9 ms·

I see this as good news, no country should rein supreme as that would most certainly allow it to misuse it's power, instead having two competitors guarantees, t

I see this as good news, no country should rein supreme as that would most certainly allow it to misuse it's power, instead having two competitors guarantees, to some degree at least, that neither will abuse it's position.

jamra 9y ago
Actually having two competitors is what causes the most bloodshed in the world. War by proxies erupt and they play chess with other people’s lives.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Indeed. This is what is currently in progress at the Turkey-Syria border between the US and Russia. Estimates place the casualties between 400k and over a million people [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > having two competitors is what causes the most bloodshed in the world If by "most bloodshed" you mean the population-adjusted (or unadjusted) incidence of violent mortality, bipolarity has its proponents [1][2]. Unipolarity has traditionally been seen as nice in the short-run but inherently unstable in the long [Cf 3]. One point on which there is agreement, however, is the violent instability of multipolar social systems. [1] http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/waltz%201964.pdf http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/waltz%2... [2] https://samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s2-mearsheimer-2001.pdf https://samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s2-m... [3] https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/stability-unipolar-world https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/stability-unipolar-...
- varren 9y ago
  Actually, most of my international relations professors tend to disagree. And there is a huge amount of literature that points out that bipolar system was probably much safer for international stability, than unipolar or multipolar for a long run.(nice summary[1]) The general idea is that unipolarity is anarchical and that it will always try to produce a competitor = lots of wars to come, while in bipolar system you always have 2 strong competitors and it is in theirs interest to stop any local conflict before the second superpower uses it in its advantage. Today it is a complete different story where everyone is figing for who know what reason and USA doesn't really care to stop anyone and it probably cannot do anything in most cases, because back in the days of the cold war there was fight for power and now we actually have luck of power in most conflicts. During cold war we had a clear understanding who is finghig and major hot spots were actually pretty localized (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan), but nowadays look at Syria/Yemen/Iraq/Libya/Egypt (I try to follow international relations daily, but have a hard time to truly understand who is fighting whom at this point)War on Terror, wtf is this, some USA global war? who are they fighting really? Afghanistan? Iraq? Enforcing national interests? Who knows. It actually looks like everyone have this war on terror nowadays and USA was just one of the first to face this lack of power all over the world. Actually I'm really hoping that USA is playing the role of Orwellian big brother with constant war, because the alternative is scary: USA is already not able to control the situation and it is going to get worse, much worse. The unipolar world brought us 3-4 more nuclear powers because no one is playing by the rulls anymore. There is no policemen to enforce those rules. We have North Korea escalation not because they are playing with nukes, but because if the USA allows them to keep the weapon, everyone else will go and create one. And then we will be truly fucked up. - "The United States has been at war for thirteen of the twenty-two years since the end of the Cold War. Put another way, the first two decades of unipolarity, which make up less than 10 percent of U.S. history, account for more than 25 percent of the nation's total time at war." - "in 2014 these are the only 11 countries in the world that are actually free from conflict" [2] And if you look at [3] you can see that starting from late 70-s - early 80-s (because that's the time SU started to loose power) we have a spike in number of local conflicts worldwide and there are lots of brutal massacres in 90-s+. Most of the conflicts are in ongoing status for 30-50+ years now and we can see the rapid increase in deaths [4]. I'm not saying that it is 100% correct, most of this is just a theory and everything can change in a matter of 1-5 years, but we still have to see the emergence of new rivals of the USA hegemony and the worst case scenario is the comeback to the multipolar world of 18-19 centuries, but with everyone having nukes and who knows what else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relati... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-peace-these-are-the-only-11-countries-in-the-world-that-are-actually-free-from-conflict-9669623.html#gallery http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-peace... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_conflicts_per_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_conflicts_pe...
OmarIsmail 9y ago
The converse is that having one supreme superpower is better for world peace because there's nobody to compete with them militarily. Therefore there's only one power that can decide to take military action (the superpower). This is because the weak players won't start a war because they will get crushed. However, if N > 1 powers are on equal footing where starting a war does NOT mean you get crushed, now there's N > 1 actors that can start a very large war. And that may have compounding effects where likelihood of war isn't just Percentage * N, but instead some exponent of N because the increased likelihood of war itself increases the likelihood of war. One country misusing its power is probably less destructive to humanity than superpowers militarily fighting (i.e. number of deaths/problems caused by US wars since WW2 is substantially less than deaths during WW2).
eloff 9y ago
In principle, yes. In reality, look at how they use their power. You don't see the US taking territory and resources at gunpoint from Mexico and Canada, like China in the South China Sea. You don't see parallels to the Taiwan situation. Let's not pretend that communist China acts with the same level of integrity in the world as the USA. Not the the US hasn't done many questionable things, but by and large the US has invaded countries and brought them democracy and freed their people from dictators. China would do the opposite if they could get away with it, look at Nepal, Hong Kong. I spent 10 years in Panama, where although many people still resent the US invasion, chiefly over the loss of life - the country is unquestionably better off today for it.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > You don't see the US taking territory and resources at gunpoint from Mexico... Not in this century. It happened, though. But I agree with your larger point. The US has not always been pure in how it used its power, but I don't trust China very far in terms of how it uses power. (Tibet, Vietnam, South China Sea, North Korea...)
- arialeks 9y ago
  As someone whose country was destroyed by the US and is still taking damage and being oppressed by them, I tend to disagree with your opinion, in fact both China and Russia have been way more helpful.
  - reducesuffering 9y ago
    Could you elaborate more details on your country, what the US has done, and how China and Russia have been more helpful?
- orijing 9y ago
  Are you sure about that? I live in California, which was previously Mexican territory. I also have friends from Texas, which was also Mexican territory. Perhaps your point is that the US became less imperialistic since then, but that's easy to say once it's taken what it wants. China sees Taiwan as an integral part of the "Greater China", a still unresolved problem from the past century's wars. It sees the South China sea as its own backyard. Can you imagine the US response if China were sailing military vessels provocatively close to the cost of continental US? I'm not saying either is right. I'm pointing out that the US is not without its hypocrisies either, and that each country has its own flaws.
meri_dian 9y ago
As others have said, having a superpower keeps the peace. Multipolar worlds tend to be ridden with conflict.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Neither a unipolar world or a multipolar world is inherently more or less peaceful. Peace comes when you get used to living in a certain world and accept your position. Conflict happens in transitions to such acceptance.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    When there is unipolarity, the superpower can enforce the status quo. Which produces certainty. When a superpower exists, the order of power is clear. Thus a nation has little choice but to accept its position. So according to your own definition wouldn't you agree that unipolarity produces peace?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

jamra 9y ago

Actually having two competitors is what causes the most bloodshed in the world. War by proxies erupt and they play chess with other people’s lives.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Indeed. This is what is currently in progress at the Turkey-Syria border between the US and Russia. Estimates place the casualties between 400k and over a million people [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil...
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> having two competitors is what causes the most bloodshed in the world If by "most bloodshed" you mean the population-adjusted (or unadjusted) incidence of violent mortality, bipolarity has its proponents [1][2]. Unipolarity has traditionally been seen as nice in the short-run but inherently unstable in the long [Cf 3]. One point on which there is agreement, however, is the violent instability of multipolar social systems. [1] http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/waltz%201964.pdf http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/waltz%2... [2] https://samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s2-mearsheimer-2001.pdf https://samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s2-m... [3] https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/stability-unipolar-world https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/stability-unipolar-...
varren 9y ago
Actually, most of my international relations professors tend to disagree. And there is a huge amount of literature that points out that bipolar system was probably much safer for international stability, than unipolar or multipolar for a long run.(nice summary[1]) The general idea is that unipolarity is anarchical and that it will always try to produce a competitor = lots of wars to come, while in bipolar system you always have 2 strong competitors and it is in theirs interest to stop any local conflict before the second superpower uses it in its advantage. Today it is a complete different story where everyone is figing for who know what reason and USA doesn't really care to stop anyone and it probably cannot do anything in most cases, because back in the days of the cold war there was fight for power and now we actually have luck of power in most conflicts. During cold war we had a clear understanding who is finghig and major hot spots were actually pretty localized (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan), but nowadays look at Syria/Yemen/Iraq/Libya/Egypt (I try to follow international relations daily, but have a hard time to truly understand who is fighting whom at this point)War on Terror, wtf is this, some USA global war? who are they fighting really? Afghanistan? Iraq? Enforcing national interests? Who knows. It actually looks like everyone have this war on terror nowadays and USA was just one of the first to face this lack of power all over the world. Actually I'm really hoping that USA is playing the role of Orwellian big brother with constant war, because the alternative is scary: USA is already not able to control the situation and it is going to get worse, much worse. The unipolar world brought us 3-4 more nuclear powers because no one is playing by the rulls anymore. There is no policemen to enforce those rules. We have North Korea escalation not because they are playing with nukes, but because if the USA allows them to keep the weapon, everyone else will go and create one. And then we will be truly fucked up. - "The United States has been at war for thirteen of the twenty-two years since the end of the Cold War. Put another way, the first two decades of unipolarity, which make up less than 10 percent of U.S. history, account for more than 25 percent of the nation's total time at war." - "in 2014 these are the only 11 countries in the world that are actually free from conflict" [2] And if you look at [3] you can see that starting from late 70-s - early 80-s (because that's the time SU started to loose power) we have a spike in number of local conflicts worldwide and there are lots of brutal massacres in 90-s+. Most of the conflicts are in ongoing status for 30-50+ years now and we can see the rapid increase in deaths [4]. I'm not saying that it is 100% correct, most of this is just a theory and everything can change in a matter of 1-5 years, but we still have to see the emergence of new rivals of the USA hegemony and the worst case scenario is the comeback to the multipolar world of 18-19 centuries, but with everyone having nukes and who knows what else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relati... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-peace-these-are-the-only-11-countries-in-the-world-that-are-actually-free-from-conflict-9669623.html#gallery http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-peace... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_conflicts_per_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_conflicts_pe...

OmarIsmail 9y ago

The converse is that having one supreme superpower is better for world peace because there's nobody to compete with them militarily. Therefore there's only one power that can decide to take military action (the superpower). This is because the weak players won't start a war because they will get crushed. However, if N > 1 powers are on equal footing where starting a war does NOT mean you get crushed, now there's N > 1 actors that can start a very large war. And that may have compounding effects where likelihood of war isn't just Percentage * N, but instead some exponent of N because the increased likelihood of war itself increases the likelihood of war. One country misusing its power is probably less destructive to humanity than superpowers militarily fighting (i.e. number of deaths/problems caused by US wars since WW2 is substantially less than deaths during WW2).

eloff 9y ago

In principle, yes. In reality, look at how they use their power. You don't see the US taking territory and resources at gunpoint from Mexico and Canada, like China in the South China Sea. You don't see parallels to the Taiwan situation. Let's not pretend that communist China acts with the same level of integrity in the world as the USA. Not the the US hasn't done many questionable things, but by and large the US has invaded countries and brought them democracy and freed their people from dictators. China would do the opposite if they could get away with it, look at Nepal, Hong Kong. I spent 10 years in Panama, where although many people still resent the US invasion, chiefly over the loss of life - the country is unquestionably better off today for it.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> You don't see the US taking territory and resources at gunpoint from Mexico... Not in this century. It happened, though. But I agree with your larger point. The US has not always been pure in how it used its power, but I don't trust China very far in terms of how it uses power. (Tibet, Vietnam, South China Sea, North Korea...)
arialeks 9y ago
As someone whose country was destroyed by the US and is still taking damage and being oppressed by them, I tend to disagree with your opinion, in fact both China and Russia have been way more helpful.
- reducesuffering 9y ago
  Could you elaborate more details on your country, what the US has done, and how China and Russia have been more helpful?
orijing 9y ago
Are you sure about that? I live in California, which was previously Mexican territory. I also have friends from Texas, which was also Mexican territory. Perhaps your point is that the US became less imperialistic since then, but that's easy to say once it's taken what it wants. China sees Taiwan as an integral part of the "Greater China", a still unresolved problem from the past century's wars. It sees the South China sea as its own backyard. Can you imagine the US response if China were sailing military vessels provocatively close to the cost of continental US? I'm not saying either is right. I'm pointing out that the US is not without its hypocrisies either, and that each country has its own flaws.

meri_dian 9y ago

As others have said, having a superpower keeps the peace. Multipolar worlds tend to be ridden with conflict.

pishpash 9y ago
Neither a unipolar world or a multipolar world is inherently more or less peaceful. Peace comes when you get used to living in a certain world and accept your position. Conflict happens in transitions to such acceptance.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  When there is unipolarity, the superpower can enforce the status quo. Which produces certainty. When a superpower exists, the order of power is clear. Thus a nation has little choice but to accept its position. So according to your own definition wouldn't you agree that unipolarity produces peace?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]