Philosophy Now Forum

The other day as I entered the dog park I turned to a public radio interview with Professor Jacob Needleman. http://www.jacobneedleman.com/bio.htm

In this Independence Day interview on his book http://www.amazon.com/American-Soul-Red ... +needleman , Needleman was asked: Does the world need the U.S.?, to which he enthusiastically answered "yes". Unfortunately, the dogs then started to bark as they frolicked and I couldn't hear his reasons. I'll have to read the book. http://www.jacobneedleman.com/Books/americansoul.htm

Before you comment on the question consider: Assume that only the U.S. (all people and buildings) is completely destroyed by a nuclear explosion. Another nation becomes the world's only superpower.

What do you think?

fallout is funny...

-Imp

And a bloody brilliant game.

Hi Tom,
Well, given the unlikely scenario that the US bombs itself, I'd say the world would be in real economic trouble as it would have lost its biggest current market. So a fair amount of chaos I suspect but then things would settle down as it'd also have a redistribution of resources. Although losing America itself would deprive the world of a large amount of resources but then you tend to keep those for your domestic consumption so maybe not such a shock. The loss of food would be a biggy as well I think.

Did you just mean politically? As in this case I think it swings and roundabouts, as many countries would be pleased at the loss of interference but just as many would be unhappy.

In the last war there was a saying: "When the Germans bomb the British duck, when the British bomb the Germans duck, and when the Americans bomb everybody ducks." So dont be too sure!

I'd agree with this. There would be a lot of pain and chaos in the short term, but in the long run nothing would really change. I don't see any philosophical reason why the world needs the U.S.

Would Russia and/or China be tempted to invade Europe in such a situation?

Russia can't keep its own borders let alone attack others, it, like much of Europe is an aging population with its own concerns and has learnt the lesson of Stalinism and Communism and now is much more interested in modeling itself on the old British free-booting laissez faire Capitalist model of state and govt. China has never been interested in expansion in this way, All its cared about is keeping its border satellite states as a buffer against invasion and coping with its internal domestic issues, as when you have a billion people why would you want to have more to deal with.

Unfortunately, it was the US that taught all of humanity what it actually was to war as their "big bang, took and shook the world, shot down the rising sun," as "the pilot of 'Enola Gay' flying out of the shockwave on that august day, all the powers that be, and the course of history, would be changed forevermore..." such that the truth of mans waring, since the beginning of his time, finally came to be revealed for what it truly was. It finally could be seen as clear as day, what it was that was manifested in his psyche as the two super powers came head to head, they soon understood themselves at their very core through their realization of the possibility of their mutually assured destruction. And with this understanding was the fact that mans waring all along, had been a lesson in the futility of killing 'us' in the killing of 'them,' as his cowardice is revealed in the call for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I just wonder how much longer he shall continue to "limit" warring to conventional weapons, in the face of his cowardice, as he continually reveals his foolishness.

The point being that everyone is needed, as lessons in knowledge come from both failure and success. One just has to hope that the failures don't do us in before we can reap their reward.

And a good point it is. But I will split a hair here to add my own corrollary to your point. All people have worth, yes, but no nation (i.e. political unit) is indispensible.

You're debating me because I agreed with you? Odd.

Earlier I noted the pain that would occur if the U.S. disappeared in a nuclear holocaust. I'm not downplaying that. But when people puff up their chests and get all patriotic about how the U.S. is the best nation on earth, what is it they are touting? Does the U.S. have some kind of moral supremacy? Intellectual supremacy? Something inate and separate from its resources? I don't think so. That was my point.

Actually, I am - born & raised. My screen name is misleading. I'm just not a chest-thumping patriot. With that said, I am well aware of the benefits that come from being American. I've traveled to a few corners of the globe and seen how others live. So, I won't say the U.S. is the best nation on earth, but I will say that it is the easiest place to live (in material terms).



I agree ... again with one adjustment. Since selfishness is a human trait I don't expect will be eliminated, government is a necessary evil.

Yes I know that's the usual statement, but I wanted to be 'odd' and mix it up, because I can see that it was possible, that things could have gone differently, had the right kind of people been there to derail the way it has gone.