2040: US is #3 Economically, #1 Militarily. What happens?

[GePap]

Various points, since this ties to a long running debate earlier in another thread:

Power has changed in meaning people: to assume the world in 2040 will work as in 1940 is as wrong as assuming the world in 1940 worked like the world in 1740.

Iraq is a good example, as are Chechnya, and the Occupied Territories; Modern states have immense military power- we can devastate like never before-BUT full devatation has become illegitimate: Back in the "good ol days", if say the emperors of old had had the weapons we do today genocide and mass murder would be common place- an area won;t surrender? We burnd down all their cities and villages, execute EVERYONE (or kill all the men, enslave eveyone else) and if we think people are hidding in a forest- set it ablaze, kill people as they come out. Or just gas everything and kill. Today only dictatorships dare do this (like Saddam vs. the Kurds), and even they deny doing it to everyone else. So, while states may have huge military power, it becomes less and less usefull at forcing people to do what you want politically on the ground, since the threat of mindless murder has vanished. You can tire people out, but if they are really determined, you don;t actually put an end to anything.

Militaries today are "expensive". I say that in quotes because almost no state today spends as much on defense as they used to do in 1740, when the King's army was the largest expense of the state-today even the US spends under 5% of GDP on it. Of course, spending much more than that for any large state becomes useless because: 1. If you intents are purely defensive, nuclear weapons, once developed, are the cheap answer- enough of them, and only a suicidal fool would attack. And if your intents are to project power, you run into the issue above. States might be able to then have enough power to destroy the military of another, but then have less ability to follow up by imposing political will. So, states might be able to deny others a certain objective, but the ability for on great power to force another one all the way down is rapidly fading.

So, when examing the future, we can;t act as if the changes in the forms and meanings of power haven't changed. They have,significantly.

[Zulu Elephant]

Another way of looking at this topic is to ask whether these new powers will actually want to challenge US military dominance. The EU has shown little desire to become a military power and Japan didn't seem to want to become a military power even at the height of its economic strength in the Early 90s. I mean, how do Americans actually benefit from its hug military dominance? It makes them feel good about themselves but seriously, with no real threat (China, dont make me laugh) what does America actually gain?

I know China has its sights set on being a military power, but surely only to a certain point? China and America don't really have any clashes of interests worth fighting over.

Maybe Europe, China India, Brazil and whoever else will all just sit back on their wealth and, looking at America's huge army, think "Whats it for? What a waste of money"

[Zulu Elephant]

GePap
My thoughts exactly


Jonathan Schell's book "The Unconquerable World" which came out last year deals with exactly this topic. Anyone remotely interested in International relations should read it. Easily one of the best books of last year.

[Patroklos]

Maybe Europe, China India, Brazil and whoever else will all just sit back on their wealth and, looking at America's huge army, think "Whats it for? What a waste of money"

Supporting all the UN resolutions the EU, China, Brazil etc. vote for but then fail to provide troops for.

[Jaguar]

Re: 2040: US is #3 Economically, #1 Militarily. What happens?

Originally posted by Eli
Let's assume that the current trends continue and that by ~2040 the United States will lose it's economical leadership to, at least, the EU and China, with other nations such as India not too far away.

To the EU? Erm, no. The economies of the largest EU nations barely grow at all, and they're declining

China and India will be far ahead of us in GDP in a few decades (China will be double or more) but behind still in GDP per Capita. China's decades and decades behind us, and India's even further behind.

That's not to say we're the richest, though. Even now I think Norway and Luxembourg and some other countries around Europe are slightly richer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


How will ordinary Americans react when America reaches the point where it begins to engage with alliances in which it can not dictate terms. Europeans long ago accepted the fact that they would have to make comprimises with allies, but when was the last time that America joined/formed an alliance in which it wasn't the dominant partner? The First World War? Maybe that was the only time.

Can you imagine an American president announcing that America's new allies China/India/Europe/Brazil/Whoever have forced a comprimise in which America's interests have been damaged for the greater good or the greater good of another power? In other words, how would Americans react to getting screwed in the same way America screwed Britain and France duing the Suez crisis.



edited: to prevent being laughed at for absent mindedly including Russia in the "China/India/Europe/Brazil/Whoever" list

How would 1880 Britons have reacted to being treated the way Britain was in 1956? Not very well, I think. Fortunately they had 76 years to adjust. In all likelihood the US will have at least that much time to get to that point. If the implication is that we need to start learning now, I would largely agree. In that sense 9/11 could hardly have come at a worse time.

BTW, theres an extensive history of US-UK relations during the first years of US involvement in WW2, when the US though dominant in resources, was not dominant in trained manpower and when UK still had considerable bargaining power. US military brass reacted very poorly to compromise - FDR and Harry Hopkins reacted very well. And kept it out of the public eye, as much as possible.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Another way of looking at this topic is to ask whether these new powers will actually want to challenge US military dominance. The EU has shown little desire to become a military power and Japan didn't seem to want to become a military power even at the height of its economic strength in the Early 90s. I mean, how do Americans actually benefit from its hug military dominance? It makes them feel good about themselves but seriously, with no real threat (China, dont make me laugh) what does America actually gain?

I know China has its sights set on being a military power, but surely only to a certain point? China and America don't really have any clashes of interests worth fighting over.

Maybe Europe, China India, Brazil and whoever else will all just sit back on their wealth and, looking at America's huge army, think "Whats it for? What a waste of money"

IE do what the US did for so many years, which was to leave maintenance of world order to Britain. Until Britain couldnt manage the burden anymore.

Maybe y'all are right and no one needs to maintain order anymore. We'd have to get into a discussion of threats to world order, from al qaeeda to regional conflicts to piracy. Many of which we've discussed ad nauseum already.

[Zulu Elephant]

Supporting all the UN resolutions the EU, China, Brazil etc. vote for but then fail to provide troops for.

You dont need to spend the money that America does on its military to support UN resolutions. America doesnt need the amount of carrier groups it has and the thousands of mothballed tanks/aircraft/ships it has. One day it will realise that there's not going to be another WW2. The US isn't militarily stretched in Iraq, it's politically stretched.

To the EU? Erm, no. The economies of the largest EU nations barely grow at all, and they're declining

To be sure, Europe isn't looking to hot at the moment but there are moves to put things in order. The UK is currently enjoying US rates of growth and many EU countries are looking at Britain's economic model for ideas. In fact, there is a summit in Brussels todays looking at liberalisation and other measures to improve Europes fortunes.

The EUs demographics look bad at the moment and it remains to be seen whether Europe can sort itself economically and also deal with its aging population

[GePap]

Al Qaeda is not a real threat to the world order anymore than the Boxers in China were a threat to the whole world order. They are criminals, yes, but the only place they ever came in even close to controlling was Afghanistan, a failed state. Banditry is an annoynace to great powers, NOT a threat to them.

AQ is a malignant symptom of the disease, not the disease itself-which is the upheaval in the third world as population explosions without similar explosions in wealth like the developed world saw undermine the state system.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

al Qaeda is not a real threat to the world order

"Many of which we've discussed ad nauseum already."

Gad, ive really got to be explicit, havent I.

I should have said - Many of which we've discussed ad nauseum already, and which further discussion is likely to shed little new light on. Therefore its best that we agree to disagree, and consider both a succession of great powers, and the end of the great power era as potential outcomes.

Or do you want a 500 post thread where rehash everything about AQ, the ME, books we refuse to read, etc. Im getting tired of it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Al Qaeda is not a real threat to the world order anymore than the Boxers in China were a threat to the whole world order. They are criminals, yes, but the only place they ever came in even close to controlling was Afghanistan, a failed state. Banditry is an annoynace to great powers, NOT a threat to them.

Once again, not every international threat involves taking over states. Right now the US navy patrols the Arabian sea looking for AQ in motion. THose guys arent likely to overthrow a state, but they are likely to do very nasty things. AFAIK most states are supportive of these USN patrols,and a few contribute to them. If the USN werent there someone else would have to do it. Maybe the UN could. But someone would. Similarly the US military has trained militaries in the Sahel states, which have then taken on AQ in that region. Whether or not AQ could have taken over a Sahel state, this helps. In other places actual militaries are not needed - France provides help to Algeria in their struggle with AQ linked groups, but no troops.

As for being symptom, i think its just a tad more complex than that - more like a vicious cycle - political instability drives economic problems as much as the other way around.

[Dinner]

In the commoning decades economic trading blocks are going to become more and more important. The EU, ASEAN, Marco Sur, NAFTA, and the FTZotA will become big economic players. I also predict that as the costs of developing and fielding the next generation of military equipment become larger and larger more and more nations will band together to split the costs by co-developing new hardware (a la the Eurofighter or the US/UK's Joint Strike Fighter). What does that mean?

Well, for starters it means military technology is going to be spread around amoung allies more often since countries will need to cooperate more if they want to get the next big developments. Also it means that economics will continue to be less and less a national thing and more and more a regional and/or international thing. Countries which invest heavily in other countries will get more and more influence in those countries. That means the big players will both be more influenced by their trading partners but also have proportionally more influence upon the same. So unilateralism is going to become increasingly difficult though sitting on one's hands while common threats loom will also become more difficult.

In short we are heading towards a better future.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers' deals with this exact topic - once economic power begins to seep away, countries start to waste their dwindling resources on ill advised military adventures, only hastening their decline.

An excellent book by the way. My grandfather bought it for me in the late 1980's (I believe) and even then I thoroughly enjoyed how it made the concept of relative power so easy to understand.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think most people are missing the hidden strength of the US, including most Americans. It isn't just them that are their part of the puzzle. They have, or will have all of the Americas to draw on in the coming years.

Over my dead body.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
North America is blessed with abundent fresh water.

Most of it in Canada and non-renewable. Just now the US is trying to unilaterally rape Lake Superior the way the Soviets raped the Aral and Caspian seas. Yankie, go home.