Thursday, February 27, 2003
10:54 am
Pax Americana? 26th February 2003.
One thing taken for granted whenever people discuss the intentions of the United States is that she is now the most powerful country in the history of the world – & it is easy to see why. No country has ever been so rich, & no country’s armed forces have ever had such firepower at their command. But so what?
Power – the ability to make others do what you want – is the most relative of attributes. America’s power is a function not of her own absolute wealth & firepower, nor even of the gap between her wealth & firepower & those of other countries, but of the extent to which she is able to use her own wealth & firepower to impose her will upon others – & this in turn is a function of the wealth & firepower of other countries. Just as America has enough firepower to destroy any other country in the world, so there are several other countries – China, Russia, Britain, & France, at least, probably others, such as Israel – who have enough firepower to do the same, enough firepower, in other words, to destroy America. Many others – India, Pakistan, the Ukraine, perhaps North Korea – have enough firepower to inflict more damage on the United States than she would tolerate. So America’s scope for action is severely circumscribed: there is a large number of countries she cannot, on pain of annihilation, use military force against.
If you consider the Roman Empire at the height of its power, there was perhaps one country in the world, China, it could never have conquered – too far away –, but I doubt there was any part of the known world where the Romans would have failed to take military action if they had believed it in their interests to do so. Most of the time, that action would have been & was successful, although there were no guarantees; if the action failed, it was a setback, but rarely a disaster. Today, there are many countries against which the United States can take action, &, when she does so, she is guaranteed success in a way the Romans were not; but as soon as any country acquires a certain number of nuclear weapons, America is guaranteed disaster if she takes any action against that country at all.
So what is the best thing for everybody to do? In the days of the Roman Empire, any nation that wanted to minimise the damage done to it by Rome had the option, either of submitting without a fight, or of trying to destroy the Empire (a slow process at best), or of ignoring the Empire in the hope it was ignored in turn. Today, any country that wishes to resist U.S. power has one option: to acquire as many nuclear weapons as possible.
If, then, the United States makes clear that she is prepared to use military force against any potentially hostile power that lacks nuclear weapons, say on the grounds that she wishes to prevent such powers from acquiring such weapons in the first place, it is plain to all such powers that they must acquire such weapons or be pushed around, perhaps invaded, perhaps destroyed, their regimes perhaps deposed. If I were a dictator, & I knew that America disliked me, I should be doing my damnedest to get nuclear weapons. If America made clear she would not interfere in other countries’ affairs, I may of course try to get nuclear weapons anyway, but I am not sure I should have quite the same incentive.
The conclusion is that America’s determination to prevent non-nuclear powers from going nuclear may achieve the opposite of what is intended. If that happens, then American firepower will become increasingly impotent.
One thing taken for granted whenever people discuss the intentions of the United States is that she is now the most powerful country in the history of the world – & it is easy to see why. No country has ever been so rich, & no country’s armed forces have ever had such firepower at their command. But so what?
Power – the ability to make others do what you want – is the most relative of attributes. America’s power is a function not of her own absolute wealth & firepower, nor even of the gap between her wealth & firepower & those of other countries, but of the extent to which she is able to use her own wealth & firepower to impose her will upon others – & this in turn is a function of the wealth & firepower of other countries. Just as America has enough firepower to destroy any other country in the world, so there are several other countries – China, Russia, Britain, & France, at least, probably others, such as Israel – who have enough firepower to do the same, enough firepower, in other words, to destroy America. Many others – India, Pakistan, the Ukraine, perhaps North Korea – have enough firepower to inflict more damage on the United States than she would tolerate. So America’s scope for action is severely circumscribed: there is a large number of countries she cannot, on pain of annihilation, use military force against.
If you consider the Roman Empire at the height of its power, there was perhaps one country in the world, China, it could never have conquered – too far away –, but I doubt there was any part of the known world where the Romans would have failed to take military action if they had believed it in their interests to do so. Most of the time, that action would have been & was successful, although there were no guarantees; if the action failed, it was a setback, but rarely a disaster. Today, there are many countries against which the United States can take action, &, when she does so, she is guaranteed success in a way the Romans were not; but as soon as any country acquires a certain number of nuclear weapons, America is guaranteed disaster if she takes any action against that country at all.
So what is the best thing for everybody to do? In the days of the Roman Empire, any nation that wanted to minimise the damage done to it by Rome had the option, either of submitting without a fight, or of trying to destroy the Empire (a slow process at best), or of ignoring the Empire in the hope it was ignored in turn. Today, any country that wishes to resist U.S. power has one option: to acquire as many nuclear weapons as possible.
If, then, the United States makes clear that she is prepared to use military force against any potentially hostile power that lacks nuclear weapons, say on the grounds that she wishes to prevent such powers from acquiring such weapons in the first place, it is plain to all such powers that they must acquire such weapons or be pushed around, perhaps invaded, perhaps destroyed, their regimes perhaps deposed. If I were a dictator, & I knew that America disliked me, I should be doing my damnedest to get nuclear weapons. If America made clear she would not interfere in other countries’ affairs, I may of course try to get nuclear weapons anyway, but I am not sure I should have quite the same incentive.
The conclusion is that America’s determination to prevent non-nuclear powers from going nuclear may achieve the opposite of what is intended. If that happens, then American firepower will become increasingly impotent.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
February
(95)
- One sided kind of special So the Americans are po...
- Eurosocialism - 26th February 2003, 20.44 Interes...
- Unlucky Luckhurst - 27th February 2003, 20.23 Tim...
- A Dawning Realisation - 27th February 2003, 20.12 ...
- Another bill arrives for Last Year's War I don't ...
- Pax Americana? 26th February 2003. One thing ta...
- 10% ... or thereabouts of the Parliamentary Conse...
- Labour are revolting - 26th February 2003, 23.20 ...
- Something Understood - 26th February 2003, 22.48 ...
- Trust The People? - 26th February 2003, 22.33 If ...
- Delaying Tactics - 26th February 2003, 22.25 Gisc...
- Everyone argues Chirac is an Arab. He isn't, he's ...
- The Foreign Affairs Committee and Iran - 25th Febr...
- Bolstering Sierra Leone - 25th February 2003, 20.0...
- Another Ruritania gives up its sovereignty - 25th ...
- Meanwhile, in last year's war I don't think this ...
- Expect to see this in the Guardian - 24th February...
- Franco-British Defence - 24th February 2003, 19.57...
- Dealing with the EU - 24th February 2003, 19.42 D...
- Frittering away our interests As well as worrying...
- Sleepwalking into Empire Yet another reason not t...
- Germany: Stagnant and Unsettled - 23rd February 20...
- Now they'll use Iraq to get the Euro Just to show...
- Zimwatch: American diplomat was detained - 23rd Fe...
- Where Blair and Bush differ - 23rd February 2003, ...
- Who holds the Champagne? - 23rd February 2003, 12....
- Prices for Crises We're often accused of being Gu...
- Raimondo but Rong Justin Raimondo gives a hearty ...
- The Federal Union - 22nd February 2003, 16.10 Man...
- Enarquey - 21st February 2003, 20.57 Another arti...
- Entrails Watch - 21st February 2003, 20.42 Croati...
- The Grand Old Man of Terror - 21st February 2003, ...
- Does It Matter? 21st February 2003. Never seem t...
- Listed One of the amusing things about writing on...
- Why did they march? - 20th February 2003, 21.45 T...
- Entrails Watch - 20th February 2003, 21.25 Attemp...
- Amendments to the Second Draft - 20th February 200...
- But do they want to win? Robert Fisk is probably ...
- Operation: Overstretch - 19th February 2003, 23.13...
- Zimwatch: Developments - 19th February 2003, 19.34...
- Backfiring - 18th February 2003, 20.22 If anybody...
- Biscuit thief Blair Tony Blair seems to have real...
- United in words, not deeds - 17th February 2003, 2...
- Appeasement, first time round There was a time wh...
- A Definition of Solidarity - 16th February 2003, 2...
- An Omanist - 16th February 2003, 20.35 Here is an...
- The Sovereignty Con - 16th February 2003, 19.46 R...
- Not quite the History we had in mind Andrew Dodge...
- Where did they all come from? 750 000, almost twi...
- The United Nations is the new Princess Diana - 15t...
- One Percent - 15th February 2003, 18.17 The Daily...
- How will the March go? With this massive anti-war...
- Minority Reports An interesting post in the afore...
- Countering Pan-Arabism - 12th January 2003, 19.45 ...
- Anti-Europeanism - 12th January 2003, 19.27 Readi...
- NATO no go A curiously prescient article on the w...
- Now that Blair has put tanks on our streets, a few...
- Not just in and out U.S. Plans for Two-Year Occup...
- Still not proven Another day, another loon. This...
- Pinning down the Federasts Too daunted to trudge ...
- A Confident Response - 11th January 2003, 20.23 J...
- No obligations The Turkish Prime Minister says th...
- NATO is no longer a military alliance - 10th Janua...
- 12 Years too late With this vote against helping ...
- Beelzebub has a devil for a son - 10th January 200...
- Would we do this to an American? When wittering o...
- The UN Trap Chatshow Charlie Kennedy has promised...
- Official - They have no shame I really do not wan...
- On hating America, and Belgium I hate to break th...
- The Second Draft (Part 6) Article 13: The coordin...
- The Second Draft (Part 5) Article 11: Exclusive C...
- The Second Draft (Part 4) Article 9: Application ...
- The Second Draft (part 3) Title III: The Union's...
- The Second Draft (Part 2) - 7th February 2003 Art...
- The Second Draft - 7th February 2003 Giscard D'Es...
- Spectator - 6th February 2003, 22.20 Boris Johnso...
- Read the Small Print It seems that Blair's intern...
- Blowback The problem about all these foreign adve...
- Collective Security - 5th February 2003, 21.45 Mo...
- Nice Europe - 5th February 2003, 21.14 This may b...
- A Statement of Values - 5th February 2003, 21.07 ...
- Bridging the Channel - 4th February 2003, 20.37 O...
- Iraqi Overstretch - 4th January 2003, 20.17 Docum...
- Meanwhile in the Hindu Kush It's probably an idea...
- Oh Dear It appears that the links between Al Qaed...
- A Possible Opportunity - 3rd February 2003, 23.42 ...
- Op-Ed Diplomacy - 3rd February 2003, 23.25 With t...
- Zimwatch: Good and Bad Omens - 3rd February 2003, ...
- Red Card - 2nd February 2003, 22.23 The latest at...
- Malta Referendum - 2nd February 2003, 18.28 Malta...
- That Learning Curve - 2nd February 2003, 15.53 La...
- Al-Qaida targets British Admiral - 2nd February 20...
- In Churchill's Shadow - 1st February 2003, 22.37 ...
- Reliable - 1st February 2003, 10.14 A Gallup poll...
- Nasa Shuttle lost on re-entry - 1st February 2003,...
-
▼
February
(95)
0 comments:
Post a Comment