How would a multipolar world look like?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Schmelzer, Jul 4, 2017.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    First, it would be a world where no single power has even the hope to become the ruler of the world.

    What would be different is that there would be several powers with the ability to retaliate against a nuclear first strike. Today these are the US and Russia, in near future China will reach this ability too.

    In such a world, fighting for ruling the whole world is no longer a good idea. This situation would differ from the Cold War, where both superpowers fought for ruling the whole world for ideological reasons. But even this fight became more or less meaningless after Soviet Union has reached the ability to retaliate.

    With world rule impossible, the US hyper-investment in military becomes meaningless. It would no longer allow to gain a lot. Those under attack by one of the poles would ask the others for protection. This was impossible in the Cold War, a capitalist state was unacceptable as an ally for the Soviets, a communist state for the US. Today, we already see around Qatar some sort of alliance of Turkey (Sunni), Iran (Shia) and Russia (orthodox). So, we have an increasing political flexibility for small states too, and pressuring them with military becomes less reasonable too.

    To reach the point where the US will cut its military to an appropriate size (which is not more than the next 7 powers together) and stops its general aggression against Eurasia (with regime change and terrorism support) needs some time.
    But with time even the US will learn that regime change no longer works and that terrorism support gives nothing.

    Once this has been reached, the time of separatism starts. Once big states play no longer a military role, for small and medium states it makes no sense to fight separatism. Only the superpowers may have a problem with this. But even they can solve the problems with separatists by decentralization of almost everything except the military.

    Formally, the return to classical international law would be the main point of a transition. Actually, we have only weak remains of international law, but de facto the law of the jungle. With Russia and China following their old imperial traditions, which did not include aggression against its neighbors, and the US returning to isolationism, the superpowers would have no objections against a revival of international law, and everybody else would readily submit. The only difference to classical international law would be no right of declaration of war without justification.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    1. USA reduces military budget significantly.
    2. Sell off all those overseas bases.
    3. Sell off weapons systems.
    4. Sell Nuclear weapons to countries like South Korea, Philippines, Ukraine, etc.
    5. Sit back and see what happens.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    #unifiedseparatism | #contradictions

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for schism.

    There is a lot to consider, of course, but this part stands out.

    Okay, so from the Left, our Anarchists were always really good at complaining about stuff, but the solution involved everyone magically getting along, and I say magically because nobody could ever explain just how that worked. In that context, the problem with the "anarchy" part of Anarchism is that Anarchism proper isn't really anarchism; it is, instead, an appeal to concerted good faith on a scale humanity has never shown itself capable of achieving, even fractionally. Don't get me wrong, I like it, but in our quarters, one of the great obstacles to collective good faith is a romanticized "Law of the Jungle", which in many lifetime often, even predominantly, been a term used to characterize an assertion of "capitalism" that seems nearly a tribute to Lysander Spooner↱ denounced in 1875 as the second-greatest crimes in the world:

    In the first place, the great crimes committed in the world are mostly prompted by avarice and ambition. The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried on by governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind. The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, make the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity with the laws,―that is, their own laws―are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes committed by all other criminals, in violation of the laws.

    The bottom line is that while there is a lot to consider, the epiphany that "fighting for ruling the whole world is no longer a good idea", in addition to being one of those altruistic hopes that pretty much depends on human beings in general deciding to utterly get over their perceptions of scarcity, real or imagined, while reconciling their psyches to the new way of seeing the world, also happens to stand out as a sharp contrast to the "law of the jungle", de facto or otherwise.

    In any case, you will probably find it helpful to avoid phrases like, "With world rule impossible". Laughers like that draw a lot of focus away from your shiny-happy make-believe separatist something-or-other. (No, really, I wouldn't know what to call the idea of a bunch of separatists getting along with each other well enough to stay afraid of and separate from one another.)


    Spooner, Lysander. Vices are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. 1875. 4 July 2017.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I can answer number 5 based on number 4 alone...

  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    No shit. None the less does the USA have the resources and competence to remaining world police force indefinitely, I don't think so.
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I think the USA most certainly has the resources to not sell Nuclear weapons to other countries... (you know, item number four on your list)

    I would be curious to know why you think otherwise.

    Worth noting - I did not touch on the "world police" issue at all... why are you bringing that up? Red herring much?
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I see no reason to avoid phrases like "world rule impossible". In fact, we have been in a world very close to a world rule - and this world has shown quite clearly that it will not work.

    The fight for world rule of the last century was based on fight for an ideology. Free market vs. communism. Above ideas had the chance to be attractive everywhere on the world, so that world rule could have been based on such an ideology. But we have seen that this does not work. The "free market" idea has won - and the US world rule established as the result. Now Russia and China are free market too, and one can even argue that both are now even more free market than US. So, to continue to justify their rule as free market defenders became laughable. This would be, essentially, the fate of every idea strong enough to conquer the whole world. The world would accept the idea, but not the rule of those who have, in the past fought for this idea. World rule based on an idea would be possible only for a short time, the time when the idea wins. The US was able to reach world rule at the time when communism has lost, but was unable to defend its world rule. In part, one can blame its own stupidity, but I tend to think this was doomed from the start.

    Has the US a chance now to conquer the world? No. As Russia, as China are strong enough to defend themselves. Both have the ability to retaliate against a nuclear attack, thus, military means against them are suicidal. Both are big enough to survive any economic war. Both have a strong enough traditional values to prevent any takeover by color revolutions - all what is necessary for this is that this would mean American rule, and such a submission to external rule is unacceptable, incompatible with the national traditions. And both have also a traditional religious base, which prevents an acceptance of American rule too.

    So, Russian and Chinese independence from American rule is simply a fact of life which the US would better accept.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The US has never even come close to ruling China, India, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, anywhere in Africa with minor exceptions, Mexico, or the area of the Soviet Union. The US was evicted from domination attempts in Vietnam, Korea, and probably now Iraq.
    Market based economies have taken over from all centrally managed economies, but US rule often did not follow, even in the window after WWII.
    US, Russia, Israel, France, UK, China, Pakistan, and India, can retaliate against attack by using nuclear weapons.

    The US, Russia, and China have the MAD level "triad" of deterrence - land based ICBMs, sea born weapons, air delivery capability.
    No, they aren't. China does not even have private land ownership. Russia is run by organized crime.
    That's been taken for granted by Americans since Mao's revolution.
    The US hasn't even managed to rule Mexico or Canada.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    You mingle classical colonial rule with modern US rule. In modern US rule, the states are formally completely independent. They are ruled by local comprador bourgeoisie, corrupted by "foreign aid" and economic hit men. Instead of direct military control, there is either a US-friendly dictator (so that if necessary the US can "liberate" the people) or indirect control by hidden power over the mass media (which can create even profits instead of costs), which, in a "democracy", allows to get rid of unwanted local politicians. These comprador politicians create large debts, so that these states have to pay interests, instead of creating costs for army controlling them. If such a regime fails, no problem, new elections of new compradors, instead of an anti-American revolt.

    This type of US rule has been established in Russia during the Yeltsin time. It is often difficult to identify such rule, because plausible deniability is its base. But the number of states where one can be sure that this hidden form of US rule is not present is not that big. NK, China, Iran, Cuba, Libya, some dictatorships remaining from Soviet time, India, what have I forgotten?

    Whatever, if you don't see (or don't want to see) this US rule, then there simply is no such animal as a unipolar world, and we already have a multipolar world. The only thing which one needs to make it civilized is, then, to pacify one particular rogue state which does not care about international law at all, but is unfortunately quite powerful. We will see if the (then already existing) multipolar world succeeds here.
    Don't forget that "one can argue" differs from "I think". This is because I do not think so. But state regulations restricting the free market are so many in all of these states, and how they are enforced one would have to find out locally, that it becomes difficult to find out where the market is less restricted.
    The difference between land ownership, with obligation to pay land taxes, and renting the same land and paying rent is not essential for a free market. What matters is what you have to pay. And the organized crime rule of Russia was Yeltsin time, and is by now essentially over. Of course, anti-Russian propaganda will not see any such change.
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Whatever you are smoking, please let me know... I'm sure it would fetch a great price on the open market. I can see it now - "The new miracle cure for depression - the Everything is Great pill!"
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Oh don't worry others will do that for us, for example Japan has stated an interested in changing their constitution and having and offensive military again, maybe even make nuclear weapons, and Ukraine has de-cored soviet era nuclear bombs, Japan could trade plutonium to make cores with Ukraine's pre-made bombs.

    Anyways point is without the USA to COMPETENTLY defend these countries they will have all imputus to have their own defense, and lacking the money for a huge conventional military, a few nukes is very tempting.

    I don't. I'm pointing out what we would need to do for a multipolar world, if you think those decisions are reprehensible, maybe then we should not become an multi-polar world. If we don't sell nukes then Russia and China will take all they can until these countries do get nukes via another means, or cease to exist as anything other then satellite states or colonies of Russia and China.

    ... what do you think our present single polar world entails? It is like if I was saying the sky is blue and your response is "I never said anything about the sky being blue, I talking about the higher frequency light the sky scatters!"
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    See, this is where your logic fails. Lets say for a moment some of these countries DID manage to build nukes and delivery systems... they could never use them.


    Because the moment ANYONE launches a nuclear strike, so would everyone else.

    That is how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

    Now, the idea behind preventing nuclear proliferation is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of people who seem to not care if they are turned into glowing piles of ash (such as ISIS) or don't have the intellect to understand how MAD works (Kimmy Kim in NK)

    Why and how this escapes you confounds me - it isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

    There is already a multi-polar option out there - NATO. Is the US providing more than its "fair share" of defenses? Probably. I would counter, however, that it's OUR FAULT for that. After all, we are the country outspending the next, what, five countries defense budgets COMBINED.
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    What makes you think I did not know this? My hope is that MAD holds true and thus china and russia will not curb stomp smaller countries if those countries would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Thus peace, peace based on terror, but peace none the less can be kept. Now will that work, well hopefully, probably not, but I don't think we have a choice, we simply can't be world police forever, certainly not with the likes of Trump as its chief.

    Why would you think this has escaped me? Is Ukraine, ISIS? Is South Korea, North Korea? Ukraine promised to dismantle all its soviet nukes in exchange for peace and sovereignty with Russia in the 1990's, that clearly was a bad move on their part. Russia did not hold to its part of the agreement. Likewise China has been demanding control of just about all the ocean below it, and the Philippines and Malaysia and Vietnam and just about everyone to the south of China have been begging the USA to back them up in preventing that. If these countries had nukes then China and Russia could not bully them, and your counter is these countries are terrorist and insane? Pakistan has nukes, and is also filled with Muslim fundamentalist, have we died in nuclear hellfire yet, no.

    Anyways yes some countries are insane and death cult worshipers, and we should prevent them from having nukes, but many other countries are peaceful and lack any other way of protecting themselves, and instead rely on us and our gigantic bloated military-industrial complex to protect them.

    Another "no shit" third time in a row you state the obvious!

    NATO though does not include Russia or China, does not include the south china sea countries or Ukraine. And if Ukraine did join NATO, Russia would not accept that. Now if Ukraine had its own nuclear arsenal then the Ukraine would not need NATO for protection, and better yet if Ukraine and Russia did get into a war, Russia would not counterstrike every NATO nation, it would be tactical nuclear war between Russia and Ukraine that Ukraine would ultimately lose but only after millions of Russians have died.
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    So the crux of your argument is that if these smaller nations had nuclear weapons, that would prevent China or Russia from using conventional warfare to attack and/or bully them? How? Russia and China know full well that even if, say, Malaysia had nukes, they could never use them, because of MAD.
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    What do you think would happen to Malaysia in a conventional war with china: they would be "destroyed". Ergo Malaysia is fucked either way, at least with Nukes they can sting china as china crushes them. China being sane and rational would know that and not attack Malaysia or even antagonize them.

    This is simple stand-off psychology: Imagine you were a thug robber, big guy, and you want to steal from some little dweeby guy, only problem is the dweeb has a gun aimed at you. Now besides your huge fits, body built like a bull and face like a concert brick, you too also have a gun, a big gun. Now are you going to take a bullet, shoot the guy dead, then beat his corpse for good measure or are you going to back off? I guess that depends on how sane you are, Ideally MAD works in theory because everyone is sane, but in reality we all know a lot of people, even governments are not sane, we will just have to find out just how sane countries are as the USA military-industrial complex crumbles.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    And how, pray tell, would Malaysia "sting" China even if they had nukes? Again, you realize that if they launched even one, we would be igniting a scenario that could quite likely wipe out the bulk of the human race...

    Sure, maybe that would prevent China from attacking... but do you really think it would stop someone who is giving every appearance of being utterly insane, such as Kim and North Korea?

    You are, in essence, asking that we bet the world against the hope that people will be rational... sorry, I don't want to take that bet, because history has shown - it will not end well.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    My list, again:
    The concept of hidden US rule that may or may not be present is pure genius, btw. Although by excluding China and India, you exclude a very large fraction of the world's people - you sure? It's hidden, after all - how can you tell for certain?

    And what about Putin and his collusions with the US? Hidden rule, plausible denial, the adoption of corporate capitalism with all the usual US dealings and issues - is Putin part of the hidden empire?

    Private ownership, rather than State, is.
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Bigger land masses are splitting, due to aspirations of local populace, so talking about unipolar world or remote control is of no meaning.

    As far as hidden control of the US is concerned, it is for countries like Pakistan where leadership have not realised the true value of self respect and development. Pakistan is significantly dependent on aid from the US, it has crippled so much that the US could carry out drone attack in its territory to wipe out certain terrorist without taking Pakistan in confidence. But this must change sooner or later. In time to come educated people of such countries will realise the weakness of its leadership and things would change.

    China, India, Brazil, few European Countries, Russia, Japan, Australia and the US, forget about Israel, North Korea etc....can anyone think that they all will come under a single umbrella? Total trust deficit. All are either developed or developing.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    In case of China I'm sure. There has been enough evidence for US-paid attempts to start color revolutions. In India, I'm not sure, I simply see no evidence in favor of US rule.
    I cannot tell for certain. As a scientist, I'm used to handle uncertainty and not afraid of it.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That means nothing (even if true, which it isn't). Plausible deniability is built in to the hidden nature.
    You can find plenty of evidence for US paid attempts to start color revolutions in the US itself - if your standards for evidence are as firmly grounded in presumption as seems the case elsewhere.
    As a scientist, are you used to assuming things that conflict with what evidence you do have?

    Hidden things, you know - like the US empire and unipolar rule of all but a handful of countries: nobody can see anything like it, but you know it has to be there. Just has to be.

Share This Page