[FpUser]

>"US hegemon is required for global stability"

This is laughable. The US initiated way too many wars and other offensive / disruptive actions. If you call this stability then I have a bridge to sell. The only stability it provides is it's own. Well maybe some to the allies.

[throwaway6734]

The US Navy ensures that global shipping routes stay open and safe, the US economy provides the globe with advanced technological research and products, and the US's natural resources allow for it to export tons of commodities including food and energy.

During pax americana, we've seen massive increases in quality of life around the world. Do you think the world is going to be more stable as the US retreats and other players fill the power vacuum and we have to deal with the rising threat of climate change?

[FpUser]

I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance. This will insure competition and cooperation between our "masters" and will keep them on their toes.

[throw0101a]

> I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance.

Until one thinks they can get an edge over another one by jumping them:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_c...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_p...

[FpUser]

Major players going to war with each other means mutually assured destruction. I do not think they will.

[throwaway6734]

Yes but proxy wars are going to be brutal.

[FpUser]

I do not want to argue too much here. Here is my point of view - I believe that a single country controlling the world will end up with dictatorship on a world scale. It will not prevent wars either. If instead we have few majors they might actually get to their senses and establish some workable order.

You have your own take on a subject and we do not have to agree

[_-david-_]

When there are multiple major players conflicts between them often occur.

[FpUser]

I appreciate your desire for the world to be ruled by the US. I do not think the rest of the world will agree. And if you enforce it using military means you are no better then the rest. Are you American by any chance?

[_-david-_]

I think if the choice is China or America, the majority of the world would choose America. America is less hostile to other countries than China.

Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?

I assume you are going to claim that we can either have no major power or that the EU could be that major power. I highly doubt either of those could occur.

I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just. The idea that military use has to be bad is ridiculous.

[FpUser]

Replying here since reply to your last post is not available.

>"Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?"

I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone.

>"I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just."

Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?

[_-david-_]

>Replying here since reply to your last post is not available.

Typically when that happens I have to click the time posted on a post and then I have the option to reply. Not sure what causes that.

>I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone.

I don't think that is possible.

Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time when there were multiple major powers but they were so far away they couldn't reach the other, assuming they even knew the other existed.

If you do not have any examples of this occurring, why do you think it would work in the present?

>Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?

I am not suggesting that the US has only done good and just things. Only that the US is better than China.

China is currently taking over Hong Kong (despite having a 50 year agreement for autonomy starting in 1997), attempting to take land from India, trying to dam a river that provides water to India, is consistently threatening Taiwan, etc. China does the same crap. And all of that is within the last few years. If you want to go back further we can.

I would also note several of the US invasions were not in fact US invasion but NATO invasions. This likely means one of those blocks of country you support to be a world power were involved with these invasions.

Let's talk about internal affairs. China has a terrible record and potentially holds the record for causing the most deaths of its own citizens. Obviously they don't care about the people. What about freedom? Do Chinese citizens have more freedom than US citizens? Why would China treat people who are not its own citizens better than the citizens?

The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China.

[FpUser]

>"The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China"

Once again you are pushing a choice that should not be there in a first place. I do not want to choose between either. Period. If you let any country run free and control the others it will devolve to a dictator. So I prefer to have the US, Europe, China, BRICS and whatever else is coming.

[wholien]

a multipolar world means more instability and wars, though. When you say it will "insure competition", that means conflict for sure.

[FpUser]

Conflict does not have to be military. I do not think the US looking forward to attack Russia or China for example.

Non military conflicts could be better than being poodle under the threat of war which will happen if the world is ran by a single country