Advertisement
by Cannot think of a name » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:21 pm
by United Kingdom of Muffins » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:23 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Miyager wrote:
Could battleships be utilized anywhere in the world in 15 minutes time to completely level a city?
I understand the situation before WW1, and the thing is it had been a catastrophe waiting to happen for years prior.
I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have at that time to now. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.
by Miyager » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:24 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Miyager wrote:
Could battleships be utilized anywhere in the world in 15 minutes time to completely level a city?
I understand the situation before WW1, and the thing is it had been a catastrophe waiting to happen for years prior.
I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.
by Arglorand » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:25 pm
by Trollgaard » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:27 pm
Arglorand wrote:Is America capable of leading the West? Yes.
Should it? No. Here, let me tell you how I see it. I live in an obscure country in the middle of nowhere. It just so happens I'd like my country to lead itself, not be lead by others. To quote Rise Against, "I don't need your help, I can stand my own ground." All the world's small insignificant nations would like to agree. We don't need America, or anyone, to lead us.
by Mike the Progressive » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:27 pm
United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have at that time to now. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.
I think it's always a pivotal moment. We can make choices that affect future outcomes, we can like always make negative or positive choices.
by Mike the Progressive » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:29 pm
Miyager wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
I'm not comparing the technology of the early 20th century to the early 21st century...I'm comparing the degree of arrogance/naivety people seem to have. We all think our world, our technology and our political environment is somehow unique. That this point in time is somehow our defining moment. It's not.
Certainly not the entire situation we're in now is unique. I'm not arguing that. But the world we're in now can't really be compared to before WW1, atleast not now, because we haven't hit that type of geopolitical setup yet.
by United Kingdom of Muffins » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:29 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:I think it's always a pivotal moment. We can make choices that affect future outcomes, we can like always make negative or positive choices.
Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.
In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.
by Voldoviana » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:30 pm
by Mike the Progressive » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:31 pm
United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.
In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.
I have to believe in something, so I choose humanity.
by Libertarian California » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:31 pm
United Kingdom of Muffins wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
Of course. It's attractive idea, too. Everybody wants to control how things turn out. They hate the idea of not being in control. But that doesn't make it so.
In any case, my point is we could make some good choices now and that may mean a few decades of relative peace. But nothing really lasts forever. We are not going to alter the ugliness of humanity. People are still going to discriminate, they are still interested in self above others, and they are going to resort to violence to reach their wants.
I have to believe in something, so I choose humanity.
by Mike the Progressive » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:31 pm
Voldoviana wrote:Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?
by United Kingdom of Muffins » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:32 pm
Voldoviana wrote:Why don't we just go back to isolationism and leave everyone alone?
by Arglorand » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:32 pm
Trollgaard wrote:Arglorand wrote:Is America capable of leading the West? Yes.
Should it? No. Here, let me tell you how I see it. I live in an obscure country in the middle of nowhere. It just so happens I'd like my country to lead itself, not be lead by others. To quote Rise Against, "I don't need your help, I can stand my own ground." All the world's small insignificant nations would like to agree. We don't need America, or anyone, to lead us.
But you need someone to defend you.
by Miyager » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:32 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Miyager wrote:
Certainly not the entire situation we're in now is unique. I'm not arguing that. But the world we're in now can't really be compared to before WW1, atleast not now, because we haven't hit that type of geopolitical setup yet.
Oh, I don't think a major war will happen anytime soon. I never said that. But I don't think nukes are forever going to remain deterrents. I think we will eventually use them. And when I say we I mean people in general.
by EnragedMaldivians » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:32 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Miyager wrote:
Except we now live in a time where even with a once more multipolar world, everything is so vastly different that it can't be compared.
I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.
Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.
Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.
by Trollgaard » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:34 pm
EnragedMaldivians wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.
Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.
Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.
It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".
Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.
Nonetheless, how long is America's preponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?
by Voldoviana » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:35 pm
by Mike the Progressive » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:35 pm
EnragedMaldivians wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.
Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.
Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.
It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".
Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.
Nonetheless, how long as America's pre-ponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?
by Voldoviana » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:36 pm
by Mike the Progressive » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:39 pm
Voldoviana wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
Because it didn't work the first time we tried it, and it didn't work after we tried it again.
When exactly was that? During the majority of its history, when we were just fine? Or right after WWI, where a depression caused by unpaid war debt and devastation of farm land caused catastrophe?
by EnragedMaldivians » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:43 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:EnragedMaldivians wrote:
It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".
Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.
Nonetheless, how long as America's pre-ponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?
Thank you!
And I agree. But our hegemony won't last forever, and I fear with multi-polarity does rise again, we'll have several wars, until it worsens and we have a big one.
Trollgaard wrote:EnragedMaldivians wrote:
It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".
Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.
Nonetheless, how long is America's preponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?
What do you think will happen?
by Nightkill the Emperor » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:43 pm
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.
by Voldoviana » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:45 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Voldoviana wrote:When exactly was that? During the majority of its history, when we were just fine? Or right after WWI, where a depression caused by unpaid war debt and devastation of farm land caused catastrophe?
First, isolationism is an illusion. The US has never been "isolationist." From two wars we had with the greatest empire (Britain), to our involvement in the Pacific (the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, China) to a war with Mexico, the US has never been isolationist. So there's nothing back to return to.
Second, simply hoping the world fixes itself doesn't mean it will. And eventually that war will spill onto you, it can be something as direct as an invasion of your neighbor or something as slight as obstructing trade. But it will happen. And I'd rather be prepared when it does than having my thumb up my bum screaming isolationism.
by New Rome Pax » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:51 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Fortunagen wrote:Does anyone else believe in the possible rise of Brazil?
Brazil's infrastructure seems to be improving and the overall quality of life is higher than the majority of the rest of South America. Plus, it is a huge market in a resource-rich region with no real entanglements in the rest of the outside World.
Brazil, India and Turkey are countries I think will rise to the status of world powers.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Eahland, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Kordaca, Kostane, Libertarian Negev, Sarduri, The Eur-asian Federation, Tungstan, Vanuzgard
Advertisement