The debate continues:
Emirati:
I dont think my conclusions were that astray really, perhaps a bit in some of my conclusions, but as a whole i think the picture i paint is pretty accurate, but we can always agree to disagree
America was isolationist before WW1 and WW2. I state that in my post.
I agree no one can take on america, currently. I think that china will overcome the problems that they are facing and should be by 2025, a very powerful force to reckon with. Possibly one capable of defeating the Americans.
I dont know about the benefit to the American Infrastructure and the capabilities when you export technical jobs outside, encouraging less arts and more scientific disciplines. (Remember one of the reasons the US in WW2 was so powerful was the large amount of technical personell who were unemployed and reorganized into the American economy.
The Chinese still need alot of time to reorganize themselves and their economy
Do you view the Israeli security situation in the middle east after the US's demise more positive ?
Has Israel ever thought of what might happen, if they launched nuclear weapons and the Invading armies kept on coming and perhaps even won ? What the fate of 10 milion or so Israelis would be at the hands of an armed group many of whom would possibly have lost relatives in the nuking of a city ? The recent Israeli siding with America over the Lavi-Phalcon programs leads me to believe China will not be pursuing ties with them for very long.
The Iran and India alliance is a possibility, to counter pakistan and China.
Turkey I believe is the only country in the middle east which has the economical and military power to play a significant role in expansion.
Much of the speculation about the states above is post american demise.
10:43 AM
Me:
"America was isolationist before WW1 and WW2. I state that in my post."
Yeah, I misread "it saw" as "I saw" which had me scratching me head.
"I agree no one can take on america, currently. I think that china will overcome the problems that they are facing and should be by 2025, a very powerful force to reckon with. Possibly one capable of defeating the Americans."
Defeat them in what sense? To do you, you have to bypass the US nuclear arsenal. There is no known nor forseeable technology that can do that.
"I dont know about the benefit to the American Infrastructure and the capabilities when you export technical jobs outside, encouraging less arts and more scientific disciplines. (Remember one of the reasons the US in WW2 was so powerful was the large amount of technical personell who were unemployed and reorganized into the American economy."
By definition, exporting infrastructure is impossible. We are not exporting many technical jobs. Rather, we're changing our job demographic from industrial to knowledge workers. I.e. engineers, computer people and the like. Art will always be around and people are compelled toward art more than say, science.
"The Chinese still need alot of time to reorganize themselves and their economy "
I think they need to drastically change their economy to survive in the long run.
"Do you view the Israeli security situation in the middle east after the US's demise more positive ?"
This is a false choice. It presupposes something I find improbably in the extreme. That is, the demise of the US (whatever that means).
"Has Israel ever thought of what might happen, if they launched nuclear weapons and the Invading armies kept on coming and perhaps even won ? What the fate of 10 milion or so Israelis would be at the hands of an armed group many of whom would possibly have lost relatives in the nuking of a city ? The recent Israeli siding with America over the Lavi-Phalcon programs leads me to believe China will not be pursuing ties with them for very long."
Indeed they have. They have something called the "sampson doctrine" which says that they will destroy Israel rather than allow it to be taken. They will literally incernate their own state and make it uninhabitable rather than lose.
"The Iran and India alliance is a possibility, to counter pakistan and China."
How and why would the mullahs be able to form an alliance with a non-Muslim state? Hezbollah and Hamas would be hard to contain in such a circumstance. Personally, I think Iran's current government isn't long for this world. The great majority of the country is very young and want to be free. The unrest two years ago is a good indicator. They can't keep the lid on that cauldron forever.
"Turkey I believe is the only country in the middle east which has the economical and military power to play a significant role in expansion."
There's more to it than that. It's not just military, it's logistical. Terrain, economy, alliances and demographics play significant roles. This site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/tu-army.htm talks about the relative strengths of each. You can see that Pakistan has a larger force contingent and order of battle. That doesn't mean they have the ability to become expansionist. Where can they go? To India? No, they are outnumbered and India has nukes too. China? Not bloody likely. Syria? Sure, but to what end? Afghanistan? They could but why? For natural gas? Pakistan has internal handicaps like the ISI for one. Turkey's advantage is sea access but that is mitigated by its dependence on US ships and technology. They have a few subs but naval air power is minimal and to ramp up both naval and air power would require tremendous expenditure to produce domestically.
"Much of the speculation about the states above is post american demise."
I guess that's why I think you're off base. I don't think the demise of the US is forseeable or even probable. BTW, how do you define "demise"? The literally destruction of the US or something more like a weakening?
Emirati:
I dont think my conclusions were that astray really, perhaps a bit in some of my conclusions, but as a whole i think the picture i paint is pretty accurate, but we can always agree to disagree
America was isolationist before WW1 and WW2. I state that in my post.
I agree no one can take on america, currently. I think that china will overcome the problems that they are facing and should be by 2025, a very powerful force to reckon with. Possibly one capable of defeating the Americans.
I dont know about the benefit to the American Infrastructure and the capabilities when you export technical jobs outside, encouraging less arts and more scientific disciplines. (Remember one of the reasons the US in WW2 was so powerful was the large amount of technical personell who were unemployed and reorganized into the American economy.
The Chinese still need alot of time to reorganize themselves and their economy
Do you view the Israeli security situation in the middle east after the US's demise more positive ?
Has Israel ever thought of what might happen, if they launched nuclear weapons and the Invading armies kept on coming and perhaps even won ? What the fate of 10 milion or so Israelis would be at the hands of an armed group many of whom would possibly have lost relatives in the nuking of a city ? The recent Israeli siding with America over the Lavi-Phalcon programs leads me to believe China will not be pursuing ties with them for very long.
The Iran and India alliance is a possibility, to counter pakistan and China.
Turkey I believe is the only country in the middle east which has the economical and military power to play a significant role in expansion.
Much of the speculation about the states above is post american demise.
10:43 AM
Me:
"America was isolationist before WW1 and WW2. I state that in my post."
Yeah, I misread "it saw" as "I saw" which had me scratching me head.
"I agree no one can take on america, currently. I think that china will overcome the problems that they are facing and should be by 2025, a very powerful force to reckon with. Possibly one capable of defeating the Americans."
Defeat them in what sense? To do you, you have to bypass the US nuclear arsenal. There is no known nor forseeable technology that can do that.
"I dont know about the benefit to the American Infrastructure and the capabilities when you export technical jobs outside, encouraging less arts and more scientific disciplines. (Remember one of the reasons the US in WW2 was so powerful was the large amount of technical personell who were unemployed and reorganized into the American economy."
By definition, exporting infrastructure is impossible. We are not exporting many technical jobs. Rather, we're changing our job demographic from industrial to knowledge workers. I.e. engineers, computer people and the like. Art will always be around and people are compelled toward art more than say, science.
"The Chinese still need alot of time to reorganize themselves and their economy "
I think they need to drastically change their economy to survive in the long run.
"Do you view the Israeli security situation in the middle east after the US's demise more positive ?"
This is a false choice. It presupposes something I find improbably in the extreme. That is, the demise of the US (whatever that means).
"Has Israel ever thought of what might happen, if they launched nuclear weapons and the Invading armies kept on coming and perhaps even won ? What the fate of 10 milion or so Israelis would be at the hands of an armed group many of whom would possibly have lost relatives in the nuking of a city ? The recent Israeli siding with America over the Lavi-Phalcon programs leads me to believe China will not be pursuing ties with them for very long."
Indeed they have. They have something called the "sampson doctrine" which says that they will destroy Israel rather than allow it to be taken. They will literally incernate their own state and make it uninhabitable rather than lose.
"The Iran and India alliance is a possibility, to counter pakistan and China."
How and why would the mullahs be able to form an alliance with a non-Muslim state? Hezbollah and Hamas would be hard to contain in such a circumstance. Personally, I think Iran's current government isn't long for this world. The great majority of the country is very young and want to be free. The unrest two years ago is a good indicator. They can't keep the lid on that cauldron forever.
"Turkey I believe is the only country in the middle east which has the economical and military power to play a significant role in expansion."
There's more to it than that. It's not just military, it's logistical. Terrain, economy, alliances and demographics play significant roles. This site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/tu-army.htm talks about the relative strengths of each. You can see that Pakistan has a larger force contingent and order of battle. That doesn't mean they have the ability to become expansionist. Where can they go? To India? No, they are outnumbered and India has nukes too. China? Not bloody likely. Syria? Sure, but to what end? Afghanistan? They could but why? For natural gas? Pakistan has internal handicaps like the ISI for one. Turkey's advantage is sea access but that is mitigated by its dependence on US ships and technology. They have a few subs but naval air power is minimal and to ramp up both naval and air power would require tremendous expenditure to produce domestically.
"Much of the speculation about the states above is post american demise."
I guess that's why I think you're off base. I don't think the demise of the US is forseeable or even probable. BTW, how do you define "demise"? The literally destruction of the US or something more like a weakening?
Comments