Balance of Power

caksz

New Member
Will the world be more safer and less war with two super power equally par but not quite friendly with each other? like the cold war era with the Soviet and US. With the current world order with only one power in domain without no one to oppose, is kinda unbalance.Russia is never like before, China and India in rising but still far behind ,who will became new power to balance it?.Or the world is better with one power in domain? It's good for whom siding with them,but we can't force others to like you but you can make others easily hating you.


If the thred not suitable, care to remove it :vamp
 

f-22fan12

New Member
I think (being an American) that one superpower, and other nuclear powers, is a good enough balance. The U.S. can currently be stopped by the U.K., France, China, and Russia. These countries have long range missiles that can hit the U.S. 2 (U.K. France) are allies the other 2 are not.
 

metro

New Member
It depends if the "other power" is deterrable.
US and the USSR fought Proxy wars through the Cold War and neither had a death wish. In this "Unipolar World" everyone is taking the opportunity to arm themselves to the teeth. I think today, we are living in a much more dangerous world as anybody can be a threat, whether major powers or smaller countries/people proficient in asymmetrical warfare. The US and USSR could pretty much dictate who could do what as there were "only" 2 spheres of influence. Now, either everyone becomes the ally of the US (it's not happening for us), or you get what we see today, global instability.
 

Revival_786

New Member
"China and India in rising but still far behind"

I wouldn't compare China and India. China is much farther ahead with respect to India technologically.

I would definately prefer a multipolar world.
 
It depends if the "other power" is deterrable.
US and the USSR fought Proxy wars through the Cold War and neither had a death wish. In this "Unipolar World" everyone is taking the opportunity to arm themselves to the teeth. I think today, we are living in a much more dangerous world as anybody can be a threat, whether major powers or smaller countries/people proficient in asymmetrical warfare. The US and USSR could pretty much dictate who could do what as there were "only" 2 spheres of influence. Now, either everyone becomes the ally of the US (it's not happening for us), or you get what we see today, global instability.
I think you make some good points but imo you still can have a stable world order in a "Unipolar World" with good leadership governing, something we are currently lacking.

As to the Proxy wars during the Cold war, the US won most of them with the exception of a few.
 

metro

New Member
I think you make some good points but imo you still can have a stable world order in a "Unipolar World" with good leadership governing, something we are currently lacking.

As to the Proxy wars during the Cold war, the US won most of them with the exception of a few.
Yeah, I don't know, it gets very complex.
To sort of "dumb it down," odd numbers in most social/global systems are more difficult than even numbers. For example, having 2 children is usually better than 1 or 3. The 1 kid may be strong, but he's alone. Having two 2 strong kids: they might fight with each other "in the house" but they are not going to kill each other. In a social setting they protect each other because of a common interest, and it's less likely that any one will challenge two strong brothers and thus, the friends (allies) each of them have. Having 3 Strong kids (3's a crowed): It will always be 2 vs. 1... and so on.

Same with commerce. On strong company will start to face competition from several places. 2 dominant companies makes others think a lot longer about getting into a big stakes game. Home Depot and Lowes. Boeing and Airbus. The 3 american auto companies killed each other and have been dominated by Toyota and Honda from Japan and BMW and now Benz from Germany. Microsoft was the far and away leader for a while and Apple decided to get there stuff together and now there are two. Intel vs. AMD.
-These aren't exact analogies but they show the same concept.

We haven't had good leadership for the last 2 decades.
When the USSR fell, we i the west went into this "multiculturalism" and globalization trend, and nobody wanted to hear "nation building." Sadaam invaded Kuwait in 19991, something he would have never done a few years earlier (he got into the open boarder thing). Wars throughout Africa. Yougoslavia broke up into and is still having ramifications on the world today. Al-queda came about in the early 1990's, and UBL made his statement in 1995, "declaring war on america." The power base in the ME, is in chaos, and has shifted to Iran, who talks to the 1 "superpower" as though they're the 2nd superpower. Russia, isn't the USSR, but Putin acts like it is. NK, Iraq, many of the African nations and south american countries have either become failed states, or are close. Afghanistan is Afghanistan. General chaos as there is no more international order.

The power was held by the US and USSR, and when the USSR fell apart, it's power was up for grabs around the world. Instead of the west consolidating that power, we tried to all of a sudden create "great relations" with a superpower that just crumbled--instead of picking up the mess. With the oil prices that are already crazy, and China vs. India vs. Pakistan, all growing and consuming a ton of natural resources, it's not going to get better.

With one superpower, another on the verge (China), and India trying to quickly catch up, the "International System" is no longer a system, it's more like anarchy, where sometimes "enemies of enemies are friends."

The reason I mention the problem of doing the opposite of nation building, is because the "old rules" don't exist anymore. We are a country that's been perhaps the best with having so many cultures, but that's because of our short history. It's benefitted us to be a country of immigrants, as the Nation is young, but the combined history of the people who make up our country, which we draw lessons upon, is actually very long. However, as we're starting to see here, immigration throughout Europe (more recently) has caused many several countries to have mini-states within some state's.

The US had been pretty good with immigration because it was just assumed, those who come here will adapt to our society. Not divide and conquer, but people who came here would "Divide and Surrender" (i.e. immigrants would always keep their culture, but assimilation to the Nation was more important).

Now, we, as americans are being divided and perhaps conquered, from within.

Anyway, IMO, without balance, international stability is lost and the entire system is "reset" and we go back to the original state of nature, "survival of the fittest." Except, the population of the world has grown quite a bit, people want to protect themselves or take advantage of an opportunity, so more arms are sold--to everyone by everyone-- and more conflict becomes inevitable.

Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts. It's like a complex matrix now and I can't even touch the tip of the ice-berg.
Peace
 

PullerRommel

New Member
IMO there should be two so as to stop bullying and such things. I also agree with Metro's "Dumbed down" explanation.

Your immigation kinda reminds of the Movie Red Dawn"
 

Brycec

New Member
The most stable kind of world is a bipolar world. This comes as a surprise to many, but its actually true. If you think about the Cold War, most of the time, the USA and USSR were just tiptoeing around each other, never risking actual defeat.

In a unipolar world the lone superpower has pretty much free range across the globe. The term 'realpolitik,' means that in truth all countries care about is power, above all the politically correct nonsense they preach.
The lone superpower destabalises the world, as can be seen as we speak with the USA in the Middle East.

Multipolar worlds are not as unstable as you might think. During the Crimean war period, there were many superpowers throughout Europe. Basically what was happening was if one nation did something the others considered bad, they would gang up on him. This prevented the nations really being able to do anything too drastic and kept everyone in line.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
The most stable kind of world is a bipolar world. This comes as a surprise to many, but its actually true. If you think about the Cold War, most of the time, the USA and USSR were just tiptoeing around each other, never risking actual defeat.
Since then end of the Cold War, number and intensity of conflicts have dropped drastically.

Press Release
COMPREHENSIVE THREE-YEAR STUDY SHOWS SURPRISING EVIDENCE OF MAJOR DECLINES IN ARMED CONFLICTS, GENOCIDES, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, MILITARY COUPS AND INTERNATIONAL CRISES, WORLDWIDE.

The Number of Armed Conflicts Has Dropped 40% since 1992.
This Unheralded Decline Is Linked to a Dramatic Increase in UN Conflict Prevention and Peace Building Efforts.
NEW YORK, October 17, 2005—Confounding conventional wisdom, a major new report reveals that all forms of political violence, except international terrorism, have declined worldwide since the early 1990s.
Supported by five governments, published by Oxford University Press and released today, the Human Security Report is the most comprehensive annual survey of trends in warfare, genocide, and human rights abuses. The Report, which was produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia, shows how, after nearly five decades of inexorable increase, the number of genocides and violent conflicts dropped rapidly in the wake of the Cold War. It also reveals that wars are not only far less frequent today, but are also far less deadly.


http://www.humansecurityreport.info/press/Press_Release.pdf

There are other surveys, showing the same, but without the "happy peacekeeper conclusion". :D

In a unipolar world the lone superpower has pretty much free range across the globe. The term 'realpolitik,' means that in truth all countries care about is power, above all the politically correct nonsense they preach.
The lone superpower destabalises the world, as can be seen as we speak with the USA in the Middle East.
It's only because the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have the media exposure they have. Multipolar world? Think Vietnam, Korea, ME Wars, Africa. Invasions of Hungary and Czechkoslovakia, Afghanistan (once again).

The world is a more stable place today - even when including Iraq. It's all about playing perceptions, and discontent in some quarters with that it is the Americans who are the dominant power.


Multipolar worlds are not as unstable as you might think. During the Crimean war period, there were many superpowers throughout Europe. Basically what was happening was if one nation did something the others considered bad, they would gang up on him. This prevented the nations really being able to do anything too drastic and kept everyone in line.
A system of politics, treaties and alliances that were directly responsible for unprecedented rivalry on a global scale and led to World War One?

Stability - look to the Roman Empire.
 
Last edited:

metro

New Member
Press Release
COMPREHENSIVE THREE-YEAR STUDY SHOWS SURPRISING EVIDENCE OF MAJOR DECLINES IN ARMED CONFLICTS, GENOCIDES, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, MILITARY COUPS AND
NEW YORK, October 17, 2005—Confounding conventional wisdom, a major new report reveals that all forms of political violence, except international terrorism, have declined worldwide since the early 1990s.


I think int'l terrorism should, perhaps, take a higher position in a world where "state vs state" has to a large extent been replaced by asymmetrical warefare. Except in the UN where terrorism can't seem to be defined, "Terrorism" [which is the "exception" here] is almost always understood as a means for political gain. How does one measure the increase in terrorism, when the definition cannot even be "measured"?

-I'd say, there there has been more of a tactical shift in the state of warfare rather than a downward shift in all warfare.

-IMO wars are far less deadly because several countries have invested a whole lot of money in making dumb-bombs into "smart bombs..." and things of the like.


Supported by five governments, published by Oxford University Press and released today, the Human Security Report is the most comprehensive annual survey of trends in warfare, genocide, and human rights abuses. The Report, which was produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia, shows how, after nearly five decades of inexorable increase, the number of genocides and violent conflicts dropped rapidly in the wake of the Cold War. It also reveals that wars are not only far less frequent today, but are also far less deadly.
I'm sorry, the link won't open for me... Are any or all of these 5 countries on the UN Human Right's Committee (or whatever they are calling it these days)?

There are other surveys, showing the same, but without the "happy peacekeeper conclusion". :D
You mean, "peacekeeping by nature isn't happy"?;)
I'd think with the report of "dramatic decrease in war," there couldn't be a better job:D



It's only because the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have the media exposure they have. Multipolar world? Think Vietnam, Korea, ME Wars, Africa. Invasions of Hungary and Czechkoslovakia, Afghanistan (once again).
Unipolar world: Balkins, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, SA, "quasi-"Pakistan, Hizbollah, Hamas (make your own decision on te PA), etc.. wherever we've seen groups of people come from to fight, not for their country, but against the "West." Perhaps that's "terror" and not the "warfare" we once knew, but this is only one part of the world, and I'm not sure how, "violent conflicts have decresed dramatically."

Yet, besides the ME, there are new and remaining problems in Europe, Africa, China, Latin America (Chavez kissing Ahmadinejad turns me on:rolleyes:), especially mexico where there is a "large scale" drug war right on the american boarder (they're taking what Columbia once had on lock-down, to a whole new level... and so on. Proxy wars have just begun. Clinton wouldn't fight, so now you see them occurring.

If violence is defined as the total number dead at the end of a conflict, than perhaps, over the years, the shift to asymmetrical warfare (where "Iraq" doesn't get destroyed), the leaps in "smart technology" and "defensive technology," "all -technology) as well as vast improvements in on sight medical care, and strict ROEs (to name a few), has indeed lead to a less violent/deadly world. Every death, as we all know, is hard (to say the least), but many compare Iraq to Vietnam, in which 59,000 soldiers were lost as opposed to 3,500 in a war that's lasted longer.


The world is a more stable place today - even when including Iraq. It's all about playing perceptions, and discontent in some quarters with that it is the Americans who are the dominant power.
As an american, I agree perception has much to do with a persons' outlook on the world. However, one would think that the discontent of America comes almost exclusively from outside our boarders. Take a month to live here and you'll no longer wonder if most americans think having a dominant role in the world is good (you'll get that answer quickly--"no, we hurt too many people, cause everybody's problems by interfering with there lives, and allow so many in other countries to starve." I know the logic here is (fill in the blank)).

-Also: stability today, and what one sees tomorrow, are two different things. China/India is not going to be that stale or simple (IMO).



A system of politics, treaties and alliances that were directly responsible for unprecedented rivalry on a global scale and led to World War One?
All of those things also ended 2 WWs

All the best!
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I think int'l terrorism should, perhaps, take a higher position in a world where "state vs state" has to a large extent been replaced by asymmetrical warefare. Except in the UN where terrorism can't seem to be defined, "Terrorism" [which is the "exception" here] is almost always understood as a means for political gain. How does one measure the increase in terrorism, when the definition cannot even be "measured"?
This isn't a UN report. There are a number of reports of this type and they all point in the same direction, regardless of definitions and semantics.

-I'd say, there there has been more of a tactical shift in the state of warfare rather than a downward shift in all warfare.
Probably yes. But afaik most conflicts, also the Cold War ones, were and are internal. This tactical shift is also a product of the end of the Cold War, as they are supplied weapons in order to keep the other power out.

-IMO wars are far less deadly because several countries have invested a whole lot of money in making dumb-bombs into "smart bombs..." and things of the like.
Only the wars were these were appplied as a majority of the munitions. That means Kosovo Air War (1999), Afghanistan (2001-) and Gulf War II (2003-).

I'm sorry, the link won't open for me... Are any or all of these 5 countries on the UN Human Right's Committee (or whatever they are calling it these days)?
Works fine for me. Anyhow, the countries that funded the report are:

"The Human Security Report 2005 was funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. It should not be
Page 6 of 6
taken to represent the views of these or any other government, or of the UN or any other agency."


I dunno if they are on the human rights committee. Why is that important?

You mean, "peacekeeping by nature isn't happy"?;)
I'd think with the report of "dramatic decrease in war," there couldn't be a better job:D
Ah, no I didn't. The report correlates peacekeeping efforts with "# of conflicts" and almost conclude that is the peacekeeping efforts that are the reason. Funnily it also identifies why it is possible to use peacekeepers, though it doesn't realise that it is because the "multipolar" Cold War is over.

"First, was the end of colonialism. From the early 1950s to the early 1980s, colonial wars made up 60–100% of all international conflicts depending on the year. Today there are no such wars.

Second, was the end of the Cold War, which had driven approximately one-third of all conflicts in the post–World War II. This removed any residual threat of war between the major powers, and Washington and Moscow stopped fueling “proxy wars” in the developing world.

Third, was the unprecedented upsurge of international activities designed to stop ongoing wars and prevent new ones starting that took place in the wake of the Cold War. Spearheaded by the UN these activities included:

* A six-fold increase in UN preventive diplomacy missions (to stop wars starting).
* A four-fold increase in UN peacemaking missions (to end ongoing conflicts).
* A four-fold increase in UN peace operations (to reduce the risk of wars restarting).
* An eleven-fold increase in the number of states subject to UN
sanctions (which can help pressure warring parties into peace negotiations)."


Basically, the bullets under "third" should really be attributed to "second" as these tools would not be available as "multipolar powers" would veto.

Like today, China acts as a "multipolar power" and threaten a veto in the UNSC in Sudan. This could also be seen as an instance, where access to raw materials have relevance, as opposed to any "nowhere place".

Anyhow, this what I could Google up. But its numerical/statistical findings should be good.

Unipolar world: Balkins, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, SA, "quasi-"Pakistan, Hizbollah, Hamas (make your own decision on te PA), etc.. wherever we've seen groups of people come from to fight, not for their country, but against the "West." Perhaps that's "terror" and not the "warfare" we once knew, but this is only one part of the world, and I'm not sure how, "violent conflicts have decresed dramatically."

Yet, besides the ME, there are new and remaining problems in Europe, Africa, China, Latin America (Chavez kissing Ahmadinejad turns me on:rolleyes:), especially mexico where there is a "large scale" drug war right on the american boarder (they're taking what Columbia once had on lock-down, to a whole new level... and so on. Proxy wars have just begun. Clinton wouldn't fight, so now you see them occurring.
When you count'em and do the tally, there are fewer, less deadly conflicts. But the list is still too long as you have shown.

If violence is defined as the total number dead at the end of a conflict, than perhaps, over the years, the shift to asymmetrical warfare (where "Iraq" doesn't get destroyed), the leaps in "smart technology" and "defensive technology," "all -technology) as well as vast improvements in on sight medical care, and strict ROEs (to name a few), has indeed lead to a less violent/deadly world. Every death, as we all know, is hard (to say the least), but many compare Iraq to Vietnam, in which 59,000 soldiers were lost as opposed to 3,500 in a war that's lasted longer.
I don't think technology can explain so much, as the US part of the fatalities is so small compared to the total population (statistical), regardless.

As an american, I agree perception has much to do with a persons' outlook on the world. However, one would think that the discontent of America comes almost exclusively from outside our boarders. Take a month to live here and you'll no longer wonder if most americans think having a dominant role in the world is good (you'll get that answer quickly--"no, we hurt too many people, cause everybody's problems by interfering with there lives, and allow so many in other countries to starve." I know the logic here is (fill in the blank)).
What I said was that if you're fed conflict on your TV set every day, you will believe the world is on fire - and it is getting worse! The actual numbers will tell you otherwise. Journalism also have equivalence between two dud car bombs in the UK and 50 dead in blasts in pakistan or 200 dead in tribal fighting in Somalia. Which one constitute a conflict?

- I didn't take a swing at the US.

-Also: stability today, and what one sees tomorrow, are two different things. China/India is not going to be that stale or simple (IMO).
You're saying that multipolarity is unstability?


All of those things also ended 2 WWs

All the best!
But different in nature; thus analogy and conclusion cannot be drawn in this manner. Does not translate.

Best to you too.
 
Last edited:

merocaine

New Member
The world is a more stable place today - even when including Iraq. It's all about playing perceptions, and discontent in some quarters with that it is the Americans who are the dominant power.
Its stable today, but wheater this stability is sustainable over a longer period than 15, 20 years is debatable.
As it stands the causes of conflict havent changed one iota, religous rivalry, population pressure, competition for resources and now the possiblity that climate change will exasabate the above lead me to think that the last 20 years are a brief interlude.

It is total american dominance in military matters, and hence there ability to infulence conflicts with weapons sales and military aid, and the lack of a similar globle actor, that has ended conflicts around the glode, no fundemental change in human nature has occured.

If anything the conventions created after the second world war have been undermined by the brief period of almost total American dominance. The rule of the strong has been validated by the American experience, its implications have been absorbed at the highest levels by defence intelectuals in Washington and the Pentagon. Through indescresions such as the 'Project for the new American Centery' concepts such as 'Full spectrum Dominance' and now the Missles defence programme, and the reality of the Iraq invasion, we can see how America itself see's the future.

We can only assume that the same lessons have been absorbed in New Deli and Beijing.

GD's parrallel with Rome is valid, when Rome was strong the Empire prospered, when Rome weakened too quickly, the world lurched into chaos. We live in a world of reletive American decline. Our future prosperety depends to a large degree on how well that decline is managed.

The reality is the coming of a bipolar world, the shape of which is discernable now, unfortunatly I dont think this bipolar world will have the stability on Europe from 1815 to 1870, and even up to 1914.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
It's hard to disagree with you Merocaine. I do have a comment on this part:

If anything the conventions created after the second world war have been undermined by the brief period of almost total American dominance. The rule of the strong has been validated by the American experience, its implications have been absorbed at the highest levels by defence intelectuals in Washington and the Pentagon. Through indescresions such as the 'Project for the new American Centery' concepts such as 'Full spectrum Dominance' and now the Missles defence programme, and the reality of the Iraq invasion, we can see how America itself see's the future.
I think the likes of Wolfowitz, Perle et al, have lost out on such a degree, that the vision of the future as the "project for the new American Century" sees it is dead. Not only in relation to the current president, but for a looong time to come.

"Full spectrum dominance", "overmatch" and the likes reflect an American approach to things that has always been present. And who would not seek superiority in doctrine? That is also the nature of things, as the US and any nation will seek to secure its interests. Why would you want some people you don't agree with hold sway over you?

You know, as you hear some say on occasion "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It's the same with military capabilities. And that crowd is absolutely detached from reality.
 

merocaine

New Member
Yeah I was perhaps being a little to glib, but make no mistake, the new american century boys stars may be in decline, but the conclusions they reached have been widely excepted among the US establishment(and others).

Where Pearle and Rummy differed with others like Baker or Albright was in suthlety.
There is still (and perhaps always was) a wide spread belief that the US should, and is morally right, to prevent the emergence of any power which would be able to approach parity in military affairs. That the situation vis a v the Soviet Union should never be allowed to happen again.
I dont see that as a American trait, it seems embedded in the way europeans have made war since ancient times. Its just we were never in the position of the US's almost total dominance of military affairs (colonial adventures aside).
Having never been beaten (not counting there own little colonial adventure in vietnam) the US seems to have been hit pretty bad with that sense of destiny.
My problem is not with the american dominance in military matters, just that they will become much more willing to use it before there compeditors start to approach parity. It is in this sense that phases like 'Full spectrum dominance'
and Domination of high ground (Space) worry me.

(As an aside, I think most of the fear/scorn Bush managed to generate in Europe, stemed from the fact he exposed our weakness so completley, it still hurts!)
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Actually I think there are subtleties that make say, "overmatch", uniquely American. And "overmatch" is also "full spectrum". Just an older term...
 

merocaine

New Member
from wikipedia....

As early as 2005, the credibility of full-spectrum dominance as a practical strategic doctrine was dismissed by Professor Philip Taylor of the University of Leeds [2] an expert consultant to the US and UK governments on psy-ops, propaganda and diplomacy.

"It's true, though rarely recognized in the control-freakery world of the military, that full spectrum dominance is impossible in the global information environment."

Perhaps it is uniquely American....:)
 

metro

New Member
Yeah I was perhaps being a little to glib, but make no mistake, the new american century boys stars may be in decline, but the conclusions they reached have been widely excepted among the US establishment(and others).

Where Pearle and Rummy differed with others like Baker or Albright was in suthlety.
There is still (and perhaps always was) a wide spread belief that the US should, and is morally right, to prevent the emergence of any power which would be able to approach parity in military affairs. That the situation vis a v the Soviet Union should never be allowed to happen again.
I dont see that as a American trait, it seems embedded in the way europeans have made war since ancient times. Its just we were never in the position of the US's almost total dominance of military affairs (colonial adventures aside).
Having never been beaten (not counting there own little colonial adventure in vietnam) the US seems to have been hit pretty bad with that sense of destiny.
My problem is not with the american dominance in military matters, just that they will become much more willing to use it before there compeditors start to approach parity. It is in this sense that phases like 'Full spectrum dominance'
and Domination of high ground (Space) worry me.

(As an aside, I think most of the fear/scorn Bush managed to generate in Europe, stemed from the fact he exposed our weakness so completley, it still hurts!)

Going back to Darwin's funny theory, I think most anyone can stumble on the path to the top (the ambition of most human's I think we can agree) and follow that path until walking alone. While others can easily follow the same path, the person at the front, must figure out his/her location, if he/she is lost or not, and figure out where to go next.

It's probably why people have made so many mistakes. History can be known by anyone, while knowing the future requires owning a 1-900-NUMBER (an exclusive group, or so they say).:rolleyes:

It's strange how those at the top today invented things like the car and microchip. At one time these were expensive by anybody's estimate. Now the the car is not a matter of manufacturing, it's a matter a fueling. The microchip "we own" can't be traded worth it's weight for things like drugs "which they own."

My guess, is that man will try to out do man long after the sun sets for the last time.:unknown
 
Top