Reading David Carr’s criticism of the Galileo system reminds me of the Lord of the Rings.
Specifically the question is whether it is better for there to be one superpower, or several powers. David seems to take the view that the EU is evil, but the US is good… or at least less evil). As a centralised state emerges on the European continent, this may appear to some British Libertarians like nothing less than the re-emergence of the Dark Lord in Mordor.
Tolkien would possibly see as more complicated: the US acting perhaps like the doomed kingdom of Numenor. The US military hegemony as analogous to Galadriel taking the One Ring:
[Sam Speaks]
“But if you’ll pardon my speaking out, I think my master was right. I wish you’d take his Ring. You’d put things to rights. You’d stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift. You’d make some folks pay for their dirty work.”[Galadriel replies]
“I would” she said. “That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas! We will not speak more of it. Let us go!”The Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter Seven, The Mirror of Galadriel
How many American readers of Samizdata would agree that the British Empire was a force for world freedom? Not many judging by the numbers who think it was wrong for the US to intervene in both World Wars. The problem is that the British Empire was at times a force for free trade and at other times a mercantilist extortion racket.
The US empire to come is unlikely to be as restrained as the British Empire, because of the socialist ethos of state imposed education, and crusades such as ridding the Third World of cheap (child) labour, the War on Drugs, the War on Tax Evasion, trying to impose a worldwide age of sexual consent, banning alcohol before 21, but making it almost compulsory thereafter, the imposition of American patent law worldwide, and of course, global weapons control.
In other words, although US global supremacy starts better than the Soviet dream of a worldwide Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it could end up the same:
“That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!”
Which is why I hope the Galileo system works, and that other countries develop stealth bombers… and that nuclear weapons proliferate.
To be fair Antoine, very few Americans actually think that… for the most part it is just the Rothbardian paleo-libertarian fringe & Buchannanite paleo-conservative fringe who take the position that the USA should have sat out WW2 (I think WW1 is rather different as the Western Allies would have won regardless of any US involvement)
This is why some of us are rather suspicious of Gulf War II, etc. Democratic accountability is weak enough under ideal circumstances, and a smaller and smaller percentage of the people affected by the U.S. military will get to vote in U.S. elections.
The big warning signs for me that things are getting out of control are procedural. The unconstitutional usurpation of the war powers by the executive branch strikes me as extremely serious — but hardly anyone else in the U.S. seems to care. Add to that the various other breakdowns of limited government and Rule of Law that we Libertarians always whine about, and U.S. power begins to look rather frightening.
Remember that The One Ring is A CHEAP TRINKET, A MERE BAUBLE compared to the The President’s Nuclear Football, with its awesome power of destruction and coercion. Were democratic accountability to be undermined in a crisis, or the population whipped up into sufficient frenzy by more terrorism, the results might literally be “beautiful and terrible as the dawn.”
Right! The snowball fight is on; and you’ve been snowballed… Ha!
I forget where I read it recently, but it went something like this: “Imagine the power that your guy has just taken to himself, but used by your worst political enemy.”
As an American reader, two points:
1. The British Empire definitely was a force [eventually] for world freedom. Looking at the nations which have had the Empire as “mother and father”, we find the US, Canada, Australia, India, the Carribbean nations, etc., etc. Not too shabby a group when considered amongst the North Koreas, U.S.S.R.s, and Cubas of the world.
2. Since the 1950’s, the Americans have been very reluctant to get involved militarily. As author Victor Davis Hanson says, the Americans don’t like to be in a war, but when we finally are, we are a ferocious foe. Terrorists of all stripes will soon learn that.
Except for the deal about WWII, which Perry has already pointed out. that was an excelent article. The only problem I can see is that, on the restrictions on personal liberty which you cite, I believe a bipolar US/EU power structure would move in lock-step, as it is currently doing to restrict world banking freedom.
“that other countries develop stealth bombers… and that nuclear weapons proliferate”
The first part of your wish is OK, although with the huge current -and increasing- military, technological and R&D investment disparity between the US and the rest of the world it is pure fantasy. I hope the last part is a tongue-in-cheek comment. I suppose you don’t really want a whole lot of Islamic bombs around, do you?
I agree with Vladimir. The spread of weapons grade material is the one thing which should be an equal nightmare to anyone of any political stripe.
I’m doing much self censoring lately in this area (Loose Lips Sink Ships). But let me put it delicately… the government information on the topic is aimed at making the populace less worried than they are…
“The problem is that the British Empire was at times a force for free trade and at other times a mercantilist extortion racket.”
The problem is that the British never understood trade or markets. There were individual Brits that did of course, but the spirit of the British people was always authoritarian, based in class and rank, and so was easy pickings for socialism. A thousand years of authoritarian rule weeded out most of the libertarians and made them comfortable with central planning. When the empire collapsed they were bedridden for decades with English Disease. Worse, they infected large parts of their former colonial empire. It wasn’t until Mad Maggie invaded the sick room that Brits began a recovery from the sickness and to this day they are still weakened.
The British are so much better than continental Europeans that they appear to be in rude good health by comparison. But the old tribal enmities still exist, the old authoritarian impulse is still strong, and so a sharp shock, such as a bad economic downturn, may be all that is required for the veneer of unity to melt away. Warlords will once again rise and have no shortage of followers who will kneel, gladly trading their freedom for a promise of protection.
US empire is less likely than continued European bickering and tribal warfare. Some of it will be ethnic, as in the past, and some of it will be ideological, cutting across old tribal boundaries but animated by the same habits of mind. Socialists, greens, royalists, racists, sexists and a baker’s dozen religious sects would each carve out geographies. The US/UN would be helpless to stop the conflicts but might be able to take some of the nastier war toys away.
Antoine should rethink his yearning for nuclear proliferation. However bad the street fighting will be it would be far worse with deadlier weapons.
Antoine shows that our love affair with War has not died. War, the ultimate quack remedy for global hegemony. It also restores virility and clear thinking, supports traditional morality, etc, etc.
Antoine, please watch the opening scene of Gone with the Wind, with the enthusiasm for a quick, bold war — and the joyful rush to arms after the good news arrives. We saw similar scenes in 1914, and on Palestinian streets in 2001.
Well as the link to Perry does not seem to be working I will have to write here.
The idea that Britain and France would have won WWI without the United States is quite false. In fact they almost lost even with American support.
Perhaps if the British, French, Italians, Russsians (till 1917) had used different tactics they might have won – but in reality the Germans were winning the war. After Russia was knocked out Britain and France were being fought to a standstill (at best) and Italy was on the point of collapse. The House of Morgan had managed to get vast resources to the British and French – but it was not enough. To win the Allies needed the United States govenment.
Although the above does not mean that the United States intervention was automatically a good thing. Imperial Germany (for all its faults) was not Nazi Germany.
Are you actually saying that the US government makes drinking “almost compulsory” for its citizens older than 21? And, are you actually implying that an American “empire” would seek to extend this to the world at large? (“We have ways to make you party! Mwa ha ha ha!”)
I hope I mis-read, but if I didn’t, I fear you may have personally lost the war on drugs.
(Remember, fellow US citizens, the third Friday of every month is Federal Booze Buying Day. Slug one back for Uncle Sam.)
WW1 was a territory squabble between monarchies. A win by Germany would have been harmless, and would have utterly prevented WW2.
Nuclear proliferation is (a) good, because “MAD” actually does work (b) inevitable, one cannot put a lid on the laws of physics nor the long term diffusion of information. Nowadays if spies steal the computer modelling software, nuke-makers won’t even have to live test in a seismically unsubtle way.
I disagree completely with Paul that Germany was winning WW1 before the US threw its weight behind the allies… all the US did was shorten the war, but that is a lengthy argument I would have to be in the mood for. Another time maybe. Also, the link to my article on Lord of the Rings works just fine for me!
As for nuclear proliferation, Julian is correct. There is nothing that can stop it forever. Certainly if I was a small country who was planning on doing things not actually against the USA but of which the USA might disapprove, I would certainly be inclined to think a few nukes were a good low cost/intermediat tech equalizer and a major discouragement for Uncle Sam to sit a carrier group off my coast as a sign of its disapproval… to paraphase a well known saying about Colonel Colt and gun ownership:
“God made nations, but Robert Openheimer made them equal…”
Unlike Antoine, I am not so happy to see nuclear proliferation but as Julian points out, it will happen. After all, the USA, Britain, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India & Isreal have them, millions of people understand the science involved and it is just 1940’s technology. Also it is not like the existing owners have any special moral value that any third party is likely to accept.
Hilarious.
Crusade to rid the world of child labor? What crusade? You mean the effort a few years ago by university groups?
The war on tax evasion? It’s the EU that wants to require mom-and-pop internet stores in Kansas and Indonesia to collect VAT taxes for EU countries, while the U.S. doesn’t even let New York make New Jersey firms collect New York sales tax (VAT-equivalent). It’s the EU that wants the Swiss to break banking privacy for the benefit of state income tax collection. It’s the EU that wants to put sanctions on tax havens in the Carribean in the name of global tax harmonization.
A worldwide age of sexual consent? The United States doesn’t even have a national age of sexual consent.
I’m just wondering — what is the source of your beliefs about the United States? The Guardian?
“In other words, although US global supremacy starts better than the Soviet dream of a worldwide Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it could end up the same”
I must take exception to the above. A false assumption of moral equivalency between a totalitarian state dreaming of hegemony and a democracit republic whose hegemony exists because of the downfall of said totalitarion state underlies your premise. Also, you hedge your bets by writing; “…it could end up the same”, meaning it may or may not, depending on innumerable societal, cultural and historic variables. Now then, on to the rest of the article.
Let us take as a given the US will not allow any nation or group of nations to impact it’s ability to act in her own self interest. As Vladimer correctly stated, with the preponderance of world R & D expenditures being made by the US, when a technical solution to the Galileo interference is found, it will be implemented.
As to other nations fielding stealth weaponry, not many countries can afford it. One B-2 costs more to produce than the annual budget of the Canadian Army. To produce and put into operation a viable force of stealth fighters and bombers costs more than Europe’s and China’s combined military expenditures. Now, while over time costs will fall, the technology is aging and some reports are even now hinting the present generation planes are losing their edge. So, another huge R & D cost is in the offing to keep stealth viable and only the US can and will pay the piper.
Finally, as for nuclear proliferation, it will occur because the laws of physics have no national borders. Let us all hope that as time passes the west can develop a plan to make it more rewarding for third world nations to NOT develop them than to field nuclear warheads
Yes, consent is a state-by-state thing in the US, although the de facto age is 18 if you’re dealing in interstate commerce.
A lot of alleged “conservatives” in the United States seem more properly classified as authoritarians. They don’t even pay lip service to limited government anymore and they seem to have little qualms about a police state as long as it’s run by Republicans. (Some call em “fair weather federalists” some “cafeteria constitutionalists”).
Ashcroft, for example, is increasingly scary and I doubt Bush will reign him in. I keep hoping someone will dig up some “racially insensitve” comment he made 10 years ago and he’ll have to step down. . .
If the Galileo is made workable, then the United States having to ask permission to do anything is absolute nonsense…before they would let their system be compromised, it wouldn’t be surprising if Galileo suffered some kind of mysterious failure. Keep this in mind when you wish for something…it is best to be careful what one wishes for !!
Paul, perhaps you should stick to your excellent articles on economics:
The former is pure BS. That the war was won upon entry of the US was a foregone conclusion. As it was, the war effort did not begin to tax US capabilities.
As for the latter: “you don’t say”… The early part of WWI was a study in tactician’s failure to keep up with modern technology.
“Which is why I hope the Galileo system works, and that other countries develop stealth bombers… and that nuclear weapons proliferate.”
Antoine, are you sorry the Soviet empire fell, thus leaving US power unrivalled ? Or do you feel the need for some other Evil Empire to rise (maybe one controlled by Saddam & Osama), so as to correct the current power imbalance ?
If there was a War Against drinking Under 21 in the works, you’d think there’d be complaints about Canada already. There aren’t.
As someone pointed out, the US doesn’t even have one age of consent for all the states. In fact, my own state doesn’t even have one for everyone. It depends on the relative ages of the partners. It’s 16, but if the older one is within three years of the younger, it’s perfectly legal.
Mandatory drinking…..hmmmm….perhaps I will reconsider my anti-statist views, particularly if the required libation is 15 year old Laphroiag! I Pledge My Allegiance to the State!!!
OK. I take back the bit about forcing alcohol on over 21s (pity).
However, the Mrs Dole and Mrs Gore double act of campaigning against teenage drinking and “satanic” music is part of a US conservative drive to clean up society. This drive is not restricted to making America sweetness and light. The US intervention in Somalia in 1992 was heavily involved in puritainical disapproval of the local drug “Qat”, black people with guns, and the paradox of shooting civilians in order to save them.
There is a fine line between defending freedom and enforcing special interest. I think the US will cross that line, probably unintentionally.
To those people on the receiving end of a cruise missile, the fact that “we meant good” is no good at all.
‘Nuclear proliferation is (a) good, because “MAD” actually does work ‘
Thus far, but will it in the future?
As for Mrs. Gore & Dole, they are free to ‘campaign’ for anything they’d like. Have you heard any American rap music lately?
‘Nuclear proliferation is (a) good, because “MAD” actually does work ‘
Thus far, but will it in the future?
As for Mrs. Gore & Dole, they are free to ‘campaign’ for anything they’d like. Have you heard any American rap music lately?
Sometimes I wonder what planet my feet are on . . . . . .
This may be the silliest comment I’ve seen on any blog in a year:
“In other words, although US global supremacy starts better than the Soviet dream of a worldwide Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it could end up the same:”
You don’t have to be a defender of the United States to ask a simple, rational question: Is there more or less freedom to do as one pleases in the United States today versus the good old days in the USSR? Or, is there more or less freedom in U.S. protectorates today (say, Puerto Rico) versus USSR protectorates (Latvia, Poland, Afghanistan) in the good old days?
Oh, and the linkage of U.S. attitudes toward joining either WW I or WW II TO the U.S. perspective on the British Empire as a force of freedom is silly. If America wanted to maintain the British Empire as a force of freedom perhaps we would have invaded India on behalf of the British? What sort of lunacy is this? THERE IS NO LINKAGE between these two separate topics. None. No further discussion needed.
And as for MAD working in this modern era, well, good luck. MAD worked because the parties involved were rational, identifiable and deterable. As nuclear weapons proliferate and perhaps fall into “hard-to-identify” hands, it’s hard to see how MAD helps much. That’s in large part what so-called Asymmetric warfare is all about. The more nuclear proliferation there is, the more risk there is of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of really bad anarchists – such as Osama bin Laden or worse. As best I can tell, there is no effective deterrence of those people other than killing all of them before they kill a bunch of your people.
Out.
The Dole-Gore double act is fringe. Mrs. Gore didn’t get anything enacted, Mrs. Dole is merely a junior Senator, the American conservative movement in the forms of the major movement magazines (National Review, Weekly Standard) and think-tanks (AEI, Heritage, Cato) criticized both of them, and neither major party backs their crusades.
Your analysis of Somalia is equally silly. A problem with black people with guns? A third of Americans who were *sent there* were black people with guns, and their ultimate head, Colin Powell, was a black man.
Again, where are you getting your information on the U.S.? You seem to have as much understanding of America as I have of Britian — but at least I know that I don’t understand Britain.
An astonishing number of speculations here.
The facts are that American hegemony does not exist at this juncture and nuclear/missile proliferation is increasing.
Since the actions of North Korea and Iraq appear to be co-ordinated to present a challenge to the superpower role of the US, haven’t we all travelled a little way ahead of reality.
How would US ‘hegemony’ be structured and what technology would it be based upon?
I’ll take at the moment US hegemony, thank you.
Might it deteriorate in the future towards totalitarianism ? It might. When it does we will reopen the discussion.
Let’s just thank our stars that we live under US hegemony and not under Soviet hegemony. I don’t feel an urgent need to have more missiles and more nukes arround, I don’t feel an urgent need to reign in the US.
(I don’t live in the US).
So, this reminds you of Lord of the Rings? It makes me think of Kipling’s Tommy Atkins.
Tommy Atkins as in?
‘it’s Tommy this, and Tommy that, and chuck ‘im out– the brute! But it’s thin red line of heroes when the guns begin to shoot.’
(with apologies to Kipling for the mangled punctuation)
Damn, it’s good to hear people Kipling again.
As the number of nuclear actors proliferates, MAD will cease to function as a means by which to prevent nuclear attacks, and the result is likely to be at least a few cities being incinerated. MAD is dependent on the assumption of rational actors, and given sufficient proliferation, it is probable that there will eventually be an actor who is not rational, at least by what is commonly thought of as “rational”, and furthermore, the existence of one or more non-rational actors will have great effect on the behavior of rational actors, given that they will feel far less secure, due to their lessened ability to predict the behavior of non-rational actors, and the inherently greater complexity in predicting outcomes in systems with multiple actors, as opposed to a simple binary system. Finally, as was noted above, MAD is irretrievably dependent on the ability to accurately determine the source of an attack. With increased proliferation, there will likely be multiple actors who are able to obtain fissile material from a common source, which means that a device deployed in a secretive manner could be exploded without the nation being attacked being able to determine who the attacker was, even if it is assumed that fissile material can be traced with 100% accuracy, which is more problematic than most fiction depicts. Is it credible that that the U.S. would atomically annihilate four nations, in the hopes that it vaporized the right one? If so, does this not give incentive to an unsuspected fifth nation to set the chain of events in motion, if it would result in one or two of it’s most bitter rivals destroyed? Given that other, even rational, actors will have to consider such scenarios, and adjust their thinking regarding what risks they are exposed to, does it not suggest how destabilizing nuclear proliferation is likely to be? Those who favor proliferation as a means by which potential American hegemony can be checked will come to regret their support once a few mushroom clouds dot the globe, and will miss the days when an American naval carrier group could cause various tyrannical thugs to rethink their options. The world can tolerate a deterrence system for conventional weapons with a 10%, 20%, or even greater, rate of failure. Even a 5% rate of failure in regards to deterring the use of nuclear weapons is going to be very nasty indeed.
Something worth thinking about is the *kind* of nukes that are proliferating. What we are talking about here is antiquated 1950s technology, huge chunky bombs with yields in the kiloton range (a mere firecracker by modern standards). Simple “slam two large subcritical lumps of uranium together” sort of devices. You couldn’t smuggle them in a rowboat, they are as big as small trucks. With the weak blast radius, the bomb would have to be right in the downtown of whatever city it was aimed at. The inefficient design uses lots of fissile material and means huge per-bomb cost and easy detection with radiation sensors. Not a terrorist’s weapon. Not even a sensible warmonger’s weapon; you could get far more bang for your buck with a simple gasoline-air explosive, and without the diplomatic complictions. But very effective persuading *other* people not to shoot you. Nukes are probably the reason India and Pakistan didn’t go to war earlier this year.
>Which is why I hope the Galileo system works,
>and that other countries develop stealth
>bombers… and that nuclear weapons proliferate
Only a European Git could believe something that stupid.
America is fighting the War on Terrorism for one reason: to Secure the American Homeland, whatever it takes.
If that takes Empire, fine.
If it takes Genocide instead, then Europe will involuntarily host a large number of radiation poisoned muslim refugees.
It is the proliferation of WMD that makes “American Empire” more rather than less likely.
It is also my observation that by the time that other nations deploy stealth aircraft, the USA will have moved beyond it, given its military R&D preponderence and on-going .
“Since the 1950’s, the Americans have been very reluctant to get involved militarily. As author Victor Davis Hanson says, the Americans don’t like to be in a war, but when we finally are, we are a ferocious foe. Terrorists of all stripes will soon learn that.”
This is practically delusional. The U.S. has been involved in quite a few wars and operations since the 1950’s, some large, some small.