[brilliantcode]

Read the article and it made me think about just how long the US hegemony will last, it's array of tools deployed against the rest of humanity is vast:

- It blackmails the rest of the globe with the biggest nuclear deterrence across land, sea, air and probably space.

- It ensures trading routes remain open by muscling American naval and air superiority. Not to benefit others or play fair, it's there to benefit American interests.

- It actively undermines and spies under 3 letter acronyms, including it's own citizens and allies to benefit American corporarchy [1]

- It consistently outspends the rest of the world combined on it's military upkeep which guarantees it's #1 postion.

Just how long on earth will such superficially-democratic superpower maintain it's hegemony? It's like holding everyone hostage and telling them to trade with each other by selling their own clothing or body with the US taking a cut on every transaction.

This is fucked.

[1]: http://amslang.enacademic.com/2064/corporarchy

[stonogo]

Your invective borders on hysterical and does not encourage anyone to believe that engaging with you on this topic will be productive.

If you don't like downvotes, feel free to post this to a web forum that doesn't implement them.

[cstross]

You're American, aren't you?

It's perfectly normal human behaviour to assume that one's own country's motivations and activities are benevolent and effective. However, the picture looks very different to folks living outside the magic circle of the national border.

Those of us on HN who are not Americans find the giant sprawling US intelligence-industrial complex to be potentially terrifying — especially in view of the USA's demonstrated ability to extradite or kidnap (via extraordinary rendition) people it assumes to be hostile, and in extremis to target people for assassination by flying killer robot. It's the sort of capability that, in the hands of a Doctor Doom figure, or just a corrupt megalomaniac -- as opposed to the erudite, contemplative, great-hearted, and scholarly President of the United States of America who we all know and love -- would be the making of a dystopian novel or a superhero comic. (But of course, that would never happen.)

[stonogo]

I'm mortified by many things in my government, and I actively work to improve them. You may note I didn't disagree with him... or you may not, because you seem to be acting like I did.

The OP seemed genuinely upset that nobody wanted to engage him on the topic, and angry that he was getting downvoted, so I tried to help him understand why people might just downvote and move on.

Sorry if that caused you inconvenience.

[dan7678]

As one of the other comments makes clear, it's a matter of perspective. The ones that benefit always see it in a pretty light, regardless of whether the rest of the world absolutely hates it. If you insist for someone's words to be tailored to be lovey-dovey or the kind you'd expect from the pretty-light side, then don't read criticism because it'll always sound "invective" to you.

[stonogo]

Thanks for making an account to explain internet comments to me. This website is generally squarely centered on the silicon valley perspective. It's not irrational to expect people to react from that viewpoint. If you want to engage in productive dialogue, it helps to tailor your communications to the audience. It's possible to do so without compromising your values.

[dan7678]

Since you seek to genuinely help the follow and now apparently me, I would reckon you take internet comments quite seriously, so you're welcome. Naturally, this particular topic is touchy for both sides here, so it's just as irrational to expect him to dress it up without feeling what a potential respondent would feel if the original poster had an invective tone. It's hard, and I don't blame him for delivering it like that.

[brilliantcode]

The value I got from reading your comment was nil. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, why do you contradict yourself by replying?

[ChuckMcM]

Except they aren't facts, certainly not as presented.

Consider, you state: "blackmails the rest of the globe with nuclear deterrence"

Blackmail is the threat to expose something the victim doesn't want to see exposed, in exchange for some price or service. Nuclear deterrence, is just that, deterrence. Meaning to mitigate (or deter) an adversary from attacking.

"it ensures trading routes remain open" -- all nations with navies protect legitimate trade from pirates, there are ships from at least a half dozen navies protecting cargo from Somali pirates for example.

The US uses its intelligence agencies to undermine the constitution in the service of corporate interests [paraphrased, if you don't agree feel free to correct my interpreatation] -- The US certainly doesn't do this as a matter of policy, if you know of a different policy it would help your case to actually include it as a citation.

"it outspends the rest of the world on defense" -- In terms of real dollars or in terms of percentage of GDP? The last time I checked as a percentage of GDP, Israel outspent everyone else but I haven't looked in a while. There is also an economic size effect here, the US spends more (in real dollars) than any other country on social programs as well (for example). You probably want to stick to per capita numbers though if you're doing nation-state comparisons.

There are lots of things you can say about the US that are both facts, and make the country look bad, but the choices you made aren't facts so they have a hard time persuading the reader of your 'hegemony' thesis.

[brilliantcode]

So who bombed Hiroshima?

which oil rich part of the world do you think they were raining bombs from aircraft carriers?

Who spies on US allies and their corporations to benefit American ones?

Who spends more than the US on the military?

[stonogo]

You seemed disturbed that you were being downvoted. I tried to explain why people would choose to do that instead of engaging with you on the topic.

I'm not responsible for whether or not you choose to extract value.

[stagbeetle]

I don't have the ability to downvote, so I'll chime in with my own view.

I think it's just the way the world works and if it wasn't the U.S being up there it would be another country (U.K, Russia, China) that do awful things because they could get away with it. Plus, add in the obligatory "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It's a terrible situation, but what do you suppose an effective alternative is? Because cooperating and "compromise" have never been the most beneficial for both parties.

[willholloway]

"It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak."

- George Orwell, You and the Atomic Bomb

[stagbeetle]

Then we are in luck.

The age of steel and combustion is coming to a close and being succeeded by that of silicon and electricity.

The more heavily a country relies on such things, the easier it will be for weak to gain claws through programming.

[willholloway]

I think you can look at the alleged Russian hacking of Podesta's emails and the subsequent releases as an example of that perhaps.

But I wouldn't hold out too much hope for an outpouring of democracy and more equitable relations between individuals and states in an age of total global electronic surveillance. That is a weapon that is extremely expensive, complex and singular.

Count me pessimistic, Orwell continues:

"We were once told that the aeroplane had ‘abolished frontiers’; actually it is only since the aeroplane became a serious weapon that frontiers have become definitely impassable. The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and co-operation; it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another.

The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.

For forty or fifty years past, Mr. H. G. Wells and others have been warning us that man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants or some other gregarious species to take over. Anyone who has seen the ruined cities of Germany will find this notion at least thinkable.

Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham's theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications — that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors."

[gonzo]

> The age of steel and combustion is coming to a close and being succeeded by that of silicon and electricity.

and biology. Bio-weapons will be cheap and effective.

[xherberta]

"Information, as a source of national power, is now the most precious staple, resource, and commodity: information is not only a means of waging war, but the stakes of war...

"The lesson of the first Gulf War: ...military success would now depend on mastering the electro-magnetic spectrum and the information and telecommunications media it supports."

http://www.enculturation.net/martial-mcluhan

[dan7678]

Thank you, this was brilliant.

[brilliantcode]

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Seems like any criticism of America on HN lately is automatically receiving drive by downvotes.

All colonialism is inherently evil. I guess you are saying the US is the "lesser evil" which I tend to agree.

I have no idea what the alternative is, I'm just writing what I observe based on facts that this article reminded me of.

[stagbeetle]

Then if I may criticise you, people don't appreciate others complaining without offering a solution to the problem.

[galtwho]

I think his criticism is directed at the inference that USA is benevolent.