Ask HN: If the US loses, what do you think the world will look like in 15 years? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: If the US loses, what do you think the world will look like in 15 years?

7 pointskeepamovin19 comments

What does this quesiton mean? If the US doesn't win. Win what? The AI war? The geopolitical battle against China/etc? It's own implicit "civil war"? The battle to be the predominant superpower? Or what? What are the table stakes of today?

Are the consequences as terrible as foretold? The end of Western Civilization? Or can Europe, the UK, Canada and Australia, and New Zealand, save that set of sociocultural values and government?

Does winning mean in hot, kinetic war? A drone war? Is carved up spheres of multipolar influence, 'winning' enough?

All these are important considerations - feel free to entertain them, but the primary one is, assuming some definition of "the US has lost" its significant global power - what does the world look like?

The harder an answer is to arrive at, the better. The more thought, cleverness, insight and analysis, the better. The easier the answer is to construct (ie, "well obviously less regime change wars for oil" etc), the worse answer it is. Or is the whole international game an illusion, there is no superpower, it's all just for show?

I really want to see a picture of what you think is coming within 15 years, and what stands to be lost, or gained, if anything, if the US 'doesn't win'?

If the question is „what happens if/when the US loses its global power?“, my first impulse is to point out that losing global power doesn’t mean becoming powerless. The US will lose global power but will remain the dominant power in the Americas. Recent activity in relation to Venezuela has suggested that that is in fact the plan — to cede global power in order to assert authoritarian control over the Americas.

On the global scale, naturally China and Russia jockey for a dominant position but clearly China has the economic and political advantage. I see Europe being preoccupied with stemming Russian incursions while China gradually expands their economic reach until they serve the global economic role that the US once did. China’s continuous investment in Africa means that African nations (Nigeria in particular) might start to play a bigger role on the world stage.

I think the west vs the rest divisions that have structured the geopolitical world since WWII might be significantly reorganized with China at the helm. What that means for us normies out here just trying to live life, I have no idea.

I think this is a clean line of thought. Pan-American US is certainly a strong play, seems missed oppportunity to have delayed it so long.

Africa is a dice roll here, something could emerge from there that challenges everyone. China might not find them such obedient tribute states, clearly. China ousts Russia, yep, and while divergent, they could unite, but it seems low probability despite history. I see Europe eventually aligned with Russia despite present appearances. Shared interests, history and culture. The more Putin flexes identity/nationalism, the more they drift from Asia, I think. But the story of Russia is way bigger than Putin, and eventually they may reject him and become something else.

Seems this is important to think about a lot more: "I think the west vs the rest divisions that have structured the geopolitical world since WWII might be significantly reorganized with China at the helm. What that means for us normies out here just trying to live life, I have no idea."

“Too big to fail, [America] lumbers on at the expense of the lives of others.”

The new world order involves ordinary people living their ordinary banal life as though everything is fine and they are the pinnacle of modernity. They simply have no true power over their natural destinies. Their rights of consent, even lawful recourse are inhibited by invisible rules and consequences that swallow up dissonance with a shrug, an eye roll, and a yawn from the rest of the population who is more satisfied keeping the comforts and conveniences they have been allowed.

Rather than the George Jetson future we strive for, we will have a ~1950s peak society with technology and features relegated to gimmicks or class perks.

That is beautiful writing.

I would say this is pretty dang accurate.

Closer to a civil war of society in the US.

If there is a collapse and people start starving, and ICE continues as they have, we will have riots and crime and it won’t stop.

Countries under the US nuclear umbrella will look for alternatives, including their own nuclear deterrent. I expect proliferation to continue or even accelerate.

That is a good point, however, a non-dominant power US would be unlikely to lose its strategic nukes, and may even increase them to compensate.

What it might lose is willingness to start or engage in a nuclear war for others, or the credibility that it would do so.

Maybe, but I believe there's something to the idea that "decaying empires are more dangerous" because they're increasingly desperate to hang on to what they have. War is often the external result of internal decline.

A lot of people who believe that the problems in the Global South are due to western governments or regional histories are going to experience a rude awakening.

The order established by the Abrahamic faiths and western philosophies (which were heavily influenced by pre-existing middle eastern cultures or works) has been useful for demonstrating what ideas work and what don’t. People who want to believe in their own false narratives about alternatives will experience a rude awakening, and blame their failures on their “enemies”, like many in western cultures are doing now to their detractors. What hasn’t worked is pretending that oligopoly and monopoly are capitalism; too much influence is given to a few sources, and too many resources are spent or wasted on them.

U.S. the country will be fine because it has an arsenal of weapons, both military and otherwise, as long as it doesn’t let its debt issues overpower its economy. U.S. will need to remember that you have to spend money to make money, that means more grants and funding opportunities, and at the same time maybe that means less social programs, like public education.

Europe will be fine as long as it puts immigration quotas in place, and doesn’t let Russia overpower it.

Middle East and South Asian countries need to calm down with Israel because they really need to worry about India, which is positioned for supremacy after China. Russia seems like a distraction at this point, but it depends. Israel is more influenced by western democratic principles and philosophies than India, and so would make a better ally for most countries, as long as both countries can operate in good faith. You can never trust countries to operate in good faith, doesn’t matter which country it is.

LATAM and Africa will continue the blame and social manipulation games, as per usual. Oceania will be fine as long as it doesn’t let Europe’s migration issues target it.

The other global powers will find that they never should have wanted global supremacy, and they’re ill-equipped to deal with it. The UK will coast on via indirect manipulation as always since it gave up global supremacy.

Yes, this: "The order established by the Abrahamic faiths and western philosophies (which were heavily influenced by pre-existing middle eastern cultures or works) has been useful for demonstrating what ideas work and what don’t. People who want to believe in their own false narratives about alternatives will experience a rude awakening, and blame their failures on their “enemies”, like many in western cultures are doing now to their detractors. What hasn’t worked is pretending that oligopoly and monopoly are capitalism; too much influence is given to a few sources, and too many resources are spent or wasted on them."

is a potential flashpoint I think. Very sage as well! Excellent.

Also so true about India, and -- Indonesia. Russia, depends, exactly. It sounds ridiculous but it may make sense for Israel to become officially part of the US empire, it already functions similarly unofficially. Controversial and nuanced, yes. Apologies.

"LATAM and Africa will continue the blame and social manipulation games, as per usual." I don't think so. I think they are some of the wildcards. Things could change fast. US domestic fortification focused, China lacks reach to disrupt - could lead to grassroots populism that upends old orders, and combined with shifting fortunes and new tech, could be formidable. Wild card. Maybe you're right, but I just feel like there's more contemporary potential there that hasn't been expressed yet.

Oceania may end up pillaged. Or it may continue to be "less than relevant" lol. Idk. Indonesia is all important...probably.

"The UK will coast on via indirect manipulation as always since it gave up global supremacy." Sounds right, but idk, super interested to know more.

> It sounds ridiculous but it may make sense for Israel to become officially part of the US empire, it already functions similarly unofficially.

That’s not what I was saying, and it doesn’t make sense to say at all.

I know that's not what you were saying. I was adding. And I know it doesn't sounds sensical

Fret not, you are hereby disclaimed of all association, sought or unsought, with this dangerous idea.

What’s dangerous about this idea? It’s simply wrong because let’s think back to why people formed nation states. The core ideas are related to cultural identity and protection for who you classify as your people. The Jewish people have always suffered by being targeted because of their religion or culture, that’s why it makes sense that they should have their own country. What do you think countries are for? It’s an establishment of collective will and power for navigating systemic forces. There’s a lot more to this, but then we’re just taking about political science and history. In general, groups of people with distinct characteristics need to have safe havens, they cannot rely on others for protections. People need to protect their countries, that’s where they’re safest.

True, that's the public motivating/organizing ideas. But the private/governing calculus about what's in the best interest may be different or larger. Small countries need protection, large countries need reach.

I don't know, but I suspect we're going to find out.

Maybe something better?

People think Trump is a 'fascist'? If the US loses as a global power, they see the true meaning of the word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com