John Jay has written an essay on the state of the world as a result of America's decadent forfeiture of all that made her great ("this has not been because of the decay of American power. it has been because of America’s timidity to exercise power"). The ensuing catastrophe(s) will be devastating. Read it all here.
since more or less the year of our lord 1945, a generalized peace and prosperity has reigned over the world, the likes of which has probably never obtained. there have most certainly been burps, such as korea and viet nam and warfare in africa and the sahara and the middle east, but it has not been on the scale and of the intensity of previous global conflict, nor centered around the european and russian global powers. (yes, i know n. viet nam was russia’s proxy, as were many african nationalist movements, but proxies are why you farm out the little conflicts, to avoid the big ones, and i think my point stands: you may disagree.) and, those interruptions of the peace and the decay into violence and savagery of a lesser scale have been attributable to the dyspepsia of socialism and marxism, and islam, … , the thuggery of the communist party in russia, china, cambodia, and the religious murder in darfur, rhwanda, and the cannibalism of the middle east, and the combination of the two in yugoslavia and kosovo and serbia.
but, as odd as it may sound after recounting the various not inconsiderable conflicts in the previous paragraphs, the world has been generally at peace. and, all because, i would assert, of what has been described as the "pax americana," or the imposition of american empire and dominance upon the world, depending on the world view being propounded. in the last 65 years or so, america has been the pre-eminent military, economic and diplomatic power in the world, and its military and diplomacy have imposed peace upon the major disputants in the world over the past 6 or 7 decades, in all regions of the world.
do you doubt this assertion?
well, we shall see, but in my opinion, there will be plenty of proof of this assertion, as this hard won world stability disintegrates in the next few years. but, before i examine that, consider if you will.—
the united states navy. world commerce flows upon our oceans, for the most part calmly and without interruption, because of the united states navy. since wwii it has been the world’s only true blue water navy, and the only navy on the face of the earth able to project power to all points of the globe. it has kept the sea lanes of the world open and uninterrupted over those years, which may seem obvious upon even the briefest reflection, but what is not so obvious, given the whining and crying and caterwauling that goes on about the united states from all quarters, is that it has been the one institution on the face of the earth entrusted by the rest of the world to carry on this function.
you have never heard it expressed just that way before, have you?
the english have never really built a navy capable of interdicting the americans, and neither have the french or the germans, and in a very real sense, neither have the russians and their proxies, nor their soviet predecessors. and, of the genuinely maritime peoples of the world, the scandinavians, the japanese, the filipinos, none of them have sought to interfere with the sway of the american navy.
do you really think these people could not have built bottoms to put guns and missiles on, had they really thought it necessary in order to protect their maritime geopolitical interests, or to protect their commerce? with all due apology, (and i mean no sincere apology), you are quite foolish, indeed.
the reason that no one has built navies to counteract the american navy is that no one has thought it particularly necessary, having accrued every benefit associated with american hegemony on the oceans, and having experienced no burdens or humiliations of national interests because of unimpeded american power.
one should not be unmindful that even in this later day, no other nation on earth has strategic air craft carriers even remotely comparable to an american super carrier, and no nation on earth can put to sea an integrated air craft carrier task force remotely comparable to an american task force, and no nation has the amphibious landing capacity of a marine amphibious carrier task force.
none. and, such has been the even handedness of america’s application of sea power, that no other nation on earth has really seen fit to challenge it, save the soviet’s, and their efforts were pitiful and lie rusting in harbor in vladivostok, a peculiar harbor for a blue water navy, if there ever was one.
the next time you start up your toyota, or bmw, or turn on your blaupunkt stereo, think of what i have said. and, in the coming years, the next time you read of a japanese car carrier being intercepted in the south china sea or off the coast of somalia, think of what i have just said with some respect, and not dismissive derision. try thinking it through to the conclusion i am going to lay on you, on your own, before i hit you with it.
the united states army & air force. in the strictest strategic sense, there is one military force of infantry, armor and combined arms able to project power in the world, and that is of the united states. the rationale behind this assertion is obvious, and ironclad, and that is because the united states army has the united states navy to ship it around the world with near impunity, and that is because all the other armies of the world are landlocked, and cannot project power away from the land because they are unavailing of a navy to get them anywhere.
there is, as a matter of fact, one army in the world that would have even a modicum of success standing toe to toe with the u.s. army and marines, and that is the communist chinese. even the u.s. army might be ill advised to slog it out with the red chinese (lord, doncha just love that expression) in the mountainous regions of china, but, on an open plain with the u.s. logistics train fully intact, the chinese would suffer prodigiously at the hands of american combined arms: they simply do not have the array of weaponry, or the numbers, to withstand american armor, artillery, helicopter and mechanized attack, nor do they remotely have the command and communications structure to fight a war of movement and maneuver with the united states. it would be, as they say, a target rich environment for u.s. forces.
the russian army. well, the various engagements in the middle east suggest that even at the heyday of soviet armored power, coming across the fulda gap in germany would not have been all that easy for the russian massed columns, as neither soviet doctrine nor weaponry showed very well in the middle east against israel.
but, the same observations apply here, as above.
the pissing and moaning of the world’s leftist politicians aside, and the stupidity of our own domestic left, … , none of this, has seriously impelled any nation save the chinese and russians to build armies and infantries and allied air forces to challenge the united states. again, the reasoning and rationales for this fact are starkly apparent to anyone capable of thinking the matter through for more than 2 seconds at a time, and that is simply because no nation on earth has felt the need to.
