Is America's military hegemony good for the world?

[Onecirrus]

U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined. NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance between 30 North American and European countries with the U.S accounting for nearly 70% of its funds. America has 7 active fleets patrolling the worlds oceans as well as military personal deployed in 150 countries.

My question is if all the above was not true would the world be a more war ridden place? Why wouldn't China take military action against Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc? Why wouldn't Russia take action to reclaim Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, etc?

Sure America is bombing 7 or 8 countries but what would be the body count be if China and Russia had zero opposition from a superior power?

Am I overlooking something and foolishly defending imperialism?

[Willie]

Is any military hegemony good for the world?

 

Also, this is basically the entire premise of Team America: World Police.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Willie

[Roy]

1 hour ago, Willie said:

Is any military hegemony good for the world?

For specific countries that get bullied or manipulated? No.

For larger humanity as a whole? Yes.

One must simply look at history; Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. All periods of unparalleled progress and prosperity for most of humanity because of hegemonic superpowers keeping things in check.

When there isn't one of these powers it's complete chaos and struggle between a bunch of smaller powers trying to grow.

So either we have an elephant occasionally stomping over stuff and a relatively peaceful world, or most of humanity killing each other. Take your pick because there is no alternative............. yet.

[NatureB]

Not sure. Currently readin Who Rules The World? By Noam Chomsky. It seems like US military hegemony causes a ton of destruction and subjugation of less developed countries, but I can't say what the world would look like without US hegemony. And Noam hasn't said thus far.

[commie]

8 hours ago, Onecirrus said:

Am I overlooking something and foolishly defending imperialism?

Yes. Take any balance and remove a big piece, what happens to that balance? US hegemony is the reason for specific potential conflicts you talked about.

You are also overlooking nukes. Japan would need a military if it wasn't a US protectorate for instance but this thankfully isn't 1914 and it doesn't need its own imperialist machine. All it needs is the stuff France has been selling.

1 hour ago, Roy said:

Pax Britannica

Now we've heard it all.

[Akemrelax]

26 minutes ago, NatureB said:

Currently readin Who Rules The World? By Noam Chomsky. It seems like US military hegemony causes a ton of destruction and subjugation of less developed countries

Same!! 

[Verdesbird]

OPTIONS ??

[No Self]

The former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard raised this issue as a core part of her campaign. As a US Army Reserve officer, she has seen the horrors of war first hand. She argued that the vast sums of money pumped into military expenditure could instead be used to provide first-world levels of education, health care, infrastructure and so forth to benefit US citizens. Just like a normal country. It seemed that almost nobody took her message seriously.

Before parroting the propaganda that the US brings 'freedom', keep in mind the mass slaughter of 1980s El Salvador, the rape of Hissène Habré's Chad, the near-nuclear holocaust of the Cold War and countless others.

Consider also that the powerful lobby groups and corporations building weapons have a business that requires violence in order for business to run smoothly. And consider that genuine solutions require a completely different energy. Yes, in very specific instances such as stopping Imperialist Japan in the 1940s, force is needed. This then becomes a slippery slope that is easily manipulated to spread violence.

[Leo Gura]

This is a point many progressives are in denial about. Progressives love to criticize America as an empire. And that is true. But what's the alternative? The alternative would be a global power vacuum filled by countries which are even less developed and more devilish than America. This doesn't justify America's belligerence and pointless wars, but it does undermine some of the progressive anti-empire narrative. In practice it would not be so good for the world to have a global power vacuum. Countries like China or Russia would sweep in and try to bully others around.

It is good for America to maintain a global leadership role. It just needs to be done using soft-power and diplomacy, not pointless endless wars. Ideally America would take the role of an impartial global referee. But this is too much to ask still because America is too selfish.

[No Self]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But what's the alternative?

The logical solution is a global United Nations army that is funded by all member states and responds decisively as needed.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, No Self said:

The logical solution is a global United Nations army that is funded by all member states and responds decisively as needed.

Yes, but that's a long way away. Until then someone needs to take a leadership role to build that future.

[PurpleTree]

7 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

 

It's our obligation to defend the free world. Unless we want hell on earth and people to suffer. The good side must be stronger than the evil side.

 

Yea that's bs, what has the us done to latin american countries? what about yemen? kurds? armenia?etc. etc.

 

Is the US military hegemony good for the world?

hard to say, there are pros and cons

[Joel3102]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a point many progressives are in denial about. Progressives love to criticize America as an empire. And that is true. But what's the alternative? The alternative would be a global power vacuum filled by countries which are even less developed and more devilish than America. This doesn't justify America's belligerence and pointless wars, but it does undermine some of the progressive anti-empire narrative. In practice it would not be so good for the world to have a global power vacuum. Countries like China or Russia would sweep in and try to bully others around.

It is good for America to maintain a global leadership role. It just needs to be done using soft-power and diplomacy, not pointless endless wars. Ideally America would take the role of an impartial global referee. But this is too much to ask still because America is too selfish.

Libertarians are like this too but take it even further. Any military bases outside America or any use of state sanctions etc are seen as immoral. It’s too ideological I think, but hey, it’s better than the other end of the spectrum 

[ajai]

We need no bullshit capitalist driven leadership or any crappy Unipolar or Bipolar world order, neither we must fancy any devil nation proving to be messiah or the savior of the world's problems, we have had enough of em, what we need in this day n age is a world cooperation where countries are really CO-OPERATING and not just masquerading in the name of co-operation as is UN already doing for decades, and why is that? cos the one who rules n governs UN just think of itself.

We shall build a list of America's devilry all-around the around and the massacre they have had the fortune to be involved in?

History speaks for itself!

Is having the strongest ECONOMY in the world gives you the right to govern the world as you like? and how you were able to make yourself this STRONG economy? Through LOOT and Exploitation through every means possible, is that the only answer?

[ajai]

2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

the US military hegemony good for the world?

Just wait and watch, it's about time once CHINA takes on the title of World's new Superpower, we shall witness the real face of America, they can go to any stretch and crank up their selfish motives just to protect this crown of being HEGEMON of the world.

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a point many progressives are in denial about. Progressives love to criticize America as an empire. And that is true. But what's the alternative? The alternative would be a global power vacuum filled by countries which are even less developed and more devilish than America. This doesn't justify America's belligerence and pointless wars, but it does undermine some of the progressive anti-empire narrative. In practice it would not be so good for the world to have a global power vacuum. Countries like China or Russia would sweep in and try to bully others around.

It is good for America to maintain a global leadership role. It just needs to be done using soft-power and diplomacy, not pointless endless wars. Ideally America would take the role of an impartial global referee. But this is too much to ask still because America is too selfish.

There is an interesting dynamic that I think might not be as obvious at first glance. If there is a certain geopolitical order in the world, a natural tendency of each nation-state to fall into a certain place of the hierarchy of power, any aberration away from that natural order would require force to sustain itself. In other words, it requires an outside force to shape a river beyond it's natural tendency of flowing where there is least resistance.

If we assume that China is in a unique geopolitical position which actually deems it, in the context of least resistance, to be the hegemony of the world, what does this mean for any other nation-state that seeks to uphold it's current hegemony on the world stage?

It means that the country must interfer in the natural power-structures, and war is the natural consequence of such interferences. For the US to maintain it's position at the top, it must continiously undermine the natural order, the natural harmony that would reveal itself if non-interference were to be a reality. China has been the center of the world for thousands of years, europe was meaningless. As we speak that historic order is being restored and it seems like the US will not be able to maintain it's dominance in the world without severe conflict.

 

See, if nature deem it so that you are not at the top of the foodchain, it will require you to resist nature. This will lead to suffering. Mankind as a whole can be viewed to be in this stage of development. In our attempt to free ourselves from the natural order, we have subjugated nature. The suffering it takes to maintain our position in nature far exceeds any suffering we ourselves would have experienced if we had maintained the natural order.

 

China is the center of the world, whether you like it or not. They are the majority, so it is a priority that they start to progress. If they become the hegemony, they will develope. They will rise in consciousness. We can have all the progress in the west, it is meaningless to what it would mean for China and India to progress. And China and India will progress, and we might be able to aid them if we are willing to give in to the natural order. It seems to me that it could very wellbe that we are currently the hinderance to the progress of mankind, not them.

[No Self]

Speaking of China, it is interesting to contrast its tactics for establishing hegemony to those of the US.

They build subsidised infrastructure in poorer countries, then dominate by ensuring debts are almost impossible to pay. Though not ideal, I daresay this is an improvement of the American way of subjugation through bloodshed.

We are also entering a new arena in which manipulation of public opinion is the new global battleground. We are only at the beginnings of seeing what AI is capable of in terms of flooding the population with propaganda that sows division and mayhem. Much of the US population still doesn't even realise that this war is happening and it is the main target.

[ajai]

@No Self nice one bruh?

[ItsNick]

The European Union is seriously considering a European Army. Especially France and Germany want this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army

[aurum]

@Onecirrus

There are many aspects society that are not ideal, but may be temporarily necessary.

Ideally, every country would agree to cut the vast majority of their military spending. But no one will agree to do this, because what if another country goes back on their agreement? They will conquer everybody. So we are collectively stuck in a Win / Lose, non-cooperative game.

Also, consider the financial incentives in place. Without the military, we are talking a huge blow to the world economy. Tons of people get paid only because the military and war exist. 

None of this justifies what is going on. But we must also understand why our situation currently exists as it does. If something exists, it is currently serving a purpose. Once we can see what the purpose is, we can create new systems and new paradigms for doing things.

For instance, maybe we decide that having tons of people's paycheck depend on killing other people isn't a good system. Therefore, we institute some sort of Universal Basic Income to help alleviate people from having to rely on those kinds of jobs. Or we create some sort of global institution to manage a collective disarmament. 

Regardless, we must understand the reason for these unwanted aspects of society.