Secretary of the U.S. Air Force: Russia is an existential threat to the United States

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

No we aren't.

Yes, we are.

Empires by evidence of history itself cannot sustain themselves indefinitely.

[Skroe]

Yes, we are.

Empires by evidence of history itself cannot sustain themselves indefinitely.

I'm not sure weather to laugh or cry at your statement.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I'm not sure weather to laugh or cry at your statement.

I'm not sure whether to disregard your statement or actually try to glean something meaningful from it.

Are you upset that I am referring to the United States as an "empire" or bothered by the idea that it cannot last?

[Skroe]

Yes, we are.

Empires by evidence of history itself cannot sustain themselves indefinitely.

Our biggest problem is figuring out a way to pay for our aging population's state pension and healthcare.

That's a political issue and the argument about the solution is one of political differences about approach and consequences.

But let's just say it's on an entirely different scale than Rome's barbarians at the gate, the Byzantine getting eaten by by aggressive European and Middle Eastern rivals, the Mongol's being extremely dispersed in a pre-modern communications world, and the British Empire's immense internal contradictions.

We're an entirely new beast. What got them won't get us, and chances are what finally gets us will happen centuries after you and I are long gone. And chances are, like the British Empire, we'll give way to something better in any event.

We're all just custodians of our inheritance that we pass down.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure whether to disregard your statement or actually try to glean something meaningful from it.

Are you upset that I am referring to the United States as an "empire" or bothered by the idea that it cannot last?

I'm not upset. I'm amused that you in someone figure our modest problems today in anyway translate into something apocalyptic.

Get off the internet. It's poisoning your worldview.

Because really, who is going to replace is? The Chinese whose problems and internal contradictions utterly dwarf our own? If our problems are Mount Washington, Chinas are Olympus mons on Mars.

The Russians? A country more likely to break up in the next 20 years than any other?

The EU? Which can't even decide what it is?

Who exactly? I want a name!

I'll tell you what I think. I think you're projecting your own internal insecurities about the world, and it is actually as simple as that. It's not you that is at fault. It is the world that's gone wrong. The end.

Jesus Christ.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Our biggest problem is figuring out a way to pay for our aging population's state pension and healthcare.

That's a political issue and the argument about the solution is one of political differences about approach and consequences.

But let's just say it's on an entirely different scale than Rome's barbarians at the gate, the Byzantine getting eaten by by aggressive European and Middle Eastern rivals, the Mongol's being extremely dispersed in a pre-modern communications world, and the British Empire's immense internal contradictions.

We're an entirely new beast. What got them won't get us, and chances are what finally gets us will happen centuries after you and I are long gone. And chances are, like the British Empire, we'll give way to something better in any event.

We're all just custodians of our inheritance that we pass down.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not upset. I'm amused that you in someone figure our modest problems today in anyway translate into something apocalyptic.

Get off the internet. It's poisoning your worldview.

I think our fall will be due to our military. It's size and how spread out it is. The cost to maintain it and so on. This is something every empire struggles with but we figured out a clever way around that issue through burrowing in a system that is fixed to work for us.

That being said, when you have everyone plugged into the world economy and more players join it(and grow within it) the more opposition you will inevitably face. We aren't going to be able to maintain our position indefinitely. Maybe not even for much longer. Much of the vested world has an interest in seeing our decline but it won't happen overnight due to the obvious consequences of such a turn-of-hand.

Just because we might not be open to the same exact things that brought low past empires, doesn't mean we don't have our own vulnerabilities.

I am personally okay with this decline and open to it; though it'd serve us better in the end to embrace and prepare for it. Act as stewards for a new world that we helped birth versus arrogant leash-holders.

[AeneasBK]

And chances are, like the British Empire, we'll give way to something better in any event.

Pfft, Golden Age of humanity, it was. Nothing has compared since.

Although I'd agree the USA has a few centuries left in it yet

[Kuntantee]

Pfft, Golden Age of humanity, it was. Nothing has compared since.

Although I'd agree the USA has a few centuries left in it yet

Great empires tend to have shorter lifetime as time goes on. This is evident in history. If we judge by the latest great empire --- British Empire which lasted 100 years or so --American Empire might collapse in next 30-40 years. The collapse doesn't have to be as dramatic as Ottoman or German Empires. It could be very much like British Empire which smoothly transitioned from being an empire to being regional power.

[Skroe]

I think our fall will be due to our military. It's size and how spread out it is. The cost to maintain it and so on. This is something every empire struggles with but we figured out a clever way around that issue through burrowing in a system that is fixed to work for us.

That being said, when you have everyone plugged into the world economy and more players join it(and grow within it) the more opposition you will inevitably face. We aren't going to be able to maintain our position indefinitely. Maybe not even for much longer. Much of the vested world has an interest in seeing our decline but it won't happen overnight due to the obvious consequences of such a turn-of-hand.

Just because we not be open to the same exact things that brought low past empires, doesn't mean we don't have our own vulnerabilities.

Read my updated post.

Our military is more affordable than priors as a proportion of our spending. We spend about 20% of our FEDREAL budget on defense, about 11% of our combined Federal+State+Local spending on defense. We spend about 3.5% of GDP on defense. We could, in fact, stand to spend a lot more.

And all are utterly dwarfed by our spending on:
Healthcare
Social Security
Welfare
Education

(arguably, as it should be).


Defense spending isn't remotely the biggest item on the bill. See? You can't even get THAT right.

As for "our spread it is", again you can't get that right. The United States has intentionally adopted a forward defense strategy since World War II. We fight them there, so we don't fight them here. Not only is foreign basing cheaper than domestic basing, but it provides ACCESS for the US to fight where it needs to. This has been tremendously successful and proven itself for decades. Nothing has changed. You would have to present compelling, historical evidence that border defense / continental defense is a better strategy than forward defense / expeditionary warfare, for the US, to make a convincing case. Some have tried over the years. It's never been convincing enough


This next part is arguably the most unbelievable, most detached from reality part of your post.

That being said, when you have everyone plugged into the world economy and more players join it(and grow within it) the more opposition you will inevitably face. We aren't going to be able to maintain our position indefinitely. Maybe not even for much longer. Much of the vested world has an interest in seeing our decline but it won't happen overnight due to the obvious consequences of such a turn-of-hand.

In a word, ridiculous.

First of all, the United States's relationship has it's foundation on trade and security arrangements.

Let's talk security first. The US is the guarantor of regional security in Asia-Pacific, The Middle East and Europe. It is also a partner to Latin American and African countries in a less substantial manner than those three places. This has allowed the US to put itself at the center of the relationship between regional rivals and allows them to work together. It has encouraged disarmament and control of advanced weapons programs and spreading of knowledge. Instead, they buy from us, and buy less than they would if we weren't there.

For example, Asia Pacific. Japan and South Korea have a very old rivalry steeped in history. Even today, they do not get along. The US is friend to both, so it keeps the relationship cool and cooperative, if not outright friendly. Minus the United States, were Japan to start a Nuclear weapons program of it's own - which it could do in under a month by the way, South Korea would see that as a direct threat to ITS security and similarly develop nuclear weapons at a similar speed. North Korea would be justified in expanding its arsenal, as would China. The Phillipeans and THailand would seek them soon as well.

The US just by being the adult in the room, the overseer of security, prevents all of that. So here we have two of our largest and most successful peers, who under your rationale would have an "interest in seeing our decline", in fact, feeling the benefits of the exact opposite. AND THEY KNOW THIS! That's the best part. This Russian stuff has them deeply worried, because Obama's key foreign policy legacy will be the Pacific Pivot - the movement of US military resources to Asia-Pacific. They are concerned, as they have been for many years, that Asia-Pacific plays second fiddle to Europe in US defense concerns. So they in fact, don't want less. They want MORE.

The other pillar is trade. Put asside TTIP, and TPP. Free Trade agreements, the world over, have been in high demand with the US for decades. Bilateral ones are desired because the US seeks foreign markets, but most of all, foreign markets seek access to the world's wealthiest consumer base (the US). So economically, they seek partnership with us too. How do you think the WTO got built up? Through this cooperating.

You don't understand the key point about the world I'm going to explain to you: Most of the world, even together, does not have the population of fiscal resources to compete with the US no matter what they do, and so seek mutually beneficial relationship. How can Germany seek to replace the US, for example, and see to "our decline", when they are a fraction of us in every metric, and even with the European Union at it's back, doesn't have the buying power, the resources or so much more the US has?

Going back to Asia Pacific, let's go back about 8 years. In 2008 China worked hard to woo it's neighbors into accepting China as the regional hegemon. But around 2010 its behavior turned, and it alienated everybody (as it has continued to do with island building). As a result it put an opening for the US. The US as a result, has struck up basing rights and mutual defense relationships with many of it's neighbors in the past six years. THey want MORE US, not less, because of China.

So where is this coming from dude? Really. Because policy events don't remotely reflect the "they want our decline" delusion you're propagating. Is it because China is plotting against us? Of course they are. They are revisionist power. They're also hysterically overmatched, and though they will try, face a massive uphill battle. Russia? Russia is more regional spoiler than rising power that will displace American might around the world. The EU is in shambles. So again, who is going to do it?

This is why I think your beliefs are utterly and completely full of it. Because even a cursory look at the global situation presents a picture that is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you suggest. If you were right, the Phillipines and Australia would be kicking us out, rather than inviting us in. If you were right, the last three NATO summits, which saw a European reinforcement and a quintupling of US spending on NATO defense, would have never happened. If you were right, the free trade agreements being sought with the US wouldn't be sought. If you were right, China and Russia would be making friends around the world, rather than both being more isolated in the last five years than they've been in decades.

I think you're projecting your insecurities.

[Kuntantee]

We're an entirely new beast. What got them won't get us, and chances are what finally gets us will happen centuries after you and I are long gone. And chances are, like the British Empire, we'll give way to something better in any event.

The same thing that got British Empire will get you; exhaustion and unwillingness to be a hard imperial power, should you deal with Russia and China at the same time, which seems very likely in the future. Just make sure you got victorious from those fights, otherwise forget smooth transitioning, like British Empire, and consider a more dramatic collapse.

[Theodarzna]

Thats actually pretty deep. Great quote.

I see it as the most legit, damaging thing the Soviet Union ever really did to the United States. By not existing, it deprived the US of an enemy, it deprived it of a purpose, and now, America is just an Empire struggling to find meaning other than "I want to exist!"

[khazmodan]

Great empires tend to have shorter lifetime as time goes on. This is evident in history. If we judge by the latest great empire --- British Empire which lasted 100 years or so --American Empire might collapse in next 30-40 years. The collapse doesn't have to be as dramatic as Ottoman or German Empires. It could be very much like British Empire which smoothly transitioned from being an empire to being regional power.

I do see the collapse of the American Empire but not into something so graceful as the British Empire. Probably something closer to Brazil with its corruption,dishonesty and huge impoverished masses.

[May90]

Yes, we are.

Empires by evidence of history itself cannot sustain themselves indefinitely.

The US is not an empire.

[Theodarzna]

Our biggest problem is figuring out a way to pay for our aging population's state pension and healthcare.

That's a political issue and the argument about the solution is one of political differences about approach and consequences.

But let's just say it's on an entirely different scale than Rome's barbarians at the gate, the Byzantine getting eaten by by aggressive European and Middle Eastern rivals, the Mongol's being extremely dispersed in a pre-modern communications world, and the British Empire's immense internal contradictions.

We're an entirely new beast. What got them won't get us, and chances are what finally gets us will happen centuries after you and I are long gone. And chances are, like the British Empire, we'll give way to something better in any event.

We're all just custodians of our inheritance that we pass down.

Americans are not the first to proclaim themselves something special, something unique or something destined to last.

A monkey with a 9mm pistol in its hand is still a monkey.

[khazmodan]

The US is not an empire.

The US has been the dominant military power by a LOT for several decades now and have stabilized the world economically with that power. This defines it as more of an empire than any before it in history.

[Skroe]

Great empires tend to have shorter lifetime as time goes on. This is evident in history. If we judge by the latest great empire --- British Empire which lasted 100 years or so --American Empire might collapse in next 30-40 years. The collapse doesn't have to be as dramatic as Ottoman or German Empires. It could be very much like British Empire which smoothly transitioned from being an empire to being regional power.

You better hope not. Should the fall of the "American Empire" such as it is, comes, guess who breaks our fall?

And god help the human race if on the other end of it Americans are wrathful about it. It's like people forgot how terrifying an enraged American populace after 9/11 actually was. It invaded two countries on the other side of the planet in eighteen months, the second over immense international opposition (despite being very domestically popular), and there wasn't jack shit the rest of the human race could do to stop it.

The British Empire was smothered to death, in part by the US which didn't want a rival. Folks forget: the Second World War ended with three superpowers: the US, the USSR and the British Empire. It was Indian independence, followed by the Suez Crisis, in which the US, not wanting an unpredictable colonial rival in the nascent Cold War basically told the UK it's empire was over, that brought it to an end.

Had the US not done that, history would have been quite different. There is no guarantee the British Empire ever would have ended (at least, up until this point). Kind of the X-factor in this assessment is the degree to which "affairs at home" became the focus of the British after the suffering they endured during World War II. If that was a fleeting retrenchment, as such things typically are (the US goes through it periodically), then it would have passed in due to. It's less clear if it was a true national shift though.

Bu that's just speculation. There is no "law of gravity" of empires. The British built two in the last 300 years, and the second was grander than the first, though the first gave birth to the United States. Losing the American Colonies wasn't the end. It was a transition.


Needless to say, I think America's crowning achievements lay before it, not behind it. Our ability to innovate, reorient, and redesign ourselves transformed a country of 4 million in an agrarian society into the most powerful country the world has ever known in just 220 years. America 80 years from now may not look much like America of today, and that would be a good thing, so long as what it is doing lives up to the ambition and promise of what our forebearers accomplished.

The scientist in me loves Mars. Think about it, Americans. A world to call our own.

Personally, I think the US as we know it endures until interplanetary civilization becomes a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if we start a Martian Colony in the next 80 years that in a couple hundred years, becomes an independent state of it's own. Heck, the American constitution and body of law with it's sections on territories designed for western expansion, is uniquely tailor made for such an endevour. But that's in the future. But I'm optimistic about what we'll become. Thus far, we've only ever gotten better.

[Deleted]

The US has been the dominant military power by a LOT for several decades now and have stabilized the world economically with that power. This defines it as more of an empire than any before it in history.

According to which definition?

[Skroe]

The same thing that got British Empire will get you; exhaustion and unwillingness to be a hard imperial power, should you deal with Russia and China at the same time, which seems very likely in the future. Just make sure you got victorious from those fights, otherwise forget smooth transitioning, like British Empire, and consider a more dramatic collapse.

We have a key advantage the British Empire didn't though:

A vast network of wealth and technologically advanced allies.

It wouldn't be Russia and China at the same time versus the US. It would be Russia and China at the same time versus NATO + the US's Asian Allies which include Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Phillipines and increasingly, India.

Let's just say, we're not gift wrapping Aircraft carrier technology to india because we're being generous. We're doing it to fuck with China. The second India builds more Aircraft carriers is the second, China's security picture sharply darkens, and perhaps, in a crisis, twenty years hence, the US has a few more F/A-18E and F-35C compatible carriers to call upon.

Folks forget how good the US is at this stuff. We come off as nice people, and periodically we're reluctant. But we got to where we are by being grand masters of the great game.

[Kuntantee]

The scientist in me loves Mars. Think about it, Americans. A world to call our own.

It's more likely for USA to have a piece in Mars, rather than completely owning it. That's the nature of geographical discovery (21st century style). You have at least three proper match; China, EU considering it's not collapsed and Russia.

[callipygoustp]

Is there anyone that doesn't think Russia is a threat? Didn't Putin recently call Americans a bunch of pussies?

[khazmodan]

According to which definition?

name another empire that stabilized the entire world for several decades...