• Home
  • 18. The Balance of Power Internationally (2013 - 2014)

The Balance of Power Internationally (2013 - 2014)

  • Category(s): Politics Essays
  • Created on : 28 July 2013
  • File size: 161.19 KB
  • Version: 1.0
  • Downloaded: 199
  • Author: Richard Michael Lamb


An essay on the essence of keeping the peace in the world.

1. Starting Point

The starting point is the overwhelming nuclear and conventional military might of the USA including her naval carrier borne air power. This position has been the case since the close of the Cold War in 1989. The USA is therefore the key state in terms of diplomacy and military intervention and nuclear enforcement upon pariah states and their aggression.

2. Disarm UK Nuclear Arm

I argue Britain should disarm unilaterally its nuclear capability and concentrate on strengthening its conventional arms and operate them to support the World “Policeman” role of the USA and the UN. Our conventional forces are well below strength presently.

3. French Nuclear Deterrent

France should follow our suit and thereby increasingly empower its own conventional armed forces to deploy if required the French West Africa and North African areas of her influence and in her former colonies.

4. The Balance of Power

The essence of the balance of power is that non-super powers (of which there is only one super power the USA) dare not use their nuclear arms for fear of USA retaliation and response. A strong USA lead congress crucially leads the world comity. USA isolationism is unthinkable. Thus in the modern age the USA (the President and the state Department and the Pentagon) control the international equilibrium both through her conventional forces and also through the nuclear deterrent which nuclear arm will do its job to prevent a nuclear conflagration without being fired in utmost likelihood. The USA is always backed by the UK and I propose unity between the USA State Department and our Foreign Office to bring diplomatic pressure to bear where it is required in the world backed by the USA nuclear arm and the non-nuclear arms of both states. The British Diplomats are first rate as are the USA ambassadors after decades of post Second World War standoff with the Warsaw pact and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union from within.

5. The USA/UK Alliance and the Sensitive Spots and the United Nations

North Korea
Russia under Vladimir Putin
Central Asia

All these zones have states with axes to grind as we all know. Their leaders know they will not be permitted by the USA/UK alliance to use their nuclear arm offensively or to chemicalise their enemies. The United Nations may be trammelled by disunity i.e. Russia, China and France may sound dissenting voices. Britain and the USA rightly intervened with land forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with weak UN support. Those two states had become internally unstable due to persecuting governments. The USA was right to go into South Vietnam in the 1960’s despite little if any support from the international community. The United Nations is not competent to take firm and swift action due to its constitution, membership of the Security Council and its past record over trouble sports whatever its de Jure powers. UN troops could not take proper offensive action as the USA/UK did in Iraq and Afghanistan post 2000. The USA took the fight to the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army in Vietnam in the 1960’s. Nothing would have been done in Vietnam in 1960’s without the US Marine Corps and the USA Air Force. The US President Lynden B Johnson was the key man to send the Marines into Vietnam as Commander in Chief of the USA armed forces and he was right to face up to the visible communist military threat to the free world at that time. America’s role is therefore essential and overrides the weak United Nations which is disabled by disagreements. Without these USA armed forces sensitive spots would boil over. The USA and Britain exercise a vital restraining influence on troublesome leaders and no one doubts the power of this alliance: Macmillan and Home and Kennedy, Reagan and Thatcher. Major and George Bush Senior, Blair and George Bush Junior. This Trans-Atlantic union is essential to world stability. America is not on her own and never will be. Why? The UK will always support the USA and rightly so. One word about Israel which is supported by the USA and Britain yet it is surrounded by alien Arab states – several currently in turmoil e.g. Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Israel is a stable regime with much conventional armoured units and air power and a nuclear force. Here again Israel would not act without USA support and authority. It would not be in their interests to go against their protector, the USA. The Yon Kippur War was sprung upon them by the Arab states in 1967. They have handed the Sinai desert back to Egypt (President Sadat in Cairo). They retain the Golan Heights (Syrian) for strategic reasons. The West Bank has been settled by Israelis and another solution will have to be found ie joint Palestinian and Israel control for that zone under a UN mandate supported by the USA and Britain and policed by an Anglo-American land army. North Korea likes to flex its muscles and the USA Secretary of State Kerry is well in control of the situation supported by Japan. Iran is finding its nuclear feet, a country of great breeding and education. The extreme religious approach had been diluted by a non-cleric in power. This combined with the great intellectual resources of Iran offers hope. The terrible carnage of the Iran/Iraq War of the 1980’s (one million total dead) will not be repeated by this Iranian leadership. Putin is a rogue elephant and perhaps the heads the most vexatious government of all, these I refer to. He causes trouble in the UN over Syria and he had pacified Chechnya with real brutality. He also appears to have taken the law into his own hands with dissenting voices to his regime who speak against him from overseas and within Russia. He has established himself in overall power semi-permanently in Moscow. The USA State Department will keep a close eye on him re the freedom of the subject of Russia and likewise the British Foreign Office (see my British Attorney – general essay published through Kindle).

6. The Second World War Nations (defeated) Germany and Japan

Neither have a nuclear capability. Germany has no viable conventional army to fight a war at home or abroad. Its army has no real punch and is shorn of its officer cadre and has poor morale. Japan has a navy and land forces and an air force but purely for defending its own territory from North Korea/China, an unlikely scenario. They have both dropped out of the balance of power since 1945 and are unlikely to re-enter that equation. The Germans are economic and peaceful. The Japanese have a residual aggression currently subdued. They, like Germany are a powerful industrial nation but with no really big military/industrial base. Only the USA has that might presently.

7. Conclusion

The conclusion is simple without the Anglo-American alliance and the preparedness of the United Nations not to go against that combination (whatever the dissenting voices in the Security Council) the world would be very a volatile place. The Anglo-American axis and its will power maintain peace throughout the globe without doubt and will do so for sometime beyond the foreseeable future. The Americans and the British are surefooted and careful in their foreign policy and military projects. We can be very thankful for this amity between the USA and Britain. The EU has shown itself to be unable to act with the same firmness and unity of purpose.