It's becoming an increasingly crazy world. I'm trying to identify a country that is not in the competition to self-destruct first. I can't. That's dangerous because in descent to tyranny and poverty, leaders can do crazy things. Looking specifically at China, Xi's re-embrace of central planning, and the imbalance between adult men and women, will be a major source of weakening. That said, North Korea has shown that even the poorest countries can be very troublesome.
As usual, a well-written piece that makes a strong case for the author's thesis, which everyone, of any political persuasion, will fervently hope is true. (And the diligent reader will be rewarded by following the links in his article: at your next dinner party, you'll be the leading expert on missile defense, the F-35, and why the technical advances by the Military-Industrial Complex are always deprecated, at first, by most journalists. For further in-depth analysis of variant of the author's first point, see Tim Marshall's book, PRISONERS OF GEOGRAPHY. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_Geography ])
However ... the unstated assumption here is that the men leading the potential belligerent powers will always act rationally and/or will assume that their opponents will act rationally. And even the word 'rational' can encompass disastrous decisions that seemed, at the time, to be rational.
Note that the two World Wars of the previous century did not occur because the German leader decided, "I know what! I'll start a huge world war and end up fighting Russia, Britain, France and the United States all at the same time! How hard can it be?"
It may not be entirely accurate to say, as one historian did, that we 'sleptwalked' into WWI
I suspect that if a big war comes, it will come as the result of a chain of actions/responses which escalate. So we have to hope that the leaders of all the potential-war-starting powers are rational. The Iranians, ironically, are leading by example here, although their deliberate attempt to avoid escalation during recent events is no doubt because they're waiting until their nuclear weapons program is complete. So our comfort must be tempered.
In any case, given the economic interdependence of nations, not to mention the extreme destruction that modern technology is able to inflict, it is clear that war between great powers is very unlikely. It wouldnt be rational. There is a famous book making the case for war's irrationality (and therefore its unlikelihood) in modern times, titled THE GREAT ILLUSION, written Norman Angel, which should provide us with some comfort. It may be difficult to find, however, being written in 1908.
Thanks for your detailed response. For what it's worth, I'm not arguing that war, per se, is unlikely - only that a "world war" involving direct combat between most or all of the Great Powers is extremely improbably. It would not surprise me in the least if, by 2050, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Mongolia no longer exist as independent countries - but there have been plenty of periods of intense regional warfare which nonetheless didn't go global.
That said, it's worth remembering what my three main arguments are, namely, that global war is unlikely because (1) the Great Powers are too far apart, (2) their populations are shrinking and aging, and (3) current weapons technology heavily favors the defender. All of these arguments work just as well for countries escalating/sleepwalking their way into war, as for a carefully-planned war.
When the Great Powers are far apart, they're less likely to see the military actions of other great powers as direct threats, and will have a more difficult time deploying men and materials to the theatre of the war in the event that they do (this is why the Ukraine war didn't immediately draw in other powers as full belligerents, the way that Germany's 1914 invasion of Belgium or 1939 invasion of Poland did). Also, back in 1939-40, the Germans were able to invade a lot of countries without making much of a dent in its manpower, hence their being confident enough to attack the USSR in 1941. But at present, due to the low supply of young men and the advantage of defensive weaponry, Russia has sustained so much damage just to take about 10% of Ukraine's land that a broader invasion of Eastern Europe is simply impractical, no matter how irrational Russia's leadership may be.
So we are looking at revanchist powers with declining populations (0.77 boys per family in Russia, 0.62 in China) which stand to be suffer heavy casualties even against weak opponents, due to superior defensive weapons. And then the US and its principal allies, Britain and France, are far enough away to not feel threatened much by what's going on (yes, people are making noise, but nobody is going to let themselves get drafted). The presence of a few irrational actors isn't going to change all this.
Can I be 100% certain of my thesis? No. But on my list of things to worry about, it doesn't make the top ten. At the moment I am much more concerned about America's domestic problems.
A wonderful tour of the unhappy landscape Thanks very much. I think the points raised by Doug1943 will need your consideration
Before I devote serious additional time to thinking this through, however, I would like to know what concrete differences worrying and not worrying have.
I'm surprised you write off Germany as a great power, by the way.
I'm glad you liked my essay. I replied in detail to Doug1943 a few minutes ago. As for the concrete differences behind "worry and not worrying" - well, how someone responds to geopolitical goings-on is a personal matter, but my own philosophy is that the best way to respond to the decline of the American Empire is to live frugally, learn useful skills (which can range from carpentry and gunsmithing to raising hens and growing vegetables), and join a tight-knit church, a fraternal order like the Masons or Oddfellows, or some other network of friends who can support each other in hard times. Perhaps "hard times" just means something as mundane as paying $20 for gas and having to pinch pennies to send your kids to a school where gender ideology isn't taught, but people who keep fantasizing about a sudden "happening" that wipes out the present social order in an instant, and replaces it with one where violence is the only skill that matters, are missing the point.
I don't consider Germany a Great Power because its military spending is only 1.4 percent of GDP, it has no nuclear weapons, and it never acts autonomously from the rest of NATO, the way that Britain and France occasionally do.
I would like to recommend this to you, though I prefer writing. I try not to let envy ("comparison is the thief of joy") destroy my enjoyment. I met him as a young man, so know he accumulated this knowledge over many years, and hard focused work you do but I, sadly, never did. You could be like him.
Definitely not getting under a desk now, although at some sad point it may be the best of several worse alternatives -- one of those alternatives being to run to the window to see what caused that bright, room-illuminating flash. (More people were killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki by flying rubble born by the speed-of-sound shockwave than were killed by the initial fireball and its speed-of-light electromagnetic all-spectrum radiation.)
So ... we've got to organize. We've got to have local groups of patriots prepared to defend/re-construct the Republic in case we have a major deviation from the today-was-like-yesterday, normal order, in which we assume our water, electricity, gas, gasoline and food will be readily available. Major disruptions to these things can occur by events far short of all-out war.
That said, the US (and all nations) should be preparing to deal with all-out war -- even if it takes place abroad, given the realities of radioactive fallout. So patriots should initiate a nationwide campaign to bring back, in improved form, the old Civil Defense program, as well as organizing locally to do whatever an organized group of serious people can do to mitigate the results of a breakdown of the social/legal order. It should be on Mr Trump's agenda, although maybe it would be more politic to undertake this after an election victory.
It's becoming an increasingly crazy world. I'm trying to identify a country that is not in the competition to self-destruct first. I can't. That's dangerous because in descent to tyranny and poverty, leaders can do crazy things. Looking specifically at China, Xi's re-embrace of central planning, and the imbalance between adult men and women, will be a major source of weakening. That said, North Korea has shown that even the poorest countries can be very troublesome.
Please engage with my policytalk.org
As usual, a well-written piece that makes a strong case for the author's thesis, which everyone, of any political persuasion, will fervently hope is true. (And the diligent reader will be rewarded by following the links in his article: at your next dinner party, you'll be the leading expert on missile defense, the F-35, and why the technical advances by the Military-Industrial Complex are always deprecated, at first, by most journalists. For further in-depth analysis of variant of the author's first point, see Tim Marshall's book, PRISONERS OF GEOGRAPHY. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_Geography ])
However ... the unstated assumption here is that the men leading the potential belligerent powers will always act rationally and/or will assume that their opponents will act rationally. And even the word 'rational' can encompass disastrous decisions that seemed, at the time, to be rational.
Note that the two World Wars of the previous century did not occur because the German leader decided, "I know what! I'll start a huge world war and end up fighting Russia, Britain, France and the United States all at the same time! How hard can it be?"
It may not be entirely accurate to say, as one historian did, that we 'sleptwalked' into WWI
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers:_How_Europe_Went_to_War_in_1914 ] but neither was what happened the sort of cold-blooded deliberate set of actions undertaken deliberately to provoke war undertaken by the German leader at the time which led to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
I suspect that if a big war comes, it will come as the result of a chain of actions/responses which escalate. So we have to hope that the leaders of all the potential-war-starting powers are rational. The Iranians, ironically, are leading by example here, although their deliberate attempt to avoid escalation during recent events is no doubt because they're waiting until their nuclear weapons program is complete. So our comfort must be tempered.
In any case, given the economic interdependence of nations, not to mention the extreme destruction that modern technology is able to inflict, it is clear that war between great powers is very unlikely. It wouldnt be rational. There is a famous book making the case for war's irrationality (and therefore its unlikelihood) in modern times, titled THE GREAT ILLUSION, written Norman Angel, which should provide us with some comfort. It may be difficult to find, however, being written in 1908.
Doug,
Thanks for your detailed response. For what it's worth, I'm not arguing that war, per se, is unlikely - only that a "world war" involving direct combat between most or all of the Great Powers is extremely improbably. It would not surprise me in the least if, by 2050, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Mongolia no longer exist as independent countries - but there have been plenty of periods of intense regional warfare which nonetheless didn't go global.
That said, it's worth remembering what my three main arguments are, namely, that global war is unlikely because (1) the Great Powers are too far apart, (2) their populations are shrinking and aging, and (3) current weapons technology heavily favors the defender. All of these arguments work just as well for countries escalating/sleepwalking their way into war, as for a carefully-planned war.
When the Great Powers are far apart, they're less likely to see the military actions of other great powers as direct threats, and will have a more difficult time deploying men and materials to the theatre of the war in the event that they do (this is why the Ukraine war didn't immediately draw in other powers as full belligerents, the way that Germany's 1914 invasion of Belgium or 1939 invasion of Poland did). Also, back in 1939-40, the Germans were able to invade a lot of countries without making much of a dent in its manpower, hence their being confident enough to attack the USSR in 1941. But at present, due to the low supply of young men and the advantage of defensive weaponry, Russia has sustained so much damage just to take about 10% of Ukraine's land that a broader invasion of Eastern Europe is simply impractical, no matter how irrational Russia's leadership may be.
So we are looking at revanchist powers with declining populations (0.77 boys per family in Russia, 0.62 in China) which stand to be suffer heavy casualties even against weak opponents, due to superior defensive weapons. And then the US and its principal allies, Britain and France, are far enough away to not feel threatened much by what's going on (yes, people are making noise, but nobody is going to let themselves get drafted). The presence of a few irrational actors isn't going to change all this.
Can I be 100% certain of my thesis? No. But on my list of things to worry about, it doesn't make the top ten. At the moment I am much more concerned about America's domestic problems.
A wonderful tour of the unhappy landscape Thanks very much. I think the points raised by Doug1943 will need your consideration
Before I devote serious additional time to thinking this through, however, I would like to know what concrete differences worrying and not worrying have.
I'm surprised you write off Germany as a great power, by the way.
Judith,
I'm glad you liked my essay. I replied in detail to Doug1943 a few minutes ago. As for the concrete differences behind "worry and not worrying" - well, how someone responds to geopolitical goings-on is a personal matter, but my own philosophy is that the best way to respond to the decline of the American Empire is to live frugally, learn useful skills (which can range from carpentry and gunsmithing to raising hens and growing vegetables), and join a tight-knit church, a fraternal order like the Masons or Oddfellows, or some other network of friends who can support each other in hard times. Perhaps "hard times" just means something as mundane as paying $20 for gas and having to pinch pennies to send your kids to a school where gender ideology isn't taught, but people who keep fantasizing about a sudden "happening" that wipes out the present social order in an instant, and replaces it with one where violence is the only skill that matters, are missing the point.
I don't consider Germany a Great Power because its military spending is only 1.4 percent of GDP, it has no nuclear weapons, and it never acts autonomously from the rest of NATO, the way that Britain and France occasionally do.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I will think them over carefully.
I would like to recommend this to you, though I prefer writing. I try not to let envy ("comparison is the thief of joy") destroy my enjoyment. I met him as a young man, so know he accumulated this knowledge over many years, and hard focused work you do but I, sadly, never did. You could be like him.
https://youtu.be/oevcTSV0tO8?si=ze22CqJmRQy2raco
The greatest empires are always destroyed from within.
100 thousand per year dead from fentanyl.
Just one of China's war fronts on America.
Getting under a desk, ain't gna work.
Definitely not getting under a desk now, although at some sad point it may be the best of several worse alternatives -- one of those alternatives being to run to the window to see what caused that bright, room-illuminating flash. (More people were killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki by flying rubble born by the speed-of-sound shockwave than were killed by the initial fireball and its speed-of-light electromagnetic all-spectrum radiation.)
So ... we've got to organize. We've got to have local groups of patriots prepared to defend/re-construct the Republic in case we have a major deviation from the today-was-like-yesterday, normal order, in which we assume our water, electricity, gas, gasoline and food will be readily available. Major disruptions to these things can occur by events far short of all-out war.
That said, the US (and all nations) should be preparing to deal with all-out war -- even if it takes place abroad, given the realities of radioactive fallout. So patriots should initiate a nationwide campaign to bring back, in improved form, the old Civil Defense program, as well as organizing locally to do whatever an organized group of serious people can do to mitigate the results of a breakdown of the social/legal order. It should be on Mr Trump's agenda, although maybe it would be more politic to undertake this after an election victory.
I'm gna move into a Zukerbunk