When you're talking about a total war scenario, the US is effectively unbeatable for a lot of reasons. Ignoring the amount we spend (much of which is wasted on graft and ineffective procurement), we hold the distinct advantage of geography. We're fully capable of building a war machine all by ourselves -- we have the raw materials, the industry, and most important of all: a several-thousand mile long buffer zone between the US and any potential enemy looking to disrupt production.
China is the only real rising threat, and even then, they have two or three decades of catching up to do. And ultimately, I'm not convinced there are any resources that China and the US both covet so much as to go to war with each other: both are large, geographically diverse countries with a wide range of natural resources. The Chinese also have very little to gain by a shooting war: they will naturally eclipse the US in a global economy in the next 100 years anyway, so why bother fighting a dangerous enemy on the battlefield when you have better economic weapons?
The future probably looks a lot more like Russia's takeover of Crimea (say, China decides its military is big enough to take over Taiwan). Until eventually one of the big powers decides that enough is enough and it becomes a shooting war. That's how both world wars started and how the next one will likely start as well.
The USSR tried to pursue a softer version of this strategy, often highlighting racial tensions in the U.S. and poor civil rights for Black People in the U.S. However, it really wasn't all that successful. It turns out despite poor conditions for many racial groups, a shared national identity wins out.
And it's not clear how much of that is present in China.
> If China wanted the US to suffer, they'd just create versions of ISIS for each minority group—persuasive ideologies that present violence as the only option—and watch as the country tears itself apart.
Two can play at that game. (Although the long-term consequences might be unpleasant, as the U.S. has learned about its support of Afghanistan's mujahideen after the U.S.S.R. invaded in 1979.)
All this talk of US income and wealth inequality... First of all, global inequality is falling. This is indisputable! Secondarily, the pie should be measured in actual consumption, not in income or wealth. Look at what Mark Zuckerberg consumes, not what he earns!
As much as all the "logical" and "rational thinking" folks in the world want to ignore and dismiss emotions and politics in decisions and actions, the truly rational thinking and logical decisions and actions understand, accept, and take into account emotions and politics.
I disagree; what one person hoards isn't available for others to consume. Both wealth and consumption are worth examining.
Savings \neq investments. It's been said that one reason the U.S. economy hasn't picked up as much as we'd like in the past few years is that gun-shy banks and corporations were sitting cash instead of investing it.
In theory the optimal economic policy is one that balances (1) creating incentives for investment against (2) encouraging demand for the products of that investment. The latter isn't a given, by the way: The "if you build it, they will come" notion that demand will always exist --- and, therefore, supply-side incentives for investors are supposedly all that's needed --- rests on the "no problem, we'll just assume we have a can opener" assumption that Homo economicus normally behaves rationally, with a view to optimizing his or her economic position. Those assumptions have been widely and, it seems to me, justly criticized (as the author of the post seems to agree).
How is this on Hacker News?
It's not very different from dossiers that (intelligence, financial, political) analysts write about different scenarios all the time. While the text does contain more emotional imagery and blog-style tag lines, you'll basically find the same content in many organizations' databases.
Personally I think there is at least some merit to the reasoning behind this specific scenario: the population of the West is beginning to reject the globalisation effects that have brought global peace but left many disadvantaged, while religious and ideological radicalism is sharply on the rise world-wide. As the intellectual level of discourse is declining, the influence of populist ideas is becoming ever greater. From a bird's eye perspective, it seems humanity overall is in the process of rejecting peace, science, and secularism in favor of short-sighted economic considerations and dubious promises.
Because of the domain name. And if that's not enough, look at the username.
Maybe I just don't see how bad things are from my little bubble, but the people I hear it from seem to be doing fine.
My guess is it's caused by consuming too much media, watching CNN or Fox News for too long seems to put fear into people.
bingo!
The abject refusal of the Left to even so much as attempt to understand this incipient uprising is shocking.
Of course, that's entirely expected. I doubt this is a criticism meant to weaken your resolve. Like most political posturing, it's not directed at the enemy, but at the home base. If it also strengthens the enemy's resolve that's just an added bonus.
> The abject refusal of the Left to even so much as attempt to understand this incipient uprising is shocking.
The article takes a decent stab at trying to understand your motivations. I would summarize them like this:
You feel your way of life is under attack, the very foundations of society are threatened by the erosion of religious morals. You feel that your nation, once destined for true and unique greatness, might become nothing but a weak and unrecognizable shadow in a larger political landscape. You feel that traditional roles of gender, class, and race, are becoming irrelevant, degrading society into a chaotic free-for-all where only the weak and perverted thrive, and poor people are getting a free ride. You feel that forces beyond your control are taking away your liberties while at the same time giving too many liberties to classes of people you don't like. You feel that education and science are unnaturally superseding righteous decisions made by people who simply know in their guts what's right and what's wrong. You feel you live in the unbroken tradition of like-minded and wise people who have endured through thousands of years, and now it's your generation's turn to keep this tradition alive, which is at this moment facing the greatest threat it has ever known.
Of course, this is a huge list of grievances, and you very likely don't share every single one of them. But your concerns are in there, right? If not, I'd be very eager to hear them!
https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/brexit-trump-and-the-ultim...
We are not human anymore. We are the crazies who put end to a planet much faster than any other animal can do. may be thats what human really means.
Find the planet faster which is immune from crazies Build those rockets quicker which can fly my kid to a safer place.
Brexit concluded (among other issues) that letting 28 un-elected commissioners decide EU law and preventing elected members of the European parliament (MEPs) from initiating new legislation or repealing existing law was not acceptable. As to removal of the governing body, unless I'm mistaken that's not possible. You can only vote for MEPs. Thus, UK citizens opted by a majority for control returned to Britain.
Was nationalistic xenophobia on display? Short answer, no! New research from ICM for British Future finds that 84% of the British public supports letting EU migrants stay – including three-quarters (77%) of Leave voters. Among Conservatives, support for protecting the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Europe is even higher at 85%, with 78% of UKIP supporters in agreement.
Aggrieved peoples within a trans-national entity may not contribute towards a recipe for a peaceable environment.
Political implementations may vary, but the world is driven by economy.
