posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 06:17 AM
I agree that America losing dominance does not mean that Nuclear threats increase.
This is a massive leap in assumption.
The reason the USA will lose dominance I think is due to the financial systems that have been in place for the last few decades. The entire world has
come to realize that all those anti-globalization protesters were right about at least one thing; the complex web of financial interaction was
unstable.
The USA has its fingers in every nation on Earth, and we could all benefit from losing a few of these economic giants from our back yard. They've
quashed independent competition in local markets and trading, acted with relative disregard for regional workforces and funneled profits out of host
nations and into American coffers.
As it was discussed in the $25m bailout for the car manufacturers, this is an issue even for America. You could use those jobs in the states, rather
than shipping the factories overseas to increase profit while limiting workers welfare and rights.
You do have the argument that these nations will lose jobs, but under any financial system you have those who prosper and those who don't. It is a
matter of each nation discovering what it is they can offer internationally and that government working with the people to create a industry around
this.
Bringing the word "Nuclear" into this is just a way of sensationalizing the story. Sure the intelligence agencies will be worried about the loss of
dominance, but the international community already works damn hard to monitor Nuclear weaponry, it's not a solely American issue, it is a global one
with numerous nations being involved and numerous bodies overseeing it.
This is just the American Defense community putting its spin on an issue that is predominantly economic, and not military, in my humble opinion of
course.