N.A.U.

[TallDave]

You wouldn't know it from the news, but there is actually less war now than at any time in human civilization.

But the current Pax Americana might be better called Pax Democracia Liberal. The Romans had vassals subjugated by force, we have allies and friends that virtually never war.

[djolds1]

Now if we could make that impression on enough people, maybe we'd have a chance of a Pax Americana truly breaking out.

Most of the world has been organized under a Pax Americanum since 1950. The next step is an Imperium Americanum.

Look for someone who fixes the problems no politician has been willing to spend 'political capital' on previously. First Emperors do those types of things.

[djolds1]

By focusing on the interests of Mexico and Canada, I've implied one option: US mentality changes. I think this is the more plausible scenario.

Of course America today wouldn't want to do this. They'd need a serious reduction in their relative power to contemplate giving up any power to Mexico or Canada.

Absent the Yellowstone Megavolcano blowing its top, or some similarly stage left weirdness, the US is not going to experience anywhere near that level of power reduction within the next 10 generations.

Any NAU would be an American tool, much like the French imagined the EU would be theirs. But in the case of an NAU, it really would be fully American owned and operated.

An NAU would only come into existence if the US wanted it. And if the US does want it, accommodations to Mexican and Canadian concerns would be minimal. The US can force Mexico and Canada to join if it so desires. The US is usually very solicitous, playing by the rules. When it doesn't do that, it is a terror to oppose.

I'd like to specifically point out, however, that I'm not thinking of an American EU, with hobbled state actors and highly seperate policies and militaries. I'm hoping for something with strong Federal powers, ultimately acting something like a single nation.

Probably too late for that. The US would've had to annex Mexico during the Mexican-American War.

Agreed. That's why I brought up China and said the Earth is a big place. Maybe the US can maintain relevance without becoming a larger state. I hope you're right. But I hear a lot of apocalyptic projections in the news about the US losing a lot of its power and China gaining a lot, along with others.

China is balancing on the razor's edge right now.

A highly multipolar world scares me, and I hope it scares US politicians. One way or another, we need one dominant superpower to keep things stable.

Europe 1820-1910 was very stable. The high water crescendo of Western civilization in fact. Only short Cabinet Wars on the continent. Also multipolar.

[MirariNefas]

Europe 1820-1910 was very stable. The high water crescendo of Western civilization in fact. Only short Cabinet Wars on the continent. Also multipolar.

Maybe you know something about history that I don't, but I see this as having led directly into WWI. I see WWIII as being a consequence of too many actors with just enough power to hope for something more. If all we were looking at was another WWII, maybe that wouldn't bother me so much. But I don't think we can afford war on that scale with the weapons made possible by modern technology. MAD worked when you had just two major powers, but I can't see it working for a long period of time between many.

But if you have one big supernation with the biggest economic and military stick, nobody will act up.

[Jeff Peachman]

Everyone's heard Einstein's quote about how WWIII will be fought....

All the more reason to start making colonies in space before we all blow ourselves to bits.

I don't see it being very likely right now, but who knows what the world political climate will be like years from now.

But I don't see what any particular individuals have to gain from an NAU. By that I mean, if a world leader wanted to create a super state, whats in it for him/her? Its not as if they could be a dictator (the people would never allow it).

Whats in it for the citizens of the country?

[MirariNefas]

The new superstate would be the most influential state, able to spread its ideology without fear of being dominated by any other state. That sounds like a pretty good deal for citizens to me. You'd know that your superstate could look out for your interests effectively, and uphold the sort of justice you expect from Western values.

Would you seriously rather be a citizen or political leader in an irrelevant state, with the international laws being made by other powers to suit other powers, with foreign corporations coming in and running the economy in your country, with the most educated of your people leaving to find employment in a more effective country? I'd rather live in the biggest, strongest western state I could.

[djolds1]

Maybe you know something about history that I don't, but I see this as having led directly into WWI.

Sure the Post-Napoleonic order went bad eventually. So what? Entropy is the nature of the universe. Everything "fall down go boom!" in time.

In fact, 1914 was a matter of multiple players rolling double snake eyes at the same time. There had been innumerable "micro-crises" before 1914. Had the players kept on managing to avoid that single worst case roll, we could still be living in the world of the white man's burden today (with probably c.1960 level tech). Better in some ways, worse in others.

I see WWIII as being a consequence of too many actors with just enough power to hope for something more. If all we were looking at was another WWII, maybe that wouldn't bother me so much.

I assume you mean WW2 above, not WW3 (which has various definitions).

WW2 was a consequence of French Revanchism, American stupidity, and Germany rolling bad by getting Hitler.

Prime Minister David Lloyd George said of Versailles that he was trapped between Napoleon on his left and Jesus Christ to his right. He was not far wrong in that. The UK alone was unable to moderate French revanchism, and "Jesus" Wilson was more interested in his utopian circle jerk called the League of Nations than he was in an actual workable peace. The Peace of Versailles was recognized as being nothing more than a 20 year truce. Had Germany gotten someone slightly smarter then the Boho Corporal, Germany would have rearmed, repudiated Versailles, and retaken its territory and a bit more in defiance (upto incorporating Austria into the long dreamed of GroBDeutschland). It took Hitler to roll triple or nothing and create a continental gotterdamerung.

But I don't think we can afford war on that scale with the weapons made possible by modern technology. MAD worked when you had just two major powers, but I can't see it working for a long period of time between many.

Odds are we never see war on that scale between moderately rational nuclear powers. Nuclear fear is not of the true powers but the utopian rogues, the theoretical Philosopher Kingdoms of North Korea, Iran and others of their type.

But if you have one big supernation with the biggest economic and military stick, nobody will act up.

And if you like nothing new ever being created, favor a Universal State of this type. Look to the great innovations of New Kingdom Egypt, or the successful ambitions of Imperial China like the Fleet of Zheng He. Any type of change is a threat to a universal regime of this sort, and so no change will be permitted. And since there would be no external competitors, there would be no challenge to the rotten edifice. Rotten states of this "hydraulic empire" type can last indefinitely so long as they face no external pressures.

Eternal stagnation does not attract. Better the risk of infrequent nuclear war or even extinction than the guarantee of stultification. As per the military practice, "Up or Out."

Duane

[Skipjack]

The outcome of WW1 pretty much made WW2 inevitable. Hitler was the worst that could have ever happened to Germany, though.
"Thanks" to this man we are still the worlds favorite satan even more than 63 years later. If I have to see yet another holywood evil nazi movie, I think I will barf... Oh yeah wait there is one with Tom Cruise coming out these days.... uaaargh... splatt buuurp. Sorry.


Someone said the Canadians would have no other option than joining the NUA. I dont know, they could join the EU too. I mean Canada certainly is better than some of the new members, cough... In that light the fact that it is not on the European continent is neglectable

[djolds1]

The outcome of WW1 pretty much made WW2 inevitable.

A German response was inevitable.

A second round of civilizational attempted suicide, stretching from the Pyrenees to Moscow, and only 20 years after the end of the first belly slitting?

That took skilz.

Hitler was the worst that could have ever happened to Germany, though.
"Thanks" to this man we are still the worlds favorite satan even more than 63 years later. If I have to see yet another Hollywood evil nazi movie, I think I will barf... Oh yeah wait there is one with Tom Cruise coming out these days.... uaaargh... splatt buuurp. Sorry.

He also gave us computers, jet engines, IRBMs and mature practical nuclear science, all in the space of 3 years.

The Boho also made the West's traditional "polite Antisemitism" unacceptable for 2 generations. Its only now coming back. And humorously, modern neonazis are starting to like Jews. The Israelis do kick ass with the best; nazis like that. And the Israelis have reclaimed the "Historic Jewish Homeland," which esoteric fascists like.

Someone said the Canadians would have no other option than joining the NUA. I dont know, they could join the EU too. I mean Canada certainly is better than some of the new members, cough... In that light the fact that it is not on the European continent is neglectable

Canada could join the EU if the US permitted it. And it could remain in the EU so long as the US permitted it. The Western Hemisphere north of the Equator is American domain, regardless of what the lines on the maps say. The proper polite words and pleasantries would be uttered in public, but the machtpolitik reality is always there to be seen just below the surface.

Duane

[MSimon]

Duane,

I have noted this before but it is relevant to your above.

Anti-Semitism peaked in the US in 1944. Probably just before pictures of the camps hit American newspapers.

==

As to that strain of hate in Europe? It is mostly outsourced to Arab immigrants.

[MirariNefas]

I see WWIII as being a consequence of too many actors with just enough power to hope for something more. If all we were looking at was another WWII, maybe that wouldn't bother me so much.

I assume you mean WW2 above, not WW3 (which has various definitions).

No, I meant WWIII/WW3. I was making a prediction for how I thought WW3 would come about.

[MirariNefas]

But I don't think we can afford war on that scale with the weapons made possible by modern technology. MAD worked when you had just two major powers, but I can't see it working for a long period of time between many.

Odds are we never see war on that scale between moderately rational nuclear powers. Nuclear fear is not of the true powers but the utopian rogues, the theoretical Philosopher Kingdoms of North Korea, Iran and others of their type.

I completely disagree. Without a world policeman (one strong superstate), moderate powers, even of the rational variety, will be tempted into little wars and skirmishes to obtain more power. Sooner or later that'll lead to a miscalculation and a widely escalating conflict. You talk about the odds of hitler this and different dice rolls for conflict that, but over enough time all the different dice combinations will be rolled. I want a system where the dice are weighted to restrict unsavory options.

[MirariNefas]

And if you like nothing new ever being created, favor a Universal State of this type. Look to the great innovations of New Kingdom Egypt, or the successful ambitions of Imperial China like the Fleet of Zheng He.

Unfair. You compare dictatorial empires without the scientific method and no intellectual property rights to those of today. Yes, back in the day, the state was the only engine of progress, because they weren't in a good position for free markets to encourage people to innovate, and the emperor was accountable to no one but himself. And yes, that meant empires without competition tended not to develop new things. Great.

These days, Coca-Cola will compete with Pepsi for a better formular whether or not we have multiple states. We don't need national competition to drive technical progress. Free market competition will do enough to improve our standards of living and advance our societies. I have no doubt that governmental reforms will also occur, because voters want better lives. That will never change, and they'll always be pressing their governments to make it happen, however they can, regardless of whether or not they need to compete with the next country over the water.


In any case, I point out once again, I'm arguing for an NAU, not one universal state. I'm not sure I want one world government, though it has its attractions. But I definately want fewer governments, and I want a clear western leader.

[Jeff Peachman]

He also gave us computers, jet engines, IRBMs and mature practical nuclear science, all in the space of 3 years.

With all due respect, you really can't give Hitler credit for any of that. That's a testament to great German science and engineering. To his credit, he did electrify his people enough to get germany's economy to take off, which did make these things possible, but I still do not believe he deserves credit for any of it.

The Boho also made the West's traditional "polite Antisemitism" unacceptable for 2 generations. Its only now coming back.

Coming back? huh? ...

[Skipjack]

Just for the record, I fully agree with Jeff here.