| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Next world superpower
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Next world superpower

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
neongrayscale View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote neongrayscale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Next world superpower
    Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 00:21
As of now the only superpower in the world is the United States, but who do you think the next world superpower will be? An obvious choice would be China, but are there any others? Maybe Brazil or India?

neongrayscale
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 08:02
We may imagine several potential ones like those You mentioned. A related question is what such "super" or "hyper" power can be good for. Especially if the "power" in question goes solo, and try to solve problems, military, regardless of what others mean. Is there not a great risk such policies may backfire in the contemporary and future world, if it has not already done so?
The historical record for alliances and counteralliances of "great powers" seems even worse.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 11:20
China & Brazil definitely, and if she can steer her way through the current crisis, Iran. I really can't see India becoming a world power, I don't think it's in their nature.

I think looking a little further ahead, a federation of North African and perhaps other Middle Eastern states, along with Turkey could be a force to look out for.


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 14:28
Then there is the question about what those new imagined superpowers will use their superpower for - if they get it. How will let us say the above mentioned middle Eastern and North african countries use that powers - if they get it? will it be acceptable, in particular for their neighbours? I admit I am much less anxious about the eventuality of Brazilean power.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 19:29

Population and accumulated capital is all. For population only China and India are over a billion, with the EU in third place with somewhat over half a billion and the US limping behind a bit with around 300 million. Adding in accumulated capital, including popular education and skills, the EU competes with India: but India and China are largely hamstrung by poverty and inadequately educated masses.

I don't think any of them will be classified as 'superpowers' in the sense that the US and the USSR once were: that's purely hyperbole. They will be the world's leading powers (no 'super') for some time to come.
 
Among the Muslim countries the most likely contender has to be Indonesia if it can get its political act together.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 06:37
The United States will remain so, at least for the next century. The North American landmasss has become the heart of the world, whoever controls it has a significant advantage. Mexico will pose a threat to the United States over the longer term, perhaps in a century.
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2012 at 00:09
China.

Brazil will never be. Its only purpose is to break free from uncle Sam.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2012 at 11:12
Actually the fact that there are so many different answers is a prety good pointer to the fact there won't be one. Basically the world is back in the early 20th century from this point of view. Competing powers, none of them 'super'.
 
(There's a case here of the degeneration of language with regard to superlatives. There don't seem to be any 'models' anywhere: they're all 'supermodels'.  Where once we had 'stars', now we have 'superstars'. And so on.)


Edited by gcle2003 - 19 Jan 2012 at 11:13
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2012 at 22:03
I agree gcle, hyperbole isn't even a strong enough word for it.


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 10:33
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

China & Brazil definitely, and if she can steer her way through the current crisis, Iran. I really can't see India becoming a world power, I don't think it's in their nature.

I think looking a little further ahead, a federation of North African and perhaps other Middle Eastern states, along with Turkey could be a force to look out for.


 
Iran? a superpower? Thats a mighty weed your smoking there man.
 
Indonesia is like Mexico, a large country with a large economy cursed by being so close to China. It will be the SEATO's version of what Germany and Turkey were to NATO.
 
Brazil has a lot of potential but it lacks visionaries to impliment it.
 
The US will never lose its status as a superpower. Some how people keep forgetting that the US remains the 3rd largest country in terms of population, 4th in terms of size and still export an impressive +$1 trillion of manufactured goods annually, second only to China (where I work almost every single system is manufactured in a -berg or a -ville somewhere in Ohio, Illinoise or Pennsylvania). Also they forget that it remains the richest country in the world in terms in median wealth. Its problems right now are a direct result of idiotic policies since the 80s but as happened often times in US history things will self correct and the US will return to its senses and get its act together.
 
Finally, don't count Russia out yet. It has the potential, but it lacks a collective iron leadership.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 23:54
Brazil doesn't lack visionaries. It simply don't care for the world but themselves. Besides, Laytin countries won't waste money in nukes, because we don't have regional enemies to blew up.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2012 at 23:55
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
The US will never lose its status as a superpower.

Ha! That's what Romans thought LOL
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 08:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
The US will never lose its status as a superpower.

Ha! That's what Romans thought LOL

The Americans won't loose their power anytime soon, certainly not within the next century. The entire world watches how the United States plays the game and acts accordingly. Between it's geography smack in the middle between Asia and Europe, its immense navy, control of world trade, and childlike attitude (which is normal as the United States is a young country in the modern sense), the United States is a force to be dealt with cautiously and practically. 




Edited by Darius of Parsa - 21 Jan 2012 at 08:17
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 11:14
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

 

The Americans won't loose their power anytime soon, certainly not within the next century. The entire world watches how the United States plays the game and acts accordingly. Between it's geography smack in the middle between Asia and Europe, its immense navy, control of world trade, and childlike attitude
It could go the way it has to share some of its power. The potential "alternative" powers should not be seen as only "good" or "bad".
 
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

which is normal as the United States is a young country in the modern sense). 
Look at it from another point of view: The U.S. became independent before the majority of other nations, including many of the powerful. About all of the other Americans, Pacific, Australian and African, and even most Asian and European countries emerged later. And those already existing in the late 18.th. century was very different political entities from those today
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 14:27
Why would the US be seen as between Europe and Asia, instead of Europe being between Asia and the US or Asia between the US and Europe. Or, in each case vice versa.
 
A circle is a circle. It doesn''t have ends or middles.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 18:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Brazil doesn't lack visionaries. It simply don't care for the world but themselves. Besides, Laytin countries won't waste money in nukes, because we don't have regional enemies to blew up.
 
The same was in the US back in the 30s. Look where it is right now.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 18:24
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
The US will never lose its status as a superpower.

Ha! That's what Romans thought LOL
 
Rome was a multinational empire ruled by a selfish tiny oligarchy. The US is a unified fiercely nationalistic republic with little to divide it. There are alot of differences.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2012 at 00:43
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The same was in the US back in the 30s. Look where it is right now.
 
Al-Jassas


In South America, the states deal with the U.S. for mutual protection in case of attack of foreign powers. Even Cuba lease Guantanamo to the U.S.
There aren't major wars in the region at all, since a century ago, and at most there has been some frontier clashes, once in a while.
Just considering regulars wars, and forgetting guerrilla and criminality, this is perhaps the more peaceful region in the world.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 01:18
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why would the US be seen as between Europe and Asia, instead of Europe being between Asia and the US or Asia between the US and Europe. Or, in each case vice versa.
 
A circle is a circle. It doesn''t have ends or middles.


The North American Continent is surrounded by two oceans, of which the United States controls. The most efficient way of trade is over water routes.

North America can have the same significance as Eurasia, but the Eurasian landmass is larger, harder to maintain, and is made up of many more cultures. Russia almost accomplished a pan-Eurasian state, but the Americans choked the Russians into submission, leading to the calamities that faced Russia in the 1990s. The American strategy is to keep a Eurasian power from forming, playing nations off of one each other so no single nation gets too powerful.

The power shift moved from Europe to North America after the collapse of European Empires in 1945. As Europe struggled to repair itself, the United States grew enormously. The country which lost the least, gained the most. 


"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 01:42
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:



It could go the way it has to share some of its power. The potential "alternative" powers should not be seen as only "good" or "bad".

Look at it from another point of view: The U.S. became independent before the majority of other nations, including many of the powerful. About all of the other Americans, Pacific, Australian and African, and even most Asian and European countries emerged later. And those already existing in the late 18.th. century was very different political entities from those today


It has not shared power. Nations objectives commingle at some points and collide on others. Maybe you would care to elaborate. The United States has created supplementary nations such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel in order to use them against other nations in the region. Balancing them off one another so neither country gets strong.

The Americans are young to the idea of 'Empire'. And the United States is an Empire. The Europeans had their empires from 1492 onward until 1945. Political entities may be different, but countries act the same no matter if it is 1000 B.C or 2012 A.D. Nations geopolitical objectives guide them through the ages, not people and politics.

The true American reality only came into being in 1991. When the United States obtained the status of 'Empire'. American policy in the 1990s was clumsy, assisting in struggles where the United States had little to gain. A quick intervention into Iraq in 1990, The Bosnian War in 1992, Battle of Mogadishu and Somali interventions in 1993, Kosovo War in 1998, and rash actions to go into Iraq in 2001.

All of these actions seem childish, and they are, the United States is a modern sense a new country and has never achieved the status of 'Empire' of this grandeur in its history. But the Americans did not have to be calculated nor careful. The world seemed to be heavily tilted in their favour, and no nation in the world could take on the United States in any sense.

The world however is not static and several nations have achieved regional power. The world may not be as dangerous for the Americans as it was during the 1950s, but it is far more complicated. The world is now divided among several regions, and each one the Americans have to deal with in order to keep global supremacy. However, the Americans as I said earlier will mature, and these situations will become much more manageable for them.

I have never stated that potential alternative powers are good or bad or any of the like. The world is what is it is, and currently it is in centered around the United States. On a side note I do not like the United States, but this is only an opinion, and cannot be clouded with reality.




"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 08:05
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I agree gcle, hyperbole isn't even a strong enough word for it.
We'll have to use superhyperbole.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3550
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 12:54
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I agree gcle, hyperbole isn't even a strong enough word for it.
We'll have to use superhyperbole.
 
LOLClap
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 13:13
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:



It could go the way it has to share some of its power. The potential "alternative" powers should not be seen as only "good" or "bad".

Look at it from another point of view: The U.S. became independent before the majority of other nations, including many of the powerful. About all of the other Americans, Pacific, Australian and African, and even most Asian and European countries emerged later. And those already existing in the late 18.th. century was very different political entities from those today


It has not shared power. Nations objectives commingle at some points and collide on others. Maybe you would care to elaborate. The United States has created supplementary nations such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel in order to use them against other nations in the region. Balancing them off one another so neither country gets strong.

It depends much upon what You mean by they "created" those countries - but then You might as well include Germany after the last world war. I think it is a misunderstanding those countries completely act as "puppets" - not even Israel, South Korea or Taiwan. On the other hand we may ask if it is always such a brave act to "stand up against" the "Empire" - or if it is a sign of "independence" in any positive sense. Sometimes it could be more of a "show" - often to gain popularity.
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:



I have never stated that potential alternative powers are good or bad or any of the like. The world is what is it is, and currently it is in centered around the United States. On a side note I do not like the United States, but this is only an opinion, and cannot be clouded with reality.
Well, then we should perhaps offer some thoughts of what is best -  what the best  overall order possibly could be - but of course then we are already at a distance from "the world is what it is"..
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 21:50
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

China & Brazil definitely, and if she can steer her way through the current crisis, Iran. I really can't see India becoming a world power, I don't think it's in their nature.

I think looking a little further ahead, a federation of North African and perhaps other Middle Eastern states, along with Turkey could be a force to look out for.


 
Iran? a superpower? Thats a mighty weed your smoking there man.
 
Man where are you living i? (in Somalia or Burkina fasu) Iran is already a superpower... Shocked no one can touch iran's balls ... Iran is making super duper weapons, they even have the technology to hack through most advance American drones?Wacko they will be landing on moon very soon... you still can't believe it,... wake up and smell the coffee mannnnnnnnnnn.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 22:22
On the note made about Iran:

Iran has become powerful as a result of a miscalculation made by the Americans. The United States destroyed Iraq, the reason the Americans had to stay in Iraq for such a prolonged period of time was to keep an artificial balance against the Iranians. Iraq and Iran are natural enemies, the Americans played them off of one another during the Iran-Iraq war, and settled with a treaty with terms so that neither obtained victory. After the invasion of Iraq in 2001, the natural order was disrupted, or perhaps we could say destroyed.

 Iran now has no natural counter balance in the region. Iran at the present has an unprecedented opportunity not seen in hundreds of years. Iran can become the powerhouse of the Persian Gulf Region. No coalition of Arab states can counter the Iranians. Iran has the largest conventional force in the region, a booming population of 74 million, as compared to Saudi Arabia's 27 million, and influence stretching from the Afghan border, through Iraq, into Syria, and all the way to  Mediterranean via Hamas.

The nuclear weapons are not significant, even if they do have the capability of launching one (which is much more difficult than setting one off in a sealed bunker). The weapons are merely a cover. While the world is focusing on Iran's nuclear capabilities, Iran is buffering its conventional forces and spreading its influence abroad. 

Iran will not become a superpower, but is and will be a regional power. The United States will likely make accommodations with Iran, and improve relations, as Saudi Arabia cannot offer what the Iranians now are able to. Turkey can be a counterbalance to Iran's efforts however, and this is another path the Americans could choose, but it will likely be the former.
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 22:37
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:



It depends much upon what You mean by they "created" those countries - but then You might as well include Germany after the last world war. I think it is a misunderstanding those countries completely act as "puppets" - not even Israel, South Korea or Taiwan. On the other hand we may ask if it is always such a brave act to "stand up against" the "Empire" - or if it is a sign of "independence" in any positive sense. Sometimes it could be more of a "show" - often to gain popularity.

Well, then we should perhaps offer some thoughts of what is best -  what the best  overall order possibly could be - but of course then we are already at a distance from "the world is what it is"..


Yes, those were just a few examples of some nations which were created by the United States, Germany can be included. These countries are not puppets however, and I have never stated that they were. These countries just have certain geopolitical objectives that would assist the Americans as they go to achieve them.

For example, the Israeli-American friendship is depleting and it is not what it once was. Israel's geopolitical goals are now breaking from the American's goals in the region. Israel has achieved dominance over the surrounding Arab states, and is now setting out to consolidate their victories and achieve new ones. The Israeli-American friendship will continue, but not the same grandeur as what we have seen from the 1960s to the 1980s.

Japan has goals that completely collide with the United States on some points and align on others. The main point which will lead to hostility in the future is Japan's need for natural resources beyond its borders, its desire for a navy (which it does have currently) and control of water routes, and its depleting population. Japan in the past has solved its natural resource limitations and depleting populations through war. Japan is most likely the nation which changes the quickest, and evolves the fastest, a change from a peaceful introverted Japan to a military-based extroverted Japan can occur in a matter of 20 years.

Other nations have their own conflicts with the United States.

But the United States has one thing to offer any nation: trade. The Americans control the oceans, and the Americans control world oceanic trade. Nations which align themselves with the Americans have access to the oceanic trade network, and those who do not, are barred from it. Nations do not put on "shows" to prove their independence. The world revolves around the United States, and nations understand the risks involved in straining their relationship with the United States.


"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 07:36
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:


But the United States has one thing to offer any nation: trade. The Americans control the oceans, and the Americans control world oceanic trade. Nations which align themselves with the Americans have access to the oceanic trade network, and those who do not, are barred from it. Nations do not put on "shows" to prove their independence. The world revolves around the United States, and nations understand the risks involved in straining their relationship with the United States.


I am not sure what You precisely have in mind, as I think generally countries are not excluded from the oceans by the US navy and world trade. It should be cases of sanctions, but I think they are very few. Do You have any examples? And I think today the americans may not be so much ahead when it comes to economy, as a contrast to the past where it gained its status first of all because its productivity. Their control of the oceans came later.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 09:31
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:



It depends much upon what You mean by they "created" those countries - but then You might as well include Germany after the last world war. I think it is a misunderstanding those countries completely act as "puppets" - not even Israel, South Korea or Taiwan. On the other hand we may ask if it is always such a brave act to "stand up against" the "Empire" - or if it is a sign of "independence" in any positive sense. Sometimes it could be more of a "show" - often to gain popularity.

Well, then we should perhaps offer some thoughts of what is best -  what the best  overall order possibly could be - but of course then we are already at a distance from "the world is what it is"..


Yes, those were just a few examples of some nations which were created by the United States, Germany can be included. These countries are not puppets however, and I have never stated that they were. These countries just have certain geopolitical objectives that would assist the Americans as they go to achieve them.

For example, the Israeli-American friendship is depleting and it is not what it once was. Israel's geopolitical goals are now breaking from the American's goals in the region. Israel has achieved dominance over the surrounding Arab states, and is now setting out to consolidate their victories and achieve new ones. The Israeli-American friendship will continue, but not the same grandeur as what we have seen from the 1960s to the 1980s.
 
No its not, if anything Israel's control over American politics and even the American public is increasing. Just look at the republican debates. An alien watching those debates would think that Israelis were some bunch of supernaturals worshipped by the crowds and anything to insult them is considered blasphamy.
 
Back in the 70s and 80s the US allowed Israel to roam free under its full protection (the infamous 6th fleet) while keeping them on a leach. Now its Israel that decides US foreign policies in the region and keeping it on a tight leach to the extent that the Americans are trying to force Turkey to kiss the Israeli ring as if Turkey was some colonial possession of theirs.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 20:07
On the control of trade, the US is nowhere near dominant in number or tonnage of vessels owned, and is easily outnumbered by Greece, the world's biggest fleet, Japan, and Norway. By numbers of ships, Germany and China have each double the number the US has, while the EU as a bloc owns about a quater of all tonnage.
 
Indeed one of the things left out of the recent chatter about the Greek economy is the question of what happens if Greece raises shipping rates.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 20:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

On the control of trade, the US is nowhere near dominant in number or tonnage of vessels owned, and is easily outnumbered by Greece, the world's biggest fleet, Japan, and Norway. By numbers of ships, Germany and China have each double the number the US has, while the EU as a bloc owns about a quater of all tonnage.
 
Indeed one of the things left out of the recent chatter about the Greek economy is the question of what happens if Greece raises shipping rates.  
 
That won't happen because:
 
A. One of the IMF's sacred ruled is no raise on taxes for corporations.
 
B. Greece is not Saudi Arabia.
 
And C. Companies can simply register their ships somewhere else.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.