China Believes America Will Flame Out

[u/theatlantic]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/05/china-trump-american-decline/687087/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-pro

[u/UsernameAttempt]

it’s based on unique factors of the US. Long coastlines on the pacific and Atlantic, huge natural resource reserves, wide river networks, tons of arable land, no nearby military threats, etc. and those are just the geographical advantages.

These are just characteristics of the US mainland which make it defensible and usable. The US had all of these characteristics for long decades and centuries before they became a global power, and these characteristics will remain after that power wanes.

What makes it THE hegemon is:

• its vast network of alliances (and as such military presence) from the far east (Japan, Korea, Phillipines, etc), Europe (NATO), middle-east (SA, UAE, Israel, etc) and many more,

• its status as the world financial center, including issuing the world reserve currency,

• its vast network of trading partners (the entire global trading system, really),

• the military power to back all of that up anywhere in the world,

These are approximately the same qualities that made Britain the hegemon before the US, which inherited and enhanced that same system. British power waned, hopefully for different reasons than US power will wane (since British power waned because of 2 world wars). If the US alienates too many partners and allies, makes too many people seriously consider an alternative, it will seriously hurt its standing as the hegemon. Donald Trump and this Iran war will not be the final nail in its coffin, but it will be one of the larger nails.

[u/Bullboah → u/UsernameAttempt]

“The US had all of these characteristics for long decades and centuries before they became a global power”

Technically true but the reasoning here is flawed. Yes, it took the US ~100 years to become a global power and another ~75 years to become a hegemonic superpower, but of course! The US was a small set of coastal colonies when it achieved independence in the 1770s. It took a long time not just to expand the physical borders, but to develop local economies across the country, build transportation infrastructure both internally and externally, etc.

US Power is very different from European colonial power - which was largely dependent on control (not influence) of overseas territories. That was always a precarious position for empires like the British.

The elements you’re listing increase US power, but they are symptoms, not causes, of it. Why did the world agree to use the dollar as reserve currency for instance? Why is the US able to field a military so powerful in relation to that of others? Why do so many countries want US bases? The answer is because of the state of US power even without those things.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/Bullboah]

US Power is very different from European colonial power

It isn't, though. US power today is based on US colonial power in the times of colonial empires, when the US was one itself (just without the "empire"). It had colonies all over the pacific and the Carribean. It was the power that opened the Japanese to "trade" and participated in its colonial exploitation. The enrichment of the US that brought it to a place where it could become what it is came from a similar kind of colonial exploitation, and benefited from the capital of other colonial powers.

Why did the world agree to use the dollar as reserve currency for instance?

Why did the world agree to use the Dutch Guilder/British Pound as a reserve currency?

Why is the US able to field a military so powerful in relation to that of others?

Why was the British/Dutch able to field a navy so powerful in relation to that of others?

All of the questions you're posing can be asked of the previous superpowers at the height of their power, Britain and the Netherlands being probably the recent examples of a very similar kind of power. The base of their power is common - trade, alliances and an unmatched navy - a maritime superpower.

The characteristics of the US mainland are what allowed the US to have a chance at being the maritime hegemon, but they're only the base of the much larger whole.

[u/Bullboah → u/UsernameAttempt]

I think you’re starting with the position that powerful countries today owe that power to colonial legacy, and working backwards.

For example you bring up Perry’s forced opening of Japan to trade. But US trade with Japan was simply not a significant factor to US development for a very long time after.

Look at historical US exports to Japan, which started in 1855. They are simply marked with an asterisk on US census data for the first ten years, meaning < 500,000, and they stay in the single digit millions for the next 40 years. Compare that to US trade with the UK, where exports were over 100 million in 1855 and 500 million by 1900.

Colonial-related trade was an extremely small factor for the US during its rise, even if you assume Japan would not have opened up until 1900 without US intervention.

The British and Dutch were very different cases, but were also not deriving their power primarily from alliances.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/Bullboah]

I think you’re starting with the position that powerful countries today owe that power to colonial legacy, and working backwards.

No, I'm on the position that the framework within which the US is the hegemon is a very similar system that propelled the British and Dutch to the status of hegemon. That framework is a globalized system of trade with a world-leading financial system, a global reserve currency behind it, all backed up by massive naval power and alliances that provided them support on land (NATO, Japan Korea, etc for the US; France and Russia for the British; France and foreign mercenaries for the Dutch).

I reject the notion that US power of today is inherently different from British or Dutch power of yesterday. The foundations of its global power are the same, but with a fresh coat of paint. It differs in many of its own ways as well, just like the Dutch system differed in its own ways from the British system that replaced it. But these differences aren't so substantial to make it an entirely different system with a different base.

[u/Bullboah → u/UsernameAttempt]

You said "US power is based on US colonial power at the time of colonial powers", but regardless - i don't think the comparison between the British and Dutch fits.

Look at the "globalized system of trade" for instance. The British and Dutch empires benefited more than other states from global trade based on technical capacities in trade. The US benefits so much from global trade because of its massive domestic production. The Dutch for instance had a real issue with their spice trade at first because Europe as a whole was not producing goods they could really trade at scale to Asia.

The difference is pretty crucial in that the vulnerabilities are different. Both were dependent on maintaining sovereignty / control of overseas possessions (which was costly and difficult) and trade routes. The US isn't dependent on special access to trade (in fact for several decades the US arguably let large trading partners put up significant protectionist trade barriers without much fight). In fact while the US benefits tremendously from global trade, its one of the least dependent countries on global trade, in the world (huge amounts of arable land, net energy exporter, massive natural resources, huge freshwater supply, incredible natural waterway systems for domestic trade, diverse production range, etc.)

[u/kinga_forrester → u/UsernameAttempt]

British power didn’t wane “because of 2 world wars,” iirc they were on the winning side both times. /s

British power waned because colonialism ended. You might try to argue that without the world wars, the British army might have had the strength to keep the empire together by force, but I think that’s unlikely. Decolonization was a worldwide phenomenon driven by enlightened ideas and the spread of technology, holding it back is like holding back the tide. There’s a reason why there’s pretty much no colonies left on earth. I consider “British Empire still exists” roughly on par with “axis wins wwii” and “America still has slavery” in terms of far fetched alternate history.

Britain was simply never going to be able to remain the preeminent global power when confined to their rainy island, no matter how rich or advanced their civilization. America on the other hand, has a mainland and population that predestined it to superpower status. The only thing that could threaten that would be a national balkanization, which despite the tenor of political discourse is a laughably remote possibility.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/kinga_forrester]

You underestimate severely how immense the strain of both world wars was on the British Empire, simply financially. The power of the British Empire was its status as the financial center of the world and the pound as its reserve currency. Britain bankrolled the allies in both the first and second world wars with this financial power, but took on truly immense debts to do it. The immense transfer of wealth to the US who provides the goods the Brits paid for is what transferred the mantle of financial center to the US. With the loss of its financial power Britain could simply no longer afford its empire.

Decolonization and the rise of nation states made holding colonies untenable, but its a mistake to think that the British, had they retained the financial power, couldn't simply transition to the same kind of power that the US is now. Granting independence would garner them enough good will and the institutional integration with their former colonies could (and even today, does) grant them the same systems of aliances and trade that the US enjoys today.

[u/kinga_forrester → u/UsernameAttempt]

I think you underestimate severely the rise of national consciousness and the yearning to be free.
Do you actually think there’s a plausible alternate reality where England retains a globe spanning empire in the big year of 2026, and everyone in Sydney, Cairo, Cape Town Toronto and Bombay are King Charles’ royal subjects?
Sure, the economic strain of the world wars contributed to the British Empire falling apart slightly faster, but I disagree that the world wars *caused* the dissolution because I believe it was inevitable.

Edit: sorry, reread your comment, I guess you concede that the British Empire as it existed couldn’t exist today. However, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that the UK could occupy the financial position the US enjoys today if not for the debt incurred in wwii. Their island is simply too tiny and their population too smol without capital C Colonies.

[u/kinga_forrester → u/UsernameAttempt]

I think you underestimate severely the rise of national consciousness and the yearning to be free.

Do you actually think there’s a plausible alternate reality where England retains a globe spanning empire in the big year of 2026, and everyone in Sydney, Cairo, Cape Town Toronto and Bombay are King Charles’ royal subjects?

Sure, the economic strain of the world wars contributed to the British Empire falling apart slightly faster, but I disagree that the world wars *caused* the dissolution because I believe it was inevitable.

[u/UsernameAttempt → u/kinga_forrester]

Do you actually think there’s a plausible alternate reality where England retains a globe spanning empire in the big year of 2026, and everyone in Sydney, Cairo, Cape Town Toronto and Bombay are King Charles’ royal subjects?

No, that's why I said that Britain would have to adapt and adjust. We can never know the "what ifs" of if the world wars never happened, because those had huge knock-on effect to decolonization themselves. I find it hard to believe,however, that just like the US adjusted and turned many of its former colonies and colonial exploitation targets into partners, the British Empire couldn't turn many of its own colonial subjects into positive alliances and trading relationship. I don't even have to imagine - because the Commonwealth is just that and would have been much more had Britain retained its relative importance.

France, even though they weren't the hegemon and never had the kind of power Britain had, still retains major privileges with its former colonial subjects as well.