25-04-2003 22:33									#1
	Uni-polar or bi-polar world? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So what grants more peace and stability in the end? A uni-polar world with only one superpower or a bi-polar (or even multi-polar) world with several "power poles"? Or have both systems just different "types" of characteristical conflict lines, with their own potential for instability and wars?

Obviously we now live in an uni-polar world. Only one superpower means more stability (so a common pro argument) etc. because several big powers with colliding interests lead automatically into a conflict, possibly into a cold war (with the danger of turning into a hot war) between those powers. If thereīs however only one superpower, it can enforce its vision of a world order, which would mean more stability (if we like the kind of world order is another question).

When we look at the cold war between USA and USSR one could also say that those two powers limited eachother effectively over decades without the big bang and created stability in this way. And a single superpower may be able to enforce its interests, but this doesnīt mean that different interests are gone - they are just "covered", because everyone else is unable to confront the only superpower.

All irrelevant, since we have now only one superpower? But what should be the goal for the rest, should countries like China, Russia or even the EU try to level the power gap between them and the US as best they can? Even if they do not reach total equality in all terms - serious efforts would at least require reaction from America, perhaps question the USAīs status as No. 1. and could enable those countries to strenghten their own positions against the US.

I even think a bi- or multi-polar world could work without major conflicts between the powers, but only if all share a common vision of international law (which isnīt the case currently), if they all act within a system of international "framework" (here I considered to post UN instead, but I think this is not the best example ). This seems to work excellent within the micro-world of the EU, where wars seem impossible between the members, but can it work for the world?

	25-04-2003 22:38									#2
	Support Apolyton

War between the members impossible?
And you're from Germany, you say?


As far as super powers, don't leave out Canada.
Canada is what keeps the USA safe.

	25-04-2003 22:40									#3
	Remove this text

Uni-polar is the most stable. The more poles you have, the more unstable the situation gets (with exceptions).

	25-04-2003 22:41									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sloww: "seem impossible" I wrote

At least thatīs what the other members should think

	25-04-2003 22:43									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Canada is what keeps the USA safe.

As a buffer zone?

	25-04-2003 22:45									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I have to go, but want to troll long enough to point out a true fact, in regard to poles.


Penquins.
They're only found south of the equator, and are even in Australia; but NOT at North Pole.

That's it. All I have.
I don't know what you can do with the information, but there you have it.

	25-04-2003 22:46									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually, bipolar is considered the most stable. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it does keep conflicts to a minimum due to cancelling each other out. Multi-polar is the most unstable, because then superpowers can play off one another and form alliances to temporarily shift the balance of power, but not in a stable, lasting way. Unipolar is more stable than this, but less so than bipolar.

	25-04-2003 22:46									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It seems that we have a weak unipolar world right now. By this I mean that nobody can create an opposite pole to the US, but the US has much less relative power than the Roman Empire, for instance.

Germany can disagree with the US without too much consequence, for instance. On the other hand, France is in la la land if it thinks it can challenge US power.

Because the US is a fairly weak unipole, it may not be interested foremost in stability, per se. Rather, it may be more interested in countering other threats and projecting its power.

Stability is not a good thing to go after, because the ends will always justify the means. Freedom will always be subsumed by Colonialism. On the other hand, a bipolar world relies on a balance of power, which the US has never liked because it harkens back to European power politics.

Overall, I think a weak unipole system is dandy, if the unipole neither overestimates nor underestimates its power. If this happens, the unipole will largely mind its own business, and will be a fairly benign force.

	25-04-2003 22:46									#9
	Suffering from ads?

quote: As a buffer zone?

Siphon for eurocoms

	25-04-2003 22:47									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Uni-polar is the most stable. The more poles you have, the more unstable the situation gets (with exceptions).

But weīre speaking about superpowers here. There are onyl some countries which have the potential, so there will never be dozens of them...

And with only a handful that accept a kind of consensus stability could be higher in the end. Well, yes it is speculative, but one could say a similar system works within Europe.

	25-04-2003 22:48									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Bipolar was great. All those people living happy under the Soviet block. And Asia was never more peaceful.

	25-04-2003 22:55									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Lets see, there's the north pole and then there's the south pole. that makes two, right? So I'll go for a bipolar world.

	25-04-2003 22:57									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Bipolar disorder!

	25-04-2003 22:58									#14
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

bipolar isn't too happy. then, you're not too sad. then, you're not too happy again.

	25-04-2003 23:00									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Multipolar would be the best.

Bipolar sucked, because the two poles could not keep their hands to themselves.

Unipolar sucks even more, because the remaining pole just decided to put his dirty hands on everything.

	25-04-2003 23:01									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

so you'd rather be groped by several different people than by one or two?

let's ask china how she felt during the 18-20th centuries...

	25-04-2003 23:08									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: so you'd rather be groped by several different people than by one or two?

That's just what I mean. -> That was a UNIpolar world, with mainly Europeans thinking, hey, we're great, let's take it all !!!!

Now, China is a at least a semi-pole. Soon a full-pole. But better off than earlier, don't you think ?

	25-04-2003 23:09									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

eh, i wouldn't call it a unipolar world. the europeans themselves, during that time, engaged in strategic competition with each other. hence, china was split amongst britain, russia, america, usw...

meaning that even though they all hailed from one part of the world, they were sufficiently competitive with each other that they might as well have been multipolar.

	25-04-2003 23:11									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There is no reason a bipolar world would be unstable unless the 2 poles were agressively confrontational. If we're talking about a balance between the US and a unified Europe, both remaining in cooperative competition then you would have a natural barrier to the excessive displays of power and tendancy toward hubris that any unopposed superpower will naturally come to.

In the end a unipolar world is inherently unstable in the sense that it is only waiting for the rise of a balancing force. The US cannot stamp out opposition in the traditional sense and its natural tendency to use its power in its own best interest (human tendency, not specifically US tendency) will be a catalyst in itself in creating unified opposition in the form of Europe or some other surprise.

	25-04-2003 23:12									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

.

quote: meaning that even though they all hailed from one part of the world, they were sufficiently competitive with each other that they might as well have been multipolar.

Ok, that was persuasive.

Than I say, a world full of poles, but no pole can be exploited by the others.

And to those idiots that are called Europeans. They created two blocks (Russia, UK, France versus Germany, Austro-Hungary) and started to massslaughter themselves.

	25-04-2003 23:46									#21
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by yago . Ok, that was persuasive. Than I say, a world full of poles, but no pole can be exploited by the others. And to those idiots that are called Europeans. They created two blocks (Russia, UK, France versus Germany, Austro-Hungary) and started to massslaughter themselves.

And don't forget the Poles, themselves.

	25-04-2003 23:52									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 There is no reason a bipolar world would be unstable unless the 2 poles were agressively confrontational. If we're talking about a balance between the US and a unified Europe, both remaining in cooperative competition then you would have a natural barrier to the excessive displays of power and tendancy toward hubris that any unopposed superpower will naturally come to. In the end a unipolar world is inherently unstable in the sense that it is only waiting for the rise of a balancing force. The US cannot stamp out opposition in the traditional sense and its natural tendency to use its power in its own best interest (human tendency, not specifically US tendency) will be a catalyst in itself in creating unified opposition in the form of Europe or some other surprise.

Yep, thatīs it

Iīd compare this question about a Uni-/Multipolar World also somehow to the question wether a Government should be a dictatorship or a Democracy.

A Unipolar could in my Example be compared to a Dictatorship:
A Dictatorship where one Person rules can be beneficial, as long as the Person on the Top of the State issues Orders which benefit all the people within the State.
In this case a dictatorship could even be more beneficial than a Democracy, because there wonīt be any Discussions if things have to be done, but instead the things the Leader on the top of the Governments wants to be done will be done (and, as aforementioned because the leader wants only the best for all the people in the State those things will be good things).

In a Unipolar world this would be if the most powerful country makes Decision, which benefit also the other countries in the world.

But if the Person on the Top of the State is someone like Saddam, it wouldnīt be a State most people would want to live in (as long as they arenīt among the small number of people, who benefit from the Leader, such as the Members of his ruling Clique).

In an unipolar world this would be if the most powerful country uses his power mainly for his own benefit.


A Multipolar world with some Structure like a UNO Version 2 (where you had for example no Veto-Rights) could be compared to a Democracy:

In a real Democracy the Process of Decision-making will be more tedious.
There will be more Discussions among Commitees if Things have to be done, but at least the Danger that someone uses the State only for his own benefit will be much less than in a Dictatorship.
There wonīt be a single Person on the Top of the State but wthere will be a couple of parties which try to influence the decisionmaking within the Coomitees according to their own agenda.


I for my Part would prefer a multipolar world, because you couldnīt say for sure, if the President of the most powerful state in a unipolar world would use the Powers of his state for the benefit of all other states or just for the benefit of his own country.
But of course I could understand that many members of the most powerful state in the world would be tempted to prefer an unipolar world

	25-04-2003 23:55									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS Stability is not a good thing to go after, because the ends will always justify the means. Freedom will always be subsumed by Colonialism.

I agree that stability at all costs is not good, but with a growing number of countries that are able to get WMD it seems to get more important in the future. OTOH effective measures against proliferation could require more cooperation at least in certain fields between several big powers and the US, which means those who cooperate there get more political weight.

	26-04-2003 00:19									#24
	Tired of ads?

I think DanS's anlysis was by far the most correct: the US is not a mighty unipolar power: our conventional power is immense but it is still higlhy expensive, I mean, it took about 40-50% of our military to ahcieve the results we wanted in Iraq, and Iraq was the weakest of all our enemies. And many sections fot he world are relatively immune to US power, because of unconventional capabilities or size.

I also agree that this weak unipole is seeking to destabalize the world at this time, since the ideologues running it distrust and dislike the status quo, and in fact are seeking to make the US a greater unipole at this time. In essence. the US is not only the great power, but more of a revisionist states than any of the "rogues" states are. I don;t view this thoghy as benignly as DanS, since I think the people running this country have greatly oevrestimated their ability to change the world in the manners they are willing to use (purely military but little in nation building)

	26-04-2003 05:05									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Apolar!

	26-04-2003 05:13									#26
	Put an end to popups!

The bipolar "stability" of the cold war is a lot more myth on a global scale. You had stability for the major powers and their close satellites, but constant (and in many cases debilitating) destabilization or support of oppression out on the fringes. Somalia in '93 was an offshoot of US-Soviet maneuvering for influence in the horn of Africa, Congo-Zaire-Congo, Angola, South Africa and Mozambique, Iran and Iraq, much of central America, Chile, Cuba, much of southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula also have paid very high prices for that "stability."

In many cases, they're still paying the price.

	26-04-2003 05:15									#27
	Put an end to popups!

I agree with gsmoove. Bi-polar is best. Right now you have a unipolar system, which is just waiting for a rising power to challenge the hegemon (us). When that happens, there will probably be a conflict, if it is China that is that rising power. If the rising power is the EU, then it will be a peaceful transition. Bi-polar, however, is most stable.