So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1?
I didn't say that.
You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers.
I didn't actually say that either. I'm commenting on one particular theory, not expressing any sort of personal preference.
Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars.
If you look far enough back through history, that is true.
Then again, periods with a single superpower that became aggressive have probably led to more death and damage than any other periods in modern history except for the World Wars, while two superpowers playing poker gets you the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Given the developments in both international diplomacy and military power since those historical periods, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a lack of superpowers would necessarily have the same result in the future.
I didn't say that.
You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers.
I didn't actually say that either. I'm commenting on one particular theory, not expressing any sort of personal preference.
Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars.
If you look far enough back through history, that is true.
Then again, periods with a single superpower that became aggressive have probably led to more death and damage than any other periods in modern history except for the World Wars, while two superpowers playing poker gets you the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Given the developments in both international diplomacy and military power since those historical periods, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a lack of superpowers would necessarily have the same result in the future.