I think the line this article is taking is one that has been told for a while. It's just now possible that it will become visible in the next few years.
The US may continue it's first place in % of world GDP for a long time (depending on how we define the EU), but that's not going to mean what it used to. First with 15% when second third & fourth come in at 14, 13 & 12 doesn't have the same sort of affect on the world.
In 2006 the surprise free (exact continuation of existing trends) prediction for the economic superpower map was China surpassing the States by 2040 with India not far behind & several countries at around 50% of the US's GDP. The China-US equivalent was then moved to 2025 in 2007 (when the dollar went on the move).
Now, a year down the line we hit another bump (so much for no surprises). China's political dependence on economic growth & preference for good news, might mean it's a while before anyone knows how China is affected. They could come out more affected then the US. But that said, it seems possible that the US will indeed be only one of several big players very soon. China doesn't seem too interested in exerting political influence beyond their immediate interests currently. Russia does but is not likely to wield enough power soon. The EU is not a great mechanism for converting economic power to military & political power. So the US will probably have a little more pull then their % of GDP should entitle them to, for a while. But USA 2020 is not the same kind of a power as US 1990. Potentially similar to Russia 1970 vs 2000.
The reality about things like 'The War on Terror' is that opinions of it among academics, analysts, intelligent politicians (who by definition do not disclose their true feelings on the subject) and importantly security/military experts are that it is a threat on par with organised crime, HIV, traffic accidents or whatever other troubles they might have. Only a small handful of countries are seriously threatened by 'terrorists' either in terms of affecting the lives of citizens (eg Israel) or politically (eg Lebanon). And that is a far less serious threat then your average border conflict between nations (which is likely result in loss of sovereignty or territory) or internal conflicts.
The thing is, that makes sense. Britain copped a bombing. I don't want to belittle that but if not for the political ramifications, that's no worse then what a month of bad weather can do to traffic accidents. Certainly affects people's lives a lot less then things like healthcare, policing or education. It's not a danger of the 'Napoleon is coming' kind nor is signing up to the a war effort controversially effective in stopping it.
If that's the opinion of most while the US president is still talking terrorists, the US comes off as irrelevant. Almost like talking about making a choice between Socialism & Barbarism.
Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do things which are harmful to it.
I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not under a serious threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada, Japan or virtually anyone else.
The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
Think about your use of the word serious. Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom, change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up the damage on a balance sheet.
The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.
Comments
I think the line this article is taking is one that has been told for a while. It's just now possible that it will become visible in the next few years.
The US may continue it's first place in % of world GDP for a long time (depending on how we define the EU), but that's not going to mean what it used to. First with 15% when second third & fourth come in at 14, 13 & 12 doesn't have the same sort of affect on the world.
In 2006 the surprise free (exact continuation of existing trends) prediction for the economic superpower map was China surpassing the States by 2040 with India not far behind & several countries at around 50% of the US's GDP. The China-US equivalent was then moved to 2025 in 2007 (when the dollar went on the move).
Now, a year down the line we hit another bump (so much for no surprises). China's political dependence on economic growth & preference for good news, might mean it's a while before anyone knows how China is affected. They could come out more affected then the US. But that said, it seems possible that the US will indeed be only one of several big players very soon. China doesn't seem too interested in exerting political influence beyond their immediate interests currently. Russia does but is not likely to wield enough power soon. The EU is not a great mechanism for converting economic power to military & political power. So the US will probably have a little more pull then their % of GDP should entitle them to, for a while. But USA 2020 is not the same kind of a power as US 1990. Potentially similar to Russia 1970 vs 2000.
The reality about things like 'The War on Terror' is that opinions of it among academics, analysts, intelligent politicians (who by definition do not disclose their true feelings on the subject) and importantly security/military experts are that it is a threat on par with organised crime, HIV, traffic accidents or whatever other troubles they might have. Only a small handful of countries are seriously threatened by 'terrorists' either in terms of affecting the lives of citizens (eg Israel) or politically (eg Lebanon). And that is a far less serious threat then your average border conflict between nations (which is likely result in loss of sovereignty or territory) or internal conflicts.
The thing is, that makes sense. Britain copped a bombing. I don't want to belittle that but if not for the political ramifications, that's no worse then what a month of bad weather can do to traffic accidents. Certainly affects people's lives a lot less then things like healthcare, policing or education. It's not a danger of the 'Napoleon is coming' kind nor is signing up to the a war effort controversially effective in stopping it.
If that's the opinion of most while the US president is still talking terrorists, the US comes off as irrelevant. Almost like talking about making a choice between Socialism & Barbarism.
Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do things which are harmful to it.
I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not under a serious threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada, Japan or virtually anyone else.
The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
Think about your use of the word serious. Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom, change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up the damage on a balance sheet.
The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.