Options

So global distaster strikes, America gets fucked, what happens?

2»

Posts

  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If we want to nuke the country who would try to make a power play on the earth if we were gone, we would nuke Russia, not China.
    They have a history of aggresiveness, they have the most nukes, the have their own oil, and Putin would want to re establish the USSR the moment he knew he could.
    (The guy says the saddest moment in his life is when communist Russia fell.)
    Also, China's economy would be completely destroyed without US consumption, more so than anyone else.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I really don't think Russia has the economic resources for world domination anymore. If I remember right, after the iron curtain fell we learned that they didn't actually have the economic resources for world domination during the Cold War either. One of their "new, high-tech" tank models for example turned out to be the old T-72 with a bunch of nonfunctional pseudo-equipment tacked all over it. Besides, it's not like the UK and France don't have nuclear arsenals and in the UK's case better conventional-weapons all around. Though Russia does have some pretty slick fighters.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    The premise of this thread is ridiculous. Why would America decide to randomly nuke someone if things were going down the tubes, and not as a result of direct hostile action? There'd have to be a real madman, like clinically insane in charge

    OH SHI-

    Nah, just kidding. Mostly. I hope.

    But really, if Russia saw ICBMs heading in their general direction I think they'd start mashing their own launch buttons if the US doesn't pick up on that secret president-to-president phone line right the fuck away.

    (if their own ICBMs haven't rusted away already.)

    Echo on
  • Options
    LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Though Russia does have some pretty slick fighters.

    Didn't the UK recently spend some ridiculous amount of money on new top of the range fighters recently? Which obviously came far later then intended and multiples times over budget.

    Leitner on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Leitner wrote: »
    Though Russia does have some pretty slick fighters.

    Didn't the UK recently spend some ridiculous amount of money on new top of the range fighters recently? Which obviously came far later then intended and multiples times over budget.

    Probably, but while I haven't really kept track I'm pretty sure the U.S. and Russia still lead the world in badass fighters.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Leitner wrote: »
    Though Russia does have some pretty slick fighters.

    Didn't the UK recently spend some ridiculous amount of money on new top of the range fighters recently? Which obviously came far later then intended and multiples times over budget.

    Probably, but while I haven't really kept track I'm pretty sure the U.S. and Russia still lead the world in badass fighters.

    The Eurofighter (ugh) Typhoon is a pretty decent bit of kit, plus we're getting the new F-35s to replace the Harriers.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Isn't the F-35 an American plane, though?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Isn't the F-35 an American plane, though?

    BAE are also involved in it's development, so not entirely American.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Options
    Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Quite a few UK manufacturers involved and more than a large chunk of our VSTOL research.

    Mainly, the UK is concentrating on UCAV now.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • Options
    ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Quite a few UK manufacturers involved and more than a large chunk of our VSTOL research.

    Mainly, the UK is concentrating on UCAV now.

    Well it's the sensible path. Pilots are so bloody expensive these days.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Coldred wrote: »

    The Eurofighter (ugh) Typhoon is a pretty decent bit of kit, plus we're getting the new F-35s to replace the Harriers.

    you know, if your using the jump-jet version, you can't get the laser.

    and you know... It's a freaking laser!

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    redx wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »

    The Eurofighter (ugh) Typhoon is a pretty decent bit of kit, plus we're getting the new F-35s to replace the Harriers.

    you know, if your using the jump-jet version, you can't get the laser.

    and you know... It's a freaking laser!

    Jump-jets>Lasers in this case. Operationally at least. And I'm normally a pro-laser person.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Options
    Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm dubious on lasers at the moment although I'll admit:
    a) I'm biased because they'll cost me my job :)
    b) They have come along way in the past five years.

    RedX does raise a good point though, we really shouldn't be buying the /B version, or at least /B on their own. Shorter Range, less payload and it handicaps the new carriers unless we go Hybrid (which still impacts non-STOVL operation). They have their use (as the Falklands showed, stopping then landing works so much better in the South Atlantic) but its at a cost.

    F-35C is where it's at.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • Options
    peterdevorepeterdevore Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Oh guys, (nuclear) war apocalyptic scenarios are so passé.

    Financial 'apocalypses' are the hip thing to worry about now. The subprime mortgage banking debacle already showed us how unpredictable things can happen in the financial world. It basically works like this:

    1: Financial institutions (banks, stock-traders, whatever) cook up an unreliable financial solution (subprime mortages or ultra-cheap unfulfillable, but very improbable to be cashed, insurance)

    2: People jump on the bandwagon and the financial institutions now have financial packages projected to be worth 'billions of dollars' over the next X years.

    3: The packages are divvied up and sold, spread out over numerous banks and investment funds all over the world. Repeat 100 times, until no one knows anymore where the risk is or where the money is supposed to be coming from.

    4: The risky business model falls through (people can't pay their stupid mortgages, insurance get cashed despite low chance of it happening).

    5: If banks don't help out: market crashes. The division of risk over a larger base didn't diminish the risk, it only made the business model more lucrative and made the risks seem smaller, since hey, people are making money with it right?

    Trust is the be all end all financial player. We trust that our promises, business deals, contracts, money and stocks have value, but this is only due to other people valuing them as well and can live up to the promises they made. By themselves, they are just words or pieces of paper.

    To get this back on topic: I really wonder how America as a government will act if the dollar crashes. We are so reliable on banks to jump in and help out when something bad happens, I fear one major player won't act nice and set off a shitstorm. Wars will probably not be started about it, but it will probably put a lot of people out of business who don't deserve that.

    Disclaimer: I am a financial noob. I will gladly hear how this works precisely and if I said something dumb.

    peterdevore on
  • Options
    saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Oh guys, (nuclear) war apocalyptic scenarios are so passé.

    Financial 'apocalypses' are the hip thing to worry about now. The subprime mortgage banking debacle already showed us how unpredictable things can happen in the financial world. It basically works like this:

    1: Financial institutions (banks, stock-traders, whatever) cook up an unreliable financial solution (subprime mortages or ultra-cheap unfulfillable, but very improbable to be cashed, insurance)

    2: People jump on the bandwagon and the financial institutions now have financial packages projected to be worth 'billions of dollars' over the next X years.

    3: The packages are divvied up and sold, spread out over numerous banks and investment funds all over the world. Repeat 100 times, until no one knows anymore where the risk is or where the money is supposed to be coming from.

    4: The risky business model falls through (people can't pay their stupid mortgages, insurance get cashed despite low chance of it happening).

    5: If banks don't help out: market crashes. The division of risk over a larger base didn't diminish the risk, it only made the business model more lucrative and made the risks seem smaller, since hey, people are making money with it right?

    Trust is the be all end all financial player. We trust that our promises, business deals, contracts, money and stocks have value, but this is only due to other people valuing them as well and can live up to the promises they made. By themselves, they are just words or pieces of paper.

    To get this back on topic: I really wonder how America as a government will act if the dollar crashes. We are so reliable on banks to jump in and help out when something bad happens, I fear one major player won't act nice and set off a shitstorm. Wars will probably not be started about it, but it will probably put a lot of people out of business who don't deserve that.

    Disclaimer: I am a financial noob. I will gladly hear how this works precisely and if I said something dumb.

    And this is why central banks exist. In the case of economic meltdown like you described, the Bank of Canada serves as a lender of last resort, and gives unlimited liquidity. Which then allows the big five banks to not run out of money or themselves collapse. I don't know how it works in the U.S., though.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • Options
    Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Not sure, but it sounds like the Northern Rock scare we had here is an example. NR couldn't get a money load from other banks due to uncertainty in the US markets so the bank of England stepped in (eventually).

    I think...

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Oh guys, (nuclear) war apocalyptic scenarios are so passé.

    Financial 'apocalypses' are the hip thing to worry about now. The subprime mortgage banking debacle already showed us how unpredictable things can happen in the financial world. It basically works like this:

    1: Financial institutions (banks, stock-traders, whatever) cook up an unreliable financial solution (subprime mortages or ultra-cheap unfulfillable, but very improbable to be cashed, insurance)

    2: People jump on the bandwagon and the financial institutions now have financial packages projected to be worth 'billions of dollars' over the next X years.

    3: The packages are divvied up and sold, spread out over numerous banks and investment funds all over the world. Repeat 100 times, until no one knows anymore where the risk is or where the money is supposed to be coming from.

    4: The risky business model falls through (people can't pay their stupid mortgages, insurance get cashed despite low chance of it happening).

    5: If banks don't help out: market crashes. The division of risk over a larger base didn't diminish the risk, it only made the business model more lucrative and made the risks seem smaller, since hey, people are making money with it right?

    Trust is the be all end all financial player. We trust that our promises, business deals, contracts, money and stocks have value, but this is only due to other people valuing them as well and can live up to the promises they made. By themselves, they are just words or pieces of paper.

    To get this back on topic: I really wonder how America as a government will act if the dollar crashes. We are so reliable on banks to jump in and help out when something bad happens, I fear one major player won't act nice and set off a shitstorm. Wars will probably not be started about it, but it will probably put a lot of people out of business who don't deserve that.

    Disclaimer: I am a financial noob. I will gladly hear how this works precisely and if I said something dumb.

    Financial crises are nothing new though, and have happened fairly regularly. The tech bubble had a massive rise on of unsustainable paper value, but the world didn't end when it woke up from its collective dream (although some people lost their shirts). Now it's just the housing and credit bubbles which are in the process of popping, with effects that are hard to accurately foresee.

    The dollar is pretty rapidly devaluing, but that isn't all bad for the US even though we are sitting on a lot of it. In a large way, it is a signal and response that our importing/exporting and debt are out of whack. A weak dollar counteracts that because it makes imports to the US more expensive and exports to other countries less expensive.

    China could set off a real big mess since they hold a massive amount of US treasuries, but they are reluctant to do so because they would essentially be committing economic suicide by doing that right now. Since they hold so much of the US debt and have their currency pegged to the dollar, the US can do a similar thing by screwing around with the dollar and federal debt.

    Oh, and if the US was collapsing, such considerations would be pretty irrelevant, because those sorts of balances would collapse in the process.

    Savant on
  • Options
    enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    fixed. The USA is also the world's largest exporter.

    No, Germany is the world's largest exporter.

    enc0re on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    enc0re wrote: »
    fixed. The USA is also the world's largest exporter.

    No, Germany is the world's largest exporter.

    If a guy on the internet said it, it must be true!

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    enc0re wrote: »
    fixed. The USA is also the world's largest exporter.

    No, Germany is the world's largest exporter.

    If a guy on the internet said it, it must be true!

    It looks like Germany passed by a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if that's mostly due to the recent collapse of the dollar.

    Savant on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    fixed. The USA is also the world's largest exporter.

    No, Germany is the world's largest exporter.

    If a guy on the internet said it, it must be true!

    It looks like Germany passed by a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if that's mostly due to the recent collapse of the dollar.

    You're supposed to interpret my previous comment as "I'm either lazy, an idiot, or both, and I need to know where you all are getting this information."

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    fixed. The USA is also the world's largest exporter.

    No, Germany is the world's largest exporter.

    If a guy on the internet said it, it must be true!

    It looks like Germany passed by a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if that's mostly due to the recent collapse of the dollar.

    You're supposed to interpret my previous comment as "I'm either lazy, an idiot, or both, and I need to know where you all are getting this information."

    I googled "world's largest exporter" and the results are from the 2004-2007 range and are different between the years.

    Savant on
Sign In or Register to comment.