What exactly happens when the United States is no longer a world power?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Speaking out of curiosity and slight fear, what exactly would happen to the common person when the United States is destroyed?

If the United States is destroyed I think you just answered about what would happen to the common person.

Err... the same variety of things that can happen to any other declining power.
Could be complete destruction, could be a nice calm relinquishing of influence, could be a somewhat violent neutering by the ascendant power, or anything between those options.

In short; I don't have a bloody clue, and anyone who says they know for sure is lying (unless they have a TARDIS)

Captcha: Genghis Khan - I hope not for your sake!

rutcommapat:
Speaking out of curiosity and slight fear, what exactly would happen to the common person when the United States is destroyed?

You know, between "no longer a world power" and "destroyed" there's quite a leap of logic.

For the question in your thread title, you can ask Spain, Netherlands, Greece or Italy. For the question in the thread itself, I suppose Mongolia would be the closest one? Doubt there's many Incas or Mayas around you could ask how it is, getting destroyed.

Well, I don't expect the US to stop being a world power any time soon. The dominant world power, on the other hand...

The average US citizen is going to be worse off, yeah. The US has a lot of power to force countries into treaties favourable to it...trade agreements where the benefits go one way, for example. It's not going to be able to do that the way it used to, and that's going to give the US economy another kicking, though personally I can't say I'll mind.

On the other hand, it'll mean a shake up to the military situation, and presuming the US doesn't get itself forced into large wars by other nations, it might find itself sitting itself out of the new few conflicts. The military-industrial focus will likely have shifted by then anyway, so the US economy will probably improve due to that (more than if they kept at war, I mean, not compared to nowdays). It'd also help the level of homelessness, a massive slab of whom are ex-military (BTW, the proportion of female ex-military homeless in the US has doubled in the last few years).

But, it really depends on who becomes the next big power, and what they do with it...it's possible that there won't be one dominant nation, if the power structure ends up differently, but there's no real precedent for that.

I'm learning Mandarin in preperation for just such an occasion.

I've already learnt "please stop beating me I'll tell you everything I know"

Vegosiux:

rutcommapat:
Speaking out of curiosity and slight fear, what exactly would happen to the common person when the United States is destroyed?

You know, between "no longer a world power" and "destroyed" there's quite a leap of logic.

Yes. It's what makes the difference between a sensible question and baseless paranoia.

I think the real issue to be looked at is not what other nations will do when the US isn't the top dog, but what Americans will do. And this will be the most important factor between a nightmare scenario where the US is destroyed and what I think is the far more likely scenario where America is merely a powerful nation among other powerful nations.

The problem is (and this is speaking as an American) a lot of Americans are arrogant. A lot of Americans are also ignorant. And a lot of Americans are arrogant and ignorant, especially when it comes to what happens in other countries. For example, IIRC one of the points about John Huntsman that worked against him in the primaries was that he spoke Chinese and was knowledgeable about China. And that somehow this meant he was un-American.

And in the US system it's possible for ignorant, arrogant people to get influence over the political process. And this leads to completely ridiculous policy decisions that work against out long-term interest (see health care debate, Iraq War for case studies). While America will still clearly dominate conventional military conflicts for decades to come, only a fool fights the battles his opponent is best at winning. A cyber war, an economic war, an energy war, or an education war could quickly lead to our country experiencing a sharp drop in power rather than a gradual, comfortable decline. We need to ensure we don't provoke a conflict we can't win just because some of our citizens are uncomfortable sharing the top of the pile.

Fortunately, for every ignorant, arrogant American there is a smart, sensible American able to help steer us back on course. As long as we don't completely sabotage our education system, I think we'll have a good shot at maintaining long-term stability.

OneCatch :
In short; I don't have a bloody clue, and anyone who says they know for sure is lying (unless they have a TARDIS)

Even then it wouldn't be certain, given the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

Assuming you mean that the US loses military/economic/social dominance, for whatever reason, rather than is actually destroyed. Actual destruction would precipitate a LOT of chaos

Frankly, it depends on the circumstances.

Europe is in a position to retake their old role as a dominant power in the world. What they couldn't keep as individual nations they can certainly manage as a relatively whole entity. But they tend to be just a bit fractured and hesistant. Either they tighten up and step up, or remain too timid to do anything.

China might be able to do something similar, if given a few decades to prepare. But they are far less likely to even pretend to altruism.

Those two scenarios are far from the only options, and no matter what happens, quite a few conflicts the American navy keeps in check will reignite. It will take quite some time for things to die back down, even if someone manages to take up the reigns.

Heronblade:

China might be able to do something similar, if given a few decades to prepare. But they are far less likely to even pretend to altruism.

Personally, I think China is screwed beyond belief.

Their giant boom has been entirely dependant on their massive working population with low living-standards. However, with the increasing wealth of China, Chinese citizens are slowly getting higher expectations for their standard of living. Then, with the one child per family law, their huge working population is going to drop like a rock while all their present population become elderly dependants. I don't think China can maintain it's trajectory for a few decades unless they adopt the "once you can't work, you don't get to live" policy.

tstorm823:

Heronblade:

China might be able to do something similar, if given a few decades to prepare. But they are far less likely to even pretend to altruism.

Personally, I think China is screwed beyond belief.

Their giant boom has been entirely dependant on their massive working population with low living-standards. However, with the increasing wealth of China, Chinese citizens are slowly getting higher expectations for their standard of living. Then, with the one child per family law, their huge working population is going to drop like a rock while all their present population become elderly dependants. I don't think China can maintain it's trajectory for a few decades unless they adopt the "once you can't work, you don't get to live" policy.

I don't think many parts of China still use the 1 child policy. China's main problem WOULD be the US going down. Asian markets tend to consume a lot less than Western markets. You could also probably make some parallels between China's economy now and Japan's economy in late 20th Century, but I think due to the different state of the world economy today and due to China being good in terms of internal finances (which Japan wasn't) the parallels end pretty quickly.

I'v heard talk of Chinese house bubbles as well, but I'm not knowledgeable in that area.

Piracy once again becomes big business. At least until various governments pull their heads out of their asses and allow small arms on freighters with little/no red tape.

You enter a multi-polar world rather than a hegemony. You have to go back to the belle epoque to see a similar period, you had Great Britain, Japan, the US, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia as all powers in the same league.

Depending on what you think politically, it will either be a good or bad thing. The last time did ultimately lead to World War I, but then these powers were geographically adjacent to one another.

China, the EU and the US - along with Russia, Brazil and India some way behind - will probably sit at the top of the world and decide issues between them; probably through the UN. It's not a terrible world scenario, as there's a lot more ground rules set down than the last time this situation arose. And this time there's a lot more nukes to keep everyone in check.

tstorm823:

Heronblade:

China might be able to do something similar, if given a few decades to prepare. But they are far less likely to even pretend to altruism.

Personally, I think China is screwed beyond belief.

Their giant boom has been entirely dependant on their massive working population with low living-standards.

You can say exactly the same thing about America... A large working increasingly poor population with declining living standards whilst the living standard of the rich continues to go up thanks to continuous deregulation and tax breaks for thge rich.

China's large boom will end eventually, but it's development is still quite typical of every other nation. The first to feel any real benefits of the growth will of course be in the cities, but China is so large that it will be a very long process before it affects everyone.

OT: America is unlikely to be destroyed, in the event that is it's quite safe to say the whole world is going with it. But America's days as a superpower are numbered, it can no longer afford to be so. China will over take America in economic terms much sooner than we think, but what China does with this remains to be seen, it could simply continue to trade as a normal nation, or it could use it's power to force unreasonable trade conditions of smaller nations, establish military bases around the world and invade any nation that doesn't obey it. I swear i've heard of another country like that but I can't for the life of me remember which one...

tstorm823:

Heronblade:

China might be able to do something similar, if given a few decades to prepare. But they are far less likely to even pretend to altruism.

Personally, I think China is screwed beyond belief.

Their giant boom has been entirely dependant on their massive working population with low living-standards. However, with the increasing wealth of China, Chinese citizens are slowly getting higher expectations for their standard of living. Then, with the one child per family law, their huge working population is going to drop like a rock while all their present population become elderly dependants. I don't think China can maintain it's trajectory for a few decades unless they adopt the "once you can't work, you don't get to live" policy.

Unless of course China's economy evolves like so many first-world economies[1] have and transforms from a labor-based economy to a more modern economy. Then China would no longer need cheap labor because it uses technologically advanced manufacturing techniques to produce goods perceived as high-quality. An educated Chinese middle/upper class could then drive invention and entrepreneurialism, developing new technologies and new industries that drive the economies of the future. The loss of government income from a shrinking population could be augmented by the increased tax revenue of being the world leader in fields like green energy production[2]. This would have a further benefit for Beijing, as a smaller population is easier to keep happy and less likely to be uncontrollably riot when unhappy, which is an eternal concern of The Party.

Nah, that could never happen. Because it's China.

[1] Yes, I know the term is a cold war era dinosaur. I'm intentionally using it to represent how backwards the argument is.
[2] Where even now China is edging ahead of the US

Well there will be a major power vacuum...and i don't think China will be overly willing to fill it. China's a very self-interested state, it's not interested in embarking on big crusades in the Middle East to topple evil dictators and declare war on abstract concepts like terrorism and drugs... It would rather do business with dictators than topple them.

If American power was to significantly diminish i would predict that dictators would become more self-confident and be more willing to invade other countries- like for instance how Saddam invaded Kuwait back in 1990. As the Gulf War, the Balklan Wars and Libya shows, there is a risk with for dictators should they invade another country or commit human rights abuses on their own soil. That's not to say the Americans always intervene to enforce human rights and international law- far far from it- but they are very capable of doing so when the political will is there.

I would predict that the EU would strengthen it's security capabilities if American power was to decline. Europeans like NATO because it gives us a framework to access America's force projection capabilities when fighting wars. With America in decline i think Europe would see that it's necessary to bolster defence expenditure in order to try and step into the "world police" role.

Unlike China, the West has a culture of democracy, human rights, good governance and going on global military ventures. We're pretty evangelical about spreading our values around the world, and it's not something i see China being overly interested in doing, for very obvious reasons.

Katakori-Tun raises a very good point as well- a declining America would radically effect the American psyche, which takes pride in it's military power. For an insight as to how exactly the American pscyhe may be effected you may want to take lessons from the superpower before America- Britain. Based from what i know of British culture, i think it would take a while for Americans to accept that they arn't the military super power they used to be, and politically America will punch above it's weight.

Still...i don't think America will decline like Britain has. America's a huge, well developed country. Even if it may not be an unquestioned superpower in thirty years time, it will certainly continue to be a very powerful and influential state for centuries to come.

Katatori-kun:

Unless of course China's economy evolves like so many first-world economies[1] have and transforms from a labor-based economy to a more modern economy. Then China would no longer need cheap labor because it uses technologically advanced manufacturing techniques to produce goods perceived as high-quality. An educated Chinese middle/upper class could then drive invention and entrepreneurialism, developing new technologies and new industries that drive the economies of the future. The loss of government income from a shrinking population could be augmented by the increased tax revenue of being the world leader in fields like green energy production[2]. This would have a further benefit for Beijing, as a smaller population is easier to keep happy and less likely to be uncontrollably riot when unhappy, which is an eternal concern of The Party.

Nah, that could never happen. Because it's China.

Except if we can predict they'll have a similar situation to many other aging populations, they're not going to be leading in green technology while the market demand is on elderly care assistants.

And China is edging out the US in "green" technology because they subsidize it like hell. That's like saying the US is edging out china in oil refining, it's sort of a silly statement as its indicative only of spending priorities and says nothing of actual advancement.

[1] Yes, I know the term is a cold war era dinosaur. I'm intentionally using it to represent how backwards the argument is.
[2] Where even now China is edging ahead of the US

tstorm823:
Except if we can predict they'll have a similar situation to many other aging populations, they're not going to be leading in green technology while the market demand is on elderly care assistants.

Citation please? This isn't like the video game Civilizations- countries don't have to take a turn focusing on one and only one thing at a time.

And China is edging out the US in "green" technology because they subsidize it like hell. That's like saying the US is edging out china in oil refining, it's sort of a silly statement as its indicative only of spending priorities and says nothing of actual advancement.

Your point being...? If Chinese companies learn how to produce green energy more efficiently than American companies do, it will never matter whether the seed money came from the government or private sector.

I'm not arguing that China must become the world's superpower or course. I just see more than a little smug anti-sinism in these casual assumptions that China must implode in the near future.

Nickolai77:

Unlike China, the West has a culture of democracy, human rights, good governance and going on global military ventures. We're pretty evangelical about spreading our values around the world, and it's not something i see China being overly interested in doing, for very obvious reasons.

I think a lot of the young people in China do see values such as democracy and individual liberties and desire them though. A lot of my mainland Chinese friends (18 year olds) who study in the UK are getting increasingly aggravated towards, what they believe, is an old fashioned government. This aggravation is made even bigger by the fact that as they study in the West, they are exposed to students from Hong Kong who see the mainland as being a bit backwards.

Lethos:

Nickolai77:

Unlike China, the West has a culture of democracy, human rights, good governance and going on global military ventures. We're pretty evangelical about spreading our values around the world, and it's not something i see China being overly interested in doing, for very obvious reasons.

I think a lot of the young people in China do see values such as democracy and individual liberties and desire them though. A lot of my mainland Chinese friends (18 year olds) who study in the UK are getting increasingly aggravated towards, what they believe, is an old fashioned government. This aggravation is made even bigger by the fact that as they study in the West, they are exposed to students from Hong Kong who see the mainland as being a bit backwards.

I like to think that this is the case- The Chinese students coming over here to study in the West return to China with a strengthened desire that one day their country will be a democracy- and given that these graduate students are going to become the Chinese social elite, they're in a position to make that change happen. It will be a great thing, for world stability, if China were to become a democracy. Practically all the Western anxiety about China will evaporate.

Katatori-kun:

Citation please? This isn't like the video game Civilizations- countries don't have to take a turn focusing on one and only one thing at a time.

Even if an economy isn't a zero sum game, human labor is a finite resource. If you have the same number of people living off an economy with less people working, a higher percentage of the total work goes into sustaining the services for the population which cuts a percentage of labor out of developing industries. I suppose if they could transition into more valuable industries strongly enough they could manage to import some labor, but there are a lot of factors pushing against that possibility.

Your point being...? If Chinese companies learn how to produce green energy more efficiently than American companies do, it will never matter whether the seed money came from the government or private sector.

I don't think we'll really know what parts of the current green movement are more economically efficient for a decade or so... that market just isn't a market right now so you can't really follow the normal signs and symptoms to see what's working. When the Chinese government subsidizes the making of solar panels and then the US government subsidizes their purchase, things get a little crazy.

I'm not arguing that China must become the world's superpower or course. I just see more than a little smug anti-sinism in these casual assumptions that China must implode in the near future.

And I'm not argueing that China is going to regress into some hell on earth, just that they almost certainly lack the steam to become the hegemony people keep saying they're destined to become. I think the fact that they are lending out money so freely shows that they know they're gonna need to call in favors in the near future.

Nickolai77:

Lethos:

Nickolai77:

Unlike China, the West has a culture of democracy, human rights, good governance and going on global military ventures. We're pretty evangelical about spreading our values around the world, and it's not something i see China being overly interested in doing, for very obvious reasons.

I think a lot of the young people in China do see values such as democracy and individual liberties and desire them though. A lot of my mainland Chinese friends (18 year olds) who study in the UK are getting increasingly aggravated towards, what they believe, is an old fashioned government. This aggravation is made even bigger by the fact that as they study in the West, they are exposed to students from Hong Kong who see the mainland as being a bit backwards.

I like to think that this is the case- The Chinese students coming over here to study in the West return to China with a strengthened desire that one day their country will be a democracy- and given that these graduate students are going to become the Chinese social elite, they're in a position to make that change happen. It will be a great thing, for world stability, if China were to become a democracy. Practically all the Western anxiety about China will evaporate.

.
If you look at Great Russia, plenty of westerners are still wary of the giant because they have this delusion that they aren't a 'real' democracy. The same will happen if and when China converts to Democracy whether it be by force, peacefully or the watchful eyes of extra-terrestrial aliens preparing for another century of the Humiliation of China. What? I read.

tstorm823:

Katatori-kun:

Citation please? This isn't like the video game Civilizations- countries don't have to take a turn focusing on one and only one thing at a time.

Even if an economy isn't a zero sum game, human labor is a finite resource.

So, no citation then. No evidence whatsoever that a population reduction in China must reduce their ability for advancement in green technology. Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

Your point being...? If Chinese companies learn how to produce green energy more efficiently than American companies do, it will never matter whether the seed money came from the government or private sector.

I don't think we'll really know what parts of the current green movement are more economically efficient for a decade or so... that market just isn't a market right now so you can't really follow the normal signs and symptoms to see what's working. When the Chinese government subsidizes the making of solar panels and then the US government subsidizes their purchase, things get a little crazy.

...and no evidence to back up this claim either then. Thanks?

rutcommapat:
Speaking out of curiosity and slight fear, what exactly would happen to the common person when the United States is destroyed?

.
define common person. A denizen of the USA or out of it?
If it is destroyed then a denizen of the USA will be dead. The other citizens? Scrambling to colonize and loot the USA. Fallout universe, here I come!

I don't see America ceasing to be a world power, as long as it continues to exist, it will have a reasonable to high amount of input in world politics.

If America were "destroyed", the situation would be downright ugly for the world.
A loss of the following would be devastating for the world:

Food Production: America produces a majority of the world's food compared to other countries, losing that, means that other countries would have to replace the loss of food, while the countries capable of generating extra food resources scramble to produce them, a signifcant portion of the world experiences food shortages, restrictions of food alottment, and starvation.

Science/Technology/Medicine: Not unique to America, as several other countries make considerable contributions in this area. The loss of any major contributing country would be a sizable setback to production and advancement for the rest of the world.

Military: America's negative reputation as a "nosey policeman" is a sticking point for this catagory. No America means that certain dictator's and politicians will have considerably less to worry about when they decide to attack other countries. All of America's allies will be significantly less threatening. The EU would essentially be forced into taking America's place as the "bully", largely because either no one else could do it, or ( as in the case of China) would want to. Also, negotiations would progress differently, No American military means less leverage, and a willingness to make concessions on the side of the "Allies" (for lack of a better term) which could be a positive, although I think most would consider it a negative.

Economy: Not unique to America. The loss of any of the top world nations would be devastating. Major changes would affect almost everyone. It is worth noting though, that only China has a greater than expected dependence on America. No America would virtually destroy China's economy, while merely severly damaging the rest of the world.

I will say that the force required to destroy America, would likely be devastating to the rest of world alone, besides the aftermath points I have listed.

Its most likely that even if China becomes too strong for America to maintain itself as a true Superpower, I do not believe China will be able to become a true Superpower as America would still be too powerful. The difference between a World Power and a World Superpower is very great. Take for example the economic gap, years ago China surpassed Japan as the 2nd largest economy on Earth. Even at its phenomenal growth rate, China still has to maintain its current growth rate for over a decade just to match the US economy...this illustrates the gap between a world power and a world superpower.

Also militarily China actually ranks about 3rd in the world behind Russia and the USA. China's army is impressive (mostly due to its sheer side) but its air force and navy are really not all that impressive considering China's economic power, plus there is a geographic advantage that America has which China can never achieve itself no matter what.

So yes I think a few decades from now you will have the USA and China and perhaps some other nations will be World Powers that are close to being Superpowers in their own right but since neither can truly claim to be unrivaled, neither can claim to be a true superpower.

Nothing. The US gives itself way to much credit.

Katatori-kun:

tstorm823:
Except if we can predict they'll have a similar situation to many other aging populations, they're not going to be leading in green technology while the market demand is on elderly care assistants.

Citation please? This isn't like the video game Civilizations- countries don't have to take a turn focusing on one and only one thing at a time.

I don't really feel like looking up sources right now, but I spent last summer interning with a English-language newspaper based in Shanghai, and I can tell you that there really is a serious concern about the aging population and the lack of an effective pension system. Dunno anything about green technology in China though.

dyre:
I don't really feel like looking up sources right now, but I spent last summer interning with a English-language newspaper based in Shanghai, and I can tell you that there really is a serious concern about the aging population and the lack of an effective pension system. Dunno anything about green technology in China though.

I don't disagree that the demographic issue is a concern. All I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to just declare that because of demographic decline, we can predict that will automatically result in Chinese companies failing to develop a technologies in a particular field. It's like saying because the US can't figure out health care reform we're guaranteed to never have a mission to Mars.

Seekster:
So yes I think a few decades from now you will have the USA and China and perhaps some other nations will be World Powers that are close to being Superpowers in their own right but since neither can truly claim to be unrivaled, neither can claim to be a true superpower.

I know you're old enough to remember the cold war. And during the cold war the US and the USSR were both called superpowers. And I'm pretty sure they were rivals. So to say that in order to be a superpower a country must be unrivaled is flat out wrong.

Katatori-kun:

dyre:
I don't really feel like looking up sources right now, but I spent last summer interning with a English-language newspaper based in Shanghai, and I can tell you that there really is a serious concern about the aging population and the lack of an effective pension system. Dunno anything about green technology in China though.

I don't disagree that the demographic issue is a concern. All I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to just declare that because of demographic decline, we can predict that will automatically result in Chinese companies failing to develop a technologies in a particular field. It's like saying because the US can't figure out health care reform we're guaranteed to never have a mission to Mars.

Oh, well, yeah, you're right about that, of course.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
So yes I think a few decades from now you will have the USA and China and perhaps some other nations will be World Powers that are close to being Superpowers in their own right but since neither can truly claim to be unrivaled, neither can claim to be a true superpower.

I know you're old enough to remember the cold war. And during the cold war the US and the USSR were both called superpowers. And I'm pretty sure they were rivals. So to say that in order to be a superpower a country must be unrivaled is flat out wrong.

I don't remember the Cold War (born in 1988) but yeah there is no agreed upon objective set of requirements to be a Superpower. There is debate about what constitutes a superpower or even if that term is even still appropriate. I myself follow a set of criteria that can be applied consistently to separate World Powers and other nations from a Superpower (looking only at Western History; Imperial Rome, Great Britain, and the United States are the only ones to have ever met all the requirements for being a true superpower in my professional view...and the US only barely qualifies as it has only been able to maintain the level of Superpower for a short time so far, depending on when you say it officially became a superpower).

Anyway to summarize my requirements, a true superpower must have no true rival within its own sphere of influence (nowadays a nation's sphere of influence is effectively the entire world so for our purposes today you can say a true superpower must have no true rival on Earth). Furthermore it must achieve economic, military, diplomatic, social, and cultural standards at or above that of your typical world power This means basically that your economy is one of the best on Earth, most often THE best if you are truly unrivaled, your military must be top rate, your diplomatic influence should be global or at least close to it, basic needs like food, shelter, and security should be met and infrastructure should be at least sufficient to maintain your economy (without a strong infrastructure its hard if not impossible to have a top ranked economy after all) and finally you need to be able to exercise what is called "soft power" namely having your culture or at least aspects of it be exported and widely accepted or at least tolerated by a large number of countries. In addition a true superpower must be able to maintain these criteria for a notable amount of time. There are plenty of nations in history who met many of the criteria for being a superpower but only for short stints of time, such as during the rule of a particularly skilled leader. A true Superpower must be able to maintain themselves for a period of time sufficient to show that they can maintain this status without relying on a boom time or a single particularly skilled leader.

As you can see my requirements are somewhat vague but I assure you they are applied consistently. You can look all you want for a better and more consistent definition but you will not find one that differs greatly from my own. Really though what is and is not a superpower is like asking what is and is not a planet. Its ultimately a pointless distinction.

And as for the Soviet Union, neither it nor the United States could be considered true superpowers during the Cold War under my criteria though obviously both nations met most of the criteria for being a superpower and if only one fell then the other would instantly meet all my criteria for being a superpower (which is what ended up happening). Honestly though if you want to think of the USSR as a Superpower then nobody could say definitely that you are wrong as there is not official definition for what is and is not a superpower.

Seekster:
Also militarily China actually ranks about 3rd in the world behind Russia and the USA. China's army is impressive (mostly due to its sheer side) but its air force and navy are really not all that impressive considering China's economic power, plus there is a geographic advantage that America has which China can never achieve itself no matter what.

Well, depends how you measure it. Without a navy, an army is more or less useless beyond your own borders, unless you are going to invade nations you have a land border with.

The UK has a much smaller army, but is able to deploy it anywhere in the world. In most real terms it therefore has a stronger military than China.

Katatori-kun:

So, no citation then. No evidence whatsoever that a population reduction in China must reduce their ability for advancement in green technology. Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

...and no evidence to back up this claim either then. Thanks?

Well, since this is projection into the future, evidence isn't available yet...

I explain my reasoning and fill 100% of my statements with qualifiers like "I think" or "if we predict." I am quite aware of my lack of omniscience, but thanks for pointing it out. I guess you realized that I'm right so often that I forget sometimes...

If you'd like to have a discussion, please point out where my logic fails and I will learn something. If you just want me to be wrong but won't address why, the conversation isn't going to get very far.

My secret alliance of Russians, Chinese, and Eskimo soldiers shall blitz from Canada to Peru (we'll take the Falklands for good measure) and create the Empire of the Gentlemen, where being a douche shall be an executable offence. We'd keep that Jersey Shore show, but it'll be the public venue for the executions.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

On a more serious note, the multi-polar global political stance will probably be Russia, China, Brazil, the US, and a relatively united Europe. The US, having realized that the maintenance required for a military of its desired size is fiscally impossible without becoming essentially a totalitarian state, massively decreases its standing army (as well as its bloated and ineffective intelligence system) and instead opts for the Israeli-style focus on special operations.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked