Americans have a rich constitutionalist tradition of their own, together with a long and successful experience with international cooperation. But following the demise of the Soviets, America seems to have lost its way. Something has gone wrong with its system of checks and balances; the Roman Republic has been turning into the Roman Empire. (My bold.)
This is the deepest fear of many of us still here. May we reclaim that rich constitutionalist tradition and soon.
again
America's recent evolution suggests a broader lesson. Nowadays, too much power is agglomerated in Washington to be contained successfully within a purely national constitutional structure. Checks and balances at home require a correlative balance of power abroad. Constructing such a balanced state system for itself on a regional scale has been post-war Europe's great achievement. Successfully implementing that balanced system has depended heavily on a supportive America. Perhaps it is time for Europe to return the favour. Balancing, it seems, is always necessary, even among friends. And among friends balancing is also more likely to be successful. That Europe can find the will, the means and the confidence to rise to the occasion - to be America's balancing partner - can hardly be taken for granted. What does seem clear is that a Europe that wants to be cohesive and strong, and on good terms with its neighbours, will not fit easily in a close transatlantic alliance with an America actively pursuing global hegemony.
But is not yet accomplished, is it? Or is the Lisbon Treaty, or the Nice Treaty, even, enough?
Successfully implementing that balanced system has depended heavily on a supportive America.
Who now sees the EU as a threat and actively plays EU member states --- who don't know better --- against each other. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Should Europe substantially implement the requirements to defend their interests militarily this would likely obviate the ambitions of the next Republican administration for a policy of World Imperial Dominion.
Well... If by "defend their interests militarily" one understands being able to patrol the sealanes, defend one's own territorial integrity and aiding other lawful governments in accomplishing the same objectives, then I agree that this is a desirable policy. If, however, one understands it to mean resort to traditional gunboat diplomacy, then... not so much.
Of course, Europe doesn't need to resort to traditional gunboat diplomacy to achieve our strategic interests, if our strategic interests are simply independence and good relations with our neighbours.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Actually, this is what most of "Old Europe" is doing in practice: it's just demonized as weak and cowardly by the snarling AngloDiseased lapdogs (those who have forgotten what "long term" means) and those who fan the flames of residual worries in Central Europe. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
EU needs would have to take precedence over US appeals to NATO obligations. There is at least some controversy over the sufficiency of EU military capabilities absent US assets. I will leave it to Europeans to settle whether that is reality or US spin.
I think this would clearly benefit the EU and would probably be supported by a Democratic US administration. It could be vital should a recurrence of the current situation present itself in eight or twelve years. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Does that include maintaining air superiority? How likely is that in a serious shooting war? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Against a great power, it is unlikely to be possible without the kind of military buildup that would endanger our political system. But since we won't be starting any wars with the other great powers (right?), we don't really need to be able to win such a war. We just have to be able to make it too expensive for them to bother.
We just have to be able to make it too expensive for them to bother.
And I am not sure that completely abolishing nukes is necessary, even if it might be desirable. Cutting down the aggregate global stockpile to less than 50 megaton should be sufficient. Fifty megaton would hurt badly if they were used, but if you assume that one megaton creates roughly one megadeath (1 million dead) it would not be worse than a major shooting war between two great powers using 21st cent. conventional weapons (by way of comparison, the Soviet theatre of WWII is estimated at between 20 and 100 megadeath depending on how you count and who you ask, IIRC).
If any of the great powers is determined to make us bleed, there is nothing we can do to avoid bleeding. We can make them bleed in return, but in a 21 cent. war between even moderately industrialised countries with population above a quarter billion, everybody loses. Except the war profiteers.
So if we spend a lot of money building up our military to defeat an irrational invasion, we have wasted our money, because Europe is going to be a smoking ruin after the war anyway. The best we can do is build up enough to deter a rational invasion.
And be sure to remind everyone how successful the biggest, nastiest military machine the planet has ever seen has been so far in subduing the third- and fourth-world countries that it invaded. The record from Viet Nam to Vietraq kinda speaks for itself...
