Editorial: The Decline and Fall of the American Empire - Polidicks

[url]http://www.thenation.com/article/156851/decline-and-fall-american-empire[/url] [quote]A soft landing for America 40 years from now? Don’t bet on it. The demise of the United States as the global superpower could come far more quickly than anyone imagines. If Washington is dreaming of 2040 or 2050 as the end of the American Century, a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends suggests that in 2025, just 15 years from now, it could all be over except for the shouting. Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003. Future historians are likely to identify the Bush administration’s rash invasion of Iraq in that year as the start of America's downfall. However, instead of the bloodshed that marked the end of so many past empires, with cities burning and civilians slaughtered, this twenty-first century imperial collapse could come relatively quietly through the invisible tendrils of economic collapse or cyberwarfare. But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest. Available economic, educational, and military data indicate that, when it comes to US global power, negative trends will aggregate rapidly by 2020 and are likely to reach a critical mass no later than 2030. The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, will be tattered and fading by 2025, its eighth decade, and could be history by 2030. Significantly, in 2008, the US National Intelligence Council admitted for the first time that America's global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its [URL="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175113/Michael_Klare_the_great_superpower_meltdown"]periodic futuristic reports[/URL] [2], [I]Global Trends 2025[/I], the Council [URL="http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html"]cited[/URL] [3] “the transfer of global wealth and economic powernow under way, roughly from West to East" and "without precedent in modern history,” as the primary factor in the decline of the “United States' relative strength—even in the military realm.” Like many in Washington, however, the Council’s analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the US would long “retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally” for decades to come. No such luck. Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world's second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation. By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire. It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington's last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China's global network of communications satellites, backed by the world's most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe. Wrapped in imperial hubris, like Whitehall or Quai d'Orsay before it, the White House still seems to imagine that American decline will be gradual, gentle, and partial. In his State of the Union address last January, President Obama [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address"]offered[/URL] [4] the reassurance that “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.” A few days later, Vice President Biden [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302913.html"]ridiculed[/URL] [5] the very idea that “we are destined to fulfill [historian Paul] Kennedy's prophecy that we are going to be a great nation that has failed because we lost control of our economy and overextended.” Similarly, writing in the November issue of the establishment journal [I]Foreign Affairs[/I], neo-liberal foreign policy guru Joseph Nye [URL="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66796/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-future-of-american-power"]waved away[/URL] [6] talk of China's economic and military rise, dismissing “misleading metaphors of organic decline” and denying that any deterioration in US global power was underway. Ordinary Americans, watching their jobs head overseas, have a more realistic view than their cosseted leaders. An opinion poll in August 2010 [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38996574/ns/politics/"]found[/URL] [7] that 65% of Americans believed the country was now “in a state of decline.” Already, [URL="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Australia-China-Conduct-Live-Fire-Naval-Exercise-in-Yellow-Sea-103780194.html"]Australia[/URL] [8] and [URL="http://www.acus.org/natosource/new-questions-about-turkeys-secret-military-exercise-china"]Turkey[/URL] [9], traditional US military allies, are using their American-manufactured weapons for joint air and naval maneuvers with China. Already, America's closest economic partners are backing away from Washington's opposition to China's rigged currency rates. As the president flew back from his Asian tour last month, a gloomy [I]New York Times[/I] headline [URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/12/gergen.america.economy/?hpt=Sbin"]summed the moment up[/URL] [10] this way: “Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage, China, Britain and Germany Challenge US, Trade Talks With Seoul Fail, Too.” Viewed historically, the question is not whether the United States will lose its unchallenged global power, but just how precipitous and wrenching the decline will be. In place of Washington's wishful thinking, let’s use the National Intelligence Council's own futuristic methodology to suggest four realistic scenarios for how, whether with a bang or a whimper, US global power could reach its end in the 2020s (along with four accompanying assessments of just where we are today). The future scenarios include: economic decline, oil shock, military misadventure, and World War III. While these are hardly the only possibilities when it comes to American decline or even collapse, they offer a window into an onrushing future.[/quote] tl;dr. Go to the link for the full story. Kind of a disconcerting thought though.

This article changed all significant history of America forming into, becoming, and being a democracy. It is now an empire. [img]http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/052/812/original/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif?1275684729[/img]

America is an empire, no matter how you look at it.

[quote]America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation.[/quote] Not my fault, don't look at me. I blame Disney personally, fucking Bieber fans and god damn Hilary Duff and shit.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26564466]This article changed all significant history of America forming into, becoming, and being a democracy. It is now an empire. [/QUOTE] The US, especially with Bush, were quite imperialistic in a stretch of the definition - intervening in foreign affairs for their own interests.

:frog:

[QUOTE=faze;26564475]America is an empire, no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say "it's an empire", but I would say it has heavy imperialistic tendencies.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26564484]Yeah, because America is just going to roll up into a ball and fall over.[/QUOTE] That's kind of how things are turning out. Read the article. You can't just say "That could never happen to America..." America isn't full of rainbows and sunshine. [editline]8th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564504]I wouldn't say "it's an empire", but I would say it has heavy imperialistic tendencies.[/QUOTE] Fair enough.

[QUOTE=faze;26564507]That's kind of how things are turning out. Read the article. You can't just say "That could never happen to America..." America isn't full of rainbows and sunshine. [editline]8th December 2010[/editline] Fair enough.[/QUOTE] I read the article differently and restated my position, we're basically pulling a Britain right now.

[quote]By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists.[/quote]I like this sentence (I am in engineering)

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564504]I wouldn't say "it's an empire", but I would say it has heavy imperialistic tendencies.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's an empire, just not by the old definitions of running countries that it has conquered. America practices high levels of interference and cultural imperialism, amongst other things, which in my eyes (And the eyes of many others) an Empire in all but name.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;26564534]I'd say it's an empire, just not by the old definitions of running countries that it has conquered. America practices high levels of interference and cultural imperialism, amongst other things, which in my eyes (And the eyes of many others) an Empire in all but name.[/QUOTE] But, not a true empire.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;26564534]I'd say it's an empire, just not by the old definitions of running countries that it has conquered. America practices high levels of interference and cultural imperialism, amongst other things, which in my eyes (And the eyes of many others) an Empire in all but name.[/QUOTE] Agreed, but because it's not conquering per se, I would rather say it's "imperialistic" than "it's an empire". Just a personal choice of words, either way though. Basically all the same and agreement.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564490]The US, especially with Bush, were quite imperialistic in a stretch of the definition - intervening in foreign affairs for their own interests.[/QUOTE] While I do see where you are coming from, the problem in lies with the fact that, sure, we may have "leaders", but not one person is held above everyone else and has infinite power over the citizens, like an empire. At least I think that's what an empire is, I might be dead wrong.

[QUOTE=faze;26564546]But, not a true empire.[/QUOTE] It is an empire. Why would you say it's not a true empire then?

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26564564]While I do see where you are coming from, the problem in lies with the fact that, sure, we may have "leaders", but not one person is held above everyone else and has infinite power over the citizens, like an empire. At least I think that's what an empire is, I might be dead wrong.[/QUOTE] That's the "truest" form of an empire. But nations can be very strongly imperialistic to the point of "being an empire" with out an actual emperor. Like the British Empire, for example. And even then, the US isn't necessarily like the British Empire either as we don't govern colonies that we consume up. British Empire was part of the "new imperialism", as a nation, opposed to an emperor, rules over other nations. But in today, what I would say is "new new imperialism" is where nations intervene heavily in the affairs of other nations while letting them keep their independence and sovereignty. Instead of a nation telling another "You go do this", America says "I strongly [I]suggest[/I] you do this".

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564589]That's the "truest" form of an empire. But nations can be very strongly imperialistic to the point of "being an empire" with out an actual emperor. Like the British Empire, for example. And even then, the US isn't necessarily like the British Empire either as we don't govern colonies that we consume up. British Empire was part of the "new imperialism", as a nation, opposed to an emperor, rules over other nations. But in today, what I would say is "new new imperialism" is where nations intervene heavily in the affairs of other nations while letting them keep their independence and sovereignty. Instead of a nation telling another "You go do this", America says "I strongly [I]suggest[/I] you do this".[/QUOTE] And backs it up with threats/bribery, so it amounts to the same thing. Or, they put in place their own favoured leader/group and damn the consequences. Anyone remember how the Taliban was concieved?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564589]That's the "truest" form of an empire. But nations can be very strongly imperialistic to the point of "being an empire" with out an actual emperor. Like the British Empire, for example. And even then, the US isn't necessarily like the British Empire either as we don't govern colonies that we consume up. British Empire was part of the "new imperialism", as a nation, opposed to an emperor, rules over other nations. But in today, what I would say is "new new imperialism" is where nations intervene heavily in the affairs of other nations while letting them keep their independence and sovereignty. Instead of a nation telling another "You go do this", America says "I strongly [I]suggest[/I] you do this".[/QUOTE] So, you're basically saying is that being a superpower is now the equivalent of an empire? [editline]8th December 2010[/editline] As a side note, does anyone find it ironic that we're talking about empires and there is someone with the username Emperor Scorpious replying?

For those who aren't bright enough to read the article, this isn't the Fall of America, it's the fall of their global foothold across the world. Right now the US has military bases in over 70 different countries to have a global influence, these will probably disappear and America will become isolated to the states.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26564695]So, you're basically saying is that being a superpower is now the equivalent of an empire?[/QUOTE] The definition of a superpower does not include "interfere with the affairs of other nations", it only means you are very powerful. [QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26564695][editline]8th December 2010[/editline] As a side note, does anyone find it ironic that we're talking about empires and there is someone with the username Emperor Scorpious replying?[/QUOTE] You should listen to what I say, I'm an expert :smug:

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26564770]For those who aren't bright enough to read the article, this isn't the Fall of America, it's the fall of their global foothold across the world. Right now the US has military bases in over 70 different countries to have a global influence, these will probably disappear and America will become isolated to the states.[/QUOTE] Man do I hope so.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;26564695]So, you're basically saying is that being a superpower is now the equivalent of an empire?[/QUOTE] If you break it down, the US is an empire. As far as I'm aware all of your presidents have come from upper class families, who basically only get president because they have money. If yu consider their imperialistic tendencies, they consititute everything that makes an empire.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26564770]For those who aren't bright enough to read the article, this isn't the Fall of America, it's the fall of their global foothold across the world. Right now the US has military bases in over 70 different countries to have a global influence, these will probably disappear and America will become isolated to the states.[/QUOTE] Meh, I hope that'll be the extent of it. That needs to happen anyway. We have our noses in too much shit right now.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26564837]If you break it down, the US is an empire. As far as I'm aware all of your presidents have come from upper class families, who basically only get president because they have money.[/QUOTE] You're almost right about that. [img]http://www.warof1812.ca/image/jackson.jpg[/img] Almost.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;26564968]You're almost right about that. [img_thumb]http://www.warof1812.ca/image/jackson.jpg[/img_thumb] Almost.[/QUOTE] He came from lower classes...and rose to conquer various Amerindian tribes as well as prefer to be called "General Jackson", opposed to "Mr. President" while in office.

I'd like to see sources for all the bullshit referenced to in the article. I am sick of all these nutjobs and European children thinking that the big bad [B]American EMPIRE[/B] will collapse like its some sort of video game. This is 2010, not the 18th century. [editline]8th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26564837]If you break it down, the US is an empire. [B]As far as I'm aware all of your presidents have come from upper class families, who basically only get president because they have money.[/B] If yu consider their imperialistic tendencies, they consititute everything that makes an empire.[/QUOTE] This is not true at all.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;26564968]You're almost right about that. [img_thumb]http://www.warof1812.ca/image/jackson.jpg[/img_thumb] Almost.[/QUOTE] Sorry, the last guy to be president who was poor, was president over 150 years ago. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564991]He came from lower classes...and rose to conquer various Amerindian tribes as well as prefer to be called "General Jackson", opposed to "Mr. President" while in office.[/QUOTE] I like this.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;26564968]You're almost right about that. [img_thumb]http://www.warof1812.ca/image/jackson.jpg[/img_thumb] Almost.[/QUOTE] That was before corporations bought the elections.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564991]He came from lower classes...and rose to conquer various Amerindian tribes as well as prefer to be called "General Jackson", opposed to "Mr. President" while in office.[/QUOTE] Well now no one has to go to Wiki, I guess. [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26565025]Sorry, the last guy to be president who was poor, was president over 150 years ago.[/QUOTE] Not really, there have been quite a few presidents that achieved their status coming from middle or lower class families. I'm fairly certain President Obama also came from a single-parent family with a small income, just as Jackson did.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26565011]I'd like to see sources for all the bullshit referenced to in the article. I am sick of all these nutjobs and European children thinking that the big bad [B]American EMPIRE[/B] will collapse like its some sort of video game. This is 2010, not the 18th century. [editline]8th December 2010[/editline] This is not true at all.[/QUOTE] Recline, not collapse. It' not saying America is going to fracture into a bunch of third world countries.