[ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split)
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 10:31:02 UTC 2008
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:25 AM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ummm...., I think the US needs to be a military superpower (at least for the
> near future) to offset those nations who would engage in "Germany in the
> late 30's" behavior (I sure don't see Europe doing it anytime soon).
It may well be in the interest of the US to remain a military
superpower as long as they can, but one should make the little
perspectivist effort to realise that they may well be perceived in
exactly the same terms by other, competing, countries.
> the "21st Century global Nato" to offset
> Russian (and especially) Chinese aspirations for unlawful military/political
As opposed to "lawful" military/political expansion or egemony,
"lawful" as defined by international institutions largely dominated by
the US and their friends? :-)
Would you really blame the Russian Federation for preferring an
Eurasiatic scenario where the geopolitical "heartland" establishes an
alliance and a Monroe-like doctrine preventing political
interferences, military attacks and exploitment of local natural
resources by outer powers?
More information about the extropy-chat