The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Real World Risk - As long as we have Australia we'll be fine
Tastyfish
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So the Battleship sinking thread got me thinking...
It's hardly a new idea, but the general consensus seems to be that China will expand and absorb Taiwan and Tibet into itself, whilst the EU continues to move in on the edges of the middle east and the US appears to be adding more representation to its various components with the recent update to Washington DC.
Is there something particularly different about the combination of modern societies and gloabalisation that leads to the creation of these sort of powers through deemphasing the idea of nation states over individuals and their own connections, or are we just looking at the latest in a long string of Empires dating back to Rome and up through the various European ones to the modern day organisations - doomed to fall back into their constituent parts like their predecessors? Is communication making it harder to generate the same Us vs Them mentality that an Empire seems to thrive on whilst at the same time humanising the other side? Whilst comparisons between the US and the USSR's relations during the Cold War (the Red Scare, McCartyism etc) and that of the current US and Arabs/Islam, it doesn't seem anywhere as widespread or effective. No one is being literally blacklisted due to being muslim or even from Iran and you don't have to look hard to find very vocal and mainsteam opposition to these views.
So then, am I just being shortsighted or does it really seem like today's 'Empires' seem somewhat more durable than those of the past. Has MAD prevented these powers from physically going to war with each other (which is as I understand, pretty much what kills them regardless who wins), and now globalisation prevents them from engaging too harshly in the style of economic warfare that led to the collapse of the USSR as everyone owns too much of everyone else, or at the least needs to sell them the bits they don't. Is the social inertia from ridiculously more educated population compared to the 1950s and earlier enough to prevent the 'We've always been at war with Eurasia' style manipulations of the populance?
Are things really going to stay the way they are now until something truly apocalyptic happens, or do I need to read more history books. Is there a better strategy than making sure you have all the purple ones in the corner? Mad Max seems to say no.
It's hardly a new idea, but the general consensus seems to be that China will expand and absorb Taiwan and Tibet into itself, whilst the EU continues to move in on the edges of the middle east and the US appears to be adding more representation to its various components with the recent update to Washington DC.
Is there something particularly different about the combination of modern societies and gloabalisation that leads to the creation of these sort of powers through deemphasing the idea of nation states over individuals and their own connections, or are we just looking at the latest in a long string of Empires dating back to Rome and up through the various European ones to the modern day organisations - doomed to fall back into their constituent parts like their predecessors? Is communication making it harder to generate the same Us vs Them mentality that an Empire seems to thrive on whilst at the same time humanising the other side? Whilst comparisons between the US and the USSR's relations during the Cold War (the Red Scare, McCartyism etc) and that of the current US and Arabs/Islam, it doesn't seem anywhere as widespread or effective. No one is being literally blacklisted due to being muslim or even from Iran and you don't have to look hard to find very vocal and mainsteam opposition to these views.
So then, am I just being shortsighted or does it really seem like today's 'Empires' seem somewhat more durable than those of the past. Has MAD prevented these powers from physically going to war with each other (which is as I understand, pretty much what kills them regardless who wins), and now globalisation prevents them from engaging too harshly in the style of economic warfare that led to the collapse of the USSR as everyone owns too much of everyone else, or at the least needs to sell them the bits they don't. Is the social inertia from ridiculously more educated population compared to the 1950s and earlier enough to prevent the 'We've always been at war with Eurasia' style manipulations of the populance?
Are things really going to stay the way they are now until something truly apocalyptic happens, or do I need to read more history books. Is there a better strategy than making sure you have all the purple ones in the corner? Mad Max seems to say no.
Tastyfish on
0
Posts
Individually, our lives will continue to improve. The average British person's quality of life today is considerably better than it was at the height of the British Empire. Likewise, the average American's quality of life will continue to improve long after the American "Empire" is gone.
Globally, "Empires" will continue to rise and fall, as they always did and always will. Sometimes peacefully, like the British Empire transferring political power to local governments, sometimes violently like the Fall of Rome, but it will continue to happen. Neither America, Europe nor China will last forever.
Shamelessly stolen from a few Neal Stephenson books. Namely Snow Crash and Diamond Age.
The romans lasted between 9 and 19 centuries (depending where you draw the line), the British had a peak of maybe two centuries, whilst the Soviets imploded within 70 years, and the current system of American hegemony doesn't look like it will last that many more decades without redesign.
Technology and transport means things happen a heck of a lot faster nowadays - I wouldn't bet money on any predicition of what 2050 internation politics and supranational arrangements are going to look like
They have roughly 20 ICBMs, more than enough to ensure MAD.
I think the big thing about today is that we haven't seen and will continue to not see a lot of large scale conflicts between well developed nations because these nations base themselves a lot on global markets, and if two were to goto war against each other, their economies would take a large hit. And beyond that, with today's technology it is very very easy to find troop build ups and crush them, destroy your enemy's infrastructure and industry, and just general wreck havoc. So mainly, if two well developed nations are going to go to war against each other, it's going to be total, with one heading back to the stone age. We're also stuck in the current situation now where if anyone does anything to piss of Russia or her allies, they just turn the oil off for Europe and pressure them into backing down. Same for select middle-eastern countries and their interests, although they're less blatant about it.
What we will see continue is the arming and training of proxy nations, like US-Georgia, to prop up spheres of influence. Not only are these countries diligently loyal as long as you string them along with promises of protection and first-world aid, but they offer an arm's length protection of your interests and a "what? we didn't do anything" excuse when stuff does start to break down. Examples being US-Taiwan, US-Georgia, China-Some African Nations (the names are leaving me now that I need them).
Due to global factors like the global economy, global markets, and international scrutiny from other nations and the UN, the idea of the individual nation-state is very much dwindling. But don't mistake that for the idea that transnational bodies like unions or "empires" are re-emerging. The most powerful militaristic nation in the world is having problems with low level insurgencies and the recent economic downturn pretty much showed that the EU was more about "every country figure out stuff for yourself" when the shit hits the fan
Semi-autonomous, so I'm guessing he means they'll make it official. Then they'll try the same thing with Xinjiang and, unless things have changed by that time, all hell will break loose.
It's called the Tibet Autonomous Region, as it's categorized as an autonomous region under Chinese law. Unfortunately, that seems to mean "we only do what we want, so don't expect any help on anything, but you can expect to be helping us do whatever we want," although this might be considered an exaggeration by some people.
Think of it as deciding Puerto Rico was a state without asking.