There was a thread recently entitled US-The Evil Empire which made for some interesting reading, plus some utter crap too of course. But it got me thinking.
I don’t think anyone seriously disputes the notion that the US is the most powerful military force in the world and, relatively, extremely rich too, which combine to make the US very influential in the world at the moment (whether it chooses to use that influence is a different matter). In the past there have been many empires and countries whose power and influence have risen and then fallen. Will this happen to the US? What could be considerede likely to be the downfall of the US? How is it likely to come about? If it won’t arise (in your opinion), why not? Has the US learned lessons from history which lead it to believe that it is immune to relegation from the top spot?
I have no preconceived ideas about this subject, but history does tend to suggest that it will not last indefinitely.
(Oh, and I’m not really interested in ideas involving aliens and the like)
In my humble, and thoroughly ignorant opinion, the downfall of the States is not at all likely. There are no Gauls to smash our temples, nothing that can convievably bring about our demise, save for another Great Depression, coupled with a few bad leaders. Our population is too apathetic and complacent to care about bad leaders in our current economic state, but given a crisis like the 30s… It could happen. It’s just not likely.
Another thought I’m juggling through my grey matter is a possible conglomeration of a whole bunch of nations into one super-nation (think one-world government, only maybe a few states, like Iran, want to be left out). That’ll certainly spell the end of the US; absorbtion into a union of some sort.
As for our influence, I believe that we’ll possibly fall to China and maybe the European Union. China’s rising quickly in the world market, and the Union’s gaining members. Eventually, these two will be as able to exert influence as we are. We’ll still be a major contender, however, when my grand-children die. The two above-mentioned scenarios could spell our end, but neither are likely, in my opinion.
I don’t think the ‘downfall’ of the US is likely - we don’t live in that sort of era any more, bu that’s not the same question as whether it will remain a dominant force in global politics.
The British Empire and the Soviet Union both lost influence and power but neither collapsed in the same way that empires of old did.
One of the few things that we can learn from history is that nothing stays the same, so if US hegemony does continue the country will have to adapt. The current isolationist attitude doesn’t look like contributing too much, and this just seems like the current symptom of a long trend of most Americans not caring about events outside their own country.
I agree that the main threats to US dominance are the EU and China. The former will have comparative economic and military strength but a broader cultural base - whether this will help or hinder it is hard to say.
I suppose American cultural dominance will continue only as long as other countries feel they need it. Once anything useful has been absorbed from US culture, and people get tired of the ubiquity of US brand stores, its influence will fade like any other trend.
What I said was that the Soviet Union didn’t collapse in the same way as empires of old. Cities weren’t razed to the ground, entire populations slaughtered or sold into slavery. All that happened was a change in the top levels of government and some economic reform. The Russian civilisation didn’t end or anything.
IMO, it would take a greater power to overthrow us. Duh, you say. But “power” doesn’t just mean military and “overthrow” doesn’t just mean violent seizure of the government.
I think that US citizens are sufficiently egocentric/xenophobic that they won’t want to join with another country unless:
a) the US were the ones taking the other country over or
b) the other country was way more powerful than them and it became extremely beneficial to do so.
And even those two choices are debateable.
Here’s my theory on the most likely scenario for the US to be conquered by another country given that the US’s economic situation doesn’t go in the toilet. In time, the European Union becomes more powerful and more unified, creating one true European country. Together, they become a much stronger political, economic, and developmental force than the US. The US sees this and joins with the EU to become a giant intercontinental country. It gains a single currency and regulations for a billion people but the US loses its identity as the United States.
Very simplistic, and I certainly can’t claim to have thought through all the ramifications of this (or even a timeline for this happening), but I consider it to be the most probable way for the USA to no longer be the USA.
The idea of hte US being defeated by an outside military power is unlikely, but I wouldn’t say impossible. Yes, our military is the strongest in the world. However, we are unprepared for the changing military styles of the future. First of all, future wars may feature a great deal of terrorist activity. Our record at preventing small-scale terrorist acts is not terrific, and if foreign powers were bankrolling such activity, it would probably grow even more sophisticated and deadly. Of course, we are completly unprepared for a biological or chemical terrorist attack within the country.
Also, our nation’s computer networks are vulnerable. Right now, not enough attention is devoted to security in cyberspace. If geeks in Seattle can crash government websites almost at will, you can just imagine what an entire team of well trained, malicious hackers backed by an enemy government could do.
Other than ITRs response, what I see here is the failure to consider the very real possibility of strategic/limited nuclear attacks carried out on U.S. soil by terrorists…It’s a pretty safe assumption that there are several terrorist groups who have a very strong desire to bring the West to it’s knees for both religious and political purposes…Just a couple of thoughts to consider…What do you think?
I don’t see the U.S. collapsing any time soon, if ever. If you consider other global empires, you’ll see that the United States’ situation is different from most. The Roman civilization conquered all of the Mediterranean, sure, but it also absorbed those cultures. By the year 400 AD, Egyptian culture was entirely dehellenized and deëgyptized; it was a Latin state. Even Greece, which largely maintained its own culture and language, was absorbed into the Roman superculture, largely influencing Rome itself. Rome fell due to outside interference by Goths and Huns and the like, and petty regional squabbling.
Times are different. The American culture may have large numbers of foreigners crossing its borders, but it’s not like they’re trying to set up their own nations within American borders. I doubt our Mexican or Chinese immigrants are the slightest bit interested in autonomy; they’re more interested in making their own way.
The United States is a huge and essentially homogenous culture, which is the key to its cohesion. When the Soviet Union fell apart, who left? The non-Russian republics. There are no independent Russian states, outside of Russia itself. China is less homogenous than Russia and the U.S., but most of the ethnic groups within the People’s Republic don’t see the benefit of separating—for now. Further, China enforces Mandarin as its official language, and a common language encourages cohesion, and guarantees longevity for the whole of the nation, even if it pisses off the various ethnic groups. This also worked to keep the British Empire running for so long, though in true democratic spirit, they did let their possessions and dominions go, in time. British colonial rule (combined with American economic influence) is why English is spoken so widely in the world—that and their retention of the Commonwealth, which still keeps most of its old empire together in a loose, voluntary economic union.
Empires that don’t catch on to the notion that you’ve got to squelch your minority cultures are doomed to fall apart. The Ottoman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Mongol Empire—they all fell apart because of their significant ethnic diversities. On the other hand, most of Spain’s largely homogenous empire collapsed due in part to geographic distance and its unwillingness to allow more local rule. (This also cost Great Britain its thirteen colonies that broke away in 1776, though to their credit, Britain learned from their mistakes and allowed more home rule when they saw history repeating itself in Canada in the 1850s.)
So, is increasing ethnic diversity going to be lethal to the United States? My guess would be no. The concept of the nation state evolves, and it still evolves. Borders are increasingly irrelevent, so if the United States becomes ethnically polarized, no one will see the benefit of splitting the country up. Anyway, the United States has a history of assimilating, and I imagine the large influx of Hispanics in this country will meld with the existing culture in time, changing the look of the existing Americans and that of the incoming Hispanics.
The United States will most likely find itself initially competing with the EU, I think, and eventually coöperating with it. American isolationism will have to fade away in time. It’s alive and healthy these days, but we will have to change, and we Americans will one day realize this.
If the United States ever does fade from prominence to marginal significance, it’s highly unlikely it’s going to collapse. As the poet says:
(Is it just me, or is this post largely rambling and hard to follow? Never tackle such subjects while doing two other things. I guess that’s why the internet is first-draft theater. Don’t worry; I’ll clarify or deny anything I said, if anyone asks. I really want this post to make sense!)
Seeing as how the US is a different type of government from every country preceding it, it is hard to say when or how it will collapse. Empires usually collapsed when they ran out of lands to conquer and the loot stopped flowing, but the only thing that’s possible to conquer is different markets. So maybe a depression will be our downfall.
I dont see it happening though. Usually when an empire falters, other countries come in and dominate it. I don’t think that is possible in today’s world, so we would just lose our influence on the world scene.
Of course, there is also the case of the big super nation. I think that is the next course of government for our world. Im sure the US would still retain it’s individuality, it just wouldn’t have the influence it has now. Everything would probably have to go by some supreme council or something like that. The UN is something like that, but with everyone arguing, it doesn’t really matter.
In my opinion, the greatest danger to the U.S. is the population itself. If the people get too complacent or lazy, or openly hostile to its own government, it can result in economic downturns, internal turmoil, and a gradual weakening of the country. I’m not saying that this is happening, but I think it’s the most likely method of downfall.
I think military conquest is a much smaller concern for us. As for the threat of nuclear attack… I doubt that ANY terrorist group will be able to set off more than one or two nukes in our borders. While the destruction of Washington, D.C., or New York, or (Spam forbid) Los Angeles will cause widespread panic and disorder, I don’t think it will result in the total collapse of the social and economic order.
SPOOFE is closer to the ideas I had in mind ie rather than the US being ‘conquered’ militarily, could the situation arise where the US simply ceases to be the eminent power in the world through failing to stay one step ahead of the other potentially powerful nations eg India, China, Brazil etc?
The EU is of course not a nation.
Actually under further thought, I think at least (3) issues that need to be addressed when considering potential terrorist attacks within the U.S. when nuclear devices might be employed, (1) Would have to take into account the size of the device(s) actually used, (2). The element of surprise, and (3).The actual targets themselves. Given the proper size devices, with no advance warning, and the combined targets of NYC, which hosts the World Trade Center, The UN Center, along with too numerous International Banks and Brokerage firms to mention here, and Washington D.C. which of course is the central hub of out government…It’s pretty safe to say it’s would indeed be utter chaos within the confines of the rest of country…The questions this scenario might bring forth would naturally be. (1). Would there be enough financial infrastructure left to provide the monetary resources needed to sustain a capitalist consumer based society. (2). Would there be enough government left to declare Marshall Law until it could be decided by our surviving elected officials what the course of action ought to be within the constraints of the financial resources that might be available within the nation it’s self? To deny this scenario is within the realm of what might or might bring the U.S. into the position of becoming a second or third rate nation is IMO akin to whistling while walking through the graveyard…Regardless of the idea that we’ve managed to stay one step ahead of any country or not…
Entirely plausible. We grow fat and complacent and others display more hustle and get their act together. Within 100 years the “contenders” become about equal to the USA in economic and military might (and to the EU in economic terms). We’re then just one out of 5 or 6 “superpowers” and if 3 of them form an alliance we’re no longer Top Dog.
It’s not so much the US “falling” but failing to stay on top.
Of course, a major economic/mass-terrorist crisis as described in some above posts could create the risk of a serious contraction, Russian-style, which would narrow the gap greatly.
Anyway, it’s just common sense, unless you believe the USA is somehow The Chosen One of nations, that it will not ETERNALLY stay on the top tier in the world. It’ll be in, and out of that position, we’ll have our ups and downs. Oh, there will be a USA (or successor state) for centuries to come, and quite probably it will be a quite nice place to live in and an important player in world issues, but the circumstances will change. Heck, look at Britain now. Look at China throughout history.
I don’t know if we could collapse seeing that the 50 states are so tightly intertwined with each other, bringing greaterstrength to the nation as a whole.
However, here are some scenarios:
A rogue nation/terrorist group is able to use a weapon of mass-destruction against us, refocusing the nation onto survival rather than expansion.
Civil unrest. Fortunately the United States’ policy is to promote equality. When civil unrest brings down a nation it is usually when the majority group oppresses the other minority group(s).
Severe weather conditions. We’re seeing them now but not on the scale I mean. The ancient Egyptians, after a one thousand year period of unbelievable strength and prosperity, suddenly and wholly fell into ruin. This was most likely cause by an extended drought/famine.
Disease. A virus could overwhelm our population. However, it would be likely that other countrues would also be affected.
I don’t know if there is any one thing that can bring us down from this level, but these examples, I believe, are the types of scenarios that could distract the collective nation and lead us down a much different path than we’ve been used to.
I thin the key is the interdependence and essentially cooperative nature the US has economically with most of the rest of the world. It seems in the past countries were intent on subjugating rivals and was ruled bty the concept of zero sum. I think that philosophy is vanishing and we are seeing a greater reliance on expanding the pot for all. So in the past other countries would get stronger so as to challenge the dominant power. Not anymore, as stronger countries make better trading partners and better ways of life. The US I don’t see weakneing except maybe relative to other countries.
The thesis of the “declinist” school of thought (Paul Kennedy of Harvard being its most famous advocate) is that empires/hegemonies inevitably decline due to “strategic overreach”. Essentially, the theory is that the hegemonic power has a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo, and that the maintenance of hegemony is a zero-sum game.
This theory presupposes that economics is the underyling basis of hegemonic power (not a bad supposition at all). The hegemonic power establishes economic superiority, then must defend it against challengers competing via economic or military means.
Economic competition is difficult enough on its own, as challenger nations very often have a competitive advantage, either in terms of more modern infrastructure and industry (the established power built up their infrastructure and industry earlier, with cruder technologies, and must bear the cost both of maintaining and paying off the older infrastructure while trying to keep up with the newer technologies coming on board, while the challenger nation, with fewer sunk costs, can proceed more rapidly to a more modern and more efficient infrastructure), or lower labor costs or higher productivity.
Military competition is also a problem for the hegemonic power. Their advanced economic interests mean that they must preserve and defend their economic interests in many areas at once (the U.S., for example, has vital economic interests in the Mid-East, the Pacific, Europe, etc.), while the challenger nation need only project its power in their home turf. So the hegemonic nation must expend considerably more resources on its military than the challenger nation to achieve the same results - protection of its economic interests.
Combine the two, and according to declinists, hegemonic powers will inevitable falter. Declinists have history on their side - every hegemonic power has eventually faded. The question arises is whether world politics and economics has changed sufficiently that the historical model of imperial decline is no longer applicable. I have no idea, myself. It will be interesting to watch.
Well, I think the biggest danger to the U.S. (and Canada, another other western countries, for that matter) is a gradual decay and internal rot, similar to what happened to the Roman Empire and the British Empire to some degree.
Whenever countries stop having a unified goal and start turning inward and navel gazing, they start to decline.
Empires that lasted were either expansionist, or exploratory.
When all your needs are met, and there are no threats to your security, what do you do? Why bother being educated? Why bother with culture? At some point, the people become decadent. I think you can see signs of that all around us. The rise of ‘blood sports’ like the WWF and extreme sports, the return to pseudo-science and the shunning of real science, the demand for increasing security at the expense of liberty… People are now looking for cheap entertainment and easy ‘outs’. That general attitude is not healthy.
Mind you, we’re talking about a LONG process. Perhaps hundreds of years. And it can always turn around. But I don’t like the way things are going.
I had hopes when I was younger that the Space Program would give us the unifying goals and the frontier that we need to keep us striving for more, but I no longer think so. No one cares about it any more.