 |
| |
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
Let's assume that the current trends continue and that by ~2040 the United States will lose it's economical leadership to, at least, the EU and China, with other nations such as India not too far away.
But the US will most likely still have the military leadership. The current US military budget is enormous in comparison to the rest of the world, it leads in the development and application of new technologies, and there seems to be no sign of change here.
In addition, the US is pretty much the only power with serious plans for The Next Big Things, space warfare and unmanned warfare. And here too, all the competitors are quite a bit behind and will probably not catch up in this field for at least decades.
The most recent example is China and Russia sponsoring a conference aimed to prevent an arms race in outer space. That's definitely within their interests and they know it.
So what will happen in 2040? Could the world become an unstable place as the US tries to use it's military power to regain economic leadership?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kolpo
|
|
If the trade dependency keeps growing at the speed it is now doing shall the US never attack China. It are after all the people who benefit from this trade and the people who work for them who give the political campains money.
It is likely that China would be a democracy by then. How is the US going to justify declaring war agiants a democracy knowing that that war would put the US and even the entire world in a deep depression?
By then would south east asia as a whole be completely dependent on the Chinese economy(like Canada is dependent on the US economy), destruction of the chinese economy would then quite certainly result in the destruction of their economies. Are they just going to sit down and watch how a US campain against china is harming there economy?
In Iraq are 100k+ soldiers barely enough to control 25 milion people. So for china would you need at least 1000 milion/25milion*100k= 4 milion soldiers!
China has a very nationalistic and patriotistic population. Given the history of China is a gigantic insurgency/guerillia against an occupation quite inenvitable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers' deals with this exact topic - once economic power begins to seep away, countries start to waste their dwindling resources on ill advised military adventures, only hastening their decline.
I think the more interesting question is what will happen to American culture/the American consciousness once they begin their relative decline. The US is a country that has been on a spectacular rise since it's inception. Manifest destiny is deeply imbedded in the American consciousness - the is a feeling that its values, ideology, culture, constitution and institutions approach perfection to such a degree that its rise was inevitable and it's future assured. How will Americans cope when the reality arrives that other cultures, constitutions, institutions etc. have advantages that leave the US lacking in some departments.
Just look at the way American elections are fought - full of triumphalism: "The Greatest country in the world", "The most powerful military in the World", "World Leader" etc. Whether this is your cup of tea of not, candidates are appealing to the American feeling a superiority (i don't mean that in a pejorative sense)
Because of nuclear weapons, America won't lose a war on its way down, leaving them in a similar position as Britain was after WW2 - unable to pin-point the moment when the top spot slipped away. Even now, maybe 100 years since Britain was the undisputed greatest world power, there is still a feeling that we are somehow different. France and Germany had a different fall from grace and have handled it in a very different way (although some would say that their is a bitterness in French culture).
Discuss
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Al'Kimiya
|
|
It will be interesting times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
notyoueither - im not really sure what you're getting at.
What do you mean by America's 'hidden strength'?
In fact, i dont understand any of your post at all
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Ah. I thought "Americas" was a typo and you'd meant to write "Americans"
i.e ... "They have, or will have all of the Americans to draw on in the coming years." - I was like "yeah? Europe and China have all the Europeans and Chinese to draw on in the coming years"
I reply to the post though, I dont think your right about American control of the Americas. Brazil made moves earlier this year with regards to being part of some unaligned nations network (maybe someone can remember the name, we discussed it here on poly) and, as America declines, they will not have the pull over Southern America that they once did. Didn't I read somewhere about some kind of trade agreement between Chile and China?...that's gonna become much more the norm as the rot sets in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
It depends. I feel the culmination of things will be, because naturally this will be something that happens at some point, does it happen 2040, earlier or later is the only question but not the most relevant question.
The real question is, where the people are in those days mentally. Are they ready to accept, that someone else has gone onwards and passed them, perhaps even few countries. What will be their state of mind? THat's the question.
Because that will determine the kind of administration they have in that day. No doubt there will be a candidate who will promote 'back to No. 1' theme, but with great patrotism involved, the kind of blind mongering. Because that candidate will be a classical leadership leader. Like Hitler and Stalin. I'm not saying that candidate will be person like they were, but a leader like they were, yes, in sense of style of leading, leadership.
The other candidate will be more managment leader. The kind of leader who knows the reality of the situation, yet also knows what to do, be realistic about it. Not have this crazy gloom in their eyes like going gung ho will turn the tables, which would be untrue.
The point is, the leadership candidate will be more appealing to the voters. He will promise victory and glory, few short term solutions how the US will get back to leading position. Attractive choice. However extremely unrealistic, yet only some people sees the truth because the leadership quality is so strong, and that's why leadership leaders always get chosen even though they are going straight to hell with their plans, meaning miserable failure.
HOWEVER, if the managment candidate is chosen, he will not promise a leading position, he will promise a .. long term solution how to build on, and most of all how to accept the current situation. That's the key to success, that's the key to maintaining stability, and that's the key to prevent a whole lot of **** that will undoubtetly happen.
It's all about how the citizens are feeling those days mentally. Which one they want to go with. I'm afraid they will go with the leadership candidate though. It'll still be OK, however there will be a ... period of ... uncertainty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
It depends. I feel the culmination of things will be, because naturally this will be something that happens at some point, does it happen 2040, earlier or later is the only question but not the most relevant question.
The real question is, where the people are in those days mentally. Are they ready to accept, that someone else has gone onwards and passed them, perhaps even few countries. What will be their state of mind? THat's the question.
Because that will determine the kind of administration they have in that day. No doubt there will be a candidate who will promote 'back to No. 1' theme, but with great patrotism involved, the kind of blind mongering. Because that candidate will be a classical leadership leader. Like Hitler and Stalin. I'm not saying that candidate will be person like they were, but a leader like they were, yes, in sense of style of leading, leadership.
The other candidate will be more managment leader. The kind of leader who knows the reality of the situation, yet also knows what to do, be realistic about it. Not have this crazy gloom in their eyes like going gung ho will turn the tables, which would be untrue.
The point is, the leadership candidate will be more appealing to the voters. He will promise victory and glory, few short term solutions how the US will get back to leading position. Attractive choice. However extremely unrealistic, yet only some people sees the truth because the leadership quality is so strong, and that's why leadership leaders always get chosen even though they are going straight to hell with their plans, meaning miserable failure.
HOWEVER, if the managment candidate is chosen, he will not promise a leading position, he will promise a .. long term solution how to build on, and most of all how to accept the current situation. That's the key to success, that's the key to maintaining stability, and that's the key to prevent a whole lot of **** that will undoubtetly happen.
It's all about how the citizens are feeling those days mentally. Which one they want to go with. I'm afraid they will go with the leadership candidate though. It'll still be OK, however there will be a ... period of ... uncertainty. |
Americans are stupid, we would elect the glory candidate. Americans really don't care about real issues anymore; Ever since the start of TV based presidential campaigning, the winner won because of his personality instead of issues. *cough* Reagan *cough*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
DAVOUT, right, that is a huge problem for US military, but I would say it's not that they don't have the capability. I believe they do have all the capabilities and more. It's just that the public opinion in the US is a problem in that regard, there's a lot of media hype, there's lots of.. basically the mental ability to take losses is much more poor in there than it used to be, or what it is in other places. There's too much political spinning, political games into the war aspect, it is seen as an opportunity for many which it of course is, there's business around it, there's .. all kinds of things in the home front that basically makes the good old fighting a whole lot more difficult.
Basically, if everyone would just stfu and let the boys fight, and they wouldn't have to worry about something redicolous as '0 casualties', they would be very much capable and I bet willing too to do just that. But right now, they have all kinds of things to worry about, other than fighting. And that's never a good thing for soldiers and fighters, even the ones who make decisions and whose job it is to take care of things like media etc.
And another thing, it's never a good idea to have a ****ing politician to decide new doctrines, and that's for the record.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
Great Britain hit its peak power in roughly the 1860's. It was passed in GDP sometime between 1885 and 1905, with some complexity depending on how you count the empire. It continued to be one of the top handful of players, in the first rank, until world war 2. And had continued to be an important player ever since. And the UK declined much faster post 1920, and esp post 1945, than the US will, since they lost empire, as well as seeing relative home GDP decline.
They retained power, even while "punching above their weight" militarily, by participating in balancing coalitions, and by using their prestige and connections, for influence. They also made an alliance with the most politically and cultural similar of the successor powers, the US, which luckily for Britain also turned out the strongest.
This would appear to layout some of the options for the US.
Obligatory what-if: What if, in say the early 1880's, when UK is still number one, but is starting to have to make a real effort to deal with potentially threatening rising powers like Germany and Russia, someone from an otherwise weak part of the world, say China, blows up several key building in London, causing thousands of casaulties, and a resultant "war on banditry" or whatever, that requires alliances with Germany, Russia and the US - all the rising powers? Can the UK balance the diplomatic complexities? Not an easy task, Id say.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
As long as I have enough food to eat, water to drink, books to read, and women to impregnate I will be happy whatever the outcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
They retained power, even while "punching above their weight" militarily, by participating in balancing coalitions, and by using their prestige and connections, for influence. They also made an alliance with the most politically and cultural similar of the successor powers, the US, which luckily for Britain also turned out the strongest.
This would appear to layout some of the options for the US. |
How will ordinary Americans react when America reaches the point where it begins to engage with alliances in which it can not dictate terms. Europeans long ago accepted the fact that they would have to make comprimises with allies, but when was the last time that America joined/formed an alliance in which it wasn't the dominant partner? The First World War? Maybe that was the only time.
Can you imagine an American president announcing that America's new allies China/India/Europe/Brazil/Whoever have forced a comprimise in which America's interests have been damaged for the greater good or the greater good of another power? In other words, how would Americans react to getting screwed in the same way America screwed Britain and France duing the Suez crisis.
edited: to prevent being laughed at for absent mindedly including Russia in the "China/India/Europe/Brazil/Whoever" list
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
quote:
I am not sure that your happiness is an important concern for the Pentagone, particularly as a water drinker. |
What does the Pentagon (note there is no E on the end) have to do with water?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eli
Let's assume that the current trends continue and that by ~2040 the United States will lose it's economical leadership to, at least, the EU and China, with other nations such as India not too far away.
But the US will most likely still have the military leadership. The current US military budget is enormous in comparison to the rest of the world, it leads in the development and application of new technologies, and there seems to be no sign of change here.
In addition, the US is pretty much the only power with serious plans for The Next Big Things, space warfare and unmanned warfare. And here too, all the competitors are quite a bit behind and will probably not catch up in this field for at least decades.
The most recent example is China and Russia sponsoring a conference aimed to prevent an arms race in outer space. That's definitely within their interests and they know it.
So what will happen in 2040? Could the world become an unstable place as the US tries to use it's military power to regain economic leadership? |
First off, predictions into the future are very difficult. For instance China could overheat and collapse, the EU's population could have completely imploded, and the US could be suffering a massive super depression, or all three.
I'd say though, that without the economy to back it up our Position will seep away.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2005 14:32
|