Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
This is a nice re-statement of your theory, but doesn't answer my points.

A threat to the balance of power doesn't need to be addressed by military might from everyone else, only when the breaker of the balance is in immediate danger of fighting everyone in short order and rising to a hegemon. And a break in the balance of power doesn't have to threaten the emergence of a hegemon in a treaty situation (say, do you think there was a threat of a hegemon before WWI?)

Your focus is solely on wars between a hegemon and a sole non-hegemon started by the latter to cotestg hegemony, ignoring wars between two non-hegemons, wars initiated by the hegemon, wars resulting from internal conflict in the hegemon, coalition wars, and raids.

As a result, wars are simply fewer in number and intensity today, worldwide, than they were before.

A claim not just I keep contesting on this thread.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 2nd, 2012 at 04:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have evidence to the contrary regarding the wars?  Because the near absence of war in Europe post US dominance of European affairs is clearly a change from the nearly constant state of war between 2 or more European powers before that time.  The one period of relative peace in Europe before then was indeed the period where Britain was closest to being a hegemonic power there because of its temporary naval superiority around 1900.
by santiago on Wed May 2nd, 2012 at 11:53:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So now you reach for Britain's hegemony as explanation, after all? But there were at least 22 years of peace prior to that naval dominance, too. And this period wasn't any less of a relative peace than post-WWII.

Also, let's leave Europe. Where in the rest of the US sphere of influence do you see less wars than before?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 2nd, 2012 at 02:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, exactly. Britain was indeed a dominant power, although it had nowhere near the global scope, influence -- full spectrum dominance -- that America has today worldwide. Therefore the variation in the causal variables -- Britain's dominance -- explains the variation in the observed variables -- incidences of war in Europe -- and argues precisely for my theory regarding the US today.
by santiago on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 12:52:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
Your focus is solely on wars between a hegemon and a sole non-hegemon started by the latter to cotestg hegemony

And thus the focus on a war between China and US started by China. I think power will (with production) pass to China, but as it is already happening China does not need a war to win. What might happen is instead that a rising China is at one point confronted with a hegemon lacking good choices but having a military upper hand. Since a total war would incinerate both sides, both sides can have reason to suspect the other side is bluffing, which can lead to a conflict to resolve at which level each side is bluffing. Then the logic of the conflicts gets a life of its own. Hopefully not to the point of nuclear annihilation.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Wed May 2nd, 2012 at 03:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it is entirely possible, and perhaps likely, that China could eventually grow up enough to split the world in two, the way it was during the cold war, instead of leaving the globe solely under US governance as it is today.
by santiago on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 12:55:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
10 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
11 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series