How Many Years Does the US Have Left?

[PoLiX]

Constantly pissing other countries off, spreading our troops thin, its all gotta hit us back sometime. Every great Empire has fallen over time, and if the US goes, i think it will be -*BAD WORD*- personally. Everyone who was scared off by the US will go in and grab what they can, and then began going after others. So yes, the US shouldn't be the world police, but if we weren't, enemies would join forces and turn some of this world to -*BAD WORD*-. So i agree partially with that, but i still don't think the US needs to be involved with so many wars and operations at once.

 

Bush should of atleast finished Afghanistan before going to Iraq and whereever he wants to go next. I seriously thought Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had in years, and Bush is just messing a lot of his stuff up (-*BAD WORD*- republicans). I sometimes think i'd rather be in Canada or Mexico or somewhere out of this -*BAD WORD*- country where they are not always worried about what country they gotta destroy next. It's re-*BAD WORD*-ed for this country to continue fighting wars it doesn't really need to, and lose and cost so many lives to be lost it doesn't have to. Maybe someday this will happen, but i think until we get a level headed president who doesn't wanna blow everything up, were mostly -*BAD WORD*-ed.

 

I give the US at most maybe another century... if that.

[madhaha]

Depends on how they respond to Asia I think. North Korea is sounding ugly and China seems to be pushing for space as well as growing in power. The US need to find a good solution to both of those as well as balancing domestics (not a simple task with such a big country). I'd be interested in what happens next.

[Yupa]

it'd be nice if we could get a centralized world governmentish thing

 

US doesn't seem too keen on it, though

[madhaha]

They'd love for that to happen providing they ran it. If you read your sci-fi then you'd know that many people think thats how the world should be run and you'd also be familiar with the limitations and the difficulties of running it.

[Yupa]

I'd be happy with a few global laws

 

like...

 

no nuclear weapons

pollution restrictions / preservation of environment

no guns, only swords $$

[madhaha]

Akai lives in a dream world too but his one is more fun...

[fresca]

I don't know.. U.S. is beyond powerful, I think. Sure all the countries could unite and go against US and probably destroy us. On the other hand, though, you need to consider the value of having U.S. on your side. That would definately bring a lot of countries to allie the United States if multiple countries declared on the United States.

 

I think the only way that countries might be interested in attacking U.S is if they had nuclear support or something, because of course U.S. wouldn't nuke a country if they attacked us, but if multiple countries, like France, all of the MidEast countries, China, North Korea, etc declared on us and formed an alliance, and a few other nations joined, U.S. would probably have Mexico, Canada, U.K, Australia, New Zealand support, but if it got really bad, U.S. could definately threaten countries with the use of Nuclear Warfare, and possibly use if U.S. felt like it was the only way out.

 

I think this is a pretty interesting thread, because you are right, every empire falls, but I think U.S. is gradually growing and strengthening faster than other countries, so in time I believe we might have taken some more countries and be far more advanced and powerful than all other countries.

 

I don't know, im not a politician at all=/

[madhaha]

My take on US politics:

 

The US political system is a scam. It promises stability, investment in public infrastructure, individual freedom and the protection of the US and its interests abroad, a solid judicial system yada yada yada. Mere lip service is paid to these issues and the minimal amount of work is done to ensure that people keep voting. The chief use of the US political system is not unlike an organised crime racket. Leaders of opposing families fight for control of the country through a system of rigged polls and "encouragement". Their goal is personal wealth, to remain in power for as long as they can while ensuring continuity for their family line or political party.

 

The US foreign policy is a subtle rehash of the colonial system designed to funnel all the wealth to the presidency, his family and the party in power. The US establishes widespread military bases, not unlike the religious missions of the previous era. Their goal is to set up trade they can control and belief in the capitalist model to make the money/resources flow. Key contracts are given to those with connections to the presidency or giving large donations to the ruling party. Strangely enough, the companies that are headed by those with "connections" will collapse with much of the money going to the before mentioned individuals and the whole mess swept conveniently under the carpet by "law".

 

The system is merely a front to prevent the public from revolting as it were. Basically, the same as any other age of man.

[Aileron]

Yep. Thats your opinion alright.

 

You know how successfull people say "lifes not fair". THAT is what they are talking about. Rising in wealth and power is always an uphill struggle.

 

The thing about the US and capitalism in general is that people have a shot of rising in power. By all means it isn't a fair shot. However, the point is that there is a door open, and that the legal system isn't openly set up to force people down.

 

 

 

Back on topic, the US is pretty much the ultimate in what a capitalist country can be. When you look at the options of what country could replace the US, there are no viable possibilities at this time. Japan pound for pound would have a shot. However, Japan is ultimately a group of islands. Thus, their economy is limited to the resources and land area they got. The same thing for the UK. The US has WAY more room to expand. A centralised Europe as discussed in another topic may have a shot, but most mainland European Countries are declining. China, Russia, and Canada have a lot of resources, but don't have much in terms of a current economy.

 

Thus, as long as capitalism is in place, the US will be the dominant power. As for capitalism itself, it has a long way to go. It will not be reomved until a new age comes and it becomes outdated. It took a second agricultural and an industrial revolution to remove fuedalism. It will take something along those lines to remove capitalism.

 

Sorry, but the US is going to be on top for a looooooong time.

[MonteZuma]

You know how successfull people say "lifes not fair".

IME its usually the unsuccessful people that say that

 

Rising in wealth and power is always an uphill struggle.

Not always. living in poverty is ALWAYS an uphill struggle.

 

The thing about the US and capitalism in general is that people have a shot of rising in power. By all means it isn't a fair shot. However, the point is that there is a door open, and that the legal system isn't openly set up to force people down.

Not openly. But as you say, the system isn't fair.

 

 

 

Back on topic, the US is pretty much the ultimate in what a capitalist country can be.

That depends on your !@#$%^&*essment criteria.

 

When you look at the options of what country could replace the US, there are no viable possibilities at this time. Japan pound for pound would have a shot.

Japan doesn't stand a chance. They were -*BAD WORD*-a over-rated in WW2.

 

However, Japan is ultimately a group of islands. Thus, their economy is limited to the resources and land area they got. The same thing for the UK. The US has WAY more room to expand.

Britain, Spain, Portgal, Rome, Holland, Denmark, France, Germany (to name a few) all made it to some level of world domination despite having a relative scarcity of resources on their homeland. Colonialism and empire-building seem to be redundant concepts in modern politics, but I suspect that any country could rise to some level of supremacy based on economic resources and human capital rather than natural resources. The US certainly does have a natural advantage, but in the future that may or may not count for much.

 

 

A centralised Europe as discussed in another topic may have a shot, but most mainland European Countries are declining. China, Russia, and Canada have a lot of resources, but don't have much in terms of a current economy.

WTF? The biggest "looming" threat is the EU. Who knows, maybe one day the UN might become a threat to US supremacy. Who says that the next world power needs to be a single nation. That is what happens when you restrict your thinking to convention and think that there is an historical basis for every potential future scenario.

 

Thus, as long as capitalism is in place, the US will be the dominant power. As for capitalism itself, it has a long way to go.

Probably. But who knows? What will happen if the oil runs out or if global warming is worse than expected? What will happen if we have a supervirus that cannot be treated by any known drug? What will happen if there is nuclear conflagration?

 

It will not be reomved until a new age comes and it becomes outdated.

NSS

 

It took a second agricultural and an industrial revolution to remove fuedalism. It will take something along those lines to remove capitalism.

Perhaps. If so it will be rapid and unexpected.

 

Monte.

[madhaha]

The current state of world politics and power is essentially the product of the Second World War. As I have mentioned, America is basically the last colonial power. Its two main goals are expansion and creating profit for those in power. This is leading to a slow domestic decline. There is a considerable gap between rich and poor that is continuing to widen. This may or may not cause domestic unrest depending on how it is handled. Given time, there is a good probability of an attempted revolution, perhaps even an out right civil war unless all likely leaders are killed (with an increasing likelyhood of one slipping "through the net" as time goes on).

 

On the world front, America is gradually losing its economic lead to developing countries (especially China). The EU is currently looking too unstable to provide any serious opposition. In terms of military power, things are extremely uncertain both due to the availibility of nuclear arms and also due to advancements in technology (computer based warfare and the chinese space program being touted as the biggest new threats to America aside from good old nuke/bio/chem). Few countries have the motivation or the commitment to carry out a full scale war against the US but many have the means to at the very least do some serious damage.

 

The US can sustain its current rate of development for maybe a decade or two without serious trouble i.e. trouble that the government has to do something about. If I had to make a prediction then I'd say that the US has a feasible chance of lasting that long. Any longer would be pure speculation.

[Dr Brain]

The US will last at least as long as it is a capitalist nation and not a socialist one. If you wanna know what happens when it goes socialist, just look at the crubling EU.

 

As for the UN, it's basicly removed whatever teeth it used to have over this Iraq stuff. I give the UN ten years max without a major overhaul. I mean Lybia on the Council of Human Rights???

 

As for war, the only thing we have to worry about is terrorists, as any country that attacks us can be destroied with strategic nukes. The threat of destruction keeps everyone safe. This is why nuclear disarmorment is a very bad idea.

 

As for China, I beleive that it's setting itself up for a U.S.S.R. like implosion. The US's policy on China has been to "export capitalism" to it, and slowly reform it.

[MonteZuma]

If you wanna know what happens when it goes socialist, just look at the crubling EU.

The Scandanavian countries in Europe are a classic example of how socially responsible capitalism CAN work.

 

The threat of destruction keeps everyone safe.

That theory didn't exactly work for the people in the Twin Towers, etc.

 

As for China, I beleive that it's setting itself up for a U.S.S.R. like implosion. The US's policy on China has been to "export capitalism" to it, and slowly reform it.

China is nothing like the USSR. China is an industrial powerhouse. The USSR never was.

 

Monte

[Dr Brain]

If you wanna know what happens when it goes socialist, just look at the crubling EU.

The Scandanavian countries in Europe are a classic example of how socially responsible capitalism CAN work.

 

The threat of destruction keeps everyone safe.

That theory didn't exactly work for the people in the Twin Towers, etc.

 

As for China, I beleive that it's setting itself up for a U.S.S.R. like implosion. The US's policy on China has been to "export capitalism" to it, and slowly reform it.

China is nothing like the USSR. China is an industrial powerhouse. The USSR never was.

 

Monte

I like how you removed the part about not having to worry about countries, then saying how it doesn't work because terrorists attacked us. GG

[Bacchus]

US is far from being rundown...it's still the most powerful nation in the world and this isn't about to change very soon.

 

but:

 

it's rise to power is tainted by interventionism and illegetimate action. It is clear that the present administration don't give a -*BAD WORD*- about other neighboring/allied nations thoughts on any matters whatsoever.

 

US is strong, it's so big i'm scared by it....i also have no respect whatsoever. I just feel that someday, it will come for us and there's nothing i can do about it. US "american dream" isn't my dream and still US is ramming it down my throat (and a lot of other ppl) with no respect for cultures, dreams, beliefs, etc.

 

Yea, US is strongest...that doesn't mean i'll agree or love it for that. And i'd rather be respected than feared, rather loved than hated.

 

Might sound cheesy, but that's how i feel about US.

[shazbot]

whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

[SVS]

No country or countries would dare wage war against the US, if a country were ever a large enough threat that we would lose a conventional war we could always use our massive first strike force to obliterate them. Sure they may get some hits in as well but the end story would be the destrution of everybody on the globe.

 

I do not see the US falling without the destruction of our world and our race.

[MonteZuma]

I like how you removed the part about not having to worry about countries, then saying how it doesn't work because terrorists attacked us.  GG

Wasn't the threat of terrorism the reason for going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that why your president calls it a War on Terrorism?

 

Heh. GG.

 

The threat of nuclear destruction didn't stop the backward nations of Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming a threat to US national security. Nuclear weapons and M.A.D. don't work against rogue states or rogue individuals.

 

You very much do have to "worry about countries".

[Dr Brain]

I like how you removed the part about not having to worry about countries, then saying how it doesn't work because terrorists attacked us.  GG

Wasn't the threat of terrorism the reason for going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that why your president calls it a War on Terrorism?

 

Heh. GG.

 

The threat of nuclear destruction didn't stop the backward nations of Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming a threat to US national security. Nuclear weapons and M.A.D. don't work against rogue states or rogue individuals.

 

You very much do have to "worry about countries".

They never had the capibilty to destroy the US. Thats what we are talking about here.

 

Yes, we are warring those terrorist nations because they had the ability to kill a few thousands (maybe tens of thousands), but they never had the ability to destory the US like the U.S.S.R had.

 

At the time of the cuban missle crisis, the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons to rid the world of humans (incidently, the US had enough to do that 10 times over). One of the resons we went to war with Iraq was to prevent Saddam from ever getting an atomic bomb (not the strategic thermonuclear hydrogen bombs, just a simple tactical fission bomb). He could have caused great causalties with one of these. Obliterated New York City like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but life in the USA would go on.

[MonteZuma]

They never had the capibilty to destroy the US. Thats what we are talking about here.

 

Point taken.

 

 

He could have caused great causalties with one of these. Obliterated New York City like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but life in the USA would go on.

 

I don't think that life would just go on. Because of terrorism and terrorism-like activity, the US has had to rethink its relationship with the rest of the world. This is very much the core of what we are talking about in this thread.

 

I don't think that the US will be destroyed. This is utter speculation of course, but I think what is more likely is that some sort of rot will set in. The economic power will gradually be eroded, the country will become more inward-looking, people will lose confidence in some public ins!@#$%^&*utions, unemployment, interest rates and inflation will rise, etc, etc. The US will still be powerful - because of population, natural !@#$%^&*ets, infrastructure - but a new force may become more dominant. That could be Europe....it could be Asia....Who knows....it (probably) aint gonna happen in the near future....but one thing is for certain.....-*BAD WORD*- is gonna happen. It always has and it always will.

 

The trigger will be totally unpredictable. Who woulda thought the assassination of some Duke by a student wouldve led to WW1 (and what followed)... It is naive (or optimistic) to think a nuclear detonation - however crude - in a large US city will have negligible impact on the USs position as a world superpower.

 

Monte.

[Bacchus]

whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

 

Not quite. It's not whining...i'm not calling to unfairness or "lag".

 

US won't go down anytime soon, i'm merely acknowledging (spl) the fact that US is influencing or is about to influence my way of life and i feel threatened about that. If you can't respect that then fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck u.

 

 

now, US won't be nuked, bombed attacked or else. Life will go on...i suspect though that there will be civil unrest and corruption. More than nowadays and that's what will get the better of it....but not while we're living. We won't see the blazing downfall.

[»ZiGNoTZaG]

its hard to even contemplate what could happen. us humans tend to base all our speculation around things that are past. and this is good.

 

but the problem here is that there is really nothing that has quite this scenerio of events. decay? ide say thats the entire world as a whole right there. and why? whos to say.

 

i totaly concur that the situation is totaly screwy. but i dont see darkness at the end of the tunnel.

 

the US is too much of an intergral part of the whole world at this point to really have any major fear of attack from educated countries, or to have some kind of social uprising. your forgeting how young america is. its what happens when everyone from all over the planet comes and thinks together. you become powerful with knowledge. your power makes you enemies.

 

imho the real problem here is religion. I mean the people that actually are on the hitting end of those terrorist attacks(as opposed to the leaders) totaly believe that the US is evil, and must be destroyed in the face of god. The only type of people that are a threat are people that will kill for "god", and the people that brain wash them into doing it. in the name of... or whatever.

 

these type of people need to be......corrected.

 

then maybe the whole world could focus their attention on some more postive things like more food, and cleaner air. etc.

 

whilst i realize that the chances of puttin a total stop to it are somewhere beyond infinity. keep them running. and when they are running, they are not organized enough to attack. you cant run forever. poor ole saddam.

[»nintendo64]

At the time of the cuban missle crisis, the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons to rid the world of humans (incidently, the US had enough to do that 10 times over).  One of the resons we went to war with Iraq was to prevent Saddam from ever getting an atomic bomb (not the strategic thermonuclear hydrogen bombs, just a simple tactical fission bomb). He could have caused great causalties with one of these.  Obliterated New York City like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but life in the USA would go on.

 

wtf, the USSR had even more nukes than the USA, they have even more nuclear submarines all around the world, are you forgetting the USSR believed on Quan!@#$%^&*y over Quality while the USA was all about Quality over Quan!@#$%^&*y.

 

-nintendo64

[Dr Brain]

The US had submarines too.

 

But I'm pretty sure the US had more nukes than the USSR. The russians would always parade their nukes around in a loop so it looked like they had more than they really did.

 

But, once you get enough too wipe out the world, it harldy matters how much more you have.

[»nintendo64]

The US had submarines too.

 

But I'm pretty sure the US had more nukes than the USSR.  The russians would always parade their nukes around in a loop so it looked like they had more than they really did.

 

But, once you get enough too wipe out the world, it harldy matters how much more you have.

Well the USA didn't have more nukes than the USSR, the USSR had more and even more submarines. What did the USA had were more powerful weapons in their own way, althought many historians agree USSR engineered some of the best weapons in the Cold War, starting from the AK-47 to the Typhoon Class Submarines.

 

Something worth mentioning is USA "tools" worked better than USSR ones, because they didn't just took them out from the Factory before they were completely sure they worked properly.

 

-nintendo64