Let's face it; Britain has basically gone from being THE most powerful nation in the history of the world, covering 1/4 of the Earth's surface and population, to... a dinky little island. That isn't to say they aren't powerful. Oh heavens no; Britain is still one of the world's most powerful nations. Somewhere between 3rd-5th.
So, going from world spanning, to dinky island. Obviously, there was something that caused this. Bad rule? Their reach excedeing their grasp? Overwhelming power? Could it be a mix of these things, or different ones? A MIX of different ones? Perhaps it was because they just conquered TOO much, and they could not keep their empire. I don't know, I'm not an expert on the British.
One thing is for sure though: They probably had the overall "least" blood shed over independant nations in the 20th century.
My personal opinion is a mix between their reach exceding their grasp, (not militarilly, just culturally) , and my theory: "You cannot conquer a people unless they want to be."
So, fellow Hatrackians, give your opinions! I would like to hear yours. Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
What makes you think England is still powerful?
quote:I don't know, I'm not an expert on the British.
Lol.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Ummm, because they ARE!!!!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
"Dinky little island" and "one of the world's most powerful nations" don't seem to go together.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, if you think of it, they do. For one, Britain is really, a small island, in a narrow term. However, militarily, economically, culturally, and influentally, they are quite powerful.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You pulling this out of a hat?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
No. Why would you say that? Britain is still a very powerful nation.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Well, how about the fact that you have no evidence of this whatsoever, besides your apparent conception (right word?) of the fact. You might be thinking of the "influence" it has over commonwealth countries like Australia. It has none, just a title. It means as little "militarily, economically, culturally, and influentally" to the commonwealth as the royals mean to the rest of Britain.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Alright. First off, Britain is powerful. There is no disputing that; right. They DO have a strong military. They have a strong economy. They have very rich culture. They have influenceed most of the wolrd's governments; maybe indirectly, but still did.
And YES, an American is saying all of these nice things about another nation.
Also notice this pattern.
After Rome fell, it basically gave birth to Britain, which took its place. Britain in turn, gave birth to the US, which tool its place. Where will this pattern end?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It still commands a great deal of respect. Nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are tied economically and culturally to Britain, and the word of the Queen and the word of the PM of Britain carries enormous weight with those nations. That isn't to say they can order them around, but they can can support on a great range of issues.
I think the real decline of their empire came just after WWII, and it is directly tied to the death of their navy. America could overpower the next three most powerful navies in the world combined. Britain cancelled much of it's shipbuilding operations, including what would have been a new line of carriers. It doesn't have the ability to project force in the world like it used to.
India, South Africa and it's other holdings would have been gone eventually. With the way the world was working, they were already on the path to getting out from under British rule, but all hope of holding onto a position as a major world power player died when they slashed their navy.
Edit to add: Reticulum. Your Rome to Britain theory. Nope.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:It still commands a great deal of respect.
Indeed it does. But I hope your not equating commanding respect to power?
quote:They have influenceed most of the wolrd's governments; maybe indirectly, but still did.
Have is a broad word in Britains case, I'm afraid. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yeah, I pulled that out of my EXPLETIVE DELETED.
But here IS how IT DID gO.
Pax Romana -> Pax Britannica -> Pax Americana
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Also, it appears at its Zenith, each nation is more powerful then the last.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:But here IS how IT DID gO.
Pax Romana -> Pax Britannica -> Pax Americana
For a start, it doesn't take a genius like you to notice that.
Besides that, your speaking as if Britain is still at its Zenith. Rome (Italy) still has some influence because of Roman Catholicism. Britain actually used Roman Catholicism to conquer a lot of the world. The Church of England doesn't command half as much respect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, respect doesn't equal power, but INFLUENCE often can, and Britain has it. They have economic, cultural, social, military, and allying influence over traditional friends, and all that put together equal influence that they can throw around and get a bit of what they want. More so than a lot of other western and first world nations can, maybe even most of them. Britain is seen is one of the main leaders of the EU, their word carries weight.
As for the Pax theory. Rome's fall didn't create Britain as a power. A fantastically large amount of factors came into play to make Britain into a huge power, and a great many of them had zero to do with Rome. The biggest was their undefeatable navy. Another biggie was their form of government, and things like the magna carta. They were a people apart, and innovated their way to the top.
In the same way, Britain's fall didn't create America's rise to power. They were already powerful before WWII, they just didn't exercise that power, and they have Germany, Italy and Japan to thank for that. Japan especially forced America to build a massive navy that gave them the power to project force anywhere in the world, and all three powers refused to let America stay idle, and once invested, they were trapped in international affairs. To be involved meant to control, and so they did.
If you're talking about parent nations, then yes, Rome seeded Britain in the same way that Britain seeded America, but really that's incidental, it's not the primary cause.
As far as power at the zenith, that's a result of technological advances. As time goes on, nations will only become more powerful, not less powerful, barring a nuclear winter.
Following your theory, the next big power will come from a US seed, of which, quite frankly, none exist. With all the foriegn world's talk of imperialism, when it really comes down to it, America barely dipped it's toes in the water compared to Europe. The Phillipines was our only real dabbling (and it was brutal), but we got out of that relatively fast compared to the centuries that Europe meddled.
Otherwise, the obvious odds on favorite for the next world power is China, but their power would have to either be a military one or a economic one, it will never be a cultural one as America has created. At least, not with their current government and culture. And either way, you can't predict the rise of the next power until you also predict the decline of the current one.
(waits for Blayne to jump in)
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The nation does though. Saying Britain is at its Zenith is like saying the US is still at its Zenith. (Which it is not, sad to say. ) Currently, it is the Chinese who are destined to become a superpower. God only knows what China would with superpower status, though.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Following your saying that China will never reach a cultural status like America, I can whole-heartedly agree with that. There are a few reasons.
1. Britain really spread the English language around the world. This spread was followed by the further spreading by America, which enforced it also. So, you have the two most powerful nations in history (debatable somewhat), who spread their language for over 250 years. On top of this, you have the fact that the current WMPN, is ignorant and will refuse to learn Chinese. And a LOT nations will do as America does. This is a huge factor, since the Chinese language will not spread, as English did. Regionally it will spread, but not globally. Since Chinese movies talk in Chinese assuminglingly, their films, and culture will not spread like America's, thus limiting their power.
2. America has been the sole superpower for over a decade, and been a regular superpower for just over 60 years. We have had a LOT of time to spread. We were unarguably more culturally influential the USSR, so that gives us 60+ to spread our language and culture. Now, when China becomes a superpower, they will have to deal with a language that has been the world's "norm" for 250+ years, culture that been influencing the world for 60+ years, competeing with another very powerful superpower who are ignorant and will not adopt their ways, and finally, the rest of the world, with other such nations as Britain, and France of whom America already holds sway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not sure how much that matters. First of all, China is, and will continue to grow as a major economic player in the world. Eventually their growth will level out and slow, and their currency will float free, putting them more or less on the same level of economic development as the rest of the world. At that point, they'll be on par with the US and EU. Other nations will be forced to learn Chinese to do business with them. Right now, Chinese people learn English because they need/want to crack English speaking markets, but that won't always be the case. Learning Chinese will become a necessary component to the business world for the West.
But I think you're right in that, it will never become as ubiquitous as English, barring extreme circumstances. Likewise, I don't see the combo Chinese/English a la Firefly ever coming to pass.
But I think you are ignoring the European Union as a pontential superpower player. If and when the EU becomes a single unified nation, and really, I would be very surprised if that didn't happen this century, their economy will be on par with that of the US and China, and their military, once repositioned and consolidated, will be an incredible force to be reckoned with. Britain's naval infrastructure, and that of Scandinavia's could produce some awesome ships for a truly powerful navy. They would certainly have America's help too, if they wanted to build modern carriers, and Britain already has Trafalgar-Class Submarines, which are better than anything that the Russians or Chinese have. Plus, when all their internal military forces are moved to the borders, it will leave them with a lot of resources to play with as far as being an international military force.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
ANd when do you think this will happen?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
As far the European union, I don't think they will ever become a single nation. They are too diverse, and they have too much national pride.
I will be glad to see which language will become the more powerful and common in the business world. Due to the statements in my upper post, I think English will win.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering the progress they have made in just the last ten years, I don't think it's that far off. Draft constitutions have already been written, and rejected yes, but progress is always being made. Remember that the modern EU hasn't existed for all that long, it will take time to work out the growing pains. But it WILL happen. I'd say in the next forty to fifty years.
Though, it will be MUCH longer if they allow any more new nations, which I think is a mistake. Where they are now is where they need to stop, before they become too divided to survive as a single entity. Turkey should not be allowed admittance.
Their biggest issue is that they don't want to lose the power they have at the UN and Security Council by solidifying into a single nation with only one vote, but I think they'd get over that, or the UN will be remade at that point, which I think is also a major posibility. It's lack of functionality has been shown greatly in the last decade, and I could see the birth of a unified EU nation working in tandem with a new UN being remade, giving India and Japan more status, and giving the US, EU, and China overlordship over the earth basically. Africa won't be able to do anything about it, except maybe secure themselves a couple permenant African rotating Security council seats.
Africa will become a major topic of discussion for the leaders of the world in the next fifty years. It's the last great consumer farm of the world, and the powerhouses of the world will fight over who gets to exploit it the most.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I still don't think Europe will ever become a unified naition. It just doesn't seem likely. First, you would see the fall of century spanning empires, such as England, France, and such.
Africa, will become economically good in the next couple of centuries, but I do think that breaking off from France and Britain were bad ideas for them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
News flash, those empires already fell, and they know it. That isn't their concern anymore. Besides, they're more worried about immigrants destroying their cultural fabric than they are that driving from France to Italy no longer means passing through customs.
And why was breaking from oppressive colonialist powers bad for them? Other than the fact that they were kicked out before they had a chance to clean up their messes.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Plus, eventually, China becoming a superpower will cause bad relations with America. Rensions will rise, and we will both plunge into war. America will use the perfect excuse that China cannot make such claims to own so much land, and oppress so many people.
America, due to our large military, economic, and cultural dominance would have a GREAT advantage. With allies such as GB, France, and the world's most powerful nations, I cannot see an American defeat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And now you've lost me...
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, Africa, being ruled very powerful nations, with strong economies, could have been 50-75 years ahead, of where it is now. They would have been thoroughly developed, and when have been economic powers; THEN they should have revolted.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Wait, where did I lose you?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Plus, eventually, China becoming a superpower will cause bad relations with America. Rensions will rise, and we will both plunge into war. America will use the perfect excuse that China cannot make such claims to own so much land, and oppress so many people.
America, due to our large military, economic, and cultural dominance would have a GREAT advantage. With allies such as GB, France, and the world's most powerful nations, I cannot see an American defeat.
All of that is where you lost me. It's gibberish.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Basicly, America and China will go to war, and America will have an advantage.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why would America have an advantage? Sure we still have military construction here in the states, but think about what would happen to our economy if the Chinese denied us their products? What do we make here? Cars, sure, but less and less. Electronics come for the orient, Japan and China. Major manufacturing in the U.S. has drastically diminished and moved over seas.
If you are talking about a brawl, gun for gun, than the U.S. might have the edge, but China has a lot more people, the possibility for a lot more troops, and their military is nothing to sneeze at.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Don't bother discussing anything with Reticulum. He takes 10 minutes to come up with 25 word defenses. He uses his age as an excuse for not making sense, and still thinks hes right. I could go on...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:But here IS how IT DID gO.
Pax Romana --> Pax Britannica ->; Pax Americana
For a start, it doesn't take a genius like you to notice that.
Besides that, your speaking as if Britain is still at its Zenith. Rome (Italy) still has some influence because of Roman Catholicism. Britain actually used Roman Catholicism to conquer a lot of the world. The Church of England doesn't command half as much respect.
No, Reticulum did not speak as if Britain was still at it's zenith. Hence the arrows. Umm, and his thread title.
England left the Roman Catholic Church almost 500 years ago, before founding their empire. So how did they use the RCC to conquer the world? *sets stopwatch*
[ March 01, 2006, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Heh, from Rome to Britain?
(Focusing on Western Civilization), we'll just ignore the Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and France? You might be able to fit in the Ottomans at some point, and you can't really forget the Mongol Empire...
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe what destroyed the British Empire, and turned it into a declining empire, was WWI. By WWII they were already in decline, hence the attempts at appeasement. They lost a major portion of their youthful population in WWI, their invincible navy was unable to project power into Europe as they hoped, (while the battle of Jutland was not a defeat for the Grand Fleet--it certainly was no victory. It showed a weakness in what was the strongest part of the empire.), and many of their colonies, most importantly India, were struggling for freedom.
PS, I agree with Bok. Check your history. They jump from Pax Romana to Pax Brittanica is about 1000 years. Between the two Brittian faced major influences from invasions from Danes and the French/Normans.
The Holy Roman Empire kept Europe organized enough to withstand Islamification. The Spanish Empire spread European colonization around the world, though its poor use of those resources left it very short lived. The Fench Empire took much of Italy's rennaisance and fashioned it into an empire that defined European culture, and influences it to this day. The Mongul empire was extremely large and influencial, and planted the seeds for much of the Russian/Soviet Empire that we saw at the end of the 20th century. The Chinese Empire was should not be ignored either, just because they sought to ignore the rest of the world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe what destroyed the British Empire, and turned it into a declining empire, was WWI.
I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say the following: what killed the British Empire was its attempt to maintain a landed gentry in an age of mass manufacturing.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I'll give a non-UK opinions too.
1. Technology. 100 years ago, the relatively technical nations were US, UK, France, Germany. Now it's spread, and it's harder for a country without a huge population base to be a world power.
2. WWII exhausted the UK; like other European nations, it needed a while to recover. The US was not nearly so stretched, and despite being invaded, neither was the USSR. The UK would have certainly recovered by now (and did), but in the meantime...
3. The elites in the UK's colonies took to heart what they learned in the west about self-determination, and weren't going to put up with colonial status any more. The UK was too stretched to expend serious effort to keep them by force; the population didn't want to (they booted Churchill out for Labour at a time when Labour was ready to let India go); and the UK didn't really have the population to force colonialism on a seriously unwilling colony population. So the UK lost its empire, and without it, it's just not that big. (The US and the USSR expanded, too, but they expanded over land, and made their new territories part of their nations.)
So to me, it's not that the UK mysteriously lost power; it's that it was unusual circumstances that made that power possible to begin with. Now, it's certainly powerful for a nation its size: seat on the Security Council, nukes, a relatively able military, and a rich population. But to reach US, India, China, or Russia levels of population, UK isn't enough; you essentially need Europe.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Okay to all those who wants to know Chinese military capabilities: www.sinodefence.com an unofficial website that is pretty informative.
As for England there are many reasons:
-England was an "island of shopkeeper's" and stayed that way they rarely industrialized the colonies and prefered to import rare materials for industry. Good for them bad for colonies.
-England with one war after an other to secure its naval monopoly found itself in constant confrontation with France, forcing it away from other events such as Russian domination of the Far East, growing American troubles, etc.
-The Napoleanic war was the first time England fought in a total war like situation putting its full monetary strength into the war by distracting Napolean on the periphery to kill him through attrition of his best troops and constantly forming collalitions whenever Napolean was about to gain his breathing space.
-After the war, for the first time England found itself with nearly total hegemony of the oceans, but were weakened by the American split and for the first time defending Canada became important. Also England with its new found strength in maritime trade and a large production capacity thanks to the steam engine and the industrial revolution began taking on military obligations around the globe in India, North America, South America, etc.
-Then game the Opium wars in China and the founding of Hong-Kong as a British Possetion for the next 150 years and the start of a string of British obligations in the Far East.
-England with its great wealth and influence can maintain its empire with the doctrine of "A navy big enough to take on any other 2 navies" and did so, but such a maritime expansion came at a price. England's ability to maintain a strong army was lacking, focusing on long proffesional carreer soldiers whose tour of duty were 7-10 years and maintained a relatively small colonial army and garrisons.
-The cost to maintain these forts and garrisons, as well as the naval infastructure to maintain such a navy as England was fielding was encredibly expensive. And their pretensions oversea's kept England in a certain amount of animosity with the French and Continental Europe. Also England prefering to maintain its Empire was by the end of the 18th centuary was finding itself too big to expand anymore and the costs of maintainance was increasing with new technologies.
-But thing's werent all bad, until 1860's where Russia attempted to expand at Turkey's expense. This war showed England's military weakness and further isolated England as Europe became suspisious of England's goals. Russia found itself too internally messed up to do anything in central europe, and Prussia with Von Molke's reforms managed to cream Austria so thouroughly that Austria could only watch the coming conflict and thus France was the only power able to chalenge the growing military and economic might of Berlin. With the end of the Franco-Prussian war came the beginning of the end of England's Hegemony in the long term.
-With a Unified Germany and Italy in Central Europe the Balance of power was shifting. Germany's huge manufacturing potential was enough to begin with the dismissing of Bismark a rivarly between the "water rat and the land rat".
-Also Germany was not the only new power to challenge England, with the end of the Civil War the United States found itself in a great economic position, with the potential to build ships in a rate that England found unnerving and America possessed the economic capacity to challenge England.
-England's oversea's obligations, coupled with the need to build up the naval forces in competition with Germany and America, as well with the growing pains with the Shilling's value with the growing protectionism of various nations was forcing England in an uncomfotable position. The actual politics of this time is in my mind cloudy I know the great powers divided Africa and intervened in the Boxer Rebellion in China (sowing the seeds for somwthing more recent). And all this increased the frition between the Detente, and the Central Powers.
Finally with the spark of the powder keg, the Balkans forced the eruption of WWI. England was neutral until the German DOWing of the Low Countries. So with WWI England sent its BEF (British Expeditionary Force) to aid the french and fought well keeping the one little belgian town in Allied hands. Anyone who makes any pretensions to know hsitory should know anough of WWI to not need me explaning it, but the financial costs of the war and the massive loans from the states is what finally and ireparitly put England on the path to obscurity in the coming decades.
-Post War england found itself establishing commitee's and think tanks trying to figure out how to maintain the Empire and prevent a fall (kinda like what the States is doing now). It's navy they had no choice with the Washington and other naval treaties to reduce overwhelmingly the size of the Royal Navy and decrease the size of her Battleships per treaty specifications. The loss of her Navy and the gorwing autonomy of her Colonies was also distrissing to England forcing the Commonwealth into more and more of a loose confederation of equal members led at first officially and now unofficially by the Queen of England.
-Post war debts, an pacifist populace, a growing inability to deal with Fascism... all these were heavy upon British policy makers. But finally it was WWII that ended it. The collapse at Dunkirk and the close call during the Battle of Britain showed the World that England had fallen a great deal and England was thus forced a second time in her History to rely on the Arsenal of Democracy within the United States.
-England gave away her gold reserves to Fort Knox to pay in part her debts and to gain new aid for the crisis and with the American entry into the war England was saved from occupation from the Nazi's but found itself worse off in the world influencially, economically and militarily then before.
The end of WWII found England forced to accept a subordinate role in politics with the USA at the helm to defend the West from the threat of Soviet Aggression who were so much bigger and more powerful then the British and French that American help was mandatory or else they'ld be doomed to fall under the Iron Curtain themselves.
We look at history and analyze what went wrong for the British and we also see the signs of wear and tear in America as well. If anything rather then American beating China, it is China who will be the end of the United States and its position as the sole super power.
China is a nation who has the populace, the manufacturing potential (whose growth is powered by foreign investment), military determination to prevent what happened in the Boxing Rebellion (where 8 european countries invaded China), and the technological know how and the potential to become technologically affluent.
They've only just begun exporting their own car brands and are developing indiginous software/hardware components how long before cheap Chinese designed and manufactured Computers are flooding the markets? If anything soon China will become the second major super power in regards to the United States and then exceed it.
But its likely they're will be a conventional war the result? No one knows.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, Blayne, England industrialized so much they stripped the entire island of trees and coal, nearly completely. What small groups of trees survived became black with soot. Hardly an island of shopkeepers.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why would America have an advantage? Sure we still have military construction here in the states, but think about what would happen to our economy if the Chinese denied us their products? What do we make here? Cars, sure, but less and less. Electronics come for the orient, Japan and China. Major manufacturing in the U.S. has drastically diminished and moved over seas.
If you are talking about a brawl, gun for gun, than the U.S. might have the edge, but China has a lot more people, the possibility for a lot more troops, and their military is nothing to sneeze at.
Do you know anything? Honestly? If China denied us their products, who would they sell them too? In case you didn't notice, you proved my point why the US would have an advnatage. I may not have said it, but you backed it up. The US buys and WASTES a lot of things. If they stopped selling to the US, they would have to find a MAJOR buyer to replace us, thus damaging our economy.
Yes, major manufacturing in the US is gone, but do not think we don't have enough military, or allies to buy from to be supported? There is a reason why America is the most powerful nation. YOU make it sound as if, war was broken out, then we would have to buy everything, and that we have nothing here.
Ah yes, and for their military. Yes, they have been updating in the last few years, but their military is GREATLY outdated by the US. They lack carriers, and other such things. The US is dominant on land sea and air, and if a war broke out, we would go to any length to win.
Numbers, the Chinese military is only slightly larger then US's. IF needed the US could get mass numbers too and supply. Sure, China has a big population, but you have to have a LOT of money to supply your troops. Something, China could not support millions of troops. The US however could; being the richest nation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Reticulum, I think you dramatically underestimate the Chinese military. Neither we nor they could successfully assault either mainland. If such an assault were attempted, I think we'd wind up in a nuclear exchange out of necessity.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You make it sound like the entire western world will support America. What makes you think they will after the Iraq debacle and a possible round 2 with Iran? NATO can only act in the Atlantic and Europe not Asia. And Russia/China can veto any UN attempt to peace keeper it.
So your stuck to just America and China.
Next, the West is also buying in bulk from China in the States so if you buy from the the EU you are in the end buying from China second hand problem solved EU makes a little more money this way and China isn't harmed long term, they can also redirect some of their sales to Russia or make new deals with the EU for lower tarrifs.
Do yuo realize what the American rate of consumption is? If you stopped buying from China prices would A) Skyrocket B) they'ld be shortages decreasing moral.
How long can America last without its luxery goods neh?
Your dominance in land and sea is being challange day by day my friend, the Abrams could be theotetically blown up by a T-72, and the Chinese have the T-99 of their own design. the A1A2 is toast. The ground forces I'ld say were equal.
The airforces, will America has a certain egde yes but not decisevly, the Chinese can match the F-14-18 and the J-14 when its developed will have capabilities matching the F-22 and the F-35 can be outmaneuvered by a J-10/11 in a dogfight.
The Chinese have AWAAC's and UAV's and a sophistocated CIRSC (or whatever the abbreviation is) system.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also the "Island of Shopkeeper's" is a quote by Adam Smith, you know the famous economist. A shopkeeper, as in a store or a money lender. A trades man.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Personally, I think the rest of the western world is much more likely to support America than Britain, with Japan somewhere in between.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was referring to in the sense you were using it, though I could just have been misunderstanding due to the atrocious grammar.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, yes, any attempt on each others mainland would be insane. However, Militarily, yes America is FAR FAR FAR more powerful then China. The Chinese navy is absolutely nothing. Yes, China is almost definitely the 2nd most powerful nation, but they are still outdated by the US. And, even if China DOES have a fairly sophisticated, or VERY military, do you think America would leave ours the same? Do you think we have just stopped developing? WHAT do you think the hundreds of Billions of dollars are being spent on?
And, as you just said, if we stopped buying from China, we would just buy from the EU. Yes, prices would go up, but we could afford it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
WHo are still buying from China. Also China's ascention to the WTO would actually prevent America from breaking off trade deals unless there is a war, in that case buying from EU even if second hand chinese goods would take a while afew months minimum.
Even with billions of dollars going into your military China is still catching up at a ridiculas rate, your military-industrial complex is also becoming inefficient with the fall of the Soviet Union. Your military while first rate has alot of its budget directed towards pensions, payment, alot of it isn't going into military efficiency or purchasing of new planes.
China's PLA actually is rather self-sufficient owning many farms, factories, even schools the PLA is very much a major part of the average citizens life in some area's. Only recently did many of this possetions were stripped away to lower corruption and to make many of these state owned firms more efficient and compete with public/private firms and defence contractors.
The PLA budget is more purely military then America's is and more efficient overall. America's recent burst is also unsustainable, with such a huge debt and a trade dificit, a corroding society etc how long before a new Democrat comes in and makes 70-90% cut backs across the board to redirect it into balancing the budget?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
If for some reason the US and China were at war, the US would have one major advantage. Through airbases in Europe, the US could potentially strike at industrial centers in China. It would be far from easy, but it would be pretty much impossible for China to do that to the US. In any kind of a prolonged war, that sort of loss would be devastating. That said, I still think that any sort of land invasion would be really hard to pull off.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Man, I'm getting so sick of these China v America spinoffs of otherwise interesting topics.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How would a bomber take off from Estonia and reach harbin?
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
All the predictions about China as the next world superpower seem to ignore the coming demographic crisis as its population ages and the "one child policy" started in 1980 makes its full effects on the workforce.
If I had to pick the most likely successor to the U.S. as the major superpower, I would say India.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
India which has far worse ethnic and social problems.
China's Family planning is already relaxing, rural areas can have more then one child, if you and your spouse were single children then you can have more children, if yuor a minority you can have more then one etc.
Its already on review and I don't see how an aging population = lack of super power status.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> I don't see how an aging population = lack of super power status.
1. Because it means a coming shortage of labor, unless they start to import it like the U.S. does. 2. Because the aging population wants medical care spending, not military spending.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Britain started slipping in the first world war. It was tough, during the war for the whole of Europe. It prematurely aged the whole continent's countries, including those who were just beginning to rival Britain's influence- such as Germany. Everyone fell, but Britain was spared the worst of it until the Second World War, when the same thing happened again. There's only so much direct war a country/continent can take without slipping.
I believe 1956 (Suez Crisis) was the year when it was clear that the U.S. was taking over- Britain's bid for power failed. Nail in the Superpower coffin.
I do not believe that the empire-building had much to do with Britain's fall, other than the fact that when you start to take responsibility for other countries and more land, it's more difficult to hang on. Like having more and more children. It's hard to be economically viable when you have so many mouths to feed, especially faced with a war situation!
Yes: so my answer = WWI, WWII.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Even if it is aging it just means that more care and better working conditions will come faster.
Even if it is aging per se it is also having more new children and there's plenty of labour, esp if more machines are imported to do work.
Also China and most Asian countries aren't big on health/welfaire anyways, if you don't work you don't eat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also China and most Asian countries aren't big on health/welfaire anyways, if you don't work you don't eat.
I'm not sure how that gels with the "better working conditions will come faster" assertion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do think the Brits could have held on to, say, India for another twenty, maybe thirty years, had they been willing to use machine guns and tanks to do so. They might not have profited by it, even in the short run, but it would have been possible. In my opinion, the peaceful pullout is one of the finer achievements of an Empire noted for accomplishing many good things.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How long could we last without our luxury goods?
Ask the Germans, they learned what we were capable of doing in WWII. I hope to never experience anything like that myself, of course, but if there is one thing you show little understanding of, Blayne, it is your own country....both it's past, and it's likely future.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I knew this would get more fun once Blayne got here.
I don't see the crisis in China really Eric. Their people don't have the access to healthcare that most of the western world does, and quite frankly I think millions of them could die from disease and old age and they could easily be replaced through government control of the birth rate.
The problem with China in the coming decades is going to be social reform. The people aren't going to put up with the Chinese government forever. They'll demand higher wages, they'll demand freedoms, more democracy, etc. It might be the slowest process in history, but it will happen.
As for this continual boring as all hell America vs. China military debate. Who cares? It doesn't matter. I honestly can't see us going to war with each other based soley on the fact that neither side can have total victory and thus there is no point. Neither of us can win a land invasion, and if it really comes down to it, as of right now, America would win a nuclear war. They couldn't take out half our population with their nukes at the moment, but we have enough to turn China into a smoking cinder.
Regardless, China will never be the "end" of America Blayne, and I don't even know what you mean by that. End of us as a nation? as a superpower? as an economic and cultural influence? Be more specific. Even with that list of items, no, no, and no no no. They won't be.
If it really comes down to it, Europe WILL side with America on a lot of issues. As for Iran, Europe is more gung ho about it than we are, there's a chance there to reunify Western solidarity, it isn't another chance for the US to piss off Europe (well, it could be, but it won't be, that's the important part). I think perhaps you misunderstand the situation there, and overestimate China's political influence. They're arrogant, and arrogance to Europe, a continent of people with a history just as old if not older than China's, dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, arrogance is not welcome, and it gets you in trouble.
The military debate is a moot point Blayne. Your continual assertions about tank battles don't matter, because barring a Chinese invasion of Israel or Eastern Europe, they will never take place. Air superiority is in the hands of the US right now, and it will be for the coming future.
Regardless of technology you're ignoring the fact that the US has made warfare into an art. We don't spend all our money on soldier paychecks and equipment, BILLIONS goes into communications, surveillance and training. We can contact any unit, track any unit, and move any unit anywhere in the world in a second's notice. The Chinese don't have that kind of far reaching military communication system in place. And don't forget that they GPS system is controlled by the US, and during a war, I highly doubt we're going to allow them to use it. Unless you wait for the European version of GPS to come online in 20 years, but I think they'd side with us too.
Training is the biggest equalizer. Our pilots have hundreds if not thousands of hours of flight logged, and a great many of them (if not all as of now) have combat hours logged. We have trained military who are all battle hardened. You can' underestimate experience, and for that matter the fact that we're been using modern equipment to fight in modern warfare 50 years longer than they have. You can't make up for that experience gap in that short amount of time, not without spending way more time and money than the Chinese are.
And I resent the "how long will Americans last without their luxury items" bit. That's just bullshit and offensive. You think Americans are so soft that they will simply give up and surrender because they can't buy a plasma screen tv from China? Man are you in for a surprise when we get pissed off. Many haven't forgotten the rationing that went on during WW2, and even more will remember and step up if such a drastic step, FAR AND AWAY more drastic than luxury items, is ever required of us again. Ridiculous and insulting.
America will just have to move over and make room for new superpowers, because we aren't going anywhere.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As for this continual boring as all hell America vs. China military debate. Who cares? It doesn't matter. I honestly can't see us going to war with each other based soley on the fact that neither side can have total victory and thus there is no point. Neither of us can win a land invasion, and if it really comes down to it, as of right now, America would win a nuclear war. They couldn't take out half our population with their nukes at the moment, but we have enough to turn China into a smoking cinder.
Gah, I swore I wasn't going to get into the China-US thing, but this is just too silly to let go. Since when has total victory been a prerequisite for going to war, except in the mind of the American public? Consider the Seven Years' War, fought on three continents and all the seas, the end result of which was that Prussia retained Silesia, and some bits of wasteland in America changed hands! Consider even Korea, which indeed was fought by the US, and not pushed to a final conclusion for fear of nukes - was it a pointless conflict? Or would you perhaps prefer that Kim should extend his tyranny over the whole peninsula? There are any number of conflict points over which China and the US could in principle come to blows, without having to invade each others' mainland. Access to African markets and Middle Eastern oil; Taiwan; North Korea; even Afghanistan, should the Chinese decide they want to extend their old influence over Central Asia again.
Now, had you said "There is no war the Chinese can win, and therefore they won't start one", that would make a certain amount of sense. But this about a total war is just nonsense, especially in a nuclear age.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I have just realized why the british empire is no more! Its because of their bad teeth, taste for expensive tea, need to feel like they can be as big and bad as their creators/conquerers (the Roman Empire), and the fact that they never figured out that marching in strait lines is not a smart battle plan.
(I am joking on some of this, some I'm a little more serious about)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Its because of their bad teeth
My teeth are just fine, thank you. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:As for this continual boring as all hell America vs. China military debate. Who cares? It doesn't matter. I honestly can't see us going to war with each other based soley on the fact that neither side can have total victory and thus there is no point. Neither of us can win a land invasion, and if it really comes down to it, as of right now, America would win a nuclear war. They couldn't take out half our population with their nukes at the moment, but we have enough to turn China into a smoking cinder.
Gah, I swore I wasn't going to get into the China-US thing, but this is just too silly to let go. Since when has total victory been a prerequisite for going to war, except in the mind of the American public? Consider the Seven Years' War, fought on three continents and all the seas, the end result of which was that Prussia retained Silesia, and some bits of wasteland in America changed hands! Consider even Korea, which indeed was fought by the US, and not pushed to a final conclusion for fear of nukes - was it a pointless conflict? Or would you perhaps prefer that Kim should extend his tyranny over the whole peninsula? There are any number of conflict points over which China and the US could in principle come to blows, without having to invade each others' mainland. Access to African markets and Middle Eastern oil; Taiwan; North Korea; even Afghanistan, should the Chinese decide they want to extend their old influence over Central Asia again.
Now, had you said "There is no war the Chinese can win, and therefore they won't start one", that would make a certain amount of sense. But this about a total war is just nonsense, especially in a nuclear age.
Ah good you made my point for me. We're in a nuclear age. Please explain how the US and China are going to escalate to the point of war and NOT go nuclear over it. As soon as the US or Chinese attain any sort of dominance over the other, and it will all happen very, very fast, within a matter of days, in air or sea, the other will put their finger on the button and it either becomes hellfire and brimstone, or both sides stand down and the status quo returns. And somewhere in there, Taiwan is invaded.
Knowing this, there's especially little point in discussing a land war, because I don't see any set of circumstances, barring a viable missile defense shield or mutual nuclear disarmament, that would ever allow for a land war to happen. And I fail to see what is to be gained by just shooting down their planes and sinking what little bit of a navy they have compared to ours, as it will gain us no concessions and will probably lose Taiwan in the process. So for these reasons, I don't see the US starting a war. And I don't see China starting a war because they need us right now, and for the forseeable future they will continue to need us. The bigger and more complex their economy gets, the more it will come to rely on the US consumer to continue to fund it. It's a two edged sword that hurts both sides, but if they ever declared or us, then they lose more than a hundred billion dollars in sales to US consumers. Someone will make the argument that we'll simply get those goods via Europe, but I'd be a little surprised.
Anything with a Made in China sticker on it will be sacrosanct to purchase. It might doom both our economies, though I think we'd eventually pick up the pieces. Our stuff will cost a lot more to purchase, and in general you'll see a massive downturn in the luxury/electronics industry, at the end of the day we can still buy from Japan, domestically, and Europe. But China will be hardpressed to find another 100+ billion dollars from somewhere to buy their products. Which means massive layoffs in China, and according to Blayne, massive starvation and death.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would recommend to you an old book, called "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy", by Henry Kissinger. It contains, among other bits of wisdom, this statement : "Merely because one side is being disadvantaged in a limited war, it does not follow that they could gain advantage from a nuclear war." In other words, one side would back down after its armies or navies lost some battles, because that is still better than suicide. What, you think China is going to lose Beijing, not to mention their existence as a modern industrial nation, rather than concede a few trading rights in Africa? Likewise, is the US going to choose the destruction of the West Coast over, say, agreeing to the re-annexation of Taiwan? Even Bush isn't that nuts.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Why would China destroy the west coast? Besides, in any situation, the US would go to NW first. Americans, if you haven't noticed, will go yo ANY length to win. Otherwise, Lyrhawn posed every point I could think of; and more.
What I don't get, is why all other countries think America cares SO MUCH about luxuries. I mean, we do, yes. But, if needed, we wouldn't miss them too much. I believe someone said that do to China's large population size, they would have more men, mand eventually win because of it. Americans, as mentioned above, will DO ANYTHING TO WIN. Most are also loyalists, and hate many other nations. One of America's greatest aspects, is that we are afraid to lose our position. Some say the WWII generation was the greatest and bravest ever. I however, think that if the time were to come, we would do it again. Furthermore, on the soldier scale, America actually has a larger population growth then China. Besides, when would you need 60 million+ troops? Even China tried to train these troops, they couldn't afford it, without major economic collapse.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Ah and yes, as of this or last year, the US is STILL the richest nation in the world. The EU, is slightly less rich then US. And yes, it is in OUR dollars. So, in conclusion, we are still richer, even when their money becomes worth more. Ha HA Europe!
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: Its because of their bad teeth
My teeth are just fine, thank you.
Hmm, I didn't know storyland was in bloody old (mocking british tone) England. For queen and country (raises tea cup).
Oh, oh, (wipes tear from eye) okay. I'm good now. Is it true that you all drink hot tea?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Stating something as if it were true does not make that thing true. Some of you really need to learn this. Provide backing evidence for your statements.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Just a rumor I heard from my cousin who lives there. He says alot of the people there drink tea. And quite frequently.
[ March 01, 2006, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Advent 115 ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would recommend to you an old book, called "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy", by Henry Kissinger. It contains, among other bits of wisdom, this statement : "Merely because one side is being disadvantaged in a limited war, it does not follow that they could gain advantage from a nuclear war." In other words, one side would back down after its armies or navies lost some battles, because that is still better than suicide. What, you think China is going to lose Beijing, not to mention their existence as a modern industrial nation, rather than concede a few trading rights in Africa? Likewise, is the US going to choose the destruction of the West Coast over, say, agreeing to the re-annexation of Taiwan? Even Bush isn't that nuts.
You're missing my point, and I don't really get how. Bush isn't going to nuke China over trade rights, and they know that, so why would they make the concessions? Any conventional war will fight to either a standstill, or a minor advantage by one side, but neither side can with any sort of lasting victory through conventional means, and if we tried to carpet bomb them, or they us (which isn't viable given their lack of materiel), the side being attacked would threaten a nuclear attack, and I don't blame them. No one is going to sacrifice their industrial infrastructure to aerial bombing. Not when it's the lifeblood of their economy or military.
So that leaves both sides back to the nuclear question. And I doubt either side is going to push the button over trade rights, so I think the whole question is moot, because it brings us back to the status quo. Unless whoever "wins" the conventional side of the "war" can get the either side to give up concessions, but I just don't see why they would, unless one side just outbluffs the other, which is very possible I suppose. But again it doesn't come down to anything involving the military, that's brass balls and statesmenship.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Just a rumor I heard from my cousin who lives there. He says alot of the people there drink tea. And quite frequently.
Wasn't referring to your post above mine. I should have made that clearer.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In 50 years if China's peaceful development continues at its ~9.4% growth rate and assuming no wars or natural catastrophe (the random tsunami doesnt count as we've seen it barely scratches the economy) I think China could over take the US based on simple math.
USA's growth rate is 3.5% China's is 9.4% thus, how many years before China overcomes the states in PPP/GDP? The average income might take longer but by the time the PPP surpases America's PPP it won't matter.
America's reign as "the" sole super power with the ability to strike anywhere in the world barring the consequences is what will end, I do not mean that America will collapse on the scale of the USSR, the USA's economy and national determination is to strong.
But there will be a slight tarnishing of America's might and this WILL happen unless within a term a US President comes up with a brilliant strategy of ballancing the budget and making up for the collassal debt.
As for luxury goods, your tolerance for pain is lowering, 500,000 in WWII but you won, 50,000 in Vietnam and you lost, 2000 in Iraq and there's a hooha over it and people wanna pull out.
How many casualties in China could you take assuming a limited conventional war; combine arms operations, marines landings to disrupt communications and power generators, airwar, sea war.
And as I said before unless the PRC is STUPID enough to launch a bloody nuke on American soil as a provokation TO start the war you'll not get the American public supporting the war full throttle, you'll have your Pro's, your's Cons and of course the Democrats.
And unless there is a Pearl Harbour type of event to start the war the war would be of limited scope and thus giving the defencive bonus to the Chinese.
quote:"Getting into a war with China is easy," says Michael Vickers, a former Green Beret who developed the weapons strategy for the Afghan resistance in the 1980s as a CIA officer and is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in Washington. "You can see many scenarios, not just Taiwan—especially as the Chinese develop a submarine and missile capability throughout the Pacific. But the dilemma is, How do you end a war with China?"
Very interesting article about the Second Cold War.
quote:Like the nations involved in World War I, and unlike the rogue states everyone has been concentrating on, the United States and China in the twenty-first century would have the capacity to keep fighting even if one or the other lost a big battle or a missile exchange. This has far-reaching implications. "Ending a war with China," Vickers says, "may mean effecting some form of regime change, because we don't want to leave some wounded, angry regime in place." Another analyst, this one inside the Pentagon, told me, "Ending a war with China will force us to substantially reduce their military capacity, thus threatening their energy sources and the Communist Party's grip on power. The world will not be the same afterward. It's a very dangerous road to travel on."
And THIS is interesting:
"There are many ways in which the Chinese could use their less advanced military to achieve a sort of political-strategic parity with us. According to one former submarine commander and naval strategist I talked to, the Chinese have been poring over every detail of our recent wars in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, and they fully understand just how much our military power depends on naval projection—that is, on the ability of a carrier battle group to get within proximity of, say, Iraq, and fire a missile at a target deep inside the country. To adapt, the Chinese are putting their fiber-optic systems underground and moving defense capabilities deep into western China, out of naval missile range—all the while developing an offensive strategy based on missiles designed to be capable of striking that supreme icon of American wealth and power, the aircraft carrier. The effect of a single Chinese cruise missile's hitting a U.S. carrier, even if it did not sink the ship, would be politically and psychologically catastrophic, akin to al-Qaeda's attacks on the Twin Towers. China is focusing on missiles and submarines as a way to humiliate us in specific encounters. Their long-range-missile program should deeply concern U.S. policymakers."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Bush isn't going to nuke China over trade rights, and they know that, so why would they make the concessions? Any conventional war will fight to either a standstill, or a minor advantage by one side.
They would make concessions because conventional forces can put them in a very painful position, where concessions are less painful. Suppose the US navy blockaded China's coastline, a task well within its capabilities at the moment. Do you know just how much oil the Chinese import? That is real pain, right there. Not to mention all those cheap electronics they suddenly have to sell overland. The Silk Route isn't travelled by camels anymore, but it's not exactly a highway. Minor trade concessions are a lot less painful than this; that's how limited warfare works. For that matter, I strongly suspect the US army can manage to hold at least one or two coastal cities against any Chinese counterattack. Moving out into the open plains, no, they don't have the numbers; but I think they can hold a limited perimeter. Damn good tanks, don'tcherknow.
Really, why do you think countries sign peace treaties, anyway? Total, unlimited war is the aberration, not the normal state of affairs. Most wars have been quite limited things, fought for small objectives and ended when one side decided that minor concessions were better than whatever the other guy was doing. That 'whatever' has almost never included a full-scale invasion and occupation of the heartland of the losing country; even the Great War didn't end that way, for any major combatant.
[ March 02, 2006, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you know just how much oil the Chinese import?
Isn't most of China's oil imported by land-based pipelines?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Passing through American-controlled territory in the Middle East, by any chance? If not, there's certainly no difficulty in bombing the things from bases in Afghanistan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
those pipelines go through Iran and Pakistan. Also Chinese tanks are as good or better then US tanks. look up T-99/98/96 www.sinodefence.com Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In 50 years if China's peaceful development continues at its ~9.4% growth rate ...etc
50 years at 9.4% is unsustainable, Blayne, though China could certainly become the largest economy even before that.
Assuming a US-China war is far enough in the future, I think post-nuclear technology and weapons would decide the issue. In 50 years nukes will probably be obsolete. Even if it's in 2020, an American air campaign would probably have few live pilots, instead using RPVs aka UAVs or possibly even space-based weapons.
Whoever had the dominant technology would win.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not to mention that the (consistent) 9.4% is widely regarded as an exaggeration. More realistic estimates are a 6 or 7% average growth -- still very impressive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's probably something that should be given more consideration Morbo, you're right. China is starting an aggressive space program, and if any sort of military applications were to take off within it, the US would start the same rush, starting a combination of the Space Race of the 20th century, and the nuclear arms race of the same. First person to get a weapons satellite in orbit wins, so they can shoot down the other satellites. To be honest, I would be very surprised if the US military didn't already have something on the books already for a weapons satellite, be it part of the missile shield defense, a satellite designed to destroy other satellites, or a satellite that can attack stationary targets on the ground.
But history has proven that we usually don't find out about top secret advanced military technology (a la SR-71 Blackbird & B-2 Spirit bomber) until a decade after it's already been in service. I don't know if nuclear weapons will ever become obsolete entirely, but certainly the next generation of destructive weapons is already on the books. I know lasers are getting smaller, and the US military is looking to put lasers on fighter jets and on naval vessels. It'd be the ultimate point based defense system for a carrier group, if a beam can be sustained for a protracted period of time.
Though I'm sure if we're that advanced, the Chinese already have phasers and photon torpedos on their fighter planes, since everything they have is better than the US. They probably have cloaking devices too, except their stealth technology is still 20 years behind ours.
Also consider the next generation of naval war ships is about to start construction, and the Chinese aren't on board with that. New carriers will be smaller and stealthy (as stealthy as a carrier can get). They will use less energy (allowing for more system), give off a smaller radar profile, and have better defensive capabilities. The newer warships, probably of some trimaran design will be faster, harder to sink, and have advanced stealth, weapons and radar. Assuming the new navy doesn't get the axe from congress, which is a possibility, the US will leave most of the world in the 20th century with its new navy.
PS. They friggin shouldn't cancel the new navy planned. Let them sell the old carriers to Britain or France, an ally we can trust not to use them against us to finance the new navy. But with all the new money appropriated to the military, and the actual reduction in some spheres of forces within the military, they should be able to afford new toys for the navy (Other than the F-35 anyway, teehee). And they've cancelled too many next gen technologies and weapons systems that were close to being finished as of late. Time to get modernization back on track.
Bring on the hypersonic warplanes!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Lyrhawn.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though I'm sure if we're that advanced, the Chinese already have phasers and photon torpedos on their fighter planes, since everything they have is better than the US. They probably have cloaking devices too, except their stealth technology is still 20 years behind ours.
It's true, they do have phasers! I read it at www.sinophasers.com Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They are (as far as we can tell) accurate sites with information on the PLA, their weapons, training, goals etc.
Its an unofficial site started by military buff's, i'ld appreciate it if you didn't mock my sources.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Fair enough Blayne. I apologize. But the only way you knew it was about you is that you always throw down that site. There are other sources.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That will undoubtable say the same thing, this isn't a PRC gov't sponsered site, there are American servicemen as well who contribute to that site as well. So for other sources there probly are but probly more official and less likely to gain the proper responce. For example: "Its propoganda!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering what training the Chinese are giving their naval folk for when the US shuts off the GPS system that a lot of their advanced weaponry is based on.
Blayne?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
?? A) I concentrate mostly on their ground forces and only a little on their navy and airforce.
What do you mean shut off their GPS? The China launch their own Sat's, and can even knock out the USA's GPS sat (though the states could probly do the same back blinding each other).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Chinese show no signs of doing so. They have no plans that I know of to create their own GPS system, and it takes something of a commitment to launch that many satellites into space and sync them all up. Do you know of Chinese plans to do so?
And while I don't doubt they could, what missiles would they use to take out satellites in geosyncronous orbit over the Earth? Either way, as soon as they did so, the US would launch an all our air assault on whatever platform was being used to take out the satellites, and quite frankly I think they'd get it.
That is, if the war were to happen in the next decade. Beyond that, the Chinese might have a GPS system set up, but at the moment they, and the world, have to count on the Americans to provide GPS service to the world. Until the Europeans get theirs going anyway.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I am sorry, I scanned some of this thread, but I read most of it. Did anyone explain why China and the US will want to go to war? Its not like the US would really start it over not being the sole superpower. So is supposed to start over control of limited world resources, Oil, iron ect?
I mean if it were ideological reasons it would have happened a long time ago. China is becoming more and more capitalist everyday, and I can't imagine us going to war with China over Human rights.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*shrug* who would've thought the Balkans would've started WWI?
Anything could spark the war, a series of unfortunate events one might say.
An article I linked to earlier however suggested something that I didn't think of, that what might happen is not a hot war between 2 great powers but a Cold one. A second cold war spanning decades.
"It is likely that even if the US tried to deny GPS signals to China, the PLA’s cruise missiles could still function via the Russian GLONASS, or in the future the European GALILEO navigation signals."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Europe would deny at the same time, and Russia relies so much on western aid they'd likely comply as well, at least anytime in the foreseeable future.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Russia may rely somewhat on Western aid but not completely on western aid, they are self sufficient enough to be able to side with the Chinese, and with recent military joint maneuvers, and from what I'm looking at a Russian will to not let other people get the better of them, I seriously doubt the Russians would listen to any west european "demands", the Russians paid off ALL of their debts and are rich in gold, diamonds and other resources the Russians need no western aid.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh. Russia self-sufficient. You tell good jokes, Blayne.
If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, even its aging military hardware wouldn't be enough to make Russia a major power. Russia's economy is shot, and it continues to receive billions of dollars in aid through various channels. Russia's remaining "riches" are almost exclusively in nuclear technology and oil -- hence why they're so eager to sell nuclear technology to just about anyone and why they keep trying to put oil-related pressure on states they don't like (Ukraine, anyone?). And they rely to a huge extent on foreign investment to fund their oil industry; did the west withdraw support they lack the expertise and funds to continue development.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *shrug* who would've thought the Balkans would've started WWI?
Anything could spark the war, a series of unfortunate events one might say.
Ridiculous. In 1914 there were any number of points of friction between the Great Powers; further, those points of friction were seen as being vital interests of the nations concerned. Also, people expected there to be a war; everybody knew there was a big shakeup coming, the only question was when. Some people even welcomed it; the German General Staff felt that the war should start as soon as possible, lest Russia's growing industry begin to make a two-front war really impossible. (Indeed, had the Agadir incident in 1911 kicked off the Great War, I'm not convinced the Entente powers would have won. And in 1905 Germany would have had a complete walkover - too bad for them that there wasn't a good pretext.) Nowadays people just don't think like that, and also the technology lends itself much better to stopping a crisis once started.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Is it me, or does Blayne severly hate the US? I have never heard him say a single good thing about us. (Pardon the pun ) Ok, so Blayne, right now, do you honestly think China would have ANY chance?
Explain all reasons you think the US would win, and their advantages.
Do the same for China.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I have the usual Canadian student dislike of the States, but I don't outright hate, I simply dislike the USA as a whole, its government and its hypocrism. I liked Jimmy Carter and felt he was the best President the USA had and I do like many American's as INDIVIDUAL's but c'mon my mom went to florida and people kept asking her how she learned such great english, and asked about how she rode polar bears to work and how we all live in Igloo's.
:rollseye:
I think depending on the circumstances the China has a good chance based on the 2006-2008 premise to defend itself from the American's and knock a good many planes out of the sky and easily resist a land invasion. American land assaults have always depended on such an overwhelming air support that I highly doubt that the American's could make any significant gains on the mainland, there is simply too much people, too many para military personal to raid supply lines, too many helicopters.
The very newest PLAAF air assets and ground to air assets have a reasonable chance of dealing with the American air given proper circumstances. Mostly keeping forces dispersed and then concentrating them for decisive air/land battle until the American air advantage has in the short term been evened out enough to allow more full scale mobilization of air assets on a conventional pattern.
I do not believe and I have stressed this, I do not believe that the Chinese can win an air war in a way that the Americans could win an airwar with Iraq. But the Chinese can make the American's pay a high bill for controlling limited area's of operations.
I do not believe that EITHER side could successfully invade the other's heartland or for that matter crush each others industry, bombs are too expensive and to hard and long to produce.
The navy war? I don't know I am not a naval buff, I like the Japanese carriers and super battleships but I really do not know enough of naval logistics to say much. But, China has a large coast, alot of places to hide ships and really all the PLAN has to do is try to keep the American USN carriers as far away from the coast as possible. This would be hard and would require a certain amount of air support but it might be possible, it all depends on which side makes the most mistakes.
In the IMMEDIATE timeframe I do not think it would be desisive in any way unless both sides only put the most limited level of assets into a small skirmish then its becomes debatable to the point of foolishnish since it would depends on the individual decisions of captains and Admirals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a single communications satellite, not a network of GPS satellites, so far as I can tell on there, there's no plan to send up dozens of them into geosync orbit to provide anything close to what GPS provides. Also, Europe would deny use of their system once it gets going and would side with the US over China. Russia, well, they could go either way, but at the end of the day Russia needs the west, especially Europe, more than the west needs them. Their resources are necessary, but Europe is way ahead of the game in conservation and in nextgen energy implementation. By the time a war does break out, Russian oil won't be needed by Europe.
quote:I have the usual Canadian student dislike of the States, but I don't outright hate, I simply dislike the USA as a whole, its government and its hypocrism. I liked Jimmy Carter and felt he was the best President the USA had and I do like many American's as INDIVIDUAL's but c'mon my mom went to florida and people kept asking her how she learned such great english, and asked about how she rode polar bears to work and how we all live in Igloo's.
People in Florida make the igloo/polar bear jokes about everyone that lives north of the mason dixon line, that wasn't just a Canada joke. Not that that matters, but I'd always hoped Canadians were more opened minded than to judge a nation of 300 million based entirely on what some people said in Florida.
And you'll have to elaborate on what the usual Canadian student's dislike of America is. Most of the Canadians I talk to don't really have a problem with Americans, though, if that's just because we spend so much money in Windsor, then I wonder who is really being hypocritical.
I also wonder what Canada would do were it to ever be invaded. You wouldn't have a chance in hell at repelling even a half hearted attempt at invasion from any major world power. I think your government has been very irresponsible in handling it's military, and is expecting that were it to be invaded, the US would defend them. Which also strikes me as hypocritical for a population of people who seems to dislike America. Also, for a nation that slams the US on environmental concerns, your last environmental report from the US wasn't exactly spotless. I'd check to your own harms first.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ender Wiggin, huh? I wonder who that could have been, commenting there..... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Will never happen Reticulum. Earth can't sustain those kinds of populations, especially when you consider the total population of the earth at that point would probably me something like 12 billion.
Population estimates that I've seen show the world population exploding to something like 9 billion or maybe even 10, but then dying back down to settle around 8 billion. But in 200 years, we'll literally be colonizing space. There will be a mass exodus off Earth. I just don't think that sort of estimate is very likely. Our population exploded in the last hundred years sure, but the only reason it has been growing at such a pace, especially in the last two dozen years, is immigration, and that issue is coming to a head. Plus, there won't be as much in 200 years.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, as for space colonization, and exodus off Earth, that won't likely happen untill it is very cheap, which won't probably for another 300-400 years. Plus, who do you think will be among the first to build colonies? Certainly the US, China, and Europe, with only very intelligent and athletic people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth noting that the last time the US invaded Canada, they got their ass handed to them. As for other world powers, well, they'd still have to cross the oceans, and the Royal Navy might have something to say about that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Think so do ya? I don't think space colonization is 300 years away. It was only fifty years ago that the idea of landing on the moon sounded crazy. And now we have hundreds of satellites around the planet, we've been to the moon in back, we have landers on Mars, and we have men living year round in space stations. Private commercial interests are building spaceports in Mew Mexico and the UAE and Spaceship One won the Ansari X Prize by making two flights into space within a two week period.
A fleet of those things will have hundreds of people taking trips into space. NASA has plans on the books to use shuttle booster to launch massive amounts of equipment into space for a possible Moon base. And the next gen shuttle will be in service in twenty years. By then private interests will have more people in space than NASA does.
Yes sure the US, China and so on will colonize the moon I suspect in the next hundred years, even if it is limited to mining and production facilities, it will be done, and it's not long until that turns into biodomes or what not.
But Mars is of course the main objective isn't it? Private interests will want to get a foothold on Moon for the resources there, and for that matter, the first person to set up a fueling station on the moon will be in a very good position for when the eventual flood of Mars expeditions comes about, and that will happen this century. More likely, Mars will have to be terraformed, which will take a long time, but people will get there first to start setting things up, to explore, to go experiments, etc etc. People will go and mine asteroids, and mine the moon, and live in space stations, it's all coming, and I think 300 years is probably twice what it will really take for this to happen.
1800 we were in horse and carriage, 1830 we had railroads and locomotives. 1860 we had steamships. 1890 we had cars. 1903 we had airplanes. Between the first flight of the wright brothers and mankind's first human in space took just over 60 years. My point is, the kind of progress made between 1800 and 1960 was incredibly, and surpasses the speed of gains made by any previous period in man's history.
Between 1960 and today we've gone from slow planes to supersonic, and are working on hypersonic. We went from Apollo 11 landing on the moon to space shuttles, international space stations and landing robots on Mars in a little over 30 years.
JPL is working on ion drives, and other advanced forms of space propulsion. Several companies are working on habitats for space, and for private space faring interests. NASA is also working on terraforming plans for Mars. Who knows where we will be in another fifty years? Great leaps are being made by the decade in science and technology. Thus, I don't think 150-200 years is a bad estimate for how long it will take until we have a serious presence in space.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It's worth noting that the last time the US invaded Canada, they got their ass handed to them. As for other world powers, well, they'd still have to cross the oceans, and the Royal Navy might have something to say about that.
Actually, it's not worth noting, as the nation that did the ass handing last time is America's closest ally today, and military is the equivilant of America's younger brother. ANd the force used to invade Canada were paltry, and not a serious effort. It was a gamble, and the US at the time knew it. Either way, no one ever said that America was going to invade Canada, I can't imagine anyone has seriously considered it (except some paranoid Pentagon desk pilot). And if we did, I bet Michigan could take much of Ontario by itself.
And if China, India, or Russia decided to invade Canada, they'd be there and landed before the Royal Navy ever got there. Of course, the US Navy would stop them before they had a chance, but the Royal Navy couldn't stop them. Especially the Russians. The problem then is that most of Canada's population is in the east, but taking the west wouldn't be a big deal at all, it's moving across the nation to get to the east that would present the problem.
But my main point was that without outside interference, Canada would be screwed, royally.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, Lyrhawn, I do happen to know, EVERY SINGLE thing you mentioned there. I meant, when I said "space colonization" is that there will permanent colonies on Mars, where anyone can live, with regular trips from Earth to Mars. (which wouldn't be very logical) THIS will take around 250-300 years. Mere colonization may only take around 150.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nope. Still only 150 to 200.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Alright. First off, Britain is powerful. There is no disputing that; right. They DO have a strong military. They have a strong economy. They have very rich culture. They have influenceed most of the wolrd's governments; maybe indirectly, but still did.
And YES, an American is saying all of these nice things about another nation.
Also notice this pattern.
After Rome fell, it basically gave birth to Britain, which took its place. Britain in turn, gave birth to the US, which tool its place. Where will this pattern end?
Well, this may have come up, since I am jumping in late, but consider this.
Rome expanded to a point of no return 1,500 years ago; it got so big, and garnered so much influence, had its fingers in so many pies, that it became more than the center of power that was the Rome the city. Rome influenced, still influences so much of our culture and history, is such a part of nearly every european history, that I would argue Rome never "Fell." I prefer the school of thought which recognizes that the official power, the political animal that died with the fall of Rome, then Byzantium, really was only a small part of that empire, and that Roman culture succeeded so strongly and so widely to perpetuate its ideals, that we live 'in' the Roman Empire, in a way, even today. The "empire" no longer served a purpose when it died, because it had no practical enemies to contend with it; even its enemies were basically of the Roman ideal by 500Ad. This is all VERY general, the distinctions between European nations today are strong, but exist imo within that framework still.
Today, British/American culture exists within that framework, and even promises to spread that same framework even farther. Our ideals are, largely, due to the cultural heritage of Rome, Romance languages, history, etc. These British/American culture resonates very strongly with south American and european cultures because we are largely, although differently, part of the same histories. If American/British culture is a dominant force in the non-roman influenced world of today, asian and african cultures, the middle east, india, then I believe this is largely due to the nature of our culture, and parts of our history and ethical consensus which have existed since Rome.
Of course this is pretty general and arguable, but definetly of -some- merit, and worth at least remembering. If the American/British culture becomes, or has become the dominant unifying force in the world in the next millenium, an outcome which is quite possible, then the point specific power of britain and America will no longer exist, it will be everywhere, in every culture.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Space terraforming can take 98 years if we started NOW, through mostly chemical proceeses. A single trip to Mars sending 4 astronauts for the first time would only vost 20 billion $ using off the shelf saturn 5 rockets and maybe a few modifications.
There would be 2 at first one unmanned automated that with the water on board would convert the martian atmo to methane gas aka rocket fuel, and the second one with astronauts could come to mars with a crew of four with even more space for supplies because they don't have to worry aout fuel for the ride back. And because Mars has less gravity it takes even less fuel to take off from, so the 4 astronauts land, spend some 600 days there and maybe 1 or 2 Unmaned capsuls would have came with more supplies and then they take one and leave and upon return are hero's.
I suggest a team of 1 American astronaut, 1 Russian cosmonat one Chinese Takonaut (or whatever the name is) and one other person, I can't decide whether a European or Indian. Lets make it an international effort.
Also how did the topic derail to space exploration?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Ummmm, probably America will hold the glory for itself. ANd, a lot of the things you mentioned are impractical. I haven't the time now, so I explain later.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They are perfectly practical but I am oversimplefying an entire book within 2 paragraphs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blayne's right, much of that is very practical. And America doesn't really have a choice to "hold the glory for itself." American can't stop the other nations of the world from from colonization efforts. And quite frankly, it would be too expensive to probably do by themselves, not without a massive new commmitment.
Either way, I think a trip to Mars, if using primarily American equipment and funds, would probably be something like two Americans, a European, a Russian and a Japanese, or if limited to four, some such composition of the same. Unless China contributed a large portion of the funds for the trip, I think they'd be left out in the cold, the other nations have a closer space relationship with America, have older space programs, and have more experience.
For the moment.
I sort of derailed it when talking about Morbo's post about future advances in technology.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
China can contribute much in the way of scientists to work on the peroefylene dooms. Not much by any nation including the united states has to contribute much, the USA can donate the Saturn 5's, Russia the Soyuz capsules, China the electronics (plasma tv screens, entertainment stuff etc), and everyone can send at least one astronaut into the mix, or since its going to be a community of several thousand scientists anyways, there can be several capsuls sent.
Its a 180 day trip there and 180 days back, a SAT5 chem rocket can do the job fine, a nuclear motor only if we want a bigger payload for supplies. Since Mars has lower gravity we don't have to worry too much about simulating it, the recovery there is faster.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, because the cost of a Soyuz and a Saturn V rocket is REALLY the same thing as a couple plasma screens and entertainment materials.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I mean the actual capsul the thing where the astronauts life and work not the rocket motor, an off the shelf Saturn V is good enough.
Oh I see what you mean, China can BUILD the Sat V's esp if they're nuclear for the States if the States still has its hippy "Anti Nuclear" lobby.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What does nuclear power have to do with a Saturn V? They aren't nuclear powered rockets.
And "hippy anti-nuclear" lobby is ironic coming from a Canadian.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I support nuclear power and nuclear fusion as any other rational human being.
However a Saturn 5 could be retrofitted with nuclear motor's the point isn't to go faster but to carry more weight.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Umm, the Saturn V hasn't been in use in how many decades? It ain't goin' to Mars, with or with out a new engine.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
??? Means what exactly? They can still be BUILT or the ones used can be REBUILT and retrofited with a nuclear power plant and can be used. ISNT the USS Enterprise 70 years old?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The stages of the used Saturn Vs either burned up in re-entry or sank in the Atlantic. There are no usable used ones.
Meaning the design of the Saturn V is 40 years old. Yes, the Enterprise is old. And nearing decommision, I'd guess.
We still use B-52s, too, but if you were designing a bomber today you wouldn't use a design that old. Technology advances.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The desing of the SV while old is still dependable and sturdy. Its cheaper then designing a whole new platform, though that could be an excuse for more cooperation.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
What do you think the CEV is? Have you ever heard of the CEV. As for the glory to itself thing, I meant that America will be the first to land on Mars. So far, we are still the only nation to land on the moon, and I don't see China getting there in at least 25 years.
The U.S. however has plans to return to the moon by 2018, and start Mars planning by 2020. China, there is no way they could get to the Moon by 2018. The CEV is America's, and America's alone. It is going to have it's first unmanned flight somewhere between 2008, and 2010.
I don't think the US will have anyone go with us to Mars, and if we do, we will certaintly have the first person to step on the soil, a full bread American. There is no doubt that America will be the first to land on Mars. China may have the technology to get to Mars (I don't think they do, as they would have to start developing now, and if they did, they would get there WAY after us) but China does NOT have the Funds. The US is also in full developement to get there.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is what I disagree with, I believe it should be an international effort made by all the space faring nations, to have it only so that the Americans are the first ones again and again is a mistake.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Why is it a mistake?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Besides, we WILL be the first ones there. After that, there isn't much to go for besides Venus, and that won't quite as spectacular as landing on Mars.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:China, there is no way they could get to the Moon by 2018.
Why not? Provide backing arguments for your assertions.
quote:After that, there isn't much to go for besides Venus, and that won't quite as spectacular as landing on Mars.
Why? I'd think it would be pretty spectacular considering the surface temperature of Venus ranges from 750˚ to 930˚ F and the atmospheric pressure is about 90 times greater than Earth's.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, but I mean that Mars will be the first time that humans have landed on another planet, that's really it. Don't get me wrong, venus would still be spectacular.
China could not get there, because they lack the funds to do so in this point of time. Also, they have absolutely no planning stages at all in developement, whilst the US is in full motion. They don't even have plans for a modern space vehicle. If it takes the U.S. 15 years to plan, it will take them if not longer, then just as long. Besides,they haven't even been to the Moon yet.
Besides, do you think anyone will get to Mars before the U.S?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, isn't China sitting on all those US T-bills? They could probably buy NASA, if they wanted to.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
WHAT?!?!?? What ARE you talking about? They most assuredly cuouldn't and wouldn't.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Still, does anyone think that another nation will beat the US to mars?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I'm British.
Other countries started getting more power (Like the U.S.) and eventually drove the British to their "dinky little island" and became more powerful.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Neat. It seems like my term "dinky little island" has caught on...
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Sadly, yes.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
*shed's tear*
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Quote: A single tear rolls down my cheek. By: My Brother's Friend
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Interesting, why did he come up with that?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Sadly this is the truth:
In High School my brother made a movie called "The Charm"
In one scene a guy is tellinbg his roomates his "story" and another guy turns to him and says "A single tear rolls down my cheek" It was a funny movie, I serouisly fell off my couch like 50 time because I was laughing so hard
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
telling**
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I did a school play (comedy) where I was supposed to be flopping around on a couch, and I accidently flipped it over and fell backwords off of it...three times.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
LOL, last time I was in a school play, it was the 5th grade and it was about the civil war and we did a war and a school scene. I was a nurse and a schoolgirl that got hit with a spitball LOL
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That is great! I would make it slightly interesting, and introduce flying cows or something of that subject.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
In a civil war play? Might as well bring hitler.
True story! My little brother has sunday school. his teacher told his class that god loves everyone she asked a trick question "who does god hate?" everyone answered "hitler!"
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Awesome! *quietly*
"It's spring time for hitler in germany"
Hmmmm Hmmm hmm hmmmm.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
LOL, if I had a list of the worst people it would be like this: 1 hitler 2 i cant remember his name i think it starts with an "a" 3 Bush (no offense to probushes but he isnt very 4 dick chaney (see above plus he shot a guy!)
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
bush isnt very smart or good at his job- too many bad choices that could put plenty of people at risk
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, here's my list:
1. Me 2. Hitler 3. "That one guy" 4. "What's his face" 5. "Some person"
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Nice
whatd you do? enslave people?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, yes I did.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
oh great, so who did you enslave?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Because they sneezed next to me! For that, I swallowed their souls...
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
who sneezed next to you?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, back to the topic at hand. Does anyone believe any other nation will make it to the moon before the US?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You mean, make it to the moon again right? I had a weird moment of fourty years ago kick in just then.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I meant mars.
Well, back to the topic at hand. Does anyone believe any other nation will make it to Mars before the US?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Worst person in HISTORY? Please, there's far worse than Hitler out there. Charlemagne used to cut off the hands and fit of traitors, and then cut out their tongues just enough so they can eat and swallow but not enough to talk, and then blind and deafen them, so for the rest of their natural lives they would crawl around on their stubs begging for food and help but more or less unable to communicate with the world.
Jacobin dissidents in France just before the revolution killed the King's Swiss guard, chopped them up into little pieces, then killed the staff of the palace in France, and fired their heads from cannons back into the palace. This before dragging the royal family from their home to kill them in a most gruesome manner.
Roman Emperors were brutal beyond Hitler's hopes and dreams, and some of it was indescriminate violence for the sake of it. Massacres and slaughters were the norm, not the exception to rule.
History has produced worse people than Hitler.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
May I point out I said worst PERSON, I agree that Chalemagne was also horrible but your last two were GROUPS. I was wondering about the individual people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do a little research on Roman emperors, you'll find a LEAST a half dozen who are worse than Hitler. It's not a group, at least, not on the sense that "jacobin dissidents" is a group. But there really are so many INDIVIDUAL Roman emperors that were worse, it was just easier to group them together, but I assure you that individually it still holds true.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
OK, now I get your point. But, unfortunatly, my schools never gave me sources to go on "cruel people" My knowledge is limited in various subjects. So revised list:
1 Charlemange 2 Roman Emporers 3 Hitler
I am willing to revise my list if someone comes up with anyone else.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
yeah but at the same time Charlemagne was great.
That's a tough list, because the lines were blurred back then. Leaders who exhibited intolerable cruelty could also often be the same people who helped the poor and built the Flavian Amphitheater. Hitler was just plain bad, in general and for his people.
I guess if you limited it to the 20th century I'd be okay with a Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin type list.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Depends, if America goes the 450 billion dollar 50 years to build BSG ships to get to the Mars a China-Japan-Russia triangle of space farers will get there first.
If they go the dog and sled meth *points up* then within 5-10 years just to visit and explore, 10-15 to set up outposts and 15-25 to begin terraforming.
All entirely practical.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I could see Russia, Japan and China getting there before us. But actually I think more likely would be a Euro/Russo union to get there. Europe has the tech and the money, and Russia has the experience and infrastructure. Most of all, Europe wants it more I think.
But China has just as good a chance as any of making it there first I think. If America REALLY wanted to get there, we'd get there first, but our commitment just isn't there. China and others are dedicated as a point of national pride to get there.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I agree completely if America burned with the absolute ugre to get there first they would, but they don't its all paper pushing to NASA at this point.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Depends, if America goes the 450 billion dollar 50 years to build BSG ships to get to the Mars a China-Japan-Russia triangle of space farers will get there first.
If they go the dog and sled meth *points up* then within 5-10 years just to visit and explore, 10-15 to set up outposts and 15-25 to begin terraforming.
All entirely practical.
Alright first, 50 years no. PLans, as I said, have already commenced, and the CEV will begin production in July. Russia has the Klipper, but they don't even have plans to get to Mars, or even the Moon. Once again, I don't think those nations will try to get to Mars, without going to the Moon first. Once again they have no plans, and the only one of those three that actually the money for it, is the EU. China, just doesn't have the equipment for it.
So, those plan, set up out post things would never work. It would take MUCH more time, unless those events were that many years AFTER each other, and evem then, it doesn't seem likely.
In conclusion, China, Russia, and the EU have never been to the Moon. They have no plans of doing so, and have absolutely no plans to get to Mars. They also lack the Equipment. Unless they vested Trillions of dollars RIGHT NOW, they wouldn't make it before us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
China can afford it, and you overestimate the important of on-hand equipment. Equipment can be universally purchased from anywhere. There's no necessity to have it on hand so long as you have the money to order it from whoever makes it.
Timing, I don't know. The amount of time something takes depends entirely on how much they are willing to spend and how fast they want it to get done.
Trillions of dollars? That's vastly overestimating. NASA's budget is in the tens of billions, if that. With that, NASA builds space shuttles, goes to the moon, goes to the ISS, lands on asteroids, blows up comets and sends probes to Pluto with nuclear powered engines. And they plan to go to Mars with that budget too. The EU already has a small space program infrastructure in place, they only really lack the training that the cosmonauts and astronauts have, but that can be fixed, and with the help of the US or Russia, they'd probably get the training at a premium. I can't imagine it would cost more than a hundred billion to get a man to Mars. Probably not even that, but I'm purposely using the extreme high end of the range of what I think it would cost.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In NASA there are 2 competing plans:
Dog and Sled; put forward by a former NASA engineer. and his suporters
and BSG Style: Vast majority of contractors and pessimists.
The BSG style essentially is the build up of infastructure (space stations, bases on the moon, shipyards, etc) over a couple of decades while doing research on interstellar radiation, long term effect of gravity, etc.
Cost? 450 Billion$ esitmately, this theory is based from Werner Von Braun's plan to get to Mars and this is what the egg heads in NASA seem to be supporting.
It would cost 450 billion$ for all the infastructure and training WHICH could be cancelled at any time depending on which administration and would be vulnerable to cut backs and political events.
Also the amount of time a crew could stay on Mars is about 60 days MAXIMUM before they would have to return home.
Dog and Sled:
Based off of how in the past explorations in inhospitable conditions have been successful for a "dog and sled" method utilizing small cheap equipment, and living off the land.
Which this siberia, northwest, and northeast passages and northern canada have all been mapped out while large expeditions with large expensive modern gallleons have all failed.
The D&S method would rely on cheap off the shelf parts for the vast majority of the program, even the Martian outposts I spoke of can be built from the unused habitat capsols from the ships and linked together.
Only things like the mechanism to turn hydrogen + martian atmo to methane would be need to be built and prototypes costing some 2000$ built by such engineers have already been build.
Energy from a small generater maybe even nuclear powered, + hydrogen/water from earth (or if they land on an area with water) + Mars atmo == Rocket fuel.
So many plans delt with the designs of building a ship fail because of the condition there needs to be space for the fuel for the trip BACK.
But if the fuel can be processed on Mars automatically through a simple high school level chemical proccess then NASA has no need to worry about fuel for the trip back and thus the ship can be crammed with extra supplies.
The first capsol would be sent unmanned just to procude the fuel for the trip back while a second capsol launched when the first one reaches Mars and is successful in converting Mars atmo to methane.
The second with a crew of 3-4 would then be off.
the capsol being circular to begin with can spin to recreate gravity even if its not much gravity enough to reduce the effects of zero g and maybe walk around would be great to quickly adapt to Mars's gravity.
Working conditions? They'ld always be within 6 or so minutes of emailing back home, we'ld always have a feed of the Asto/Cosmonauts. They coul have a flat screen tv and a dvd player and a computer and watch movies, play games do work, they'ld always be busy and would never worrya bout cabin fever.
There is no psycological trauma involved, heck they are traveling in a trip comparable to imigrants first reach the new world in the 1600's BUT 100 times better living conditions and aren't cramped.
Then there's the fact they would be world famous upon reaching home, no psycological trauma to worry politicians.
A bigger advantage is that on Mars with the Martian atmosphere to protect them from stellar radiation they can stay on Mars for a full Martian year, 660 days!!!
And if they're meant to stay that long and explore with land rovers even if the ship has a malfuntion and can't leave they are perfectly capable of waiting the 180 days for the next capsol because heck, 2-3 more can be sent with more crew and supplies while the first crew is down their setting stakes.
An outposts would be perfectly within the realms of PLA, NASA or the EUSA. a scientific community supplied from Earth (the capsuls are resuable its only the booster to leave Earth that isn't), it can be built at first through recycled space habitats and linked together, a small nuclear generator can power it and would be within 6-10 minute time delay from Earth through radio, email etc.
The cost to get it all started and send the first team? 21 billion $ a drop in the bucket for any first rate nation with a spcae agency.
The dog and sled method is far more likely to get results, can be done within 2 years at most (if we started now) and could begin terraforming in 20 years and be done by 2098.
Also once the outpost is established and labour and tools are brought over the outpost can be expanded.
Geuss whats in Martian soil... Pyroethylene, key encrediant in plastic.
The plastic can be processed through simple chemical processes, and turned into massive geodesic doomes that would be able to resist the Martian weather and allow simple farming and manufacturing within the dooms. Farming!!
Also because of the lighter gravity it is also less work to dig, and stuff cheaper to dig underground netowrks of roman style antiums, basically under ground shopping malls, the dirct some 4 meters of it above would eliminate ANY residual radiation to 0, would keep the internal tempurature stable and within control of human beings and would eliminate the need for space suits once under ground.
That was as far as I got I'ld have to look at it again.
But ya 450 Bil, 60 days; vs 20 bil. 660 days
Which should it be?
The next major advantage of the second one is that to get to mars you need some 5.7 km/s of thrust while to get to mars you only need 4.1 or so km/s.
So it means that its actually cheaper and more efficient to go straight to Mars and completely skip the Lunar phase completely, its completely unnessasary to build any kind of base on Mars, a Saturn 5 rocket can reach Mars in 180 days there is no way to concievably shorten the time except for some newfangled breaks in physics but one should not bank on what maybe possible but is possible NOW.
I can compeltely see China and Russia reaching Mars first skipping the Moon and taking the Dog and Sled method is the States tries to do the BSG method. the EU I don't know enough of their space agancy to speak of it.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, I'd go with the 450 Bill., 60 days, since NASA is filled with highly intelligent people, who have spent their lives studying these things.
They know what they're doing, and since I don't work at NASA I really can't say, but don't you think they considered that? Or something like it?
And yes, there is a REASON they decomissioned the S 5, because they developed something BETTER. And $20 Billion? Just to design, hire engineers, develope, build, attactch to rocket, and get extra fuel, for the "Atmospheric converter for fuel" would cost around $75 Billion dollars. I trust NASA's plan, since they are a Space agency, and you are a high school student. Anyone from NASA could name a hundred billion problems in YOUR plan.
Again, the good 'ole US of A will get to Mars first. *tear of joy* Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Excuse this happens to be a big debate WITHIN NASA, the 450 billion $ plan is stupid because an astronaut will only be able to stay on Mars 60 days and cost billions of unnessasary money from tax payers.
And the main reason why the Von braun plan has so much backing because it would make a fortune for contractors and other businesses who hope to make a profit from this.
the 20 billion$ plan would make the least amount of money from contractors who hope to be given billions of dollars for new parts. The D&S method would require the least new devices to be made and built and is so flexible in the parts it does use.
It is not science guiding the bureaucracy of NASA, its money and self interest. The Space Agency to be least effected by this is whats going to make it to Mars first.
And IMHO I hope America ISN'T the first to make it there just to wipe that arrogant smirk of American faces. First to the moon? Good for you, second to Mars? Good for you.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually FIRST to Mars. There is no concievable reason why we wouldn't get there first. The Auroaprogramme, (ESA) has plans to get there by 2034. (Contrary to what I said before, because they actually do have plans) But even now, to send men there is under debate because several of the more funding countries are starting to second guess.
The only nation I could stand getting a perosn on Mars first would be the UK, and they never will, so that settles that.
Unlike Canada, of whom's space agenc- Wait, do you guys even have one?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And IMHO I hope America ISN'T the first to make it there just to wipe that arrogant smirk of American faces. First to the moon? Good for you, second to Mars? Good for you.
Oh come on now, don't be that way.
For the record, I think the majority of the world thinks that US citizens think they are better than everyone else on earth, when in reality, I believe most Americans just don't care about most other people on earth. They don't think they are better, they'd just rather not deal with the outside world, a la 1920's. We're isolationist at heart, regardless of what the President has the US doing abroad, the minds of the average person tell a different story.
Reticulous is coming off extremely arrogant, and those people exist. We have them here, I'm sure you have them in Canada, and lord knows China is full of them. I think in general you shouldn't be judging a nation of 300 million based on: A. What you see in the Canadian media. B. Your interactions with a paltry few and secondhand stories from your mom who went to Florida. And C. being a follower to the popular world opinion of how Americans are.
If you want stereotypes, trust me I have a million Canadian ones, I live less than 20 miles away from Canada.
And Reticulum, don't take this as defending you, it's not. I find your attitude about the whole thing rather pompous and annoying, and it annoys me greatly that billions around the world view all Americans as acting as you have here. There's nothing wrong with patriotism, but self absorbed arrogance doesn't make you a decent goodwill ambassador, which I think every citizen of every nation should always strive to be when dealing with the peoples of other nations. Tone down the rhetoric. And also realize it's a good thing for America to be working on scientific projects with other nations. Good for America, and good for humanity.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually I must say I have the view as described above, saying we don't care about the rest of the world, as in reality, I really don't. Almost every single American I have ever met in my entire life, (basicly everyone I ever knew) has really not given a single care towards any nation but the United States. I am not exagerating, I simply am stating my expierences.
As for the whole pompous thing, for that I am sorry. I, as many here, do find Blayne to be quite bothersome sometimes. (I am too, quite a bit. ) I simply wished to defend my nation against some of the rather more "strange" things that Blayne ahs brought up. AS many horible things as the United States may do, I don't like hearing bad things about my home nation. I'm sure many can agree. Yes, the US does many horrible and bad things.
And as for the working with other nations thing, I just don't like that. I love my nation, and as extremely nationalist/ arrogant/ whatever term you may wish to use; I 'd rather America get the glory for it. China would say the same, as would Russia, and tens of other nations. It is my view, and mine alone. I don't expect anyone to follow it, or like it, but only to respect it.
So, Blayne: Ceasefire? No more arguing and nation-making-fun-of? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Those "plans" to get to Mars appear to be taking their sweet time, trust me, the Mars Direct Plan could get a crew of 4 on Mars by the end of the decade, but NASA is so full of bureaucrats and self interest groups that it ain't going to happen the cheap way unless some heads turn in favor the the Dog and Sled Method which means that America won't make it to Mars PERIOD because I do not think the average tax payer is willing to fork 400-500 billion dollars over the next 30 years to do it.
Thus the only way to get America to get its head out of the sand is for a foreign nation to make great strides in the direction of getting people to Mars.
I stand corrected I'll try to have a more open mind of Americans, but people from Ohio are nice, so I'll work on it one state at a time.
Course' also remember Canadian stereotypes also tend to be far more benelevent then American ones. Though on another matter, Arrogant worms has some good canadian on canadian ones as well.
Apparently each province sucks but Alberta.
:EDIT saw Rakeesh's post: yes cease fire but I'll still say China beats both American and Canadian culture buts I'm sure everyone knows hat I'ld say that. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Why DO you think that China beats out everyone? I'm interested in why you think so. You saying that DOES answer a lot of questions. When Americans go to Canada do they say Cannadia a lot?
And thanks for the ceasefire. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not know about "Cannadia" but I'm always torn between dismantling their prior misconceptions and fueling the belief that we ride polar bears to work and speak English as a second language.
As for the former question I'm a sinophile, there's really no other explanation.
I'm saying that those "plans" by NASA I doubt will ever see fruit if they go the big and expensive way (which is also the American way) rather then the cheap and low tech way.
The cheap and low tech way r "Dog and Sled Approch" could get us on Mars by 2010, any nation with a major space agency and somethign equivilent or on the books that resembles a Saturn V could do it and for a moderately low price.
Will the American tax payers support a project with a low amount of feed back if you will (60 days vs 600 days) that costs the entire military budget and would take decades to see through?
Anwser me honestly would we have gotten on the Moon if it weren't for the "10 years" alloted by JFK? We had a clear goal in mind and we did it in 9 years.
But geuss what happened after? New presidents kept trying to axe the program, if a program takes more then 4-8 years then what are the chances the next president won't just axe it out of spite or political gain?
A Mars plan has to be executable within a certain span of time or else people lose interest.
Going back to the moon is unnessasary for a plan to go to Mars, it takes MORE effort and MORE thrust to get to the Moon then to get to Mars and would cost far more then its worth.
Going to the moon is good and all if the only reason why we do so is because of going to Mars otherwise its stupid and slows us down.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, the moon is not just some novelty, it actually has some strategic importance. Bases would be good for minignminerals of it, to fund, and strengthen the American economy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
a strengthening that is not at all related to Martian exploration and if it is tied a "must do before reaching Mars" will cause an unnessasary delay costing billions of dollars and delay the program unnessarily for years.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: a strengthening that is not at all related to Martian exploration and if it is tied a "must do before reaching Mars" will cause an unnessasary delay costing billions of dollars and delay the program unnessarily for years.
Actually it is COMPLETELY related. Strengthening the economy will make it easier to go, and make bases, so that we can get to Mars easier. It may delay initally, but it will make it so that we can get there easier for many times to come.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Why would we need a base on the moon a Sat 5 booster is all we need and its actually more fuel efficient to go to Mars then it is to go to the moon.
We can't get to Mars any easier then we already can without a hyperdrive engine, 180 days is the best we can do.
The economy? 20 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket for any space faring power, 450 billion is beyond the USA, with or without the moon which would onyl make it more expensive.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Okay, let's get this strait, it would never cost $20 Billion to get to the moon. And actually no, we are developing faster and faster craft.
If the Saturn 5 is just as good as everything else, then why did we replace it? And what do you mean by "450 Billion is beyond the USA." ?
Trust them, they know what they are doing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why would we need a base on the moon a Sat 5 booster is all we need and its actually more fuel efficient to go to Mars then it is to go to the moon.
I think you're underrating the difficulty of supporting three or four people for over a year in a cold metal box.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Nope with 2 booster's there can be enough supplies crammed in for 3-4 people for a year especially since we can send more boosters every 180 days or so.
Its 20 billion $ to get to Mars you misread me.
A Sat 5 is dependable, doesn't require multi billion dollar contracts to develope and test, it got replaced for the same reason why NASA is going to BSG route it makes some self loving NASA contractor money, because the more gadgets you add on to a ship the more money is going to be spent and thus the more money a contractor will make over the course of the project.
I will not trust NASA to make intelligent decisions because of all the layers of bureaucracy that they wove around themselves, 180 days is the best that can be reasonably done and carry the amount of supplies needed for a one way trip for 4.
(Two way only considered the first unmanned ship sent to create the fuel for the return trip)
As I stated before if you dont carry the fuel for the trip back you have more then enough space to cram rations.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Wow, you really don't have a wide vision. You honestly and actually think that the only reason they would do that, is so that contractors could make money?
Posted by vespasian (Member # 9231) on :
The fall of the British Empire never happened. Empires have nothing to do with military, they are monetary or they are a waste of effort. The dominance of a currency dictates power in the world. Following WW2 the US tried to force the UK into allowing the dollar to be the international currency as otherwise all transactions were in pounds and could be dominated by the financial institutions of the UK and the Bank of England. Also the UK had a highly prohibitive tax on all non commonwealth imports. Commonwealth countries could trade tax free, anyone else couldnt and as the most powerful monetary entity was the commonwealth power resided within it.
Lend lease killed off british dominance. If the US didnt want to become the dominant international monetary power it would not have demanded these things as a condition when Clement Atlee's government tried to obtain assistance from the US to rebuild Britain.
However the UK had built the Empire as a trade organisation and gave birth to so much of the worlds government that it was and still is utterly entwined in all. There is a difference between being a superpower dominant through the wielding of a sword and power through social and trade partnership. For a long period we brits used military power to get and hold what we wanted until we matured and developed real partnership. Thats why we are at the moment in danger of losing that as we have got drawn into a pure power play where brawn is considered an extension of brain. The USSR declined because it was all brawn and no brain. Sadly western empire (you can call America Rome and Britain Constantinople if you need an analogy, is going to decline because of simple decadence. Our society is selfish and individual more important than state. China and the pacific rim consider the converse more important. The US isnt as far in decay as the UK and still retains a will to sacrifice for the state but give it time, decline is innevitable. And if you dont believe that decline is innevitable then you still believe that the Egyptians should be running things. Language doesnt matter much either. Rome didnt decline because of language, it just matured into a trade alliance as it just didnt need its military (plus the backbone of the military had lost its will to fight. The soldier at Adrianople was not the soldier at Zama or Mons Graupius.) Do our people have the same grit as sixty years ago? Could we fight a power as threatening as germany? or would we sell out in a selfish, Im alright jack kind of way if we were truly threatened? My money is firmly on the latter. The Right Stuff has turned into, "you cant make me go over the top captain, I have my rights."
Egypt, Carthage, Rome, Ottoman, Persian, British, Soviet. All consigned to the history books. So dont go thinking America and the British financial empire is invulnerable, theyre not. The West is making a fool of itself daily.
Iran is just getting on with developing, despite their odd ideas about Israel that they wont actually do anything about other than bang their gums for popular support. How stupid are we to say "you cant have nuclear weapons," but we keep ours? and who has just deployed troops throughout the country on someone elses border? Are there Iranians in Canada? Nope, but we just dropped a huge force right on their doorstep. So, we design our decline. How much effort have we expended to find a small group of terrorists? And we still havent even though we deploy thousands of soldiers and equipment to do so. Finally, no power can remain a power if it just uses force to get what it wants. Britain found that out in India and America. I predict the pacific rim will rise and the west will fall, though in doing so we will lash out and threaten military action to preserve ourselves. Cash buys loyalty, swords just make enemies.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I completely disagree with everything you just said. First, when you say, "The fall of the British empire never happened", I am less inclined to ake what you are saying seriously. Yes, it DID fall. The British Emprie had its Zenith, and starting the mid 20th century it DID fall apart, break apart, and become "A dinky little island" The British Empire is NO WHERE near as powerful as it was at its Zenith. It controls basicly none of the world, but does have very good influence. Any who deny the fall of the British Empire in my view, are wrong.
Alright, moving on. Empire has a lot to do with military, as it is a lot of the time, how they keep their provinces and municipalities in line. Had the British Empire not a strong military, then they would have never prospered, and become the worlds (by far) most powerful nation. Money, yes a very lot with being dominant and powerful, but it cannot guarentee that you are superpowerful. France, for example has I believe, the worlds FIFTH largest economy. By your logic, this would mean they are dominant to a degree and have some realm of control of the world. By your logic, they would be at the very heart of every single international debate. (They are at a lot, and are very important) Obviously, what I just said is true toa certain degree, but not the way Vesp. said it.
And as for the military thing, I have too disagree with that completely, utterly, totally, and unarguably WRONG. While yes, China and other Asian nations are for more less selfish then us, they are becoming just like us. They are becoming JUST like us. (No pun intended) As for the sacrifice thing. I have to disagree with that also. Have you ever been to America? The U.S. The United States? I say this multiple times to illustrate my next point. Americans are isloationsts. If we could, and want to, we would curl up and only support ourselves without having to worry about anyone else, then we would. We Americans do not care about the rest of the world. We just want to prosper and out-do the Jones. As for soliers. Yes, America is selfish, and VERY selfish. However, do you think 2.5 Million people are in our military because they fear death? NO, my theory, is that when the time comes, people facr up to challenges and will pick up whatever they have to to protect themselves, and their rights. Were a situation like WWII to happen again, I am 100% sure people all over the world, Including the U.S. would gain the courage, strength, and honor to defend their nation. Some may say, we would object to it politically, but we are one of the most war mongering natios in the world. Had the time called for it, people, the nation, congress and all would fight for America so that we could stay around and continue our dominance of the world that no nation in history has ever achieved.
Which brings me to my next point. America hates everyone. We are the most selfish nation in the history of man. We care only for ourselves. We want to be the best and to be on top, and never fall. While yes, another nation will rise and rival us, I am confident we will see it through. If the time comes, Americans will fight for their nation to make sure that no one is better then us, for that, above all, is what Americans REALLY, REALLY hate. When someone is better then us.
As for your saying that the west will fall, I think it will to a degree but not totally, or even partially. Military dominance is something that the U.S. has total control of. No nation in the world can project power like the U.S. can. And you say that economics are the way to make sure you are at the top, and a powerfull person to mess with? China, has the second largest economy in the world. 8 trillion dollar. Second, and growing at a rate of 9%. That is high economic growth. The US is also dominant economically as well as militarilly. We more so use economics and politics to maintain our control. We may be a war mongering nation, but when we use military, we make sure we are astronger then the next guy. The US, has the worlds largest economy by about 5 Trillion dollars. Our currency is worth a hell of a lot more then theirs. 8 to 1. Even if Militarilly, we are destroyed, foiled, and China completley outdoes us, we will still be the worlds, at lowest, second largest economy. And that won't come for QUITE a time. Culturally, we are just to big to fall. Movies? Come from America. LOTS AND LOTS of stuff (culturally) come from America. the United States does not "just use force to get what it wants". We use economics, and politics, and "rarely" force.
And as for delpoying thousands of troops to find one guy? That is just total junk. Media and the internet shade perceptions of the Iraqi war. In reality, the war has been a MAJOR success. We overthrough a disctatorship in less then a year. We organized it into a democracy in a litlle over 2 years. Casualties? We lost around 2500. That is great for a war. And yes, we found Saddam Houssein, and arrested him, as he is now on trial. Al Qaeda is supremely cripled. While yes, we have not found Osama, and that is bad; overall, the war has been "successful".
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Man, that was the longest reply I ever made.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Al Qaeda is supremely cripled.
Out of interest, what makes you say this? As far as I am aware, there is little evidence that Al Qaeda recieved substantial support from the former Iraq government, and I don't see much evidence that it has been weakened to any meaningful degree in Afganistan, (most of which is still held by rebels and the Talaban) or indeed, worldwide.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Double posteth!
You are correct, I disagree with maybe one or two things I'm pretty sure the average Roman was just as confident that Rome would never fall.
But you are right even if America lost the next war say vs China majorly they would only be at worse 2nd, 3rd if India somehow managed to be third largest economy by that time though I have more confidence that a second Soviet Block would arise again in that time.
You are right in a WWII situation Americans will do what its takes, but I asketh thou, what happens if its just a skirmish far away utilizing only the assets on hand because politically per se, you can't flex your full might without angering world/domestic opinion?
Your military would undobutably fight to the peak of their training and experiance I have no doubt but so would they.
And yes the war is successful, though I must doubt the stability of the current Iraqi democracy if America suddenly left.
Movies? Brands? Culture? China is just beginning to export their culture for example so maybe in 40 years America might find some competition.
In terms of the British Empires share of the world's total economy dropping from some 25% to its national 3% I think is a far far drop for an empire.
Infact America's share fo the world's economy has also dropped likewise, not as much in comparrison but its droping as the 3rd world develops.
I am not saying tis the only reason I'm saying that contractors in NASA are arm twisting NASA to do things that make them money, the resistance against Mars direct comes mostly from those who are in the pocket of those who make the most money from big and expensive projects.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
"You are right in a WWII situation Americans will do what its takes, but I asketh thou, what happens if its just a skirmish far away utilizing only the assets on hand because politically per se, you can't flex your full might without angering world/domestic opinion?"
That would be a big problem, but if we had a good president, who did not lie, and was, say, as good a speech maker as Hitler, then the people would support it.
"Movies? Brands? Culture? China is just beginning to export their culture for example so maybe in 40 years America might find some competition."
As for that, yes that is happening, but it will only reach a certain extent. The American movie industry is just to powerdful and dominant to be undone. Besides, even IG China got good control, it would never EVER work. Their movies would never be successful on a world-wide scale. Americans, (BY A HUGE, GIGANTIC, BIG, OVERBLOWN, GINORMUS, GARGANTUAN MARGIN) control the movie industry. If we didn't support them, others wouldn't, and they would lose A LOT of money, from America Alone. Besides, I believe the top 150 movies (box office) of all time, are all American made. It would take a VERY long time, to undue that sort of control. Americans wont accept their culture, so much as their technology.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
These are the arguments I try to stay away from.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Why?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Because she's younger than you. And I still say its because they had bad teeth and were horrible at stratagy. They never planed properly for prolonged occupations and they believed in their superiority of their tactics (which they rarley updated).
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I kind of have to agree with that. They DID do some of the things you said.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) Currently, it is the Chinese who are destined to become a superpower. God only knows what China would with superpower status, though.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I should have made that clearer.