Does military conflict/war play a big role in the rise of superpowers/empires?

[Beet]

? Zaybay claims that it's not significant. I argue history says otherwise.

[PSOL]

I would say trade, desperation, and innovation are more important. It was desperation for trade that led to the voyages of Europeans to East Asia and West to America. Trade then lead to the consumer markets booming for new crops and goods. Services developed and products created, such as curry, that lead to a highly innovative scene with access to all these goods.

[Beet]

I would say trade, desperation, and innovation are more important. It was desperation for trade that led to the voyages of Europeans to East Asia and West to America. Trade then lead to the consumer markets booming for new crops and goods. Services developed and products created, such as curry, that lead to a highly innovative scene with access to all these goods.

Then why is Japan not a superpower? It does a lot of trade, and does innovation, and is desperate for outside resources due to being a small island, but has a Pacifist constitution. On the other hand, the Soviet Union didn't do a lot of trade, but had a big military.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Well, I'm really on the fence on this question. On the one hand, there is a clear correlation in history between war and the rise of new superpowers. On the other hand, the question is HOW does war cause it?

One explanation is the neo-realist one, stemming from Gilpin's hegemonic war theory. I'm not sold on this at all- while at times the war that cause the rise of a new superpower was indeed between the hegemon and its challenger, it's often not the case. One clear example is how Britain, the old superpower, worked with the U.S., the new superpower, in the war that lead to the former's ultimate decline and the latter's rise.

So I think that wars could be the symptom and not the cause, kinda like Gilpin argued but not necessarily with the old hegemon fighting the new one- the old world order and power balance gradually declines and becomes unbearable, due to a myriad reasons including corrupting and decay within dominant powers, compared to growth and resolve in the rising ones (growth that I believe does have a lot to do with trade, desparation and innovation, like PSOL said). Then, because the old world order is no longer feasible, a war breaks out because the ones who benefited from it refuse to let it go and the ones who didn't are eager to upend it. Due to this war, the realization comes that the old world order is dead, and a new superpower is often forced to take the role of hegemon, even if they didn't want to initially (like the U.S. before WWII). So I'd say that, historically, it does play a role but I'm not sure it's a largely direct one.

In our own world, with nuclear weapons beign a thing, I don't think that the next world order will be trumpeted by a global war- such a war is no longer logical for anyone. Instead, I think it might mean that the process will be longer, and, if the current world order does change radically, will require the U.S. to degrade over decades and a new power to peacefully seize the reins. It's hard to see that happening soon- China and its economy don't have what it takes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I would say trade, desperation, and innovation are more important. It was desperation for trade that led to the voyages of Europeans to East Asia and West to America. Trade then lead to the consumer markets booming for new crops and goods. Services developed and products created, such as curry, that lead to a highly innovative scene with access to all these goods.

Then why is Japan not a superpower? It does a lot of trade, and does innovation, and is desperate for outside resources due to being a small island, but has a Pacifist constitution. On the other hand, the Soviet Union didn't do a lot of trade, but had a big military.

And the Soviet Union collapsed under the sheer weight of its oversized military so...

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Yes, obviously.

[Beet]

I would say trade, desperation, and innovation are more important. It was desperation for trade that led to the voyages of Europeans to East Asia and West to America. Trade then lead to the consumer markets booming for new crops and goods. Services developed and products created, such as curry, that lead to a highly innovative scene with access to all these goods.

Then why is Japan not a superpower? It does a lot of trade, and does innovation, and is desperate for outside resources due to being a small island, but has a Pacifist constitution. On the other hand, the Soviet Union didn't do a lot of trade, but had a big military.

And the Soviet Union collapsed under the sheer weight of its oversized military so...

No it collapsed because its own people wanted it to.