Comment by bamboozled
1 day ago
One way is for the the US to be more politically stable again (some how). Every country with an army will want its own star link now for trust reasons.
1 day ago
One way is for the the US to be more politically stable again (some how). Every country with an army will want its own star link now for trust reasons.
For how long?
Because this thing is happening right now, it's happening fast, and it's happening without any effort to fight against the trend.
If your answer is "let's revisit this in 2050", then it isn't an answer.
And it will continue to happen and nothing can be done about it. Except global nuclear war, I suppose. That's not off the table.
Yeah well it means a lot of satellites are going to end up in space then.
The US is politically stable already (by historical and international standards), and has been since 1865. If you ignore the rhetoric and focus on actions there has been very little substantiative difference in foreign policy across the last 7 presidential administrations.
Going from a treaty and cooperation with Iran to cutting them off was a pretty substantial change that has already had global implications.
Even prior to that, Iran was desperately trying to cultivate relations with the West in the 90s/00s before Bush suddenly declared them Axis 2.0 and created a massive security crisis on their doorstep.
[1]
> What emerged out of this economic crisis was a reform movement led by Mohammad Khatami, who won a presidential election in 1997 on promises to cultivate civil society, fix the economy, and replace a "clash of civilizations" with a "dialogue of civilizations." The cultural transformation unfolded over the next several years was remarkable. The share of university graduates who were women topped 60 percent, a new generation of intellectuals began to favorably cite Western philosophers, and religion more or less stopped policing the daily lives of most Iranians. By 2000, the Economist was reporting that according to Iran's own clergy, fewer than 2 percent of Iranians attended mosque on Fridays. On the economic side, the neo-liberalization of Iran intensified; small-scale factories were exempted from labor laws, and state-owned industries were privatized (loosening the state's grip on the economy was thought to be the best way of decreasing state interference in Iranians' private lives). Iran's relationship with foreign nations, even the US, also improved considerably. President Clinton eased up on the economic sanctions that Reagan had put in place in 1987, and Khatami appeared on CNN to talk about his admiration for the American nation and people. Al Qaeda's attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, was met with a massive outpouring of sympathy for America in Tehran, with enormous crowds holding candlelit vigils and some sixty thousand people observing a moment of silence at a soccer match on September 23.
[1] https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-37/politics/we-used-to-run...
The US civil war is not the only time the US has been politically unstable. The civil rights movement, the labor disputes of the 1970s, the economic shocks every decade or so from market crashes all have been moments of instability.
What is January 6th if not a concrete example of recent political instability?
As for foreign policy consistency, 7 administrations takes us back to Reagan... The entire movement to sell out our industrial capacity to China and now the movement to try to reverse that have occurred in this time frame. This is just as important as our endless wars in the middle east, imo.
I don't disagree totally but I felt the need to put some nuance here.
Stability doesn't mean statis. The USA has been remarkably resilient to those minor shocks you listed. It continues to be the most politically stable of all the countries that actually count for anything in international affairs.
2 replies →