and a renewal of the MAD status que be devastating on the world. The best thing would in my opinion be a deepening of the EU to make into a true superpower but keeping the allied stance towards the US. But at the same not only being an errand boy, an ally with power enough to help dictate world policy but without the mistrust and paranoia that marked the cold war. But the US cant in my opinion keep their monopoly on power in the world for long as power but has a tendency to breed arrogance and corruption and that as we can already see supreme power breeds jealously and resention around the world which will and has lead to an unsafer world. Today is the scenario of above all too likely and we should work for it to grow more and more unlikely. But as Earl Grey said, we dont know what will happen in the future and what may seem unlikely today may be all too real tomorrow so we shouldnt stare ourselves blind at the middle east.

 

HAHAHAHAHA. Thats what I say. The yellow tide as I say. The chinese air force suck, they have almost no navy, but how many people do they have? over 1 billion you say? Youre abso-posi-lutely right. They have an estimated army of 12 million. More than that can be called out. For example, the Germans were more technologically advanced than Russia, but the winter, as well the hordes of Russian troops, beat off the Germans. If anyone can, the Chinese can beat us. A European alliance maybe, but if we strike first, and with tactical nuclear use or maybe neuton bombs, we could take out England and Germany, after that, who will stop us? Spain is in constant revolution, France sucks, Poland? Ha ha ha. Italy? Gimme a break. Maybe Scandinavia could do something, but probably not, and we would sign a pact with Russia and when troops are in place, we could invade them, and be prepared for winter. Africa, we would not even bother, who wants it? As goes for South America as well. Asia? There is China, maybe drum up support from Russia, and wait to attack Russia till China is beat, and use Euro troops as fodder. Hah.

 

*Reads Jorgon's post, shudders and shake his head.

There was a bit about this in a recent thread, a poll showing:

Despite criticisms of U.S. policy, most people around the world think that a rival superpower would make the world a more dangerous place. This certainly is the case amongst U.S. allies in Canada and Western Europe, where large majorities believe this.

It is noteworthy that Russians agree. By two-to-one (53%-25%) they see a bipolar world as potentially more dangerous. This sentiment is also broadly shared in the Middle East/Conflict Area, in spite of the deepr esentment of U.S. policies in the countries. Solid majorities in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon believe that the world is safer with the United States as a lone superpower. Even pluralities in Turkey and Pakistan agree.

Note this doesn't ask about a non-polar or a multi-polar world.

My personal opinion is that while the power of the U.S. may wax and wane that it is likely to remain either a superpower or right on the verge of a superpower for a very long time. People like to compare the U.S. to the Roman empire which fell. Rome fell though when invaded by the hordes. Canada and Mexico ain't exactly the hordes. Now, Rome was rotten from inside but had it been left alone from outside forces something tells me sooner or later someone would've pulled it together again. People used to say China was a superpower and then it wasn't and now people are saying it will be again. That's the position I see the U.S. in because the world has changed so the type of wide spread war necessary to really end the power of a U.S., China etc isn't anywhere as likely as it used to be just half a century ago. Particularly a war on the U.S. which would require crossing an ocean, no offense to the Canadian members.

One thing you have to give the U.S., as far as historical superpowers go, it's fairly benevolent. The rise of another superpower which was hostile to the U.S. would be interesting for the third world. During the Cold War a lot of money was pumped by both sides to benefit some of the third world while other parts of the third world became a battleground for the powers to fight by Proxy (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.)

While I could see the EU becoming an economic force I'm not sure that this qualifies as a superpower unless the EU gets a unified military to go along with it. If economics is what it takes I guess at one point Japan was a superpower not that long ago.

What I would like to see, and many Europeans might not: a rise in power in Russia as the partnership between Russia and U.S. grows. Russia has the potential to be powerful in all aspects if they pull it together. As China increases in power I think they would be wary of really starting a cold war with Russia and the U.S. as partners and both superpowers in their own right. Instead I'd imagine that China, Russia, and the U.S. would then move to some sort of understanding as all of them hoped to avoid a 2 vs. 1 affair (China and Russia with historical ties, U.S. and Russia becoming closer, U.S. granting China favored nations status etc.)

Whether Russia can pull itself up by the bootstraps I don't know (well, with the amount of money flooding in it's not really by the bootstraps but you get what I mean.)

A tri-polar world sounds nicer to me. The EU would be a wildcard that if powerful enough would further likely preclude animosity between the U.S. and China.

Now here is something to ponder: given its incredible resources, what does it take to pull South AMerica together?

 

Laches wrote:

I think the best recent historical comparison is with the 19th century and Pax Britannica, Great Britain then and the US is now is quite comparable.
Was GB considered "fairly benevolent"? I'm no expert on 19th century history, but I'd think so.

My point here is just to make an observation that "benevolent" is perhaps not an unusual trait for a true super power.

[ December 18, 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

As you mentioned Rome so were they very benevolent compared to the concquered peoples former leadership. As long as people peayed their taxes the romans was more or less satisfied and they built infrastructure and such in the concqured areas as well. The romans lasted for a 1000 years so even if the US should go in their footsteps they have a long time to go .
I think the EU is more likely to emerge as a superpower than China and especially Russia. China will crawl closer but for them to become a superpower they need an economy of western standar, as it is today they dont take advantage of their vast population. But if you judge China as a superpower due to population mainly then India isnt far behind and on their way to pass. So I think India has a go as well.

As the EU has started to incorporate easter Europe I dont think that Russia will be able to gain former glory and it is even possible they will join the EU. But as has been stated above, we cant know. What seems likely today isnt what need to happen, history shows that people that have tried to predict the future has again and again been proven wrong and things that seemed highly unlikely happens.

Polls may show popular opinion but that doesnt mean that it is right. As I said in a former post so is a system with a one supreme hegemon even more dangerous than even the bipolar cold war system because all it takes is one wacky person gaining power while manages to convince his people that there are some grieviences that needs to be corrected. If there is any opposition at all in the world you can imagine what will happen, just picture how WW2 would have ended without or with a lot less powerful Britain, Russia and the US.

 

I wouldn't exactly call "pax brittanica" benevolent. When they got a chance, the British took over. Look at India, Palestine, Egypt, South Afrca and the Boer Wars, hell, even China, with the "open door policy" and the Boxer Rebellion. Russia and China have been at odds for centuries, ever since the Russian pioneers first entered the Amur river valley and the Chinese told the Russians to go no farther and then a bunch of forts from both sides sprung up there. What if, Russia and the US joined in a EU/NATO type pact? And the US made amends with the middle eastern countries by just staying the hell out? Hah. That would be different. I honestly do not believe Europe will ever unify, too many cultures as it is, and some countries(like the runner-up in France's past election) are expressing very nationalistic views. Some, how many I know not, are dis-satisfied with the EU, not for any reason but the open borders and minor blurring of national images/lines. Could China form an Asian alliance to combat any Russian/US threat? Me, I'm a war-hawk.

 

I just want to say that the United States is *not* Rome nor could it ever be. The only comparison would be between the two armies but the comparison ends there. Why? the political landscape is different between the two. Also, given the public scrutany of the politicians it's less likely for a dictator to arise in this nation. I said "less likely" not impossible.
About the military here, in my humble opinion it's not where it should be. I believe in a strong military, not to start wars with but to defend this nation. If the rest of the world doesn't like then I say this: go build your own and stop complaining about it.

 

What are you going to defend aganainst with the kind of military you have now Atreides? No matter how many carriers and planes you have, no matter how many troops and tanks, no matter how many missiles and nukes you cant defend against lone madmen. A huge military is worthless towards the current threats to the US. And you cannot tell me that the US military is defensive, it is the most offensive built military machine I know of. Seen as a deterrent perhaps you could argue that it is defensive and when used in preemptive strikes but in my eyes it seems to be a force designed for attack and not defence. Especially since there are none and have never really been any real threats to US soil (mainland) since the independence war from anything that can be stopped by an army. But to each his own but no one cant say that the US' military might isnt intimidating to other countries and viewed as a threat at its current size and deployment, in some aspects that may be a good thing.
I dont think the world would want another armsrace, I know I dont, would you Atreides? Too costly and too dangerous.

[ December 20, 2002, 12:41: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

We don't need another arms race. (wow, joacqin and I are agreeing more frequently these days). It is a massive waste of resources and time that can be spent on more useful things, like curing disease, ending hunger, clean energy sources, etc.
I wish that my country would spend 1/10th of the "defense" budget on these things. Working with other nations, we truly could change the world.

 

Actually, the last time America was threatened was 1870's with the Samoan incident involving the US, Prussia, and England, who was kind of a watcher. The Kaiser(Wilhelm 1 or 2) was mad that the US dare to challege his ships by firing a shot over the bow, the US also did this in Manila after the Spanish-American War when the Prussians waited like vultures to take over the Phillipines. Thus, Wilhelm had his generals make up invasion plans of the US as a winter exercise. Some say this was merely something to occupy the generals, others say it was a real threat. Regardless, America has an offensive army because you cant win on the defensive. You have to exploit the enemy's weakness and press it home. The only time you fight a defensive war is to buy time for allies to enter the conflict, hence the Battle of Britain and why Normandy took 3 years of preparation. Otherwise, the enemy will just pound away at you till you give. As an example, look at the Napoleonic Army when they kept attacking. Once they retreated, and went on the defensive, they lost. Napoleon's edge was attacking, not defending, one of the few "defensive" generals was Wellington(Sir Arthur Wellesley), who used not just a defensive stance, but also a hostile and decentralized force, that is why he won.