Byzantium was in decline for seven centuries until the Ottomans pulled the plug. Rome was in decline for several centuries prior to its sacking.
Climate change and the accompanying plagues, droughts, famines, and calamities that accompany it might accelerate and exacerbate the state's capacity and willingness to respond to these crises, but all it might mean is that this is a new normal added to the reproleterization of American life.
I don't really have a point but it is just a thought that I (perhaps others) are going to have to accept that future, and that is a kind of new world I am unsure as to how to adapt to.
I promise you that the American decline won't take centuries. One point in The Long Twentieth Century is how the time the dominant world power has maintained it's position has been decreasing significantly throughout history, the height of the British empire only lasted a couple of hundred years. It looks like the US is on par to last about 100. We don't live in a time in which a decline of a state can linger over 300 years.
That last part isn't true. The UK and France still one of the most powerful countries in the world even though they've declines a ton since their peak.
There will be a president in 200 years still be talking about pax Americana and how great it must've felt to be president Bush.
But how much of that is because of their relationship with the US? They wouldn't have remained that powerful if they weren't a part of this American-centered nexus.
Both France and the UK has its own fairly powerful military. France maintains a relationship with African nation's only comparable to how the US treats latin america.
Definitely wouldn't say that, I think you're confusing correlation with causation. There's nothing about our time that precludes the possibility that a state that could last a thousand years (other than the whole global heat death thing).