The (gradual?) decline of American empire

93 comments on “The (gradual?) decline of American empire ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   6 October 2015 at 12:40 pm

   A wee while ago I read a piece on the demise of the British Empire. (Don’t ask me exactly what it was or where I read it). Anyway, what struck me – it was a collection of contemporary writings – was that the ascendant power and its peoples (the United States) were treated with mixtures of disdain, fear and ridicule etc – and I recall as I read reflecting on current attitudes on display with regards Chinese peoples and China.

   Anyways…
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     6 October 2015 at 12:49 pm

     Yep – or Tony Abbott wanting to “shirtfront” Putin. Madness.
     • greywarshark 1.1.1

       9 October 2015 at 9:53 pm

       Hey thank CV. I love Orlov. Good speaker and he sounds trustworthy and practical.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         9 October 2015 at 10:28 pm

         🙂 always welcome!
   • esoteric pineapples 1.2

     6 October 2015 at 2:09 pm

     I don’t think China will end up supplanting the US as the major power as it is based on the same expansionist model that won’t be able to exist in the most likely future of the planet which will require careful maintenance and nurturing of existing resources. The alternative is rapid expansion and even more rapid collapse (possibly involving a nuclear catastrophe) The global super-power model is essentially unsustainable. Same goes for the TTPA coporate expansionist model.
     • Bill 1.2.1

       6 October 2015 at 2:31 pm

       I’m inclined to agree.

       The market based economics that the British and US empires have been built on have kind of hit the wall. Coming decades are going to see any vestiges of such an economic model well and truly trashed by the impacts of climate change…or completely abandoned in an effort to avoid the impacts of climate change. (Any ratification of the TTPA would be suggestive of the former scenario playing out.)

       Maybe China’s possible or probable ascendancy might better be seen as the last puff of air going into a balloon that’s already burst?
       • marty mars 1.2.1.1

         6 October 2015 at 3:18 pm

         “The market based economics that the British and US empires have been built on have kind of hit the wall.”

         yep and that approach has had the benefit of using up most of the cheap findable fossil fuels, any future ascendant civilisation will not have that luxury.
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.2

       6 October 2015 at 3:02 pm

       I don’t think China will end up supplanting the US as the major power as it is based on the same expansionist model that won’t be able to exist in the most likely future of the planet which will require careful maintenance and nurturing of existing resources.

       China existed as a single sovereign state for a thousand years before the widespread use of fossil fuels (and market capitalism). Which suggests that after fossil fuels/market capitalism, they might be able to do it again.
       • McFlock 1.2.2.1

         6 October 2015 at 3:23 pm

         Indeed. Much of that time locked firmly within its own borders as the world changed around them. If you can be largely self-sufficient within your own borders, that lowers the incentive to consider “supplanting the US as the major power”.
         • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.1.1

           6 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

           interestingly, I think that both China and Russia are generally quite happy to let the US carry most of the burden of being the “world’s policeman.” Except in instances where their own regional and resource security is at stake, that is…
           • McFlock 1.2.2.1.1.1

             6 October 2015 at 3:48 pm

             yep.

             I’m honestly not sure whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but it’s certainly a canny thing.
           • lurgee 1.2.2.1.1.2

             9 October 2015 at 7:42 pm

             interestingly, I think that both China and Russia are generally quite happy to let the US carry most of the burden of being the “world’s policeman.” Except in instances where their own regional and resource security is at stake, that is…

             Obviously, that will change as they put more investment capital outside their borders. The USA used to be somewhat isolationist, you’ll recall. Expecting the Chinese and Russians to maintain a disinterested attitude when their money is at stake is the height of naivety.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 October 2015 at 8:12 pm

               did you not read the bit about

               “Except in instances where their own regional and resource security is at stake”?
               • lurgee …

                 10 October 2015 at 8:55 am

                 Did you not read the bit about “as they put more investment capital outside their borders”?

                 As that happens more and more (and it will have to as capital demands return and it can’t be sated domestically) then the Russians and Chinese will become more and more policemany.

                 Have you managed to find the source of the “arable land to support just 400 million” claim yet?
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   6 October 2015 at 1:12 pm

   NASA experts predict that by 2100 there will only be sufficient arable land left to feed 400M people.

   To clarify that:

   He says that the worst cases scenario projected by scientists is that the world will have enough arable land to support 400 million people.

   We presently have 7 billion people on the world. In other words, under the worst case scenario by the end of this century we’ll be able to support ~5% of our present population. And we’re probably on the path to that worst case scenario.

   That’s just climate change, we also have land degradation to consider.

   The rest of the world has already seen that “1) The United States is strategically inept and 2) Not the power it used to be. And the trend is to increase that.”

   It’s not so much that the US isn’t the power that it used to be, it actually is, it’s more that the rest of the world has realised that the US isn’t as powerful as they or the US thought. The world is learning that, even with it’s massive military budget, the US can’t project power around the world.

   It makes you wonder what the real purpose of a Pacific trade agreement which excludes the major economies of China and Russia, is.

   That was always obvious from the time that the US joined the TPP negotiations – it’s to try and keep the US as the top dog and receiving tribute from the rest of the world.
   • Colonial Viper 2.1

     6 October 2015 at 1:24 pm

     It’s not so much that the US isn’t the power that it used to be, it actually is,

     Really?

     Based on what?

     The US has destroyed/offshored most of its own industrial base, the very same industrial base which allowed it to come back and win WWII against Japan. Then they’ve replaced it with “industries” and “innovations” centred on manipulating financial digits.

     Further, they’ve let what in the 1950s was arguably the world’s best infrastructure and education system run down into the ground.

     They aren’t the power that they used to be.
     • maui 2.1.1

       6 October 2015 at 1:43 pm

       Orlov said this in a recent podcast on America offshoring jobs:

       Because you’re basically killing your own consumer. You’re destroying your base of operations, you may have some money but it’s now denominated by a country that is now defunct economically. So it’s like making a million shrinking dollars instead of making 100 dollars that hold their value. In the end it doesn’t really make sense at all.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2

       6 October 2015 at 1:48 pm

       Based on what?

       It’s military capability – it still researches, develops and produces it’s own weapons. Sure, it tried to shift to a full financial model but that has left them weaker as you say but it’s the overt military capability that has been rammed home to the world over the last two decades.
       • Bastables 2.1.2.1

         6 October 2015 at 3:05 pm

         It’s ability to develop and produce it’s own weapons competently can be called into question with the advent of cost overruns/incompetence in the F35’s and Zumwalt Destroyers.

         Even basic infantry weapons such as the assault rifle has seen units/corps variously selecting Beligian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR and German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416 takes on the M4 carbine allied with existentialist fears that they need to return to 7,62mm rounds resulting in marksman rifles and return to FN GMPG (70s). All while handwringing that they’re still using the same basic (abit shortened) rifle from the 1960s and struggling to find a replacement.

         The structural failures in finding replacements for planes, ships and even assault rifles is evident in the similar stories of cost overruns limited deployment and eventual regression to older known weapons such as Arleigh Burke-class destroyer to the venerable M4.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1.1

           6 October 2015 at 3:40 pm

           It’s ability to develop and produce it’s own weapons competently can be called into question with the advent of cost overruns/incompetence in the F35’s and Zumwalt Destroyers.

           That’s a good point. Crony Capitalism strikes again.
           • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1.1.1

             6 October 2015 at 4:29 pm

             As Sprey, one of the co-designers of the venerable F-16 said, the main mission of the F-35 is to transfer money from the Pentagon to defense contractors.
             • McFlock …

               6 October 2015 at 4:42 pm

               yeah – there have also been a couple of quiet scandals where generals and contractors used public funds and their offices to lobby the public to lobby legislators to support the F35.
         • McFlock 2.1.2.1.2

           6 October 2015 at 4:37 pm

           GAO’s also laid into the management of the construction of their latest CVN the Gerald Ford.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2

         6 October 2015 at 3:06 pm

         Huh?

         Where does almost half of the titanium the US requires for its advanced aerospace needs come from? Yep – Russia.

         How about where many major components of military systems are made? Yep – China. The new F-35 couldn’t fly without Chinese made parts.

         http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/03/us-put-china-made-parts-in-f-35-fighter-program.html
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.2.1

           6 October 2015 at 3:37 pm

           Where does almost half of the titanium the US requires for its advanced aerospace needs come from? Yep – Russia.

           And 95% of the Rare Earth Elements come from China. This despite the fact that all of them used to come from the US itself. The REE haven’t disappeared from the US – it just became ‘cheaper’ to import from China.

           How about where many major components of military systems are made?

           That’s amusing.

           The fact is that the US can make them from their present industrial capability.
           • marty mars 2.1.2.2.1.1

             6 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

             I find this interesting because everytime anyone says to you draco – “what about xyz” You say it could be done – without apparently understanding the time and complexities of being able to and actually doing it.

             If it takes abc amount of time to rebuild industries, technologies, expertise as well as the will and political ability to do it – shouldn’t that be foremost in the response rather than just ‘could’.

             For instance we could mine asteroids

             it may take us 50, 75, 100 years to be able to based upon the stuff mentioned in my second paragraph – and that’s not really mentioned the big one – resources and money.
             • weka …

               6 October 2015 at 4:19 pm

               +1 marty. There’s lots of things we could potentially do but in all likelihood won’t be able to because of time, natural limits, and the paradigms that most humans are working within.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 October 2015 at 4:31 pm

                 Yep there is a huge gulf between what could possibly be, and what likely will be. Looking at the trends in human society over the last couple of decades, I think we should definitely be tempering our optimism…
             • Draco T Bastard …

               6 October 2015 at 4:30 pm

               You say it could be done – without apparently understanding the time and complexities of being able to and actually doing it.

               I addressed the time factor – you seem to have missed it. The political will would most likely exist simply because the US politicians couldn’t possibly imagine that they wouldn’t have their high tech war toys.

               For instance we could mine asteroids

               it may take us 50, 75, 100 years to be able to based upon the stuff mentioned in my second paragraph – and that’s not really mentioned the big one – resources and money.

               2020s or somewhat later

               The resources and money are available – if the politicians tell the corporations to fuck off. Unfortunately, this probably won’t happen.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 October 2015 at 4:32 pm

                 Did you not see in my link…”the time factor” is exactly what led to Chinese components going into the F-35.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   6 October 2015 at 5:41 pm

                   A read of the article indicates that it was a mistake in the purchase of $2 magnets and a few other cheap and trivial items that could have been provided by US companies.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 October 2015 at 5:48 pm

                     a lot of trouble to go get a congressional vote for.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     6 October 2015 at 6:12 pm

                     It did break the law even though unintentionally according to the investigation and $10.8 million price tag to retrofit the existing magnets so the waiver was the cheaper option with the magnets being sourced in the US for the ones to be produced after the first batch.
                 • McFlock …

                   6 October 2015 at 5:45 pm

                   heh – only fair. F-35 schematics might have gone into one or two Chinese 5gen aircraft 🙂
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 October 2015 at 5:49 pm

                     Yep the Chinese are pricks when it comes to military espionage. That’s how they got their MIRV nuclear warhead designs…
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     6 October 2015 at 7:42 pm

                     Well, the rumours floating about are that Russian 5th gen planes are better anyway. And, of course, China reverse engineered Russia’s.
                   • McFlock …

                     6 October 2015 at 9:39 pm

                     lol that depends on whose rumours you listen to.
                     F35 has significant issues at the moment, but the F22 seems pretty solid.
     • Smilin 2.1.3

       6 October 2015 at 7:17 pm

       Blame the American Dream propaganda the decline started in the Vietnam war
     • savenz 2.1.4

       7 October 2015 at 4:51 pm

       I agree. In the US under Charter schools, excessive testing at the expense of creativity, poor nutrition and inaccessible health care, universities more about money and donations than brilliance and research, corrupt government that is paid for by lobbyists, it has made their population stupid and not able to adapt.

       The US have made stupid decisions. They are now trying to make a buck over these poor decisions by exporting the ideology to countries like NZ, where Dimwits like our current government are lapping it up. If you want the best educational outcomes look to the best countries like Finland, or indeed what we used to do in education in NZ.

       If you only care about money and not about the next generation of citizens – you will be in decline. Everything is about ‘short term’ gain.

       The sad thing, is that many politicians in the US recognise it, but can’t
       do anything about it as the obstacles as above are immense.

       Just watch their country wither (or expand into obesity) and decline. No wonder they now have to try to use technology and drones to fight, their own soldiers are to fat to fight and too stupid to actually hit the right targets. And too lazy to correct their mistakes like the continual rise of ‘friendly fire’ and now have to be careful they don’t end up in the Hague for war crimes. (of which many should be there now).
       • Lloyd 2.1.4.1

         7 October 2015 at 10:47 pm

         Actually if you look at long term profitability and long term corporate existence the neo-liberal model doesn’t work. So it is “if you only if you care about making a quick buck and not the next generation of citizens or shareholders”. If you care about money as something for fair exchange, you will reject the basis of the neo-liberal ideology.
   • weka 2.2

     6 October 2015 at 1:46 pm

     “We presently have 7 billion people on the world. In other words, under the worst case scenario by the end of this century we’ll be able to support ~5% of our present population. And we’re probably on the path to that worst case scenario.”

     Presumably the figures in CV’s quote are based on industrial agriculture. Regenerative and sustainable agricultures will probably be able to increase land fertility, including repairing land we have damaged.

     But yeah, population is still an issue.
     • maui 2.2.1

       6 October 2015 at 2:16 pm

       Orlov again on future agriculture in hour long interview:

       The energy inputs might be missing, that happened in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union a lot, is that they grew bumper crops but they didn’t have the fuel to harvest them. So a lot of the harvest rotted out in the field. That may happen. And then the basic problem is without all this energy, growing food becomes a non-mechanical proposition, which means people have to do it largely by hand, with animal assistance from horses and mules. And there has to be people who will actually do it. Mexican migrants are not going to do it. So, lots and lots of Americans will be out there growing their own food, that’s the only thing that can plausibly happen.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBPWvdu60OU
       • weka 2.2.1.1

         6 October 2015 at 2:21 pm

         which is why we’re lucky in NZ. It’s only been one generation since most people grew some of their own food, and there is a huge resurgence in younger people wanting to learn.

         Cuba is a good example as well. When oil imports stopped, people moved to localised food production. Half of all food eaten in Havana is grown in the city kind of thing.

         It’s about getting people to stop seeing mass fields of wheat and seeing small scale polyculture gardens (home and market). Not that we will stop monocrop grain production completely, but the more food we can grow in polyculture and locally the more resilient we will be in food.
         • Aaron 2.2.1.1.1

           6 October 2015 at 2:50 pm

           The difference in Cuba was they had strong central control and were able to distribute food equally while the change over to organic happened. Everyone lost weight for a while there but they got through it.

           I’ll leave it to you to figure out how our current ‘leaders’ would handle such a situation…
           • maui 2.2.1.1.1.1

             6 October 2015 at 3:18 pm

             Yeah that’s true, it looks like the Cuban Government was open minded at looking at genuine solutions to solve the food crisis, like offering citizens free land as long as they used it for food production. In NZ’s case we can look at how our Government has handled Christchurch if we want evidence of how they react during crisis. In other words, large top-down control, the rejection of innovative ideas and community decision making – looks a lot like a communist country doesn’t it, lol.
             • weka …

               6 October 2015 at 3:24 pm

               Our leaders might think differently if its their own children going hungry. Chch was a consequence of being a city under pressure while the rest of the country was well fed. It wasn’t a collapse or decline situation (although it may well lead the way in NZ once we’re all in that boat).
               • maui …

                 6 October 2015 at 3:59 pm

                 I don’t see our leaders thinking of the common man or woman anytime soon. Those in power will also have the privilege of having the best access to fuel/money left in the system too. I see Christchurch as localised collapse with the Government able to throw more resources at it than if the whole country was in trouble. I can see the existing system being desperately held onto, we can’t just have people growing food anywhere for instance. I think it would be safer to be in Cuba during such a time.
                 • weka …

                   6 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

                   Neither NZ nor Chch were in the situation that Cuba was though. Chch existing within a country that was still functioning according to capitalist norms. So it was ripe for disaster capitalism. If the people in Wgtn has been having to think about their own dinner plates, the situation might have been different.

                   It also depends on what you mean by leaders. In the context of the coming crises, the Green Party are leaders. The various people dotted around NZ that have been developping localised food systems without anyone’s permission are leaders. Likewise those developping sustainable agriculture. Likewise those working on systems of organising that are fair and resilient.

                   Key and his mates aren’t leaders, they’re power mongers. There’s a difference 😉 For sure if National were in power during a collapse it would be much harder. But I still think NZ is close enough to its cultural roots (Maori and Pakeha and other tau iwi) to be able to transition when it has to.

                   “Those in power will also have the privilege of having the best access to fuel/money left in the system too.”

                   True, and there are so many potential scenarios it’s hard to argue them out. I think money will be less of an issue than fuel, which is why we should be building resiliency around not having free and cheap access to oil/petrol. Not only because of the price, but because of who controls it.

                   For instance, if my neighbourhood grows most of its own food, we don’t need petrol to ship it to us. We can also have systems that use a higher level of tech than that, but we should lessen reliance on them as much as we can and build resiliency around the basics.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   6 October 2015 at 4:18 pm

                   +1
             • Draco T Bastard …

               6 October 2015 at 3:42 pm

               In other words, large top-down control, the rejection of innovative ideas and community decision making – looks a lot like a communist country doesn’t it, lol.

               Nope, it looks like a capitalist country. Top down, dictatorial control is always from a capitalist mindset.
           • weka 2.2.1.1.1.2

             6 October 2015 at 3:25 pm

             The difference in Cuba was they had strong central control and were able to distribute food equally while the change over to organic happened. Everyone lost weight for a while there but they got through it.

             I’ll leave it to you to figure out how our current ‘leaders’ would handle such a situation…

             Fair points, although I tend to think that NZers would just get on with it and start growing food sustainably anyway (granted that depends on quick a decline we go through).
         • savenz 2.2.1.1.2

           7 October 2015 at 4:52 pm

           +1 Weka.
   • Anne 2.3

     6 October 2015 at 3:09 pm

     It makes you wonder what the real purpose of a Pacific trade agreement which excludes the major economies of China and Russia, is.

     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. dave brown 3

   6 October 2015 at 1:53 pm

   Imperialism is a zero sum game. US decline is Russia and China’s rise.
   The TPPA won’t rescue the US but it will make sure that its “partners” carry most of the cost of this decline.
   Geopolitics is about bosses using workers to fight their battles.
   We have our own battle to fight and we need a united proletarian army including US, Russian and Chinese workers.
   Lets fight the Third World War as a class war and turn our guns on our bosses.

   http://redrave.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/usa-and-china-do-pacific-pivot.html
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     6 October 2015 at 3:13 pm

     The TPPA won’t rescue the US but it will make sure that its “partners” carry most of the cost of this decline.

     This is my reckoning as well.

     The western 0.1% have just ensured that the rest of us cushion life nicely for them over the next couple of decades.
     • marty mars 3.1.1

       6 October 2015 at 3:23 pm

       + 1 yep it is a straight fend to the face to create space for the elite to continue their selfish exploitative ways for a bit longer – if it works, it won’t work well – there is a reckoning coming…
4. One Anonymous Bloke 4

   6 October 2015 at 1:55 pm

   Kim Davis and Donald Trump certainly seem to think so.
5. McFlock 5

   6 October 2015 at 2:23 pm

   Collapse is defintely one way it could go, but also the US has had a relatively long period of supremacy (rather than just superiority). Long enough that many of its geopolitical mandarins have forgotten how to play with others, rather than dictate terms.

   The British Empire approached naval supremacy in the Jackie Fisher period, but great swathes of the globe were under the protection/rule (clients vs colonies) of other powers. What really fucked GB was war debt to the US. Now the US is indebted to China, while China and Russia are refocusing on expanding their spheres of influence (the former probably due to weakness in the US and the problems of AGW, the latter mostly for the sake of internal stability is my bet).

   The major problem for the US is that its investment in high-tech but obscenely expensive weapons systems (as a result of its own internal politics) will fail in the face of plentiful, cheapish and reasonably effective opposing systems. The Germans had a similar problem in WW2. And that’s if the F35 doesn’t turn into an expensive lemon.

   If China can maintain internal stability, then the best the US can hope for is to go back to 1930s-era great power game-playing. Worst case for the US is total economic and governmental collapse.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     6 October 2015 at 2:36 pm

     That outcome necessarily requires <2° of warming. Much more than that, well, "world power ain't what it used to be".
     • McFlock 5.1.1

       6 October 2015 at 2:47 pm

       Why do you think China’s buying up farmland across the globe?
       • shorts 5.1.1.1

         6 October 2015 at 2:53 pm

         if things get real bad ownership is only as good as your power to enforce said ownership

         cue guns
         • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1

           6 October 2015 at 3:17 pm

           That was largely Gwynne Dyer’s assessment, as well, only he seemed to bat more for the local rebels. I suppose the “winning” hit for the locals would be a scorched earth policy to make it unprofitable for the invader to stay and maintain their losses.

           edit: fuck – haven’t read his site in ages. I must play catchup.
         • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.2

           6 October 2015 at 3:17 pm

           On that point, some reckon China might have 3 aircraft carriers in the next 10 years…

           I see the things as highly sinkable boondoggles though.

           And China just leased 115,000 hectares of farmland from Russia…the Russians being more clever than us, we would just have sold it off…

           http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2015-07/09/content_21229700.htm
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.2.1

             6 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

             With an annual operating cost of $2-4 bn, no wonder they’re drowning in debt. Why sink them when you can just wait for the fire sale?
             • Colonial Viper …

               6 October 2015 at 4:33 pm

               and that’s how exactly the Chinese got their first aircraft carrier from the former USSR!!!
           • McFlock 5.1.1.1.2.2

             6 October 2015 at 3:38 pm

             Funnily enough, they can still be a bit hard to find.

             But yeah they’ve just gotten one online and are looking at two more in ten years (although the heat might be off what with the Indian carrier programme being dogs balls). And they’ve got a nice new plane to go on the carriers, too.
             • Colonial Viper …

               6 October 2015 at 5:33 pm

               One interesting detail is that the Chinese are still well behind on jet engine tech for their military planes – still having to rely on Russian engines for the best performance.

               Scary thing is, even commercial observation satellites these days have a potential optical resolution of 25cm or less. Of course, at that kind of resolution you can only see a window of approx 10km2.

               But set at a 10m resolution – more than enough to pick up a carrier or an escorting destroyer – a modern satellite can potentially survey tens of thousands of square kilometres of ocean in moments, day or night, in all weather conditions.
               • McFlock …

                 6 October 2015 at 5:53 pm

                 Well, yes and no – constant tracking requires ubiquitous surveillance, and there’s a distance factor between geostationary and the LEO most “spy” satellites operate at (that’s how they manage small resolution). So you’ve got a more complicated version of the old game of “peekaboo – quick duck to the right” in a decent-sized area.

                 Then there’s the difference between approximate and exact locations, so you might have a general area but tactically an attack is more difficult to finalise than against a fixed land target like a runway, especially after transit time by the attack platforms.

                 Anyway, offline for a couple of hours
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   6 October 2015 at 6:09 pm

                   Yep good points, and the moment the carrier group is aware an attack is underway they can engage in some pretty high speed evasive maneuvers.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2

         6 October 2015 at 2:57 pm

         To try and catch up, probably. The West had a head start after all.
         • McFlock 5.1.1.2.1

           6 October 2015 at 3:19 pm

           You don’t spend millions or billions just to “catch up” for the hell of it.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2.1.1

             6 October 2015 at 3:33 pm

             What makes you think a large country like the US or China will be viable enough to be a “power”? They’ll have enough problems maintaining their own infrastructure let alone ours.
             • shorts …

               6 October 2015 at 3:39 pm

               pretty much explains why China has never had a policy of expansion (outside of its sphere of influence), until recently one could argue they have enough on their hands maintaining what they have
             • McFlock …

               6 October 2015 at 3:42 pm

               Sorry, yeah, for a moment I forgot we’re all doomed. /sarc

               Funny thing about people – we managed to fight a war over nutmeg on the other side of the planet when all we had were wood boats and scurvy. The nature of the scraps might change, but the fight over them will last as long as people.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 6 October 2015 at 3:57 pm

                 Yes, I’m sure there’ll be fighting, more’s the pity. However, remote interests won’t so much be “doomed” as “marooned”.
                 • McFlock …

                   6 October 2015 at 4:27 pm

                   Meh. Six months in a leaky boat, and all that.
6. marty mars 6

   6 October 2015 at 2:38 pm

   Thanks cv

   of course JMG has also been writing of the collapse/gradual decline for many moons

   The decline and fall of a civilization isn’t a single event, or even a single linear process; it’s a complex fractal reality composed of many different events on many different scales in space and time. If it takes one to three centuries, as usual, those centuries are going to be taken up by an uneven drumbeat of wars, crises, natural disasters, and assorted breakdowns on a variety of time frames with an assortment of local, regional, national, or global effects. The collapse of US global hegemony is one of those events; the unraveling of the economic and technological framework that currently provides most Americans with electricity and running water is another, but neither of those is anything like the whole picture.

   …There are, very generally speaking, five broad phases in the decline and fall of a civilization. I know it’s customary in historical literature to find nice dull labels for such things, but I’m in a contrary mood as I write this, so I’ll give them unfashionably colorful names: the eras of pretense, impact, response, breakdown, and dissolution. Each of these is complex enough that it’ll need a discussion of its own; this week, we’ll talk about the era of pretense, which is the one we’re in right now.

   http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/the-era-of-pretense.html

   The series of essays he has written are worth a read.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     6 October 2015 at 3:21 pm

     Cheers for pointing to the great material at the archdruid report, MM!

     Of course, one of JMG’s most insightful points is that being an imperial vassal state has its costs – but also its benefits. NZ continues to get many benefits from being closely tied to the US block, but of course those benefits are disproportionately weighted towards the elite.
7. RedLogix 7

   6 October 2015 at 2:51 pm

   Great Post CV. Good to see you in the fray again.

   Personally I think we are at Peak Empire. In historic times an Empire might last a minimum of several hundred years and might well last several thousand with luck. But the last handful, the Spanish, French, British and American (being Eurocentric I accept) have all reached their peak and decline in notably shorter intervals.

   And while I think the Chinese will attain a real dominance – I doubt they will ever be seen as an uncontested unilateral power the way the Americans were. For no other reason than the fact that the world can longer support or tolerate empire in the conventional sense of the word.

   It’s reasonable to argue that we may well see the break up of the larger power blocs such as the USA, Russia and even China in the longer run. The world may well see more smaller nations of more comparable size and stature than at present.

   All this is consistent with my standing assertion that we are in the middle of a dramatic transition, away from the supremacy of dominant nation states and towards a federalised global governance. Combine this argument, with the simple facts that nuclear weapons render military hegemony virtually unsustainable and the exhaustion of free resources to plunder – and I argue that Empire is a dead letter.

   History may well ascribe something entirely unexpected to the notion of ‘American exceptionalism’ – they were the only Empire in history that was not overtaken by yet another. That in fact they gave way to something wholly new.
8. Ad 8

   6 October 2015 at 2:59 pm

   I have always enjoyed the Shell Scenarios because they seek to take a mix of energy, politics, internationalist dynamics, environment, social order, and other stuff into account, rather than say just climate change or just one country.

   They have being doing this kind of thinking for well over two decades now. I think they make a reasonable effort not to be normative, and have reasonable resource applied to this thinking rather than one author.

   Prior to 9/11 one of their scenarios proposed a strengthening global cohesion and strongly managed economic stability. After 9/11 that went out the window. At the moment they consider two kinds of scenario; go to the link for the more detailed analyses of current trends and their likely trajectories.

   The scenarios also highlight areas of public policy likely to have the greatest influence on the development of cleaner fuels, improvements in energy efficiency and on moderating greenhouse gas emissions.

   1. MOUNTAINS

   The first scenario sees a strong role for government and the introduction of firm and far-reaching policy measures. These help to develop more compact cities and transform the global transport network. New policies unlock plentiful natural gas resources – making it the largest global energy source by the 2030s – and accelerate carbon capture and storage technology, supporting a cleaner energy system.

   2. OCEANS

   The second scenario describes a more prosperous and volatile world. Energy demand surges, due to strong economic growth. Power is more widely distributed and governments take longer to agree major decisions. Market forces rather than policies shape the energy system: oil and coal remain part of the energy mix but renewable energy also grows. By the 2070s solar becomes the world’s largest energy source.

   http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/scenarios/new-lens-scenarios.html

   In this context it’s useful to contrast the successful TPPA (across I think 12 nations), with the upcoming Paris Climate Change talks. TPPA will be viewed in hindsight as either a building block to increased international cohesion that the global GATT couldn’t cope with …
   …or, if Paris fails, TPPA will be seen as a hyper-commercialised limit to international law-making which was only possible with massive commercial force applied.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     6 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

     New policies unlock plentiful natural gas resources – making it the largest global energy source by the 2030s – and accelerate carbon capture and storage technology, supporting a cleaner energy system.

     We can’t afford to burn those gas supplies and we probably don’t have the energy available to run carbon capture. By the 2030s the entire world needs to be off fossil fuels.

     Reads like the wishlist of a hydrocarbon selling company.
     • marty mars 8.1.1

       6 October 2015 at 4:16 pm

       yep – at least they’ve fucked off from the arctic for the time being.
     • Ad 8.1.2

       6 October 2015 at 5:06 pm

       Have a look at the full thing. Take a moment.

       If someone wants to stretch their legs on the decline of the state, of the idea of policy, and the rise of the interests of the corporation, they will see why thinking through the interests of a top 10 corporation makes as much sense as looking through the lens of the interests of the USA.
9. joe90 9

   6 October 2015 at 3:05 pm

   The perils of the concentrated wealth and power of elites – and intolerant Christians.

   http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/02/mary-beard-why-ancient-rome-matters
   • timbo 9.1

     6 October 2015 at 9:50 pm

     Good article, thanks joe90. Not quite sure where intolerant Christians came into it, though? Is that a reference derived from the spite of Edward Gibbon (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/06/the-perniciously-persistent-myths-of-hypatia-and-the-great-library)?
     • joe90 9.1.1

       6 October 2015 at 10:23 pm

       If I recall my fourth form Latin correctly the beliefs of Christianised invaders from the west and emperor appointed bishops of Rome who eventually took over the shop didn’t really fit with the pagan systems of running an empire.
10. Smilin 10

    6 October 2015 at 5:52 pm

    The interest in colonizing Mars is a reference in stupidity as it represents the demise of this planet that will come so long as fuckwits (kiwifruits according to Google) like Key run the country
    the article is a very sane view of reality, that you would have to be a moron not to accept it which is what we are getting from this Key dick and his edicts
    The land of milk and honey will be no more as we accept these corporat (Google cant change that one) stooges replacing our democracy and sanity with their bs
    Get a brain Kiwis this is a totalitarian regime run by corporations, that plunder the shit out of every place on this earth and leave them stripped of their sustainability and resources, it is the height of this hypocrisy and stupidity that runs this country and its what weve signed up to with this TPPA
    • ropata 10.1

      6 October 2015 at 7:56 pm

      +1
11. lurgee 11

    6 October 2015 at 8:45 pm

    NASA experts predict that by 2100 there will only be sufficient arable land left to feed 400M people.

    Is this a real thing that real NASA experts have said or is it made up?

    It smells suspiciously like the latter. At best, I’m betting it is a wild exaggeration of a Most Extreme Worst Case Scenario.
12. Psycho Milt 12

    6 October 2015 at 9:10 pm

    It’s always fun to see wishful thinking developed into such an elaborate construct.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1

      6 October 2015 at 9:45 pm

      Murphy’s Law plus serendipity make a stopped clock tell the time: be careful what you wish for.
    • cogito 12.2

      6 October 2015 at 9:48 pm

      Seems to me that this post is really just a thinly veiled promo for China.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1

        6 October 2015 at 9:57 pm

        If this is the best promo China can muster there’s a chasm in the market.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS