| > You’re probably overestimating the network effects of perceived morality and underestimating the effects of being by far the most powerful nation since 1945. I am? What basis do you have for saying that? Do you have expertise in this field? Do you know more about it than I do? The US has been the sole superpower only since the Soviet Union imploded in the early 1990s. The US led and leads an alliance based on shared values; NATO is arguably the strongest, largest, and IIRC the longest-lasting military alliance in history. Note that the US is a great ally even of the countries it defeated in war, Japan and Germany, probably because it gave them their freedom rather than pillage and destroy them. There is zero threat of betrayal and war between NATO allies - France and Germany will never fight, something that never happened before. The people with expertise say that shared values create strong, long-lasting alliances that can change and move relatively rapidly and with flexibility. For example, imagine the response to Ukraine if there weren't shared values about democracy, soveriegnty, and appeasement of dictators - those baseline beliefs enabled a rapid response. It's the people without expertise who like to imagine that amorality is more 'hardcore' and 'real'; somehow it's trendy to insist that humans must be sociopaths, despite abundent evidence to the contrary. > If China doesn’t implode and becomes way more powerful than the United States, we will lose most of our allies regardless of popular opinion. That's not how international relations typically work. Usually, if one country becomes much more powerful, the others ally with each other against the power in order to balance it. The US is unusual in that the other powers allied with them. But again, what basis is there for your claim? |