Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



 
Reply to this topicStart Poll
A Return to Great Power Politics
[ Standard ] · Linear+
ArmyCore
post Mar 2 2014, 09:10 PM
Post #1


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






Any thoughts? I think that it's fairly obvious that America isn't the hegemonic world power it once was (and Britain has long been left in the dust), are we seeing a return to the great power politics which characterized the world before the ascendency of the Angloshere? Especially in light of Ukraine, Syria, Mali etc.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Hellsravage
post Mar 3 2014, 12:15 AM
Post #2


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 18,206

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-October 06

Member No.: 45,923






QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Mar 2 2014, 10:10 PM)
Any thoughts?  I think that it's fairly obvious that America isn't the hegemonic world power it once was (and Britain has long been left in the dust), are we seeing a return to the great power politics which characterized the world before the ascendency of the Angloshere?  Especially in light of Ukraine, Syria, Mali etc.
*



In Political Science we distinguish global hegemony with regional hegemony. While the fact remains the United States is 20 years ahead of everyone else in military technology and spends twice as much as the next 10 countries combined (might be five, whatever), it is still a tough sell that the US is a global hegemony. For example, could you really say the US could do whatever it pleases in Asia? With the advent of nuclear weapons, many, such as game theorists/neorealists is probably impossible when mutual destruction is in play.

The United States is by and far a superpower. And in hard resources nobody even comes close. However, the world is a complicated place and we could never say the US can do whatever it please, wherever. This is due to a) capability in relation others' and b) what is appropriate in the face global norms (ie we have the capability to nuke the fruit out of North Korea but its grossly inappropriate to annihilate a country because we feel like it.)

I could talk about this poopie for days, but tl;dr : The US is incredibly powerful by realist and liberal benchmarks, but global hegemony is probably impossible


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Mar 3 2014, 03:26 AM
Post #3


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(HellsRavage @ Mar 2 2014, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Mar 2 2014, 10:10 PM)
Any thoughts?  I think that it's fairly obvious that America isn't the hegemonic world power it once was (and Britain has long been left in the dust), are we seeing a return to the great power politics which characterized the world before the ascendency of the Angloshere?  Especially in light of Ukraine, Syria, Mali etc.
*



In Political Science we distinguish global hegemony with regional hegemony. While the fact remains the United States is 20 years ahead of everyone else in military technology* and spends twice as much as the next 10 countries combined (might be five, whatever), it is still a tough sell that the US is a global hegemony. For example, could you really say the US could do whatever it pleases in Asia? With the advent of nuclear weapons, many, such as game theorists/neorealists is probably impossible when mutual destruction is in play.

The United States is by and far a superpower. And in hard resources nobody even comes close. However, the world is a complicated place and we could never say the US can do whatever it please, wherever. This is due to a) capability in relation others' and b) what is appropriate in the face global norms (ie we have the capability to nuke the fruit out of North Korea but its grossly inappropriate to annihilate a country because we feel like it.)
*



*On par with other western powers who share/develop joint technologies, and probably equal with Russia. Likely 20-80 years ahead of everyone else.

While I agree that American global political hegemony is a myth, I would argue that the west, the US being the principle nation, exerts a global cultural hegemony.

Although getting back on topic. I would argue that the current framework they teach in political science (most of the reasons I started this topic was because my political science class seemed outdated in its theoretical approach to geopolitics) is relatively obsolete at this point, for a few reasons.

-First, any nation which possesses ICBM's, or has another means of unrestricted nuclear warfare, is essentially equal in power to any other nation which possesses ICBM's. That is to say that "hard resources" are taken out of play almost entirely in theoretical conflicts between these powers.

-Second, any nation which possesses WMD's which can be deployed to significant regional targets may exert this leverage to function as a great power (defined as those powers which control ICBM's or blue-water navies capable of launching nuclear warheads). For example, should Iran finish its nuclear programme, they would function as a great power due to the leverage exerted over a significant target, that being Israel.

And as a result of this strategic matrix, it makes sense to either redefine what it means to be a superpower (which is a term essentially reserved for the USA, despite the fact that there is no functional difference between the USA and any other nuclear power in a geopolitical arena), or scrap the term altogether and revert to the great power structure of the pre-twentieth century.

If I may be indulged a few examples to demonstrate the geopolitical equality of a regional power and a superpower with reference to other regional powers; which clarifies why the term "great power" is more appropriate:
-France marches into Belgium and occupies. France has a massive arsenal of nuclear warheads aimed at New York and London. France keeps Belgium.
-Russia occupies the Crimea, and then proceeds to occupy eastern Ukraine. Russia has a massive arsenal of warheads aimed at New York and London. Russia keeps Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
-Iran successfully assembles a workable nuclear device. Iran occupies Iraq following the allied withdrawal. Iran has nuclear warheads aimed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Iran keeps Iraq (provided they could actually occupy it, which is doubtful)*

My point is that each of these nations exerts identical military power in relation to one another, despite the disparity in their economic and conventional military strength. As a result, there is no "superpower", there are simply a number of great powers which have the potential to influence global affairs in fairly equal ways.
-And while most nations act as if they lack this knowledge, Russia is clearly aware of this, and I would argue, has actually been the dominant player in global politics since Obama took office

*Mainline militaries are efficacious when dealing with lesser powers which lack ICBM's etc. They are not obsolete, but they serve little purpose in terms conflicts between great powers.

tl;dr: There is no political superpower, there are a number of great powers.

This post has been edited by ArmyCore: Mar 3 2014, 03:28 AM



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 

Task


Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:29 AM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy