The Next Empire

GP - Point of Order

I consider bacteriological and biological weapons one and the same and is what I was initially in reference to.

:smok:

 

Unfortunately they are not bacterial is a form of biological weaponary.

But as for biological yes, but so do the other side.

 

I'll take that as a yes.

 

I have never said otherwise about biological or chemical weapons.

 

I'm sorry, somehow I got the impression you did say so about biological (aka - bacteriological) weapons.

:smok:

 

How is this about the next Empire?

Where do I split it? Could anyone give me a clue please... :-?

Oh, by the way, the old "End of the World" flash movie I have linked here previously (I think that was in some US-Canada relations topic) applies to this thread a lot. It features China as the first target of a nuclear war initiated by the US. Meant as a joking comment on the fact that we humans have the firepower to scorch the planet three times over, it does give quite a realistic impression of how such a war would work.

This quote is taken literally from the flash movie.
"One day, we decides those Chinese sons of a bitches are going down. So we launch a nuke at China. They're like 'shit shit, who the f*** is shooting us?' 'oh well, fire missiles!' Then France is like 'shit guys, ze missiles, zey are coming! Fire our shit!' (...) Meanwhile, Australia is down there like, 'wtf, mates?' Israel, India and Pakistan launch they shit so now we got missiles flying everywhere passing each other. Now Russia is like, 'aaaah motherland!' England's like 'About dead time eh chaps?' 'Righto.' The US is thinking 'f*** we're dumbasses', Canada is up there like 'what's going on eh?', Australia is still like 'wtf?' (...) So now we got nuclear winter. Everybody's dead except Australia, and they're still down there like 'wtf mates?' But they will soon die."

 

Well Roel,

I don't think you ever have to use nuclear weapons and the end of the world in the same phrase. It just cannot happen.

During the Vietnam War a proposal was made here in the USA to seal off the North VC supply line by dropping a string of nuclear weapons along the 1,700 border.

After consideration and calculation it was determined that in order to this the bombs would have to be dropped between a mile and a mile & 1/2 apart from each other in order to make it "hot enough" so nothing could get through.

The idea was dismissed because if you took the entire USA and Soviet compliment of such weapons at the time, you still could not do it.

Nukes will only be the end of the big city, not man.

Biological weapons however (hey GP, I got it) , that is a different story.

What does this have to do with the next Empire? He who holds the power makes the rules.

:smok:

 

Question

EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) this shows up in film and television every so often. Is it actually a practical proposition?

I know you can harden systems against it but I am thinking rather than a strike against US Military strength a strike against US economic power. Basically could you turn America into a third world country with a first world army.

 

Just to go back to an earlier post - sure America is better than China militarily at the moment. Whether they could conquer is debateable (especially as the US is heavily committed elsewhere), but not really the issue.
The topic refers to the next Superpower. What would the scenario be in 50 years? or 100?
America going into internal/cultural decay... China emerging as the world's leading power...

Maybe (but even more far-fetched) Britain becoming part of Europe and accepting the Euro!

 

EMP can turn most countries into a third rate power. That is one reason the USA is so adamant about not wanting evryone to have nukes.

As long as we control nukes, we control EMP. There is development for EMP outside nukes but I have little info on it.

:smok:

 

I don't think America will be knocked off the top spot by any war short of a full nuclear exchange. A conventional war against someone the Americans can't swat like a fly is likely to suck in the secondary powers. There needs to be someone who isn't involved in the war but is already well positioned, say China.

Okay so we have America fighting someone and China sells them alot of something. America has to sell the family silver to fight the war and ends up where Britain was in 1945, broke. China slips into the void and people have arguments on internet discussion sites on topics titled 'Why bash China for coming late to WW3?'

Obviously the big problem with scenario this is there is no one for America to fight this long economy destroying war with at the moment. We need Someone to come up a bit or America to go down a bit.

The other possiblity would be a more economic decline. Say if the last bit of really economic oil were in the hands someone a) wasn't that keen on America, but b) was to strong for America to go in and take the oil by force.

America could find itself paying through the nose for its oil making American goods less competitive. Thus America goes into an economic decline. Can not longer afford such a massive military and basically goes into a slow British Empire style decline.


I know this is less exiting that biological warfare but what do you think?

 

We could even see a social decline, as in Rome. Heck, if nobody wants to join the US armed forces...
Social decline also ruins your economy - it can end up high-welfare, it can end up with little or no effective heavy industry, blah blah...

 

Two excellent points!

One - I think we are already in a social decline; just look around!

Two - Economical is perhaps the greatest threat. Perhaps not in my lifetime but in the future, you may see the American that will wage war based solely on economics. This is the root cuse of all war, however well disguised. If things get bad enough, one man will step forward and say, "I can solve your problem".

And much like in Germany, that one man will lead the world into calamity.

:smok:

 

Were you born an optimist, or do you just force yourself to always look on the bright side?
:lol:

 

Well, of course he will, Greg, because that man will be the Antichrist. Check the book of Revelation for the details.

 

Ricky - Nope, "Peace makes poor reading". I simply love studying "The Art of War". What always bored me in school was there was a tendency in the USA to teach dates, names, events, and places. Who cares! What I want to know is quite simply "WHY"!

I believe it was Patton that said, "All other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance when compared to war".

Corp. C. - You may very well be correct but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, and we may see many others before he comes along. Napoleon and Hitler have both been called the antichrist.

:smok:

 

Only if you consider both those characters to have been the incarnations of the Old Nick, only then would the person that can do what they did to the US be the antichrist. Because of course, it will not be for the exclusive event of "saving" the US that he will come. Or do you think your country is that significant? Because i would find that disgustingly arrogant.

 

Roel,

Either you were very tired when you made that last post or I am not awake yet.

Were you responding to me or Corp.C. about the antichrist?

I don't think anyone thinks the antichrist will come to save anyone. He will have his own agenda, and no one knows what country he will originate in.

 

I was responding to Corp taking your post into account. Maybe I should have been more clear. You weren't the one who suggested the devil would come to America, that was Corp, I was talking to him.

I didn't mean that he came to save anyone, of course. I meant that he would come to "save" the country of all its problems, in fact causing war or other misery. Now maybe such a person will come, but I highly doubt it'll be the antichrist because I believe neither that there is such a being or that Christ was any god's son and has his evil counterpart.
My actual point was that he said it as if 'other countries have had their evil people, but for the US, they'll send in the antichrist himself'. That I found rather arrogant.

 

It will fall from the top just like the Greek, and Roman empires; from within, the corruption of the electoriate's ethical and moral fibres that are the pillars of its common socially aceptable behaivoural norms.
(Fact is fiction and TV is reality) (What can you do for me, how much money can I get, instead of what can I do to help you?)