Strongest alliance

[003]

It seems like all the countries in the world are allies with US except those who refuse it and those that US are fighting against. Russia and China are the strongest adversary of US so far in my opinion, not to mention some of the little countries they are also allied with like the North Korea and other stubborn countries in middle east. But I think despite of these countries that cause stir to the world, America still holds the strongest alliance to keep the world stable so far, and that is its alliance with both the developing and developed countries all over the world, especially in Asia and Europe.

 

[CanisLupas]

It seems to me your thinking is flawed - perhaps it's just your wording. You seem to impart a hegemony on the USA - without realizing allies goes both ways! In reality, USA are allies with UK, France, India, Australia as they joined the allies in the last two world wars - became allied to the allied forces that had been fighting for 2 years against the axis already. NATO and UN is what makes all these countries allies - China was an ally too until Mao took control, Russia had the Warsaw Pact under the USSR.

 

[xTinx]

UN has helped a number of countries fight off a number of difficult-to-control domestic wars but the caveat here is that something has to happen first before the UN can intervene. More often than not, the peacekeeping troops it sends are not even enough to put an end to those wars. NATO is strong, but I always get the feeling that it selects its wars. Did it ever intervene in countries with zero oil? I need data for that. Russia and China may have been involved in arms import-export but it remains to be seen whether they're on the same page with their respective military interests.

 

[orangesunset]

An alliance only hold together when it is mutally beneficial. Traditionally Britain and Germany where strong allies. Prior to WW1 the Kaiser and the King of England where related. They where actually cousins. Prior to 1900 the idea of war between Britain and Germany would have been unthinkable.

By contrast that Britain, USA and the Soviet Union formed an alliance during WW2, would have been unthinkable in 1930.

 

[CanisLupas]

I think it may be a little more complex than just "mutually beneficial". Keeping alliances going has its own reward. Friends of friends, and enemies of enemies also comes into play, as does potential gain (or avoidance of loss) and juxtapositioning for political and trade reasons too. I guess it depends how liberal we want to be with the term "beneficial" .

If Britain had had female succession, then the Kaiser would have been on the throne of England - and WW1 would never have happened. I think the USA/UK alliance in WW2 was no surprise - it was more so in WW1. The Germans had been sinking USA ships in the Atlantic for 2 years; USA have provided loans and supplies to Britain well before they were forced to take a more active role.