1
1
0
Since all the signs point to NEITHER Russia or the PRC wanting to be "Global Superpowers" but rather both being quite content to being "Regional Superpowers", I guess it is quite correct that the US remains the sole "Global Superpower".
The problem with that is that "Global Superpowers" have to maintain the same degree of superiority over a "Regional Superpower" than it would if that "Regional Superpower" were - in fact - a "Global Superpower". That, of course, means that it's a whole lot cheaper for a country to be a "Regional Superpower" than it is to be a "Global Superpower" (and it also means that the "Global Superpower" has to keep a high proportion of its military assets tied up "protecting against the 'Just In Case' scenarios".
PS - Note to RP staff - The "Soviet Union" doesn't exist any more so could you please add "Russia" or "Russian Federation"?
The problem with that is that "Global Superpowers" have to maintain the same degree of superiority over a "Regional Superpower" than it would if that "Regional Superpower" were - in fact - a "Global Superpower". That, of course, means that it's a whole lot cheaper for a country to be a "Regional Superpower" than it is to be a "Global Superpower" (and it also means that the "Global Superpower" has to keep a high proportion of its military assets tied up "protecting against the 'Just In Case' scenarios".
PS - Note to RP staff - The "Soviet Union" doesn't exist any more so could you please add "Russia" or "Russian Federation"?
China, Russia, and the Long ‘Unipolar Moment'
Posted from thediplomat.comPosted in these groups: 
Geopolitics / International Relations
China
Geopolitics / International Relations China
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
The whole super power debate is interesting. It is based what is considered 'power'... many might say the real super power is actually the Islamic extremist. They have influence over national security matter, political ideologies, social policy/debate... some could argue that have directly or indirectly influenced the internal working od more foreign nations/governments than the USSR and the USA did at the height of the Cold War.
What other nation/organization has changed a countries policy so drastically? What other nation/organization has caused a nation to change the way it lives? What other nation/organization has caused a nation to spend its resources combating them, without defeating them? The list of question could go on.
But as just a few examples: Airport security, you remember when we could go to the gate and see our families off, not any more. The level of security has risen to the point of insane. There are arguments for this to be necessary, doesn't change the fact that we didn't do this because of the Soviets/Russia or China. We are going to the point of McCarthy era witch hunts, but a communist never high jacked a plane.
I can give more examples of why I feel Islamic extremism is in fact the dominate global super power. But anyone what been alive since the terror scares of the 1970's can see they are winning the war on terror. I justify that by what is their goal... to disrupt, cause confusion, terror, and force one to spend needed resources in other areas than where the are needed, ultimately causing the 'enemy' society to change its lifestyle and way of thinking. Which we have.
What other nation/organization has changed a countries policy so drastically? What other nation/organization has caused a nation to change the way it lives? What other nation/organization has caused a nation to spend its resources combating them, without defeating them? The list of question could go on.
But as just a few examples: Airport security, you remember when we could go to the gate and see our families off, not any more. The level of security has risen to the point of insane. There are arguments for this to be necessary, doesn't change the fact that we didn't do this because of the Soviets/Russia or China. We are going to the point of McCarthy era witch hunts, but a communist never high jacked a plane.
I can give more examples of why I feel Islamic extremism is in fact the dominate global super power. But anyone what been alive since the terror scares of the 1970's can see they are winning the war on terror. I justify that by what is their goal... to disrupt, cause confusion, terror, and force one to spend needed resources in other areas than where the are needed, ultimately causing the 'enemy' society to change its lifestyle and way of thinking. Which we have.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Pete Fleming - Staff; I don't think that Daesh and their ilk are "global superpowers" but don't deny that they are major players on the world stage.
[ASIDE - Because of the acknowledged abysmal level of knowledge of Islam and the Qu'ran on the part of Daesh's leadership, I have a real problem considering them as "Muslim" although I will go along with "Muslim Manipulating".]
The response to terrorism that is the most productive is "Be alert NOT afraid and live your life the way you want it to be led.".
The response to terrorism that is the least productive is "Be AFRAID and surrender your freedoms on the off chance that not doing so might have a possible chance of running the risk that you could potentially be harmed.".
SOME countries are moving away from Option 1 and towards Option 2 quite rapidly. When they reach Option 2 in the majority of areas of civil life, you won't like living in them.
[ASIDE - Because of the acknowledged abysmal level of knowledge of Islam and the Qu'ran on the part of Daesh's leadership, I have a real problem considering them as "Muslim" although I will go along with "Muslim Manipulating".]
The response to terrorism that is the most productive is "Be alert NOT afraid and live your life the way you want it to be led.".
The response to terrorism that is the least productive is "Be AFRAID and surrender your freedoms on the off chance that not doing so might have a possible chance of running the risk that you could potentially be harmed.".
SOME countries are moving away from Option 1 and towards Option 2 quite rapidly. When they reach Option 2 in the majority of areas of civil life, you won't like living in them.
(0)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
COL Ted Mc - Sir, America has been moving to option 2 for decades. I will use my previous example the airports. Look at how ridiculous the security measures have gotten. Look at the NSA eavesdropping scandal. And so many other examples, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I know much if this was done by both political parties, over the course of decades. And not all was because of terrorism, though that has been a key factor in many decisions the government as made, in the name of public safety.
Islamic Terrorist (regardless what name you wish to call them) pose a greater threat to the world than the Russians ever did. They also wield more power directly or indirectly because they influence more governmental decisions than any other issue, besides climate change. The difference one is real and completely in the control of man, and the other is natural occurrence that has been happening since the dawn of time...
Islamic Terrorist (regardless what name you wish to call them) pose a greater threat to the world than the Russians ever did. They also wield more power directly or indirectly because they influence more governmental decisions than any other issue, besides climate change. The difference one is real and completely in the control of man, and the other is natural occurrence that has been happening since the dawn of time...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Pete Fleming - Staff; One doesn't "prevent terrorism" by attempting to deny terrorists the opportunity to commit terrorist acts (the only really effective way to do that - in isolation - is to become even MORE of a terrorist than the terrorists are.
One can go a long way towards "preventing terrorism" by attacking the ROOT CAUSES of terrorism and one can only do that by being LESS of a terrorist than the terrorists are.
Very few people will volunteer to live UNDER a leadership that causes their days to be filled with uncertainty and anxiety on a personal level - which is how Daesh "governs". However, if the leadership of a terrorist organization can convince the people that they will live under LESS uncertainty and anxiety on a personal level than the alternative, then the people WILL voluntarily life under that leadership REGARDLESS of whether that leadership is also seen as "terrorist".
The Iraqis were more content to live under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and his mob than they were to live under the governance of any of the other available options EVEN THOUGH Saddam Hussein and his mob used many of the same techniques as the terrorists use.
Why?
Because Saddam Hussein and his mob used LESS of the techniques that the terrorists use and used them in ways which were predictable and allowed people the option of staying out of the line of fire.
Would the world be seeing the same problems with Daesh if Saddam Hussein and his mob were still in power?
Possibly - but they wouldn't be to nearly the same extent and they most certainly wouldn't be in Iraq. [Equally, there wouldn't be the same Iran/Iraq rapprochement as there is today.]
I agree with the distinction between "climate change" and "terrorism" that you make - with the caveat that "climate change" is NOT solely beyond the control of the world's people. Think of "climate change" as a partially trained rider trying to ride a barely broken horse. The rider MIGHT be able to change the direction of the horse slightly by using the reins, isn't likely to stop the horse (until the horse feels like stopping), and would do well to try their damnedest to avoid guiding the horse towards the edge of the rapidly approaching cliff that the horse appears to be headed for. The rider MIGHT succeed if they try and is foreordained to fail if they don't.
One can go a long way towards "preventing terrorism" by attacking the ROOT CAUSES of terrorism and one can only do that by being LESS of a terrorist than the terrorists are.
Very few people will volunteer to live UNDER a leadership that causes their days to be filled with uncertainty and anxiety on a personal level - which is how Daesh "governs". However, if the leadership of a terrorist organization can convince the people that they will live under LESS uncertainty and anxiety on a personal level than the alternative, then the people WILL voluntarily life under that leadership REGARDLESS of whether that leadership is also seen as "terrorist".
The Iraqis were more content to live under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and his mob than they were to live under the governance of any of the other available options EVEN THOUGH Saddam Hussein and his mob used many of the same techniques as the terrorists use.
Why?
Because Saddam Hussein and his mob used LESS of the techniques that the terrorists use and used them in ways which were predictable and allowed people the option of staying out of the line of fire.
Would the world be seeing the same problems with Daesh if Saddam Hussein and his mob were still in power?
Possibly - but they wouldn't be to nearly the same extent and they most certainly wouldn't be in Iraq. [Equally, there wouldn't be the same Iran/Iraq rapprochement as there is today.]
I agree with the distinction between "climate change" and "terrorism" that you make - with the caveat that "climate change" is NOT solely beyond the control of the world's people. Think of "climate change" as a partially trained rider trying to ride a barely broken horse. The rider MIGHT be able to change the direction of the horse slightly by using the reins, isn't likely to stop the horse (until the horse feels like stopping), and would do well to try their damnedest to avoid guiding the horse towards the edge of the rapidly approaching cliff that the horse appears to be headed for. The rider MIGHT succeed if they try and is foreordained to fail if they don't.
(0)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
Sir, you and I are clearly on opposite sides of the political and ideology spectrum. We should host a talk show... Sure removing the ideology is one step, remove their financial support, and finally attack them where they are.
When we went to war with Germany, not all Germans were Nazis, not all Germans were bad. That didn't stop us from completely destroying them to point that it is a hate crime to speak about Nazis in Germany today.
We need to return to the days that if the US commits military troops we fight to completely destroy the enemy, as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
When we went to war with Germany, not all Germans were Nazis, not all Germans were bad. That didn't stop us from completely destroying them to point that it is a hate crime to speak about Nazis in Germany today.
We need to return to the days that if the US commits military troops we fight to completely destroy the enemy, as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google