[Tausand sun]

What I mean is this: The cycle of history has prooved that no nation state or system of government is immortal, they all will fall eventually, and be reborn again anew like a phoenix rising from the ashes.

Also, the same rule for stars seems to follow for nations to some extent: those that burn brightest burn the shortest. Excluding the roman empire those nations that explode with power seem to be quick to fall. The byzanites who got conquered every, what, hundred years or so. Nazi age germany who fell to it's own pride, or even the old roman republic that was crushed by Caesar. Now the American's have enjoyed almost a century at the top of the globe, and if history is anything to go by this means one of two things, either they will stay that way for a thousand years and be transformed by a brutal and horrendous war, or will quickly be transformed in the next 100-200 years via a more peaceful method, albeit with some bloodshed.

My real question to you though, is this: The nature of the globe has changed, nations are more prone to peace than ever before, and pretty much most of the big nations are content with their landspace. This will undoubtedly make violent revolts and overthrows much less common. Small bout's of war keep popping up like in iraq, but compared to the first millennium we are in a state of peace. but can this "peace" last forever? and if it can, must we evolve with the times to keep it so? or will we just continue along on business as usual path.

[Tomo1]

It won't last forever, no, nothing does, It may last for thousands of years from now though, or maybe, in autumn Russia will nuke America away.

Buisness as usual won't work, it doesn't at the moment, why should it in the future?

[Vyrion]

I can't see a huge conventional war cropping up any time soon, and I feel like our sociopolitical systems are strong enough to keep us from falling into another Dark Ages. I am highly skeptical of this occurrence, save in the aftermath of nuclear war, which is less and less apparent all the time. What I am worried about, however, is a conflict of the underprivileged (i.e: Africa, South America, poor Asia). We in the West have carved out our empires over the course of thousands of years, and not much has changed in about 200 years or so. However, what has happened is the dichotomy of the West and the East. Everywhere that's not European in nature is poor as f*** (Latin America included, though mainly Spanish), and they're pissed off about it.

So to answer your question: I feel this peace will last a while, at least. New war technologies are developing all the time and war is getting more and more impractical to wage, just based on the severe amount of casualties that could be taken, and the sheer trillions of dollars that would have to be spent to keep an effort like that afloat. Look at the US in the Middle East: Military superpower, can't keep a hundred thousand troops in the field! In WWI, Britain and France took 650 000 casualties at the Somme over 3 and a half months. Keeping all these forces in action, multi-million dollar jets, helicopters and tanks takes way too much money. A conventional war as we have known in the past would take way too much money to wage over the long term. I envision a similar conflict as the naval works in WWI:

What happened was that pre-WWI, Jackie Fischer built a radically new kind of ship, the Dreadnought. This became the new ship-of-the-line for every single navy out there, especially the Germans. Know how many actual "Battles" were fought at sea in WWI? One. The Battle of Jutland. Know who fought that battle? Cruisers. The Dreadnoughts of each opposing side scuffled for maybe 30 minutes before breaking off their attack. After this engagement, the German Admiralty decided to keep their fleet of dreadnoughts in the Baltic? Know why? They were so expensive, the Germans were afraid they'd be destroyed. Same can be said of the british, though they were slightly bolder.

Know why the USA has 4.8-million-dollar M1 Abrams tanks, 18-million-dollar AH-64 Apaches and 137.5-million-dollar F22 Raptors in Iraq and Afghanistan? The enemy is using outdated weaponry. RPGs can't dent a tank, they're not going to hit a helicopter often, and a jet even less. There is no fear of losing their investment simply because they're not going to. The USAF, USMC, and USN have destroyed more high-cost equipment than the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents combined. Even the professional armed forces of those nations didn't stand a chance. However, against a reasonably well-defended country like France, Britain, or Germany (or Russia, or China for that matter) with up-to-date weapons, the US would be scared of losing their investment. The same is true for any of these countries.

In sum, the only real warfare I can see coming for a long time is either that of a nuclear nature (which I doubt is going to happen until the US pisses off Russia *real* bad or vice versa), or the warfare we've been seeing since Korea and 'Nam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. The world is currently at a stable power level. The US is loosing the reins, China hasn't grabbed them yet, and Russia's fairly out of the picture. France, Britain, and Germany are now all buddy-buddy in their little EU. War is likely to occur in Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe. None of it will be WW3, or even comparable to Korea.

[Tomo1]

First, can I just say, I don't necessarily agree with the next bit.

America has pissed alot of the 'eastern' world of with its international policing, its pissed alot of the world off actually.

The 'superpowers' I doubt will start a war however, you see as Joe said, it would be too expensive, which is why people with cheaper, maybe slightly less effective armies could do so much damages.

Oh yes, the 'superpowers' armies are more effective but, think about it, if there is a good chance that their 137.5-million-dollar F22 Raptors will be shot down, will they risk it?
The news has hyped up at how the Iraq war casualties inflicted to Americans and British are horrendous, look at WWII, or WWI?
I think if maybe the eastern world united, unlikely, I know, but if they did, they allied with the terrorists, and the warlords, they could be a serious threat to the 'west'.

[Vyrion]

Much as I love to see a good war go by, I'm highly doubtful that those "powers of Chaos", if you will , would ever band together. They have highly different ideologies and cultures. It probably wouldn't happen.

[Tyndmyr]

America will crumble once it's wealth vanishes, not before. So long as we can afford weaponry, technology, and so forth in huge quantities, we'll be fine.

The lack of tolerance for casualties is, imo, a good thing. It drives work to lower them, and promotes a desire to avoid war. We still have plenty of wars, mind you, but it's rather rare for democracies to fight each other. If we can get more modern, democratic countries, then eventually, we'll all be better off.

[fattyboy5]

The thing that i don't understand is why all this money is spent on the military, when so much of it is basically on estimations. For example, what would happen if modern country A went to war with modern country B, and jets are sent over to A by B, with A's jets sent to intercept. What would happen.? The truth is we couldn't really say. There haven't been any major jet to jet conflicts with both sides using advanced technology, and for a good reason.


The entire reason why you advance is to stay either open up a gap on your enemies, or keep up with them. If both sides equip their men in equivalent jets, they will both lose lots of money. What if both sides give their men sticks? More or less same outcome, you save millions.

Sometime America is going to discover it cant stay ahead of everyone, its too expensive to do so. That means America wont commit what it has, and therefore its position in the world decreases.

When things do change, there wont be another world war like the last time. Warfare is just too brutal and fast. If one did occur, theres nowhere for civilians to hide or to run, the carnage would be massive.

Therefore, i think America influence will decline slowly, until it is no longer leading the world. It will exist as a country of diminished power, and will still dominate its local setting, but not the world, Kinda like Britain today

[Genmotty]

America has pissed alot of the 'eastern' world of with its international policing, its pissed alot of the world off actually.

It has pissed off the entire world, including some Americans with it foreign policy. Nobody really likes 'Team America'...

[hr]

I personally like the quote; "At it ends not with a bang, but with a whimper." Yet somehow I doubt WW3 can or will be fought. Quite simply nuclear weapons prevent it. Only the major economic blocs of the beginning of the 21st century will last to the 25th in my mind.

You have the EU and NATO, as a combined millitary-industrial complex and economic center it will last far into the future as a major world power. While we will never have another British Empire, that age is gone. We will have European colonists going to the planets to post the EU flags there.

Same too with China and India. I don't know how globalisation will build these two powers. But they certianly will be the next EU of the world in some shape or form.

I believe America will stay much like it is now, but still I don't think it will stay as a world leader. This is partly down to socail decline in eatting habits and medical use, but also because of the economic need to outsource jobs to migrant workers. There will be a point where the US cannot sustain it's growth because of these workers. In much the same way that the UK found at the end of empire, and during the late 1950s through to the present day.

The UK has always been in an advantagous position for migrant labour, because we accept it as our mogrel nation, and I think the addition of new member states into the EU showed rather well that economies thrive on low cost labour. Trouble is, low cost, does have a limit. A social one.

Russia? Well big millitary, but that's about it to be honest. With the collaspe of the Soviet Union they were no longer a major superpower bloc. So I think that over the next 50-100 years they will become closer to Europe and dare I say it, even become part of NATO...

In a globalised world, nations cannot stand isolated, they need to work with their neighbours or fall behind in the world. The big questions don't look to war of any kind. No nuclear power (bar the US) would ever start a nuclear war. There is no reason to. What if the Russian inderpendant nuclear deterant was launched tomorrow? What does Russia gain from doing so? Cui Bono? Nothing, so why bother? It's enough to make sure that no exsiting nuclear sovereign nation is ever invaded, but eventually all millitary-industrial blocs will have nuclear capabilities. Then I when I believe the Earth will reach world peace.

Is it somewhat Dead Hand? Dr. Strangeloveian? Yes, however MAD I think is a very valid stratergy, and in game AI programing (for games like C&C) MAD solutions ensure peace between the two parties for much longer than negiciation does...

Yet in the real world, MAD is what prevented USSR attacks on Europe, prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis, and ultermatily putting the world into a war with no winners. Had the US been the only nation with nuclear weapons, then today I can imagine a world American Empire, where Europe and Russia were just minor states in the passing.

I ramble too much,
Gen

[Tausand sun]

MAD is the most horrific idea since hiters attempted eradication of the jews. Yes it ensures peace in the short term but how will the earth fare If and WHEN:

1. A small meteorite we never saw coming slams into earth with the force of an atomic bomb? Will we be able to deduce that it was a space rock before we start slinging nukes?

2. An aging Defense system miss identifies an object as a nuclear ICBM and sounds an alert to the kremlin or whoever.

3. a terrorist gets hold of nuclear weapons, if they wanted to they could really destroy the world, right now if they wanted to by making it look like a Russian attack on another nuclear capable state.

4. Aging bombs in silos, One is bound to blow eventually. Even new ones, statistically one will blow it may take a Century or three but...


My point being is that at some point there will be another situation that could end in nuclear disaster. and without total eradication of all nuclear weapons we could be looking at the extinction of our entire race. I'm NOT Saying that it could happen tomorrow, i'm saying that it WILL Happen eventually, and that eventually could be a thousand years from now.

[compubrains]

Well I don't know about the rest but as for point #4 I know the US is currently doing major maintenance to their ICBM fleet to ensure bad things like that won't happen.

The US had a good economy when we were isolationist. I blame Woodrow Wilson for the current problems of the US.