Hacker News Reader

> "However, a multi-polar world is appealing."

A multi-polar world is one where a bunch of nation-states have a realistic shot at becoming the new global hegemon. The likely situation is something like what occurred in the 19th and early 20th century where all of the major powers were locked into a blisteringly expensive military and arms race. And when you have a military that stands on an equal footing with others, the temptation is there to use it to advance national interests and, as the old quote goes, "of course you realize this means war!"; the list of wars that occurred in the 19th century is surprisingly long. Absolutely nothing about that scenario is appealing.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

A world where each country is just strong enough to defend itself from an attack, but not invade anyone else seems ideal.

> False equivalency; no one is arguing that.

Really? Can someone clarify what my earlier quoted passage was referencing then? I wasn't trying to straw-man the OP.

> However, a multi-polar world is appealing. The US is certainly not always a good actor here either: the US has 50+ years of foreign interventions to point to that span the globe, particularly the middle east, latin america, and southeast asia.

The Cold War (and most/all of those foreign-interventions that you object to) were products of a multi-polar world. I don't know that this is a good thing. I understand and empathize with the "competition is good" impulse, but I don't think it bears out in history.

> It would be in Europe (and other regions') interest to be able to defend their own interests on equal footing with the US. Currently, they cannot do that (military and economic dependence). Having China offers leverage. I.e., the US will be incentivized to behave better if other countries can say "well if you push us too far, we'll work with China."

I understand and empathize with this as well, as noted above.

>> False equivalency; no one is arguing that. >Really? Can someone clarify what my earlier quoted passage was referencing then? I wasn't trying to straw-man the OP.

IIUC, OP's quote just means that a lot of existing books do try to make that argument, i.e., that the only outcome of the US losing its position is for China to take it, as opposed to a multi-polar world (and thus, it would be in the reader's best interest to support US hegemony).

A multi-polar world might not be appealing for those who fall within China's pole but who are not China. Ditto non-Russia within Russia's pole.

I mean, as you point out, it's not always all that great for those within the US's pole, either. But to me, China and Russia seem to be more aggressive in asserting themselves in dominance over others.

> I mean, as you point out, it's not always all that great for those within the US's pole, either. But to me, China and Russia seem to be more aggressive in asserting themselves in dominance over others.

Tell that to Latin America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...) and the Middle East.

China uses economic leverage. Russia uses subterfuge. America uses those with an extra helping of bombs.

China has been pretty open about their willingness to use military to conquer. Russia has militarily taken territory much more recently than the US has.

During the cold war the US and Russia made a mess of many many countries. It doesn't seem likely to be cleaned up any time soon. That's what a multi-polar world is like.

"Cold War shenanigans are exactly why we need a multi-polar power balance" was not the argument I expected. :) I'm joking, but I think my reasoning is correct: the U.S. meddled in Latin America precisely because it was competing with the U.S.S.R. for hegemony in the region. This seems like evidence against (not for) a multi-polar power arrangement.

Multipolar (4+) power balances tend to be the least stable (see: WWI & WWII), due to temporarily alliances believing they possess superior force and making a first strike.

Afaik, tripolar tends to be the most stable, with a default-neutral third party, who may choose to side with either other major.

Bipolar comes in second.

> It would be in Europe (and other regions') interest to be able to defend their own interests on equal footing with the US. Currently, they cannot do that (military and economic dependence). Having China offers leverage. I.e., the US will be incentivized to behave better if other countries can say "well if you push us too far, we'll work with China."

The only reason Europe has been able to fund their various subsidies, welfare programs, and safety nets, is because they've slashed their defense budgets by joining NATO and outsourcing defense to the US.

> This is just my armchair analysis. I'm not invested enough to back this up with citations or anything so if that's what you're looking for feel free to ignore and argue with someone else who cares more.

Then why post?

> Then why post?

... Seriously? Because it's the Internet and I have a few minutes to kill here and there.

Username checks out :D