I believe there is much more truth in this than most recognize. Perhaps the knowledge that Watt produced in England, which allowed the British to extract coal from mines at levels that normally flooded, power steam ships and factories, etc. was the real basis for the British domination of the world. Before them, the Spanish with their great ships and influx of gold (Information and technology based, if you want to consider why THEY got the gold.) led to world domination. In America's case a lot had to do with the great expanses of productive land tied together by the railroads. Today the internet is transporting information around the world in seconds. (as I recall my history, the US fought the Spanish for the Philippians about a month after peace treaty was already signed, due to communication lags of that era.) Now there is a good chance that an X-ray you have taken in a hospital in the afternoon, will travel thru the internet while you sleep and some Indian doctor, working during your night, will interpret it, write the report and next AM the report will be in your hospital records. Like wise, when I had a problem with the computer am typing on, an Indian expert help talk me thru the solution as it was still under warranty. It is technology, not natural resources or agricultural potential, that is the foundation of modern great nations. There is no reason to think the US can stay on top. The US fall will be much quicker than in the past and is now in progress, but few recognize this yet. I foresaw this a few years ago, became concerned. Although I live in Brazil, a "nation of the future," all my children and grandchildren live in the US. I wrote book Dark Visitor as something I might be able to do to help them. (It is a physics book, disguised as a horror / cosmic disaster story - which might be true fate of the Earth.) I wrote it because, as retired professor, I have watched US university science classes fill with hard working, serious Asian students, whom one must admire, but who will (and are) taking their skills back to Asia now more than ever before. I.e. Dark Visitor is intended as a recruiting tool for science students as it may appeal to some good minds that would never consider opening a science book on their way to becoming lawyers, brokers, etc. America is losing technological leadership to Asia. I am happy to announce that my webpage (www.DarkVisitor.com) is back up after being down for months. More of my concerns are there.
I omitted most of your post to make its self contradictory defense of "American" remaining strong evident to all. Even "old europe" did not have 50 independent nations. Some managed to dominate the world too, but more often than not, this adjacent set of small nations led to european wars. Why should it be different in the US?
Its a stretch but it could happen the 50 states becoming 50 independent countries (maybe some of them join together to make larger countries). If that happened a war would seem practical the conservative countries against the liberal countries. But for the US to even get to that point our economy would have had to bascially crash beyond belief. More likely the US will just lose power and become like every other country instead of becoming smaller countries.
Billy T: "this adjacent set of small nations led to european wars. Why should it be different in the US?" That's not a simple question to contemplate. At first blush, it seems prone to turn out differently in the USA, because we have experienced far greater mobility and integration of the US population over the past century. As a result, State/regional/cultural boundaries have been blurred, moreso than was the case in "Old Europe" during more turbulent times there. Especially for the more urbanized States, distinct political identities seem obscure. Here and now in New York State, I am represented by an opportunistic carpetbagger republicrat from Arkansas, and nobody seems to mind it, or note that I'm not a natural-born Yankee myself. Although a dramatic decentralization of power would do us a world of good in the USA, it isn't obvious what could trigger it in the near term. We came through the Depression without threats of secession. Then and now, it's evident that in a crunch Americans are more prone to tempestuous nationalistic fervor and foreign wars. Present leadership has been betting everything on this premise. But following this line of thought would seem to ultimately arrive at an abrupt dead-end, among the bodies of hundreds of thousands of non-Americans: What if we Americans don't find a sufficiently "good" war this time around? This gets back to the future of information, where you can fool less of the people less of the time. The leading marketers of U.S. nationalism are busily rebranding "The War on Terror" as "The Long War", but I'm not sure how long this sideshow is going to continue to sell. There is something profoundly inept happening, deeper than the Presidency, where the USA seems to be cluelessly barging along on a collision-course with new realities, as we lose our way from top to bottom. All the way down to the street reactions of the American public. We can expect additional cycles of national insults, followed by urges from Washington for new nationalistic tantrums. Meanwhile, vast emerging markets are fast developing both the capacity and the motivation for operating independently of a belligerent United States- and independently from the US Dollar. Which raises the spectre of greater insult: Irrelevancy. How far Americans are going to ride this spiral, I really don't know. Right now, it seems to me we're holding on tighter than the last declining empire (the USSR) did. Like you say, Da Vinci, things would have to crash beyond belief for there to be a federal breakup. I'm afraid we're setting ourselves up for just that.
Oh, and exactly where can we find these Americans? Sounds like a straw man to me. Not to say that you couldn't find a handfull of dummies who think that America is invincible, but do you really think that any significant portion of the American population holds this belief? Again, I haven't heard anyone make this claim... America actively encourages the development of both China and India through trade, investment, educational exchange and a variety of other means. It's true that many Americans don't see the development of those countries as a threat to US prosperity and, especially, military dominance, but that's not the same thing as considering them anomalies to be eradicated. The idea that America can still be top dog in a world that includes a richer India and China does not imply belief in American invincibility or Asian decline.
I agree with you. I was only replying to te jen. I don't think the USA will come apart (Lincoln established that is not permitted in his time and certainly the current federal military could do it again).
That strikes me as very similar to what has happened recently with China. Is the USA not in tremendous amounts of debt to China? Does much of America's industrial manpower come from China? Sounds like China has developed a plan to follow in America's footsteps and rise and the expense of other nations. AmishRakeFight
I (and probably others) am very relieved to hear that! I hope you continue to feel that way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
this is a typical example why i don't respond to your bullshit anomalous why do you act so fucking stupid for?
Hey cool it dude , if U dont understand things doesnt mean others are fools. Ya, this are the movments when I feel good to say, "Whats Oblivious to U is Obvious for me"
Anomalous Anomalies r keys 2 discoveries (1,703 posts) Yesterday, 07:56 PM edit | reply To be a superpower today, U should be able to sell lot and lots of things out of your country. It will be real fun if Russia adopts EURO. BTW how does US feel about the United Might of Europe, its just a matter of time and some sparks somewhere, before the Titans Lock their horns. ----------------------------------------------- leopold99 who's anzio? (3,731 posts) Yesterday, 06:37 PM report | reply i guess everyone assumes that to be a superpower one must have military might. at one time that was true but the situation has changed and america changed it by dropping the atomic bomb on japan what will determine superpower status in the future will be economics not military. so with that in mind i can guess that it will be a tossup between china, japan and america china, in my opinion, stands the best chance at becoming the next worlds superpower due to her vast population and land area japan has already gained a spot on the worlds dominate list
The world will be a much safer place with smaller nations. Big governments are the worst threats to peace and freedom. And bigger countries have disproportionately bigger governments. But once we break up the USA, who's going to break up China?
I don't think the United States can last the coming energy crisis. We aren't prepared for it, and by the time everyone's predictions come true, there won't be time. We will still exist as a people, but in separate states, like the states of the former Soviet Union. I hope to live a long and happy life among the hippies of the Northwest, who, with their sustainable community based agriculture, :m:, and bicycling lifestyle will do just fine. China doesn't stand a chance without US capital, and with a weakening economy, they won't be able to hold that vast nation together.
Whether it is "permitted" is quite beside the point. The Confederacy failed in its attempt at independence because 1. It could not get recognition from European powers because the CSA refused to repudiate slavery and also because the North had tight economic ties with Britain and France. 2. It did not have the manufacturing and manpower resources to fight a protracted war. 3. It insisted on repeatedly invading the North instead of fighting a purely defensive campiagn. It may be construed as extralegal for a state to separate itself as a sovereign nation, but I can think of nothing preventing a state from declining to engage economically with the federal structure. So I am not talking about armed insurrection with political secession the object. I am suggesting that individual states could opt to dissolve its economic ties to Washington in the spirit of self-preservation. No shots fired, no border closings, none of that. Just choosing not to play the game of Monopoly anymore. Without money from the states, of course, the federal government collapses. The margins are so tight right now, that a half a dozen states would tip the balance. Maybe a federal army could defeat a state militia, maybe not. The point is that a state could go it's own way without armed conflict - and do so while firmly asserting that it wishes to maintain its ties with adjacent states and while upholding its identity as American in the sense of 1781's Articles of Confederation.
