I am not attempting to justify these actions, but politics and economics are one and the same. The job of the NSA is to keep the USA in a position of power economically and politically to help stabilize the world. Since WW2 we have had an unprecedented period where major world powers have not gone to war directly and this is a direct result of the American hegemony.
> Since WW2 we have had an unprecedented period where major world powers have not gone to war directly and this is a direct result of the American hegemony.
No. It's a result of nuclear deterrance (ie. doctrine of M.A.D.)
> The job of the NSA is to keep the USA in a position of power economically and politically to help stabilize the world.
I think you mean just to keep the US in power. The US destabilizes most countries in which it 'intervenes'. That's the point though, the more countries are broken up, the less likely anyone will challenge the US.
This is a suuuuuuuuuper complicated issue, keep in mind. There are a lot of things that go into the current geo-political situation and though nukes are one major card in the deck, there are many many others.
That we have not gone to war with other major powers is a debatable point as well. Though not as apparent as WW2, the proxy wars have been draining on our nations and peoples.
One thing to remember about nukes is not that they are so damaging, but that the damage is so fast and long lasting. The old maxim of 'war is good for business' is not true with a-bombs. Not due to the blast and damage, but due to the radiation. We still have no idea what it does and how to contain it and make a profit, it's just too toxic (like gasses)
Nuclear deterrence is no doubt part of the reason why major wars have ended, but another reason is greatly expanded international trade. The cost of invading a nation you trade with is much higher than the cost of invading a nation you don't trade with.
I'm not sure that is objectively true. This is worth a watch to compare the first half of the 20th century with the time since: https://vimeo.com/128373915
I dont like reading into these kinds of analyses. What do you want to conclude? The battle against human suffering is done? We are certainly doing a good job when compared to WW2, but when we look at past 20 years -- we have been degrading. Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, ... millions were impacted by these conflicts. In Israel/Palestine an entire people are facing genocide by an illegal occupation. Look at South America -- what impact has the domestic and foreign policy of the US had on those countries? Yes, its great that millions aren't dying in world wars any more. But we still have a lot of work to do.
Either Israel is attempting to annihilate the Palestinians, or they aren't. The Palestinians are still here. Israel has strong military means. They are capable, and they are competent. If they are trying, they are failing, and thus incompetent. I do not think they are incompetent. Many generals, commentators, and experts believe they are amongst the most capable nations and praise their abilities and precision. I think it's clear they aren't trying to annihilate any group of people other than people that launch rockets, attacks, or support those activities. It ain't genocide, so why call it that?
Of course we still have a lot to do. The point is we have been, for the last half century or so, moving in, generally, the right direction. We live in a time when every single skirmish around the world shows up immediately, 24 hours a day. That provides a skewed view of the world, making people feel like they are surrounded by major conflict all of the time.
This doesn't mean we stop trying; it just means that we don't have to lose hope because it feels like an impossible task. Conversely, it also means we need to really need to push to keep from losing ground. We can't go back to what the world was like in the time around WWI and WWII.
That's a really enlightening video but I don't think it really makes any relevant argument other than "thank god we haven't had another world war."
Maybe you feel that NSA and similar organizations are responsible for keeping another world war from errupting by making smaller conflicts happen, or by helping unexpected regime changes occur... That still doesn't explain all the mass surveillance of it's own people, or this economic espionage of supposed allies.
If you look at total human deaths due to war then the world has become exponentially safer. Looking at a war death/population ratio then this becomes even more evident.
Well, imagine there is a country called Hegemonistan, and it has the most power economically and politically at the moment. A large plurality at least.
Now define the change in stability between t0 and t1 as something like inversely proportional to the weighted average of changes in relative power rankings among countries.
By definition, maintaining stability will tend to keep Hegemonistan in its power positions. And vice versa.
So, stabilization is roughly identical to helping Hegemonistan.
Stabilize the world? are you effin' joking? the world out there is burning, and things are getting worse every day, mostly as a direct result of US meddling and power plays in given region. Not for a single second I consider US politicians stupid or unexperienced. Unjustified wars are waged with just enough people to not lose completely, but not enough to decisively win. this situation is well planned, and although i have no clue what their plans for future are, clearly they don't give a fraction of fk about some world stability. More like command & conquer approach. You americans shouldn't be that surprised that you meet a lot of friction and resistance whenever you go to "stabilize" the world
One doesn't have to like your argument to agree. If you believe in the market you believe in self-interest, and a state has a lot of that. Over time entities that don't fight to survive die, and economics are just as capable as force of threatening our safety, or at least our hegemony.
I may not be a fan of what the NSA is doing, but at the end of the day, I'm happy to hold an American passport.
