On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 wally@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
>
> warren wagar raises the possiblity of global war between core
> and periphery--two, three, many vietnams, as someone once said.
> well, at least so far, all the core/periphery wars have pitted
> a great power or two against a weak one. is there some reason
> to expect a decline in the ability of core states (individually
> and collectively) to divide the periphery and deal with "rebels"
> one at a time? is the short-lived success of OPEC a lesson of
> some kind?
>
> w
Yes, there is at least some reason. First of all, the peripheral
states are sometimes immense, and not too poor to deploy all sorts of
weapons of mass destruction. If (relatively) little Germany could take on
almost the whole world in two world wars, why couldn't a militant China or
India? Germany compensated for its size by its industrial capacity and
sheer aggressiveness, but China or India could compensate for its
shortcomings in other ways. Second, the core nations could fall out among
themselves and open windows of opportunity for the peripheral nations.
Third, one of the major core nations could drop out of the core (Japan in
a major world depression, the United States if its people of color took
charge, whatever) and lead the periphery into war or provoke the core into
a preemptive strike. But I certainly agree with you that for now, the
condominium of the rich nations is doing a splendid job of constraining,
exploiting, and dividing the periphery.
Glumly,
Warren