Why Not Disband The US Military?

[GenSeneca]

Our "global supremacy of the oceans" is in decline... According to WND and their expert Seth Cropsey:

A growing Chinese fleet could keep the declining U.S. Navy out of the Western Pacific, according to an expert cited in a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
...
Yet, the U.S. Navy has cut back the number and type of ships to the level it was prior to the Reagan administration. Indeed, the Navy hasn't been as small since the administration of William Howard Taft, according to naval expert Seth Cropsey. - WND​

Feel free to say the expert you cited doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here's another expert who also recognizes our decline:

‘the United States will inevitably have to face…a progressive loss of maritime supremacy in the South China Sea and its environs,’ Andrew Davies, an analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Diplomat.​

It's a pretty interesting article if anyone cares to read it.

Now, you said,

There is so much more to the equation than "The navy costs X, we get benefit Y"...​

That is the single most important part of the equation. Going back to my analogy of burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills in your fireplace, you can only continue such a policy for so long, by pointing to other so called "benefits" to rationalize continuation of the policy, but eventually you run out of money.

America cannot continue to run trillion dollar deficits and our "global supremacy of the oceans" has already been diminished to keep those deficits as small as possible. The cuts will only get deeper as we continue down our current path of insolvency.

As for China, you pointed out that we spend over $160 billion on our Navy alone... China's entire military budget is $91.5 billion.

And lastly,

Thinking that if we suddenly pulled back, no one would step up to take our place is wishful thinking.​

Two things here, I suggested that we have a gradual withdrawal from the world theater, not a sudden one. Also, I never claimed no one would take our place... Regional powers will emerge to take our place, China will only be one of those powers.

 

[Openmind]

Our "global supremacy of the oceans" is in decline... According to WND and their expert Seth Cropsey:

A growing Chinese fleet could keep the declining U.S. Navy out of the Western Pacific, according to an expert cited in a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
...
Yet, the U.S. Navy has cut back the number and type of ships to the level it was prior to the Reagan administration. Indeed, the Navy hasn't been as small since the administration of William Howard Taft, according to naval expert Seth Cropsey. - WND​

Feel free to say the expert you cited doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here's another expert who also recognizes our decline:

‘the United States will inevitably have to face…a progressive loss of maritime supremacy in the South China Sea and its environs,’ Andrew Davies, an analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Diplomat.​

It's a pretty interesting article if anyone cares to read it.

Now, you said,

There is so much more to the equation than "The navy costs X, we get benefit Y"...​

That is the single most important part of the equation. Going back to my analogy of burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills in your fireplace, you can only continue such a policy for so long, by pointing to other so called "benefits" to rationalize continuation of the policy, but eventually you run out of money.

America cannot continue to run trillion dollar deficits and our "global supremacy of the oceans" has already been diminished to keep those deficits as small as possible. The cuts will only get deeper as we continue down our current path of insolvency.

As for China, you pointed out that we spend over $160 billion on our Navy alone... China's entire military budget is $91.5 billion.

And lastly,

Thinking that if we suddenly pulled back, no one would step up to take our place is wishful thinking.​

Two things here, I suggested that we have a gradual withdrawal from the world theater, not a sudden one. Also, I never claimed no one would take our place... Regional powers will emerge to take our place, China will only be one of those powers.

It is so strange! How can we agree so much on this issue, and disagree so strongly on others!

Oh well!

 

[BigRob]

Our "global supremacy of the oceans" is in decline... According to WND and their expert Seth Cropsey:

A growing Chinese fleet could keep the declining U.S. Navy out of the Western Pacific, according to an expert cited in a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
...
Yet, the U.S. Navy has cut back the number and type of ships to the level it was prior to the Reagan administration. Indeed, the Navy hasn't been as small since the administration of William Howard Taft, according to naval expert Seth Cropsey. - WND​

Feel free to say the expert you cited doesn't know what he's talking about.

His paper laments the decline of our supremacy and the discusses the negative impacts of such...I don't see how that goes against what I have been saying all along.

Here's another expert who also recognizes our decline:

‘the United States will inevitably have to face…a progressive loss of maritime supremacy in the South China Sea and its environs,’ Andrew Davies, an
analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Diplomat.​

It's a pretty interesting article if anyone cares to read it.

We can prevent this outcome if we so choose.

Now, you said,

There is so much more to the equation than "The navy costs X, we get benefit Y"...​

That is the single most important part of the equation. Going back to my analogy of burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills in your fireplace, you can only continue such a policy for so long, by
pointing to other so called "benefits" to rationalize continuation of the policy, but eventually you run out of money.

It is like asking me to put a numerical value on the benefit we get of having good relations with country X. It really cant he done like you want.

America cannot continue to run trillion dollar deficits and our "global supremacy of the oceans" has already been diminished to keep those deficits as small as possible. The cuts will only get deeper as we continue down our current path of insolvency.

The Navy didn't undergo budget cuts out of debt concern. That all said, I agree we can undergo some cuts, as long as it doesn't jeopardize our ability to complete our missions.

As for China, you pointed out that we spend over $160 billion on our Navy
alone... China's entire military budget is $91.5 billion.

I have also pointed out numerous times in this thread why that is an idiotic argument.

And lastly,

Thinking that if we suddenly pulled back, no one would step up to take our place is wishful thinking.​

Two things here, I suggested that we have a gradual withdrawal from the world theater, not a sudden one. Also, I never claimed no one would take our place... Regional powers will emerge to take our place, China will only be one of those powers.

A world full of regional powers is the world that gave us numerous world wars. A unipolar world will not produce such an outcome.

 

[Openmind]

His paper laments the decline of our supremacy and the discusses the negative impacts of such...I don't see how that goes against what I have been saying all along.



We can prevent this outcome if we so choose.



It is like asking me to put a numerical value on the benefit we get of having good relations with country X. It really cant he done like you want.



The Navy didn't undergo budget cuts out of debt concern. That all said, I agree we can undergo some cuts, as long as it doesn't jeopardize our ability to complete our missions.



I have also pointed out numerous times in this thread why that is an idiotic argument.



A world full of regional powers is the world that gave us numerous world wars. A unipolar world will not produce such an outcome.

But, you would only accept this "unipolar world" if it is under the supreme control of the USA! No matter what it costs your own fellow citizens, no matter if it puts us far behind other developed nations in terms of economics and social progress!

That's sad! You should have lived in the "British Empire!" (which, by the way, as all empires, has failed and is just an old memory!)

 

[BigRob]

But, you would only accept this "unipolar world" if it is under the supreme control of the USA! No matter what it costs your own fellow citizens, no matter if it puts us far behind other developed nations in terms of economics and social progress!

That's sad! You should have lived in the "British Empire!" (which, by the way, as all empires, has failed and is just an old memory!)

The British Empire did indeed collapse...as all empires unltimately do..but inevitably throughout history there is one "empire" like state dominating the world stage (or the known world stage to go way back) at a certain time.

It stands to reason that if we decline from this role, someone is going to take our place..and rarely do empires collapse in a peaceful fashion.

In my opinion a unipolar world is far better for peace and stability than any other system. I could be ok with a bipolar world, but when you are more than two, the system becomes very unstable in my opinion.

I would also accept a unipolar world under the control of someone else, if they rightfully beat us out for it...I will not accept simply handing it over to them.

 

[GenSeneca]

We can prevent this outcome if we so choose.

How are we going to prevent our "empire" from collapsing, when even you have stated that, "all empires ultimately do"?

It is like asking me to put a numerical value on the benefit we get of having good relations with country X.

So then we should just ignore the costs, continue filling duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills to burn in the fireplace, and be contented with whatever "benefits" are derived from our actions? Sorry, that isn't rational.

I agree we can undergo some cuts, as long as it doesn't jeopardize our ability to complete our missions.

And when our financial situation deteriorates to the point where cuts do begin to "jeopardize our ability to complete our missions", as is inevitable, what course of action will you then suggest?

I have also pointed out numerous times in this thread why that is an idiotic argument.

How much does it cost for us to maintain our "global supremacy of the oceans"? There is a numerical value attached to such a policy, even if you ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, it's still there. For any other country to gain "global supremacy of the oceans" will require naval appropriations meeting, or exceeding, that amount. So while you may consider it "idiotic" for people to point out this fact, I consider it to be an entirely sound observation.

A world full of regional powers is the world that gave us numerous world wars. A unipolar world will not produce such an outcome.

Numerous world wars? We've had two... Both started by Germany I might add. New rule, Germany is not allowed to become a regional power. There, problem solved!

Seriously though, I don't share your fear of regional powers sparking another world war. The most likely candidates to do such a thing are Iran and North Korea, who would probably use nukes, in which case our military superiority would mean two things; Jack and Squat.

 

[BigRob]

How are we going to prevent our "empire" from collapsing, when even you have stated that, "all empires ultimately do"?

You are responding to a quote about maintaining our dominance of the South China Sea...which is a very different issue.

That said, we will never prevent our empire from collapsing, we will just continue to delay the inevitable.

So then we should just ignore the costs, continue filling duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills to burn in the fireplace, and be contented with whatever "benefits" are derived from our actions? Sorry, that isn't rational.

Me not knowing of a study of the statistical benefits doesn't mean they don't exist and are not great.

What is the benefit of our relationship with Japan? That is something that our naval dominance plays a massive role in...

In 2010 alone the combination of our imports and exports with Japan only was $1,200,000,000,000. I am sure you will argue that statistic is meaningless, but the simple fact is, our naval dominance plays a major role in our trading relationship with Japan..so what % of that figure are you willing to accept?

And when our financial situation deteriorates to the point where cuts do begin to "jeopardize our ability to complete our missions", as is inevitable, what course of action will you then suggest?

This is like the argument that "the world will eventually run out of food." Maybe it will, or more likely, we will continue to develop new technologies to make what we have go further.

Perhaps we will develop a way to dominate the oceans for half the price?

How much does it cost for us to maintain our "global supremacy of the oceans"? There is a numerical value attached to such a policy, even if you ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, it's still there. For any other country to gain "global supremacy of the oceans" will require naval appropriations meeting, or exceeding, that amount. So while you may consider it "idiotic" for people to point out this fact, I consider it to be an entirely sound observation.

There is a numerical value attached, I believe I was the one who brought it up...so I am not sure how I am "ignoring" it.

The point is not that another country will automatically gain control, it would actually be a major problem if no one did in my view...However, certain countries will gain control of certain areas.

Numerous world wars? We've had two... Both started by Germany I might add. New rule, Germany is not allowed to become a regional power. There, problem solved!

How many "world wars" is too many?

Seriously though, I don't share your fear of regional powers sparking another world war. The most likely candidates to do such a thing are Iran and North Korea, who would probably use nukes, in which case our military superiority would mean two things; Jack and Squat.

Use of a nuclear weapon, especially of the yield and capability that NK and (potentially) Iran would have is not going to negate a conventional advantage.

 

[ProudLefty]

...

That said, we will never prevent our empire from collapsing, we will just continue to delay the inevitable.
...

Its not clear to e what it is that is inevitable. The British Empire is more or less gone, but the citizens of Britain live reasonably well, and have done so for many of the last 1200 years. The people of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey have done reasonably well for 2000+ years. Japan and China continue, and southern Korea has dome quite well.

In other words, the empire may decline, but the citizens still do reasonably well.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are responding to a quote about maintaining our dominance of the South China Sea...which is a very different issue.

Different issue? Our "global supremacy of the oceans" is part and parcel to our "empire" status, if we are no longer an "empire" then we no longer have "global supremacy of the oceans", so I consider it entirely relevant.

That said, we will never prevent our empire from collapsing, we will just continue to delay the inevitable.

Or simply stop trying to be an "empire" and do so on our own terms and our own time frame. That is the more rational of the two options.

Me not knowing of a study of the statistical benefits doesn't mean they don't exist and are not great.

You could say the same thing about burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills in your fireplace.

What is the benefit of our relationship with Japan? That is something that our naval dominance plays a massive role in...

Why... Because it protects Japan from China? Why do you consider the benefits of our trade relations with Japan greater than those of China?

In 2010 alone the combination of our imports and exports with Japan only was $1,200,000,000,000. I am sure you will argue that statistic is meaningless, but the simple fact is, our naval dominance plays a major role in our trading relationship with Japan..so what % of that figure are you willing to accept?

I don't know where you got your statistic but here's what I have:

U.S. goods and services trade with Japan totaled $209 billion in 2009 (latest data available for goods and services trade combined). ​

And here's China:

U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $366 billion in 2009.​

So what was your point again?

This is like the argument that "the world will eventually run out of food." Maybe it will, or more likely, we will continue to develop new technologies to make what we have go further.

Except the US really is running out of food (money that is).

Perhaps we will develop a way to dominate the oceans for half the price?

And perhaps you could stuff your duffel bags full of 50 dollar bills.

There is a numerical value attached, I believe I was the one who brought it up...so I am not sure how I am "ignoring" it.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a minimal numerical value to "global supremacy of the oceans" where other nations are concerned. You have stated several times that if we "suddenly" give it up, some other nation will "suddenly" obtain it, that ignores the fact that to do so would require exponential growth of that nations military budget.

According to my calculations, it would take China 15 years to reach our level of military spending, that's growing at a rate of 12.7% a year.

The point is not that another country will automatically gain control, it would actually be a major problem if no one did in my view...However, certain countries will gain control of certain areas.

Regional powers would gain control of their region. I see that as a good thing which will help to further stabilize the world. You seem to think the US needs to keep our boot on their necks in order to maintain stability in these regions.

How many "world wars" is too many?

I find it a stretch to suggest that the two nations who were victims of the last world war would themselves start another world war... Especially knowing what happened to the countries, governments, and people, who started the last world war.

Use of a nuclear weapon, especially of the yield and capability that NK and (potentially) Iran would have is not going to negate a conventional advantage.

Point was, these countries are the ones I see as being most likely to start another world war, not China and Russia as you implied.

 

[clarkatticus]

The question Seneca is asking is what is the future we want and what is the best way to achieve it. Because of the cost we have to ask if the military as we know it the best tool to achieve our goals and could radical changes be better. I would be for mandatory citizen involvement for a specified time in some sort of military training. A highly trained cadre of officers and well supported military schools with an emergency call up procedure in the form of Israels. Cutting the size of our standing army, pulling out of our bases in Europe and Asia where possible and focusing on propietary innovations and special forces (RDF, subs, Aircraft carriers, F-22 for instance). To do this we would have to secure all raw materials necessary for our existance which would mandate getting away from oil and regaining our manufacturing base. I urge everyone to look up Dylan Radigans rant on MSNBC the other day which I think has just as much to do with national security.

 

[ProudLefty]

The question Seneca is asking is what is the future we want and what is the best way to achieve it. Because of the cost we have to ask if the military as we know it the best tool to achieve our goals and could radical changes be better. I would be for mandatory citizen involvement for a specified time in some sort of military training. A highly trained cadre of officers and well supported military schools with an emergency call up procedure in the form of Israels. Cutting the size of our standing army, pulling out of our bases in Europe and Asia where possible and focusing on propietary innovations and special forces (RDF, subs, Aircraft carriers, F-22 for instance). To do this we would have to secure all raw materials necessary for our existance which would mandate getting away from oil and regaining our manufacturing base. I urge everyone to look up Dylan Radigans rant on MSNBC the other day which I think has just as much to do with national security.

All very good, Clarkatticus, however a few points that I see as relevant:

• Our military has been preparing to fight WWIII for 65 years. There is no credible WWIII enemy or axis of enemies on the stage today.
• In those 65 years we have been notoriously ill prepared for at least a dozen brushfire wars.
• We have learned that we do not win hearts & minds with a strategy of bomb-em-til-they-love-us.
• Money spent on military preparedness provides good, high paying jobs for Americans.
• Why not find a way to re-purpose half of our military spending, and point it at better ways to win hearts and minds instead of better ways to kill others.

 

[BigRob]

Different issue? Our "global supremacy of the oceans" is part and parcel to our "empire" status, if we are no longer an "empire" then we no longer have "global supremacy of the oceans", so I consider it entirely relevant.

You don't have to be an "empire" to dominate part of the ocean...specifically the South China Sea in this case. You can't argue that regional powers can dominate parts of the ocean, but then say if we lose our "empire" status we couldn't do the same in the South China Sea.

Or simply stop trying to be an "empire" and do so on our own terms and our own time frame. That is the more rational of the two options.

I don't view that as rational at all....what makes it rational to give up dominance of the world and all of the benefits that involves? It is akin to saying "let's support other nations using something other than the dollar for their currency reserves, because it is rational." We are going to lose a lot of benefits from deciding we don't want to lead the world anymore.

Why... Because it protects Japan from China? Why do you consider the benefits of our trade relations with Japan greater than those of China?

Because it reassures Japan that the (to them) very real threat they face from China is going to be kept in check by American dominance.

I don't know where you got your statistic but here's what I have:

U.S. goods and services trade with Japan totaled $209 billion in 2009 (latest data available for goods and services trade combined). ​

And here's China:

U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $366 billion in 2009.​

So what was your point again?

I'm cannot refind where I got that stat either, I probably just did the math wrong..that aside our trade with Japan totaled $209 billion (your number) and one of the reasons we can maintain such a great trading relationship with Japan, in my opinion, is because we are such great allies...and we are such great allies due in large part to our military dominance of the region and our ability to protect them etc... not to say trade dries up if we stop being a world power, but it places that trading relation more at risk in my view because whoever the new power in the region becomes (ie China), they will have a lot more influence over that.

Except the US really is running out of food (money that is).

You can't technically run out of something that you can just print more of.

And perhaps you could stuff your duffel bags full of 50 dollar bills.

As I said, new technologies make it cheaper for us to conduct our operations in many cases. There is nothing wrong with controlling costs, provided we can continue to complete our missions.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a minimal numerical value to "global supremacy of the oceans" where other nations are concerned. You have stated several times that if we "suddenly" give it up, some other nation will "suddenly" obtain it, that ignores the fact that to do so would require exponential growth of that nations military budget.

No, I have said that ultimately someone will obtain it, and in the interim we are going to have all of these regional powers striving for dominance, which serevely disrupts the international system in my opinion, and makes the world ripe for war.

According to my calculations, it would take China 15 years to reach our level of military spending, that's growing at a rate of 12.7% a year.

They don't have to control the world to have a serious impact (for the worse)on us. Someone will ultimately take over, but it will take time, and probably a few wars.

Regional powers would gain control of their region. I see that as a good thing which will help to further stabilize the world. You seem to think the US needs to keep our boot on their necks in order to maintain stability in these regions.

When in history have multiple regional powers (more than 2) existed and not caused conflict?

I find it a stretch to suggest that the two nations who were victims of the last world war would themselves start another world war... Especially knowing what happened to the countries, governments, and people, who started the last world war.

I don't find that a stretch at all. You could have said the same thing after WWI.

Point was, these countries are the ones I see as being most likely to start another world war, not China and Russia as you implied.

China and Russia probably won't start a world war, but imagine a Cold War scenario with 4-5 powers. Either way, someone is going to be feel they can easily be outnumbered, and it will destabilize the system and probably create a huge arms race.

 

[clarkatticus]

I can agree with all of that. Our largest costs are overseas troops and our fleets. The fleet I believe is necessary until our air power is refined. I don't see a need for a large standing army especially when we pull out of the wars. The tech knowledge we gain from the private sector combined with gov sponsered research would save alot.

 

[GenSeneca]

You don't have to be an "empire" to dominate part of the ocean...

But you have to be an "empire" to have "global supremacy of the oceans".

You can't argue that regional powers can dominate parts of the ocean, but then say if we lose our "empire" status we couldn't do the same in the South China Sea.

Actually yes, I can. Regional powers controls seas within their region, the South China Sea is not in our region. So I have no idea what you're trying to argue here...

I don't view that as rational at all....what makes it rational to give up dominance of the world and all of the benefits that involves?

What makes it rational to stop burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills and all of the "benefits" that involves?

We are going to lose a lot of benefits from deciding we don't want to lead the world anymore.

Such as? You keep using the word "benefit" as a vague platitude, void of substance.

Because it reassures Japan that the (to them) very real threat they face from China is going to be kept in check by American dominance.

How much does Japan pay us for this service? ...Yet we continue to provide this service in return for all the "benefits" derived from our actions... "benfits" which are considerably less than the "benefits" derived from the country we're supposedly protecting them from. Doesn't make sense.

...our trade with Japan totaled $209 billion (your number) and one of the reasons we can maintain such a great trading relationship with Japan, in my opinion, is because we are such great allies...

By that logic, we must be even better allies with China, who's trade with the US is more than 33% greater then that of Japan.

You can't technically run out of something that you can just print more of.

And we cannot maintain our "global supremacy of the oceans" for long by funding it through inflation of our currency.

As I said, new technologies make it cheaper for us to conduct our operations in many cases. There is nothing wrong with controlling costs, provided we can continue to complete our missions.

More platitudes... Perhaps I'm old fashioned but I believe the US military exists to safeguard the US and protect US citizens from foreign powers. It's not our "mission" to protect Japan from China at US taxpayer expense.

No, I have said that ultimately someone will obtain it, and in the interim we are going to have all of these regional powers striving for dominance, which serevely disrupts the international system in my opinion, and makes the world ripe for war.

So you totally discount the idea that the world could go the way of Europe and unite under economic cooperation?

They don't have to control the world to have a serious impact (for the worse)on us.

Knowing this is the case, why should any nation accept our position in the world? Isn't in their best interest to challenge us and establish themselves as having regional hegemony?

When in history have multiple regional powers (more than 2) existed and not caused conflict?

The same could have been said about Europe having multiple state powers. Some believed the only way for Europe to unite was for one supreme power to control the whole of Europe, you have the same antiquated view on a global scale.

China and Russia probably won't start a world war, but imagine a Cold War scenario with 4-5 powers. Either way, someone is going to be feel they can easily be outnumbered, and it will destabilize the system and probably create a huge arms race.

Right... Because that's what's happened in Europe... Oh wait, no it's not.

 

[BigRob]

But you have to be an "empire" to have "global supremacy of the oceans".


Actually yes, I can. Regional powers controls seas within their region, the South China Sea is not in our region. So I have no idea what you're trying to argue here...

I am saying we could no longer dominate the world, but remain a major player in the South China Sea.

What makes it rational to stop burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills and all of the "benefits" that involves?


Such as? You keep using the word "benefit" as a vague platitude, void of substance.

Simply because you disregard the substance doesn't mean it was not presented. For starters, the dollar is going to stop being the global currency of choice if we suddenly stop being a world power.

How much does Japan pay us for this service? ...Yet we continue to provide this service in return for all the "benefits" derived from our actions... "benfits" which are considerably less than the "benefits" derived from the country we're supposedly protecting them from. Doesn't make sense.

They pay us by having a great relationship...by maintaining a huge trading relationship with us, by buying a ton of our debt, by supporting our global objectives in international bodies like the UN.

What is the value of Japanese (of English, French) support for a UN Resolution we want to push through? Monetarily, pretty limited, but it is still very important, and very worthwhile.

By that logic, we must be even better allies with China, who's trade with the US is more than 33% greater then that of Japan.

Only if you make the argument based on something that was never said.

Dominating the oceans can help us create great trading partners.
Being a great trading partner does not make someone an ally however.

And we cannot maintain our "global supremacy of the oceans" for long by funding it through inflation of our currency.

In theory we can for a lot longer if we maintain the dollar as the global currency.

More platitudes... Perhaps I'm old fashioned but I believe the US military exists to safeguard the US and protect US citizens from foreign powers. It's not our "mission" to protect Japan from China at US taxpayer expense.

The US military's mission, in my opinion, is to protect US interests.

So you totally discount the idea that the world could go the way of Europe and unite under economic cooperation?

Absolutely. Europe was only able to accomplish this under the protection umbrella of American dominance.

Knowing this is the case, why should any nation accept our position in the world? Isn't in their best interest to challenge us and establish themselves as having regional hegemony?

They don't...we constantly have to protect our interests, and you see every day new nations attempting to establish themselves and challenge us.

The same could have been said about Europe having multiple state powers. Some believed the only way for Europe to unite was for one supreme power to control the whole of Europe, you have the same antiquated view on a global scale.

One supreme power did basically gain control of Europe...The United States.

Right... Because that's what's happened in Europe... Oh wait, no it's not.

Again, unification of Europe was only possible because the US protected them....prior to this, it was constant wars in Europe..exactly the scenario that I described. What will make it different anywhere else if no super power is there to calm the waters.