Hegemony

[JoS]

This is a two part question. The first is do you think a hegemony can ever last forever? Secondly do you agree or disagree that the US is a hegemony power, and if so are they still on the rise or decline.

I have heard some argue that the American hegemony has been on the decline since Vietnam and it is only a matter of time before China or another competitor passes them.

[skatin-andy]

Theoretically a hegemony can last forever, but the likely hood isn't very good. There are two ways a group could stop being a hegemony.

One is that the lesser group "takes over" the dominant group and assumes that role, creating a new hegemony. The second possibility is that all groups equally influence a completely new group. The latter isn't very common because the dominant group usually influences more of the new group than others, thus still holding a small hegemony.

I think the US is a hegemony and it is constantly increasing and decreasing. The US has a great influence over other countries and their foreign policies, as well as on their culture. However, countries like China, Japan, UK, etc are having a bigger influence on other countries both governmentally and culturally. So at certain times and certain events, the US is a hegemony, while at other times and events it is not.

Ideally, there should be no hegemony. The second best option is to have competing hegemonies that keep one country from gaining too much power or influence, sort of like a checks and balance system.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 12/18/07 02:11 PM, JoS wrote: This is a two part question. The first is do you think a hegemony can ever last forever? Secondly do you agree or disagree that the US is a hegemony power, and if so are they still on the rise or decline.

In theory a hegemony can last forever, but in practice, no such luck. Nothing lasts for ever.

I have heard some argue that the American hegemony has been on the decline since Vietnam and it is only a matter of time before China or another competitor passes them.

I'd say the US is a hegemony and that it isn't declining *yet*.

I'd say the US Hegemony is currently at it's peak in my opinion, how long that peak lasts < shrug> beyond me, I'm not about to go and make a prediction of any sorts unless I can base it on data, which as I have no data, I aint saying a damn thing in regards to timescales. However I will say that if the US is at it's peak
then the only way is down.

The US currently lacks a big bad wolf to blame everything one to act as a lever like they did with the USSR in the cold war> Sure, we have terrorism, but that doesn't really have the same affect as it's , for lack of a better term, an intangible enemy, which means the US can't just point at a set nation and say ' Them BAD! Look what they would do to you!'It's trying to do that with Iran, but it's not really working. And when you consider the way in which people are responding to America's actions in regards to Iran etc then it raises an important question of if the free world is getting pissed off with America how long before they start to vote in less pro American politicians? The minute that happens, well I think it would be safe to say the US would lose it's hegemony.

I'm not expecting a giant crash of American power, but more a gradual side away from America towards other nations ( China, India, and to a lesser extent South Korea), which will be interesting if it happens in our life time as then we'll have a direct shift away from the western world being the centre of everything.

[l0u1s]

A hegemony cannot last forever. Nothing can.

The US is a hegemony, definitely. Will it keep rising or start to decline? I don't know. Right now, I'd say it's doing neither. Ideally, the US will remain a hegemony while another nation or two rises to join it. Then, we could have a nice balance of power.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Hypothethically, yes.

Realisticly, No.

But, in theory of an hegemony; we've been one since our foundation as a nation.
Hell, European colonists over the natives is almost direct example.

But in world wide terms, we've had a hegemony since the beginning of the Cold War, over Europe; South America and parts of Asia.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/18/07 02:11 PM, JoS wrote: This is a two part question. The first is do you think a hegemony can ever last forever?

No, because nothing lasts forever.

Secondly do you agree or disagree that the US is a hegemony power

The US is a hegemonic power. But unlike past superpowers, American hegemony isn't just due to military power. The US currently has economic, political, culturual, and military hegemony. But most of this is due to soft influence rather than force.

and if so are they still on the rise or decline.

There have been a few peaks.

Right after WWII the US peaked as a hegemonic superpower. When the Soviet Union began to rival the US in influence during the Cold war, it could be argued that the US hegemony declined because it was a polar world... things were pretty evenly divided between the US and the Soviet union.

Then, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the US had another peak... because the US began to by far the most influential superpower in history. Most of the former Soviet republics became US allies, socialism was in retreat all over the world, and basically every well-to-do country in the world had both extensive economic and political ties with the US.

I have heard some argue that the American hegemony has been on the decline since Vietnam

That's wishful thinking on their part.

and it is only a matter of time before China or another competitor passes them.

China will surpass the US in the size of their economy within a few decades. But the US will remain a military superpower and a political leader for a long time, and a cultural superpower as well.

If you look at the world today, there is no country that can conceivably acquire all the areas of hegemony the US has. Some powers will rival the US in a few areas, but its hard to imagine any potential superpower, not the EU or China, that could possibly rival the US in every area of power it has. In order for a power to do this, alliances would have to be broken, new alliances would have to be formed between previous polar opposites, and it would have to be a US vs. the world type scenario.

[JoS]

Cellardoor, I agree with most of what you said except one thing. If America loses its grip on one of the main areas, the others will soon fall. You cannot maintain your military superiority for long if you lose your grip on the world economy. Its not just size we are talking about here. For example if more and more countries start switching from the greenback to another currency such as the Euro you are in for some rough times. When you reach that tipping point, military strength just becomes a mad scramble to hold on to what you have, but its not sustainable.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/19/07 01:07 AM, JoS wrote: You cannot maintain your military superiority for long if you lose your grip on the world economy.

Um how is that so?

The US is leagues ahead of everyone else in technology. Even if the US would "lose" its "grip" on the world economy, this wouldn't negate that, because the US would still have enough money to keep the military in good shape.

Even if a country started having a much larger GDP, and spent more on its military, it still wouldn't be able to match the US in terms of innovation. The US is just way too far ahead of the next best.

An example of this would be the Soviet Union. Even after it ceased to exist, Russia still remained its military power for quite a while until its economy was so weak, that there was no way they could make up for the loss of millions of people and billions and billions in GDP from the former soviet republics that left.

Its not just size we are talking about here. For example if more and more countries start switching from the greenback to another currency such as the Euro you are in for some rough times.

That's your wishful thinking about there JoS.

The US economy would have trouble, and it would take some time for things to be put in order and to rebalance the economy. But this wouldn't affect the military because the economic blow to the US wouldn't be enough to dissuade the US from maintaining its military strength.

You're talking less than 4% of our current GDP going to our military. The reason the Russians couldn't maintain their military power from the former Soviet Union was because something like 30% of their GDP went to their military, and when the USSR was dissolved, they lost a lot of their equipment and a alot of their income and productivity.

There is no way that the US wouldn't be able to maintain equivalent to what is currently 4% of our GDP just from economic troubles.

When you reach that tipping point, military strength just becomes a mad scramble to hold on to what you have, but its not sustainable.

Your point holds no water. Because having economic woes wouldn't negate our already substantial advantage in military infrastructure and know-how.

[Slizor]

The continuation of US hegemony will be subject to a number of different factors and issues. Firstly, the biggest issue for US hegemony will be the supply and consumption of oil by its military and economy. Extensive steps have been taken to secure supplies from a number of countries (particularly in the Caspian Basin) but the US will inevitably (if it continues its policies of increased consumption) come to the point where it must face the fact that the majority of oil is in the hands of countries that don't like them very much.

Secondly, the US will have to deal with the rise (and rise) of China and respond to the demands of having a direct competitor. Thirdly, the US will have to, in response to the rise of China, relegitimise and ensure the continuation of the global world order that it has shaped in the past 60 years. Organisations such as the WTO, the IMF, the UN, etc must either accomodate Chinese positions or face the possibility of the creation of a rival set of institutions based on Chinese power.

There are, of course, a number of other issues (predictable and unpredictable) that will challenge US hegemony. I think that it is likely that the US will continue as a hegemon, but that the nature of its hegemony will change.

[JoS]

At 12/19/07 01:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US is leagues ahead of everyone else in technology. Even if the US would "lose" its "grip" on the world economy, this wouldn't negate that, because the US would still have enough money to keep the military in good shape.

When I am talking about losing economic grip I do not mean a minor recession, I am talking about a major blow to the US economy. Wars and military cost money, if you dont have the money to project your military might its no good. Its like having a nice car but not enough to pay for insurance or reparis so it sits in your driveway. Sure you own an Astin Martin, but you cant use.

The US economy would have trouble, and it would take some time for things to be put in order and to rebalance the economy. But this wouldn't affect the military because the economic blow to the US wouldn't be enough to dissuade the US from maintaining its military strength.

Without the cash to pay for upgrades, research and technology you would start to fall behind, the gap would close. I am not saying you would instantly lose your power, I am saying that you wouldn't be able to hold onto that power forever. Maybe a decade at the most. A decade is just a blip in history.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'd have to disagree with you cellardoor, I'm pretty sure that If the US lost income from trade, maintaining expensive military and enhancing technologies would be difficult, since [logically] the budget would be cut.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/19/07 03:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'd have to disagree with you cellardoor, I'm pretty sure that If the US lost income from trade, maintaining expensive military and enhancing technologies would be difficult, since [logically] the budget would be cut.

Depends on who is in power and what is being cut.
Remember, we have a large budget, with many things recieving funds.

[Musician]

At 12/19/07 01:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Your point holds no water. Because having economic woes wouldn't negate our already substantial advantage in military infrastructure and know-how.

so once the american economy crumbles and we're living in a third world country. who signs the military's fat paycheck? nobody

[cellardoor6]

At 12/19/07 03:12 PM, JoS wrote:

At 12/19/07 01:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US is leagues ahead of everyone else in technology. Even if the US would "lose" its "grip" on the world economy, this wouldn't negate that, because the US would still have enough money to keep the military in good shape.

When I am talking about losing economic grip I do not mean a minor recession, I am talking about a major blow to the US economy.

First of all, a major blow to the US economy would damage the economy of other countries and the US would still maintain a military advantage, because the whole world would be hurt from a depression in the US.

Secondly, it would have to be MAJOR (I'm talking apocalyptic) for it to actually affect the US military considering if it was necessary, spending would just have to be increased in proportion to the budget. That wouldn't be hard at all.

Let's take a walk through the facts:

- The current US military budget is about 4% of our GDP.

- During WWII, US military spending peaked at 38.7% of GDP. In the 50's, during the, Cold War, US military spending was over 10% of GDP

- The 50's were some of the most prosperous times in American history.

--------

Now, consider that the US was spending more than twice as much of our economy on military spending back then compared to now. If the US GDP was cut in half, and we maintained our current military budget, it would only go up to Cold War levels in proportion to our income. Even a halving of the US economy (which is ridiculously unlikely) would not make maintaining our military spending unaffordable!

I'd like you to find a writing about an economic situation where the US economy could actually be cut by more than half, which is basically unimaginable except by nuclear war where the US infrastructure would be basically completely destroyed (which would spell the end for the rest of the world as well).

---------

- Even during the Great Depression, the US GDP only declined by about 30%.

DO you actually think that something greater in degree than the Great Depression could affect the US, or affect the US but some how magically not affect other countries that you think will rival the US in military power?

Pfft.

Wars and military cost money, if you dont have the money to project your military might its no good.

The US would still have enough money considering the current enormous military edge the US now holds only costs us 4% of our yearly income, and there is no real conceivable scenario where the US economy could be more than halved, in which the rest of the world was unaffected.

Sorry JoS, but once again you're just completely and utterly wrong.

The US economy would have trouble, and it would take some time for things to be put in order and to rebalance the economy. But this wouldn't affect the military because the economic blow to the US wouldn't be enough to dissuade the US from maintaining its military strength.

Without the cash to pay for upgrades, research and technology you would start to fall behind

There is no conceivable scenario short of large scale war that destroyed the majority of the US, that would cause the US to not be able to pay for those things, let alone fall behind other countries that would also be affected.

Once again your wishful thinking... your DESIRE to think about something bad happening to the US just simply doesn't stand up to the facts. I know you it probably fills you with glee to think about the US being usurped as a military superpower, but it's just simply not going to happen any time soon.