The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#31

Post by fsloth » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:01 PM UTC

vonnik wrote: post #29

These guys are jokers. A security firm that gets pwned by Anonymous... http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/28/anonymous-stratfor-hack-10... Stratfor is flattering the sensibilities of the military industrial complex that pays its bills. > The greatest threat to the United States is its own tendency to retreat from international events. Stratfor would embroil the US in more foreign wars, because the best thing that happene…

I think at least this first part reads like an explanation of the events of the last two centuries and based on my very light arm-chair historians knowledge I failed to see any obvious lapses in their analysis.

Like any analysis, though, it should be read as interesting postulation based on known facts, rather than a complete explanatory model in itself.

I fail to see how cheap solar or new life forms would provide more arable land. Sure, we can invent - I don't know - an edible nutritious city kudzu that grows everywhere and provides nutrition for everyone but until that happens I think the american farmlands do provide a considerable asset like the article stated.

I see no obvious reason why at least a partial singularity nirvana could not come to being but until it does - no one really has a clue what it would look like and analyses like these must stick to understood reality and politics.

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#32

Post by fsloth » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:09 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #2

And so the final imperative of the dominant power of North America is to ensure that this never happens - to keep Eurasia divided among as many different (preferably mutually hostile) powers as possible. What a disturbing view of the world.

Um, how do you precisely think the rational of the american leadership actually goes then? No country as large as USA operates without holding it's own power as the main goal. What else would the main goal of the foreign policy of USA be then?

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#33

Post by hitekker » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:33 PM UTC

Those who are secure but open minded in their political identity and their political understanding, would greatly benefit from reading both this and its Part 2.

Summarizing such a complex situation without sugarcoating or incoherency is no small task, and this article does it exceedingly well.

Well done.

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#34

Post by stephenwinter2 » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:34 PM UTC

As always with Stratfor this analysis is not about security of North America but about global dominance. My opinion on stratfor is not really profound. But half a year ago I was so shocked about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&feature=youtu.be... I had to write something then against this horrible propaganda: http://hashsign.co.uk/contemporary/by/thoughts/futurism-and-... My English is too poor to take part in further discussions here. I'm sure most will not agree with my opinions. In a manner my writing is propaganda too. But perhaps it's anyway interesting to read what (some) Europeans think.

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#35

Post by vonnik » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #31

vonnik wrote: post #29

These guys are jokers. A security firm that gets pwned by Anonymous... http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/28/anonymous-stratfor-hack-10... Stratfor is flattering the sensibilities of the military industrial complex that pays its bills. > The greatest threat to the United States is its own tendency to retreat from international events. Stratfor would embroil the US in more foreign wars, because the best thing that happene…

I think at least this first part reads like an explanation of the events of the last two centuries and based on my very light arm-chair historians knowledge I failed to see any obvious lapses in their analysis. Like any analysis, though, it should be read as interesting postulation based on known facts, rather than a complete explanatory model in itself. I fail to see how cheap solar or new life forms would provide m…

We can engineer yeast to produce almost any molecule. We can synthesize meat. We can do that with nearly free electricity from solar, among other ingredients. These things are happening now. Arable land is an archaic fetish, like much of Stratfor's thinking.

Calling events inevitable in hindsight has zero value. Predicting the inevitability of a future event, and then seeing that prediction confirmed, has immense value. Stratfor's predictions, however, are much weaker than their analysis of the past.

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#36

Post by danbruc » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:52 PM UTC

chrismaeda wrote: post #30

tremon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long periods of time. For the people /within that empire/. As the NSA and general US foreign policy have made abundantly clear, the US does not consider anyone outside of their national borders "part of the empire". Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. Is "enjoying security treaties with the US" really a prerequisite for a p…

List of mutual defense treaties. This may be a good working definition of "part of the empire." They don't enjoy the same rights as US citizens but their security is guaranteed by the US military. http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ I'm not sure that treaties with the US is a prerequisite for prosperity. On the other hand, I can't think of any rich country that is not good friends with the US?

Which countries do you think actually depend on security guarantees by the USA? Do you really think Europe or Australia would fall when the USA disappeared tomorrow?

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#37

Post by fsloth » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:59 PM UTC

stephenwinter2 wrote: post #34

As always with Stratfor this analysis is not about security of North America but about global dominance. My opinion on stratfor is not really profound. But half a year ago I was so shocked about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&feature=youtu.be... I had to write something then against this horrible propaganda: http://hashsign.co.uk/contemporary/by/thoughts/futurism-and-... My English is too poo…

Well, I don't think it takes an evil genious to divide europe. It already is divided. There is no common will nor true common foreign policy of the european states. USA simply takes the few simple actions at a time it wants to enforce it's position while european statesmen do nothing.

As I see it, war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies - they need a buffer zone of emergencies to maintain an internal stability of their kleptocratic political system.

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#38

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #27

chrismaeda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternate view, which is well supported by history, is that while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long periods of time. The Roman Empire delivered peace and prosperity to most of the Mediterranean basin for hundreds of years. The British Empire had a similar track record for a much larger area. So now I'm rooting for the American Empire and the Pax Americana. I w…

> while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long periods of time. For the people /within that empire/. As the NSA and general US foreign policy have made abundantly clear, the US does not consider anyone outside of their national borders "part of the empire". Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. Is "enjoying security treaties with the US" really a prerequisite for a p…

> For the people /within that empire/.

Nope, for the "citizens" of the empire. Almost everybody else suffers, inside or outside.

And don't expect the meaning of "citizen" to agree with the one we are used to (although, the next meaning should be clear enough by now).

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#39

Post by fsloth » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

vonnik wrote: post #35

fsloth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at least this first part reads like an explanation of the events of the last two centuries and based on my very light arm-chair historians knowledge I failed to see any obvious lapses in their analysis. Like any analysis, though, it should be read as interesting postulation based on known facts, rather than a complete explanatory model in itself. I fail to see how cheap solar or new life forms would provide m…

We can engineer yeast to produce almost any molecule. We can synthesize meat. We can do that with nearly free electricity from solar, among other ingredients. These things are happening now. Arable land is an archaic fetish, like much of Stratfor's thinking. Calling events inevitable in hindsight has zero value. Predicting the inevitability of a future event, and then seeing that prediction confirmed, has immense val…

What are the theoretical economics of yeast based or synthetic food based nutrition on a global scale? The chemicals need to come from somewhere. The synthesis equipment needs to come from somwhere. As I understand it growing things in dirt is pretty efficient? Where is the cut-off point when test tube grown food is economically more viable than dirt based alimenation?

I am not saying these things wont happen. But we are not there yet. How soon? It took a few hundreds of years of tweaking for steam engines to actually make an economic difference. It took a hundred years for the offspring of babbages difference engine to become the instruments of the cultural and economic transformation they are today.

Today, we are locked to dirt. In five years, most food is dirt based. Probably still a decade or two from now.

Most analysts predicitions turn out to be pretty bad - but it's their 'editorial view' of current events that I find most educating if done well.

Re: The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire (2011)

#40

Post by Malician » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #25

SFLemonade wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah! Massive logical jump there!

Where is the jump? Something was done in the past, why shouldn't we continue doing so? I of course assumed that the initial comment expressed some degree of endorsement and did not just state facts.

I read no form of endorsement in the comment, but rather a sense that this is a very common tactic in realpolitik throughout history and should not be surprising.