HH 59 : The Destroyer of Worlds

[Smitty-48]

So Nepal maybe?

It's not so much that there is one place where it could break out, it's more a case of a general escalation across a broad front, India coming into the China Seas, China coming into the Indian Ocean, India backing proxies against China in the Pacific, China backing Pakistan against India on the Subcontinent, so that there are vectors all over the place with tension throughout, making the powder keg exponential and not in any one place, to wit, a cold war between India and China, but a highly unstable one, with multiple vectors to escalate to a hot war precipitously.

India is already forming an alliance with Japan in the Pacific, Vietnam as well, because China has begun moving into the Indian Ocean, so India is attempting to outflank China in response to China attempting outflank India, and so on and so forth, which vector would be the one that draws them head to head is hard to say, because there are no so many vectors now and they are expanding as they go, and this, is why they are falling back on nuclear weapons as their insurance policies.

Problem being, it's not like the Americans and Russians were there is a long established Balance of Terror and stability, and America and Russia do not face each other directly across a trace between them, so with India and China, there is plenty of room for a fight to actually break out, and it's not entirely bilateral neither, so there are a lot of moving parts, and tripwires all over the place.

[DrYouth]

Well yeah...

So you're saying Chinese Kruschev and Indian Kennedy will see their own Cuban Missile Crisis... and the rest of us get to sit on the sidelines, huh...

Us westerners aren't used to being left out of this kinda thing.

[Smitty-48]

Wouldn't be on the sidelines, because the American Strategic Lines of Communication run right through the war zone, because the war zone between India and China would be at sea most of all, moreover, India and China's proxies are American and Russian proxies as well, so both America and Russia are all wrapped up in this by default.

Now, America does actually have the power to maintain the peace, but not if America is pulling back and just letting the chips fall where they may, which, is what many Americans want America to do now, so, not in fact implausible.

If Ameica creates a power vacuum through the China Seas and Indian Ocean, this conflict is what is going to fill it.

Wars of Hegemonic Succession are not incited by the Hegemon directly, if they could be challenged directly, they wouldn't be the Hegemon, so what happens is, they start when the Hegemon pulls back, then gets dragged back in by default, kicking and screaming or otherwise, starts on the flanks, and then spreads to the central front by lateral escalation.

Japan invades Manchuria, that puts Japan on a collision course with the United States and Great Britain, which brings the United States and Great Britain together, and so also puts the United States on a collision course with Germany via the British Empire, which was only on a collision course with Germany because of Italy; lateral escalation; the Second World War actually starts, in 1931, way out on the flanks.

The United States wasn't even the Hegemon, Great Britain was the Hegemon, it was Great Britain who pulled back, letting the chips fall where they may, the United States wasn't even in control at the time, the British were determining America's fate, by allowing a power vacuum, which eventually the United States was forced to fill, supplanting the British Hegemon, having never actually set out to do so.

[DrYouth]

All of this seems almost inevitable in the long run...

The US can't remain Hegemon indefinitely...

Scary stuff.

[Smitty-48]

The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are a double edged sword, they both deter, but also incite, so on the one hand, they scare the bejeezers out of your adversaries, but on the other hand, they scare the bejeezers out of your adversaries, so they both reduce and increase the chances of war at the same time, they can reduce the chances of war by direct escalation, but they can be increasing the chances of war by lateral escalation in dong so.

They can block a direct escalation, but they do so while applying so much pressure; it becomes overpressure, that then has nowhere to go, and so it just goes sideways, breaks out on the flanks, and then comes back to the center with a vengeance.

[Martin Hash]

"Violence is the final arbitrator." - me

As long as the U.S. spends $half-trillion per year on the military, and half the population is armed-to-the-teeth, aggressive SOBs, there ain't gonna be another hegemon. If the U.S. wants 20 million soldiers to defend the Motherland, we don't even need to train them to shoot or charge the front. America raises potential soldiers cradle-to-grave. America IS the modern Sparta.

[ssu]

"Violence is the final arbitrator." - me

As long as the U.S. spends $half-trillion per year on the military, and half the population is armed-to-the-teeth, aggressive SOBs, there ain't gonna be another hegemon. If the U.S. wants 20 million soldiers to defend the Motherland, we don't even need to train them to shoot or charge the front. America raises potential soldiers cradle-to-grave. America IS the modern Sparta.

Yet true leadership isn't just to be intimidating and threatening. Sparta never did get the role of ruling even Greece.

True leadership between sovereign states is when a country freely and from one's own interests accepts the leadership role of another country. Not that it's implemented by force or the threat of it. In this America has been very successfull. The definition of a Superpower is also that you have the ability influence other countries, not that just one is a huge economy with a huge army.

[Smitty-48]

Indeed, Superpower and Hegemon are not the same thing, so for example, Israel is the preeminent military power in the Middle East and it intimidates all pontential adversaries in the region, it is the regional military Superpower, but at the same time, Israel could never be the regional Hegemon.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Indeed, Superpower and Hegemon are not the same thing, so for example, Israel is the preeminent military power in the Middle East and it intimidates all pontential adversaries in the region, it is the regional military Superpower, but at the same time, Israel could never be the regional Hegemon.

You can be a superpower if you are a regional power but not global?

[adwinistrator]

Indeed, Superpower and Hegemon are not the same thing, so for example, Israel is the preeminent military power in the Middle East and it intimidates all pontential adversaries in the region, it is the regional military Superpower, but at the same time, Israel could never be the regional Hegemon.

Very well put. This distinction is rarely made, but very important to understanding the why of a nation's geopolitical agenda.