Sunday, October 26, 2008

Does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning? Does there need to be a counterbalance to the U.S. power in the world today?

I think the answer must most definetly be yes; this idea of "balance of power does still have meaning to it in this time. However the answer to whether the USA needs a counterbalance from another country is a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no. In medieval and post-medieval times rulers and countries weren't necessarily greedy but the one thing that sets them apart from us is that they had the constantly oncoming findings of LAND! Naturally people of the time would want to conquer and inhabit as much land as possible to establish themselves as a major world power. I'm not criticizing the way these people lived but rather creating the setting and context of the way people acted. Now in the present time all major land is inhabited and "ruled over". Because of this there are already many different major world powers, and when I say many I mean more than Europe had, which was only 5 or 6. So I don't believe that one country needs to counterbalance the power of the USA, but instead many. As history has proved the more world powers that there seem to be, the more protected each one is. This, I believe, is because each country sort of counterbalances each other making it pretty much impossible for any one world power to just decide to try to take over the world.

6 comments:

Laxgoalie21 said...

I Agree, One of the main reasons that the united nations was created was to peacefully check any one country that was making threatening gestures that suggest world domination.

Laxgoalie21 said...

Pat.

Hilary Kane said...

Two things:
Ben, I totally agree with your statement about there needing to be not one but many countries or powers checking and balancing the power of the United States. If there was just one other power to keep the U.S. in line, it would never work.
Also, the United Nations is just not working out.

Atticus said...

I agree with benny for the first time in my life. I would add however that The ballence of power was based on protection and simple power back then. Countries joined together to stop the bigger countries from accomplishing world domination. Now it is based on opinion. Nobody now-a-days is tring to take over the world, but allies are made to fight a common cause. nobody likes terrorism therefore we have allies in the war on terrorism to abolish it. our enemies have allies simply because they hate us.

Rob Martin said...

Attie, do you know how to spell?
Regardless of your spelling you bring up a good point relating the balance of power to terrorism. After 9/11 the International Community understood the reasons for the invasion of US troops and allies into Afghanistan. However, if the US were to go against the International Communities wishes and invade a country that was unwarranted for attack then you could not only lose respect of the other powerhouses of the world, you could also leave yourself vulnerable as other allies stray away from you. (Oh whoops that already happened).

Denali said...

I still think that will mutually assured destruction/all that jazz little countries don't count for much, and balance of power doesn't really work out unless you've got the world on one side and the three countries on the axis of evil on the other.