Because we live in a one superpower world (and a mostly benign super power at that) and the fact that globalization has happened, war has thankfully become ever more obsolete. Countries which act agressively outside of their boarders are punished by the large markets of North America and Western Europe, the US encourages most countries to stay in line, and countries depend on each other ever more for goods in trade - war has become largely unprofitable.

Also, from a developed nation stand point, the US Military dominance has made in attempting to fight us with force simply suicidal. And, since nations which are significantly hostile to us such can't win on the battle field, they will take their fight to the UN or the airwaves to beat us there (France is particularly good at this). We will have to become much, much savvier to effectively win the new wars of the 21st Century.

I agree completely

Leave off the BS about France - since when did any nation that declines to follow a subservient course become an opponent?

Countries which act agressively outside of their boarders are punished by the large markets of North America and Western Europe, the US encourages most countries to stay in line, and countries depend on each other ever more for goods in trade - war has become largely unprofitable.

What country has acted aggressively outside its borders recently? Did the US encourage Georgia to “stay in line” after militarizing it?

Does the US military activity in the ME make war there less likely?

If war is less likely, why does the US need 750+ military installations outside its borders?

War unprofitable? Ask Halliburton. If it's unprofitable, why is it so hard to kill weapons projects?

Rather than becoming “savvier to effectively win the new wars of the 21st Century,” maybe we need to figure out how to avoid bankruptcy. We are not vulnerable militarily, but the countries that hold our IOUs have us over the barrel. There's the vulnerability.

US dominance is waning rapidly on the economic front.

Long live the Empire!

I agree with you for the most part headhunt, but it reeks of hubris to label a longstanding ally as "hostile" simply because it doesn't happen to dance to your every tune. The Us failed to back the UK, France and Israel during the Suez Crisis- by your reckoning, all three should have looked upon the US as a distinctly hostile entity. It's a ridiculous notion to have.

"Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy who must be crushed."

"The enemy of my enemy dies next."

Headhunt,

As with British dominance in most of the 19th centrury, US dominance in the last 50 years has eliminated huge wars at the expense of lesser wars, some fought by the US itself to preserve or extend its dominance. I guess this is progress, and is consistent with Horgan's view.

But, remember what the ultimate result of British dominance turned out to be: World War One. After about 100 years of no big wars, Britain's dominance was increasingly threatened (by the German Navy, mostly), leading to the complex of treaties and interests that triggered the greatest war in human history. Until WW2, two decades later, which many historians (I agree) think was essentially a continuation of unfinished business from WW1.

And so it may be when US global dominance comes under threat, from China perhaps, as it inevitably will. The US will attempt to shore up its imperial position, as the UK did. China (or whoever) will attempt to shore up its position. The result, mayvbe 50 or 75 years from now, could be cataclysmic indeed.

Maybe, however, war on that scale has become too costly. Both the US and China, and their respective allies, will have plenty of nukes, which will either save us, if it prevents the cataclysm, or destroy us all.

"Maybe, however, war on that scale has become too costly. Both the US and China, and their respective allies, will have plenty of nukes, which will either save us, if it prevents the cataclysm, or destroy us all."

I think nukes are a very big factor in this. The US and USSR would surely have gone to war not long after the end of WWII if it hadn't been for the threat of nuclear annihilation, maybe also the USSR and China . I think the lack of war between major industrialized powers is as much to do with nuclear weapons as other factors such as democracy and the experiences of the first half of the 20th century.

C-tips makes a great argument for the peace-producing action of nuclear armament. Thus I can conclude he supports nuclear freedom for Iran and N. Korea.

I agree that nuclear armament has led to a more peaceful world through MADD. We certainly would have had a WWIII between the US and USSR during the cold war but for MADD.

That doesn't necessarily mean you favor nukes for Iran or N. Korea. MADD theory requires rational state actors to work. N. Korea in particular is far from rational, and hence I could see them lobbing a nuke at Seoul or Tokyo, damn the consequences.

The good thing about nukes is that they lead to MADD and make wars less likely. The bad thing about nukes is they are controlled by humans, so an irrational act or simple accident is all but inevitable somewhere down the line.

It's more than Iraq. France has been very aggressive in forming the EU, which is solely to attempt to balance out the US, plus other areas of international disagreements, such as control over the internet and intellectual property - the areas where future disputes will come from.

I'm not trying to be arrogant here - the French are much much better at winning through diplomacy than we are. But they do have interests that run contrary to ours in many instances, and they do behave as an adversary quite often in diplomatic situations. We would be foolish to believe otherwise.

headhunt33:

It's more than Iraq. France has been very aggressive in forming the EU, which is solely to attempt to balance out the US, plus other areas of international disagreements, such as control over the internet and intellectual property - the areas where future disputes will come from.

Are you for real? The creation of the EU is a hostile act, and any nation involved should be treated accordingly? Your contention seems to be that anyone who dares to challenge, however peacefully, American hegemony in world affairs, is an enemy!! Perhaps Europe should just re-constitute herself as a US suzerainty? Would that be acceptable to you headhunt?

Well what I was saying is that nukes have helped hold the peace between stable, rational, industrialized nations. I wouldn't put N. Korea or Iran in to that category. Israel and Pakistan just about fit for now but they're on the edge (rationality in Israel's case, stability in that of Pakistan), and so have the potential to be the biggest threats to global peace in terms of triggering large scale conflicts.

As for all this crap about the French being 'hostile', jesus, grow up. They refuse to go in to Iraq and they're a bit sniffy about American culture so that makes them a potential enemy? In that case you'll need to add most of the world to your list including the population of the UK, if not its spineless government. It's a long way from being difficult and arrogant (the French and Americans have more in common than you think) to being hostile.

You're misunderstanding me.

The EU is constructed in large part as a European counter balance for US power. It is rather foolish to believe otherwise.

It isn't necessarily "hostile" but it can be - and at times has been - adversarial.

I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong - some things are a 0 sum game, and European countries can be reasonably expected to act in their own self interest. There can be only one reserve world currency, the internet has to be controled by someone. Trade disputes usually have a winner and a loser. The Europeans, to be able to better compete with the US on these issues, had to form the EU and because of US military power, they can't wage war so they have to compete diplomatically.

The EU's main purpose was to stop the Germans from trying to steal France's lunch money every five minutes. It may yet evolve in to a counter balance to the US but right now and for the foreseeable future that isn't the case; it's simply not cohesive enough and too mired in bureaucracy and internal squabbles over national self-interest to prove an equal of the US on the international stage. This has been exacerbated in recent years with the entry of strongly pro-US states from Eastern Europe, and the UK is still continuing its policy of the last 300 years of sticking a spanner in the European works whenever it looks like the French or Germans are getting their way, much to its amusement. Whether the EU will become a European state in the manner of the US, able to project military, diplomatic and economic power globally remains to be seen but my bet is that it will splinter apart before it reaches that stage. Rivalries going back 500 years or more don't get swept away in 50.