Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
coolstorm
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
|
Quote Reply
Topic: In 2100, which country will have the strongest military? Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 03:53 |
|
|
coolstorm
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2004 at 19:59 |
China --- biggest economy and a major military similar to that of the us.
Europe --- an important world figure and is strong economically and politically.
The US --- still a powerful state but not as extreme as it is now relatively speaking.
Japan --- a declining country just like Britian after WW2.
Russia --- a new big market like China today
|
|
Christscrusader
Baron
Joined: 13-Nov-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2004 at 17:46 |
Europe in 2100= strongest economy ( if unifying the continent happens) but does not include Russia OR TURKEY
USA in 2100= best technology in military
China in 2100= best military (based on the many soldiers avalible)
top three, my opinion.
|
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc
|
|
Demetrios
Knight
Joined: 20-Nov-2004
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2004 at 07:39 |
Yes you're right, but my post was not a reply to your. Still i think even if choosing to attack china would be madness, if any US government were to vote war, no one would be able to stop, would they win or not.
|
|
Mr Bobo
Janissary
Joined: 09-Nov-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2004 at 00:59 |
Originally posted by Demetrios
Regarding the iraq's war, despite of Russia, China, France, germany opposition US invaded iraq ignoring internationnal community and millions of people opinion.
Plus no christian european country will make war against US.
So yes US can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
|
I think perhaps what i was trying to say was that in the case of America attacking any other country that dosnt have an evil dictator, isnt 'harbouring terrorists' and hasnt got its finger on its weapon of mass destruction launch button they would find it extremely hard and would find much stronger disagreements against their cause within their own nation and abroad. Like i said before they wouldnt have any chance if they decided that China for instance was becoming too big of a competitor.
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 21:12 |
i think you mean "sensitive".
actually it isnt a sensible subject to bring up recently.
|
|
Demetrios
Knight
Joined: 20-Nov-2004
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 17:32 |
What this have to do whith the subject of the thread?
It has come to me that "taiwan" is quite a sensible subject recently
|
|
sephodwyrm
Consul
Joined: 19-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 359
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 15:15 |
France is getting close to China...
But I personally don't like how the French government is dealing with the situation between China and Taiwan. Its strictly an internal affairs thing. You don't deport people for not supporting the 1 China principle...
|
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
|
|
Demetrios
Knight
Joined: 20-Nov-2004
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 06:40 |
America only lack french support. But there's a difference between people support and diplomatic agreement between governments, people have no power. Actually french gov didn't care about war in iraq, but because french didn't want to be seen as an enemy of the muslim community.
Regarding the iraq's war, despite of Russia, China, France, germany opposition US invaded iraq ignoring internationnal community and millions of people opinion.
Plus no christian european country will make war against US.
So yes US can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
I'm french and have inhereted a long tradition of opposition against US; but i've to be realist, they are stronger......
|
|
Mr Bobo
Janissary
Joined: 09-Nov-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 02:39 |
Hey, thanks for the welcome
nice sig btw
|
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 01:57 |
g'day champ how are ya?
welcome to AE...believe me, you'll love this place...
|
|
|
Mr Bobo
Janissary
Joined: 09-Nov-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 23:43 |
I think perhaps the point your missing though is that places like libya and iraq arent in americas economic vital interests which i was trying to portray as a key factor in deciding military power. Sure America can justify going to war with countries like this as saying its part fof their 'war on terror' and their protecting themselves but thats really as far as it goes, if America thought that China's labour resources were threatening them I doubt wether they could do the same kind of thing.
I think perhaps the Afghanistan and Iraq wars actually weakened America's position as a military power in a roundabout way; they lost support with other countries; this affects trade, economics and allies (who are also part of any military strength), the aftermath of iraq and the sticky situation there at the moment will affect any future military involvements by the US and her allies as iraq will be a benchmark for what they can expect in the future.
Also i get a bit tired of hearing about America's naval and military 'supremacy', i hope you do realise much of the 'might' of the American army is propaganda, from accounts i have read of army officers from Britain and Australia on the subject on military training for instance, America has quite poorly trained armed forces who as individual soldiers are not very higly regarded. Thats said i still acknowledge that America most probably has one of the best armed forces, but i would be wary of labeling them as 'supreme' without knowing the full facts.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 22:57 |
No, I'm saying that if any country comes along that really really threatens our interests they're going to be punished, like Libya, like Iraq, etc. And the very fact that America can bomb countries makes them reluctant to attack and interfere with our interests.
And the Iraq war wasn't that big of a shock to our political system, after all, there were no revolts, and Bush did get reelected. But this isn't about the Iraq war, it's about the future, and I think that America's military power, especially air and naval power will allow the US to ensure that it's vital interests are kept safe across the world.
Edited by Genghis
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Mr Bobo
Janissary
Joined: 09-Nov-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 22:26 |
Genghis - "If anything it's more possible today because America can relatively easily set countries on fire from the sky if they really make us mad. It's the same time of relatively simple and non-binding force projection the Royal Navy offered Britain."
Hm well so basically what your saying is that America will use its military power to maintain economic dominace by 'setting fire' to its competitors? Well if that truly is the state of affairs were headed for nuclear annihilation as all the major powers exact revenge on one another after their buisness deals dont work out.
Seriously, u think that America can do what it likes when it likes? it only just scraped through politically and socially with a war against an inhumane dictator in a poorly developed country. I wouldnt be so quick to assume that America can just march their troops in to every situation that is not going to their liking, not every act of violence has an evil dictator as a scapegoat.
Edited by Mr Bobo
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 22:12 |
This is not as possible today |
I think that's too short-sighted, if it's been that way for 6,000 years, what really makes us certain it will change because of what has happened recently. If anything it's more possible today because America can relatively easily set countries on fire from the sky if they really make us mad. It's the same time of relatively simple and non-binding force projection the Royal Navy offered Britain.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Mr Bobo
Janissary
Joined: 09-Nov-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 22:09 |
Genghis - "But look at how long Britain's economic dominance lasted, economics doesn't change that fast on such a grand scale."
I think perhaps the reason behind Britains economic dominance was their military might, which enabled them to control the resources of less developed countries and ironically is a more stable way to gain economic power. This is not as possible today as the current socio-political scene wouldnt allow it and Britain didnt have the kind of media we today have to deal with.
Even though... i suppose some would say America use their military might to control the resources of less developed countries. wink wink
Edited by Mr Bobo
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 22:02 |
i reckon america will but something will happen with 2 or more centries after that will cause a change that removes america from that posistion
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 21:58 |
But look at how long Britain's economic dominance lasted, economics doesn't change that fast on such a grand scale.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Mr Bobo
Janissary
Joined: 09-Nov-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 21:46 |
Power today has very little to do with armed forces, maybe it did when the mongols rulled china but unles im very much mistaken much has changed in the socio-political scene since then. Todays world is ruled by economics and mass media, two subjects that obviously correlate. America may have the biggest, most advandced, albeit poorly trained, army, however do you think they would have gone to war if they werent publicly supported by their people through the amount of hysteria the US media whips up. Even though it is stating the obvious America is really ruled by economics and in the spectrum of economics, things can change in an instant.
Look at how quickly America came to be top in the world compared to the rise of all other major powers throughout history. Coupled with the uncertainty of economics, i'd be very surprised if America lasted out the next century with their current 'top dog' title intact.
Back to the point at hand though, socio-polotical power translates into military power, both through propaganda in the media and through economic prosperity for obvious reasons. As i said before these can change very quickly.
|
|
Demetrios
Knight
Joined: 20-Nov-2004
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 20:21 |
true but i mean that no one now will think of attacking american. So American will still be the best, or earth will be destroyed
|
|