World superpowers

  • 24 Replies
  • 3432 Views
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
World superpowers
« on: April 14, 2015, 09:57:18 PM »
Which countries do you think they are now?
Which countries will be superpowers?

The US should be, although they are not quite as powerful as they think.
Getting neutered by Nth Vietnam for instance.

China also, but they are on the rise, unlike the US, which is declining.

Thoughts?
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

Re: World superpowers
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2015, 10:06:09 PM »
Which countries do you think they are now?
Which countries will be superpowers?

The US should be, although they are not quite as powerful as they think.
Getting neutered by Nth Vietnam for instance.

China also, but they are on the rise, unlike the US, which is declining.

Thoughts?

Right NOW, the USA is the only Super-power, but I don't think that can last. I expect that what you are going to see is a world without individual nations dominating the whole world. I think you will see regional powers. China has no interest in being a world Super-power. They just want pre-eminence in Asia, and they're going to get it. Russia wants to be respected in their sphere of influence, and to a degree, worldwide, but they are less concerned now than in Soviet days of influencing events in say, Africa.

Ultimately, I just don't think that individual countries are going to be able to enforce a "Pax Britannica" or a "Pax Americana" or a "Pax Romana" like has occurred in the past. the days of the Super-power are numbered.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2015, 03:25:49 AM »
Depends what you mean by superpower.

Military superpower: USA

Economic superpowers: China, EU, USA, India soon.

I guess you could call Russia a nuclear superpower.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2015, 03:51:28 AM »
Depends what you mean by superpower.

Military superpower: USA

Economic superpowers: China, EU, USA, India soon.

I guess you could call Russia a nuclear superpower.

Both kinds of power, i guess.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2107
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2015, 11:36:02 AM »
The only true Superpower is the USA at the moment, and I have a feeling that it will be the last sole nation superpower to exist on Earth.

The USA and Soviet Union existed as super powers because they were able to industrialize and ramp up economic output unlike any other world power during WWII. Partially because of lack of infrastructure destruction during WWI and WWII but also just due to untapped potential.

Where as the USA's economy became so massive that we could spend more on entertainment than the Soviets could spend on their entire Defense budget, the Soviets economy stagnated and puttered to a close.

At this moment the only power on Earth that can project his political will across the planet and expect results is the USA. If the EU or China, Russia or India tried they wouldn't get far. Though I think the EU stands a chance of this happening if they could ever become a more cohesive policy making body.

The reason China is becoming so uppity lately is because they are trying to move from one of multiple regional powers (South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, India and Australia)  in her area to THE regional power in its sphere of influence, but China is a long way from being able to dictate her political will on other nations all over the planet and the longer it takes for her to even move to THE regional influence the less and less likely she'll be able to move up to superpower.

As for China's economic prowess, it depends so heavily on other nations Economies that it should be seen as a parasite rather than a powerhouse.

I think that the USA isn't declining so much as the rest of the world is catching up. Which brings me to my major point, I think the USA will be the last sole nation superpower on Earth. If there is to be a political entity that will be so much more powerful than all other entities on Earth that it can freely dictate its political will to them it will have to be a new multinational nation, EU but with a much more unified and controlling central government for example.

Lets hypothetically say that the USA and the Commonwealth form the the United Governments of White English Speaking Countries (Quebec is out), that economic and military might and global influence would probably be on par again with how disproportionate the power difference was between the USA and most countries in the 1950s and 60s.

That was a lot of answer wasn't it? I'm sorry.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2015, 11:49:07 AM »
The US is the only military superpower, but how useful is that power in the current climate? It's a military machine designed to deter Russia during the cold war, but when it's been used recently (ie in the middle east, along with Britain) it's just made things worse. A huge army and airforce isn't much use against Islamists who live amongst civilians.

I agree that the best way forward would be for the US, EU and the other "western" countries to work more closey together. Only that way can we stand up to China and that lunatic Putin.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Re: World superpowers
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2015, 12:39:02 PM »
The US is the only military superpower, but how useful is that power in the current climate? It's a military machine designed to deter Russia during the cold war, but when it's been used recently (ie in the middle east, along with Britain) it's just made things worse. A huge army and airforce isn't much use against Islamists who live amongst civilians.

It is also of no use with anyone else who has nukes.  There is fuck all it can do to Russia, Pakistan, China etc.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2015, 02:06:53 PM »
Did you know Putin has taken to regularly sending fighters into British airspace, just to flex his muscles? They did it yesterday. Russian jets come in, we scramble, they run away. It's pathetic.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2015, 02:15:33 PM »
Because if we fired, what do you think would happen?
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2015, 05:05:44 PM »
In England: Fighter Jets! Excitement!
In America: Nukes! World power!
In Australia: S**t all
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2015, 02:34:14 AM »
Interesting factoid.

In a safe on every British nuclear submarine, there is sealed "letter of last resort" hand written by every Prime Minister when they take office. The letter tells the sub commander what to do if there is no radio contact with London - ie it's been nuked.
The PM has the following options, and only he knows what the letter says.

1. Launch missiles. (presumably he would need to know who the enemy is for this option!)

2. Do not retaliate.

3. Sail to a US port and hand over command.

4. Sail to Sydney and hand over command.

5. Use your own judgement.

The keepers are destroyed unopened when the PM leaves office and replaced with new ones.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2015, 04:01:49 AM »
Interesting factoid.

In a safe on every British nuclear submarine, there is sealed "letter of last resort" hand written by every Prime Minister when they take office. The letter tells the sub commander what to do if there is no radio contact with London - ie it's been nuked.
The PM has the following options, and only he knows what the letter says.

1. Launch missiles. (presumably he would need to know who the enemy is for this option!)

2. Do not retaliate.

3. Sail to a US port and hand over command.

4. Sail to Sydney and hand over command.

5. Use your own judgement.

The keepers are destroyed unopened when the PM leaves office and replaced with new ones.
If the letters are destroyed, an presumably this is secret stuff, then how do you know?
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2015, 04:29:32 AM »
Why?
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2015, 05:11:12 AM »
Interesting factoid.

In a safe on every British nuclear submarine, there is sealed "letter of last resort" hand written by every Prime Minister when they take office. The letter tells the sub commander what to do if there is no radio contact with London - ie it's been nuked.
The PM has the following options, and only he knows what the letter says.

1. Launch missiles. (presumably he would need to know who the enemy is for this option!)

2. Do not retaliate.

3. Sail to a US port and hand over command.

4. Sail to Sydney and hand over command.

5. Use your own judgement.

The keepers are destroyed unopened when the PM leaves office and replaced with new ones.
If the letters are destroyed, an presumably this is secret stuff, then how do you know?

The only thing that's secret is which option the PM has chosen. Okay, there's a bit of speculation about the options, but it's not secret, look up letter of last resort.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Re: World superpowers
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2015, 06:07:38 AM »
Interesting factoid.

In a safe on every British nuclear submarine, there is sealed "letter of last resort" hand written by every Prime Minister when they take office. The letter tells the sub commander what to do if there is no radio contact with London - ie it's been nuked.
The PM has the following options, and only he knows what the letter says.

1. Launch missiles. (presumably he would need to know who the enemy is for this option!)

2. Do not retaliate.

3. Sail to a US port and hand over command.

4. Sail to Sydney and hand over command.

5. Use your own judgement.

The keepers are destroyed unopened when the PM leaves office and replaced with new ones.
If the letters are destroyed, an presumably this is secret stuff, then how do you know?
They do exist, but not quite as you describe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2015, 06:38:11 AM »
Interesting factoid.

In a safe on every British nuclear submarine, there is sealed "letter of last resort" hand written by every Prime Minister when they take office. The letter tells the sub commander what to do if there is no radio contact with London - ie it's been nuked.
The PM has the following options, and only he knows what the letter says.

1. Launch missiles. (presumably he would need to know who the enemy is for this option!)

2. Do not retaliate.

3. Sail to a US port and hand over command.

4. Sail to Sydney and hand over command.

5. Use your own judgement.

The keepers are destroyed unopened when the PM leaves office and replaced with new ones.
If the letters are destroyed, an presumably this is secret stuff, then how do you know?
They do exist, but not quite as you describe:

Er, that is pretty much as I described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2015, 03:59:15 PM »
Getting neutered by Nth Vietnam for instance.

Whenever people say this, I just can't help but think it a a very inaccurate assumption. I don't think losing the Vietnam War was a show of America's weakness, but rather the strength of guerrilla war tactics, especially on one's home turf. I mean, look at the American Revolutionary War, and the strength of the British Empire at the time. Clearly guerrilla warfare in home turf is OP
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2015, 05:04:15 PM »
Getting neutered by Nth Vietnam for instance.

Whenever people say this, I just can't help but think it a a very inaccurate assumption. I don't think losing the Vietnam War was a show of America's weakness, but rather the strength of guerrilla war tactics, especially on one's home turf. I mean, look at the American Revolutionary War, and the strength of the British Empire at the time. Clearly guerrilla warfare in home turf is OP

True, but America had learned the lessons (hopefully) about the strength of a popular armed rebellion.
The British Empire was probably quite unprepared for this sort of fighting.

And if it was a sign of guerrilla strength, it was also most definitely a show of American (and Australian) weakness.

It is also an unfair parallel. Most of America's involvement was in South Vietnam, right? And the thirteen colonies were British before hand.

And the difference between the power and the allies of the rebel americans and the British; and North Vietnam and the US, was not quite the same.

And the US's Military power was extreme, to say the least. They could have and probably should have won.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2107
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2015, 09:05:08 AM »
Getting neutered by Nth Vietnam for instance.

Whenever people say this, I just can't help but think it a a very inaccurate assumption. I don't think losing the Vietnam War was a show of America's weakness, but rather the strength of guerrilla war tactics, especially on one's home turf. I mean, look at the American Revolutionary War, and the strength of the British Empire at the time. Clearly guerrilla warfare in home turf is OP

True, but America had learned the lessons (hopefully) about the strength of a popular armed rebellion.
The British Empire was probably quite unprepared for this sort of fighting.

And if it was a sign of guerrilla strength, it was also most definitely a show of American (and Australian) weakness.

It is also an unfair parallel. Most of America's involvement was in South Vietnam, right? And the thirteen colonies were British before hand.

And the difference between the power and the allies of the rebel americans and the British; and North Vietnam and the US, was not quite the same.

And the US's Military power was extreme, to say the least. They could have and probably should have won.

There are a lot of things that went against the US in Vietnam, I certainly wouldn't say it was the US getting neutered, as much as America neutering itself.

We were supporting an unpopular government with the people in the countryside where the combat was taking place, with a native military that was almost completely ineffectual so the only real combat progress made in the war was made with the US military. This proved especially bad with the VC being a guerrilla force, as there wasn't many places in the country side that weren't on the VC side.

We couldn't really (though we occasionally did) bomb the Ho Chi Min trail, since it was in Cambodia and Laos, so the VC could resupply and move around country pretty much at will without much fear of being cut off or killed en route.

We were still fighting the war like we were in Germany, conventional tactics that just couldn't work in the situation. There are famous pictures of an entire American infantry platoon laying prone because of one farmer/VC with a rifle hidden in a tree. Sometimes for hours. They would call in artillery barrages and air strikes for a single person hiding in the bush.

Think about that for a second, 42 men with all the power and training of the United States being held down for hours immobile by one farmer with a 60 year old mosin-nagant. In the military thats called a force multiplier.

So at the height of the US engagement in 1968 we had a little over 500,000 soldiers against the NVC/VC combined forces of about 420,000. But with that kind of force multiplier on the VC side, if only 10,000 VC could do what that one farmer did, then it was more like the US facing 840,000 soldiers with their 500,000.

Our military was filled with drug addiction and was practically a shell of its former self as well. If you look up anything on drug issues in the US military in the late 60s and 70s you'll see a systemic problem of epic proportions.

I mean it was a comedy of errors really. We didn't have the political will at home to do what would have been needed to win. Which would have been moving to a total war, ship over overwhelming forces and move into Laos and Cambodia and secure the HCM trail. We would then have had to secure every village, town and city and police them until we could rebuild the nation, its police and military so they could fight the sure to follow rebellion.

Sounds a lot like Iraq and Afghanistan for that, and its sad we made the same mistake not twice but three times.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: World superpowers
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2015, 09:45:14 AM »
There are a lot of things that went against the US in Vietnam, I certainly wouldn't say it was the US getting neutered, as much as America neutering itself.

We were supporting an unpopular government with the people in the countryside where the combat was taking place, with a native military that was almost completely ineffectual so the only real combat progress made in the war was made with the US military. This proved especially bad with the VC being a guerrilla force, as there wasn't many places in the country side that weren't on the VC side.

We couldn't really (though we occasionally did) bomb the Ho Chi Min trail, since it was in Cambodia and Laos, so the VC could resupply and move around country pretty much at will without much fear of being cut off or killed en route.

We were still fighting the war like we were in Germany, conventional tactics that just couldn't work in the situation. There are famous pictures of an entire American infantry platoon laying prone because of one farmer/VC with a rifle hidden in a tree. Sometimes for hours. They would call in artillery barrages and air strikes for a single person hiding in the bush.

Think about that for a second, 42 men with all the power and training of the United States being held down for hours immobile by one farmer with a 60 year old mosin-nagant. In the military thats called a force multiplier.

So at the height of the US engagement in 1968 we had a little over 500,000 soldiers against the NVC/VC combined forces of about 420,000. But with that kind of force multiplier on the VC side, if only 10,000 VC could do what that one farmer did, then it was more like the US facing 840,000 soldiers with their 500,000.

Our military was filled with drug addiction and was practically a shell of its former self as well. If you look up anything on drug issues in the US military in the late 60s and 70s you'll see a systemic problem of epic proportions.

I mean it was a comedy of errors really. We didn't have the political will at home to do what would have been needed to win. Which would have been moving to a total war, ship over overwhelming forces and move into Laos and Cambodia and secure the HCM trail. We would then have had to secure every village, town and city and police them until we could rebuild the nation, its police and military so they could fight the sure to follow rebellion.

Sounds a lot like Iraq and Afghanistan for that, and its sad we made the same mistake not twice but three times.

A very succinct, but quite accurate assessment of pretty much every war the USA has fought since the end of Korea, in which we at least obtained our objective. Since then, we seem to have forgotten how to fight.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2015, 04:43:41 PM »
I would respectfully like to point out that there were 50,000 Australian troops in vietnam. We didn't help much, And we didn't learn our lesson either.

I don't think it's about forgetting how to fight, though Yaakov. I think that soldiers still can and do fight well.
In my opinion, the thing that really defeated the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, was the people back home.
I'm not sure if this happened in the US, but when the returning troops marched through Sydney, they got rocks and paint thrown at them, abuse yelled at them. Not very grateful, considering that most were conscripts.

In previous years and wars, the soldiers and the civilians never really questioned the military. (What would Frederick the Great or Napoleon do with anti-war protesters?) So that when soldiers returned home, the public, in general, respected them.
Now, the public back home has heard about Abu Ghraib, kids dying, hospitals getting hit by mistake.
Interesting topic.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

Re: World superpowers
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2015, 08:58:05 PM »
I would respectfully like to point out that there were 50,000 Australian troops in vietnam. We didn't help much, And we didn't learn our lesson either.

I don't think it's about forgetting how to fight, though Yaakov. I think that soldiers still can and do fight well.
In my opinion, the thing that really defeated the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, was the people back home.
I'm not sure if this happened in the US, but when the returning troops marched through Sydney, they got rocks and paint thrown at them, abuse yelled at them. Not very grateful, considering that most were conscripts.

In previous years and wars, the soldiers and the civilians never really questioned the military. (What would Frederick the Great or Napoleon do with anti-war protesters?) So that when soldiers returned home, the public, in general, respected them.
Now, the public back home has heard about Abu Ghraib, kids dying, hospitals getting hit by mistake.
Interesting topic.

Yes, that did happen in the USA as well. My father remembers it, from having been in Viet Nam. I am not saying the soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and airmen forgot how to fight. I am saying the politicians forgot how a real war should be fought. And you're right, the morality of the American people, most of whom are asses, in my opinion, are another cause.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2015, 01:55:16 AM »
And yet they still haven't learned. Defence has been a big issue in the election here in the UK. Both the main parties are going to spend billions on upgrading Trident nukes, while our conventional forces are dwindling. They are still fighting the cold war without adapting to modern day scenarios - ie weeding out Islamists.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2015, 05:23:24 AM »
For example:

FIGHT ISIS NOW DO IT NOW COWARDS!!!!

Wait, how many wars is the US fighting ATM? 2? Great. So we can spread our army so thin that we can fight all of the threats to the world, because all of a sudden we're the only country with an army.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: World superpowers
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2015, 10:00:16 AM »
For example:

FIGHT ISIS NOW DO IT NOW COWARDS!!!!

Wait, how many wars is the US fighting ATM? 2? Great. So we can spread our army so thin that we can fight all of the threats to the world, because all of a sudden we're the only country with an army.

The US and Britain have armed Saudi to the teeth, but they still expect us to sort out problems in their back yard. Oh wait, Saudi funds ISIS...
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.