DVD Talk
If the US was destroyed by nukes, what would happen to the rest of the world? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : If the US was destroyed by nukes, what would happen to the rest of the world?


Silly Burrito
09-21-06, 06:31 PM
I was watching Jericho last night, and it made me wonder. Let's say that the US was effectively destroyed by nukes (terrorists, most likely) in its major cities, and there was no chance of retaliation. Also, our weapons were destroyed before we could retaliate, so for all intents and purposes, the US is now gone. There may be stragglers here and there, but all our major cities and infrastructure are blown away. How does the rest of the world react?

My immediate thought is that Britain tries to carry our mantle of freedom in the world, but they aren't as powerful and the message may be lost. China retakes Taiwan and tries to assert itself as the lone superpower in the world, while Russia takes offense to that. Japan arms itself in a hurry. The Middle East goes nuts, and Israel is either wiped from the map, or is taken over.

I'm not sure how Canada and Mexico would play into it, aside from being the refugee places of choice, and of course, the fallout that gets blown around.

That's just for starters. If the US ceased to be, what happens in our vaccum?

kvrdave
09-21-06, 06:40 PM
All economies would dive. Most little nations would become rotting areas for bodies. All other countries would cease aid elsewhere and tend after their own. The ME would try to eradicate Israel, and when that didn't work they would step up taking over places with large immigrants like Spain, France, etc.

nevermind
09-21-06, 06:42 PM
No chance to retaliate?

How will terrorists blow up the US subs full of nuclear missiles?

grundle
09-21-06, 06:56 PM
The news headlines all around the world would say, "U.S. destroyed by nukes. Poor and minorities hit the hardest."

X
09-21-06, 06:58 PM
Given that our retaliatory nukes aren't in major cities the terrorists would have an awful lot of nukes to smuggle in without being noticed.

Bushdog
09-21-06, 07:01 PM
Given that our retaliatory nukes aren't in major cities the terrorists would have an awful lot of nukes to smuggle in without being noticed.
Also would require a narrow window to detonate all of the nukes at various locations.

Tracer Bullet
09-21-06, 07:02 PM
Given that our retaliatory nukes aren't in major cities the terrorists would have an awful lot of nukes to smuggle in without being noticed.

If it were a terrorist attack, who exactly would we nuke?

X
09-21-06, 07:03 PM
If it were a terrorist attack, who exactly would we nuke?If it were a terrorist attack, how would we be destroyed?

OldDude
09-21-06, 07:04 PM
Like nevermind, I don't see them crippling the subs. I don't see them getting all the ICBMs either. Somebody's going to take a beating, and there won't be enough world left for the question to matter. Just hope we manage to pick the guilty for retaliation targets.

X
09-21-06, 07:06 PM
Like nevermind, I don't see them crippling the subs. I don't see them getting all the ICBMs either. Somebody's going to take a beating, and there won't be enough world left for the question to matter. Just hope we manage to pick the guilty for retaliation targets.At least it presents a fairly opportune time to take out the likely suspects.

hahn
09-21-06, 07:12 PM
All I can do is roll my eyes at the proliferation of end of the world theories happening in political forums.

What's next? What happens when the terrorists decide to drill to the center of the earth and set off a nuke down there? Would it destabilize the earth's rotation and destroy ALL civilization as we know it? Would we revert to being cavemen?

Sheesh.

OldDude
09-21-06, 07:15 PM
If it were a terrorist attack, who exactly would we nuke?

We'll see who's dancing in the streets.
Frankly, terrorists couldn't help themselves. They would compulsively take credit for it.

Tracer Bullet
09-21-06, 07:18 PM
If it were a terrorist attack, how would we be destroyed?

Hey, I'm just following the parameters of the question as originally posed. ;)

Silly Burrito
09-21-06, 07:20 PM
Ok, you have a point with the subs, but since this is hypothetical anyway, the main scenario is that for whatever reason, the US is out as a world power, and will not be retaliating for the attack (but its weapons are gone, so it's not a mad scramble to get them). The only weapons that countries have are the ones they have now.

Admittedly a bit far-fetched, but that's why I'm asking. I'm just curious as to how you all think that the rest of the world would act without the US.

cdollaz
09-21-06, 07:25 PM
Of course it's not possible, but I think the question is assuming that it was possible.

VinVega
09-21-06, 07:37 PM
What's next? What happens when the terrorists decide to drill to the center of the earth and set off a nuke down there? Would it destabilize the earth's rotation and destroy ALL civilization as we know it? Would we revert to being cavemen?
Yes....yes I would. :sarcasm:

kvrdave
09-21-06, 07:45 PM
After the destruction of the USA, VinVega and kvrdave go out for a bite.
<img src=http://www.chrisbrimelow.com/cavemen.jpg>

VinVega
09-21-06, 08:16 PM
After the destruction of the USA, VinVega and kvrdave go out for a bite.
:lol:

As a newbie to the caveman scene, I'm sure you will show me the ropes kvr.
rotfl

naughty jonny
09-21-06, 08:20 PM
Either way, KVRDave would be good. He would own all the caves and rent them out for food thus ensuring his and his family's long term survival. :)

VinVega
09-21-06, 08:30 PM
Either way, KVRDave would be good. He would own all the caves and rent them out for food thus ensuring his and his family's long term survival. :)
I know, I'd probably be renting from him.

eXcentris
09-21-06, 08:34 PM
I'd miss the NFL. Yup, that's about it. :)

Red Dog
09-21-06, 09:05 PM
CFLers would dominate the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

Breakfast with Girls
09-21-06, 09:06 PM
This question would be less far-fetched if you asked what would happen if aliens teleported away every American on the face of the earth to another planet. :lol:

Well, hell, I'll answer. Assuming the biggest economy in the world suddenly disappears in some kind of wildly successful "24"-style terrorist nuclear armageddon, the entire planet would plummet into a major depression. Everyone would be hit hard. The UN would be relocated to Europe and both it and the EU would be given much more power--the EU might become a superstate in response, in order to consolidate strength and spur the European economy. There would be lots of calls for global nuclear disarmament, but it would never happen because North Korea and others would refuse to give theirs up. In fact, the opposite would occur: countries like Japan would quickly arm themselves. Regional powers would come to the forefront: predominantly Japan and China in Asia; Britain, France, and Germany in Europe; and India in South Asia.

Lots of countries would accept Americans into their borders. Most would go to Hawaii, Mexico, Britain, and Australia--Canada would be just as devastated as America in your scenario.

Europeans and other countries would approve of any means necessary to root out terrorists. Middle Eastern countries would attack Israel and be repelled. Israel would seize land in Syria and other countries, and (as with other countries) take extreme measures to ensure their survival. There would be riots in some smaller countries, and you'd probably see a handful of revolutions take place. After the depression started to let up you'd see border wars take place in several countries. China would invade Taiwan following unsuccessful negotiations (at the point of a gun). No one would say much about it.

There would be technological advances, but versus a world where the US still existed overall progress would be slowed by at least 150 years.

After a dozen years or so, some patriotic Americans would start to emigrate back to less populated areas, like Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming (less radiation, less fall-out, fewer bodies to bury). The fledgling country would depend on international aid and would use part of that money to pay people (in Euros?) to bury bodies and emigrate back into livable areas. But it would take 300 years or so before it could field a real navy or air force again, and it would be at least 350 years before it had a chance of fully recovering. One thing's for sure: the new United States would have a lot more color in its demographics.

NCMojo
09-21-06, 10:07 PM
But what if... the United States was destroyed by little kids with big fluffy pillows???

http://us.inmagine.com/168nwm/imagezoo/iz069/iz069032.jpg

WHAT THEN, HUH? WHAT THEN??? :brickwl2:

TheAllPurposeNothing
09-21-06, 10:13 PM
But what if... the United States was destroyed by little kids with big fluffy pillows???

http://us.inmagine.com/168nwm/imagezoo/iz069/iz069032.jpg

WHAT THEN, HUH? WHAT THEN??? :brickwl2:

I guess, we as Americans, would feel a little down. :rimshot:

NCMojo
09-21-06, 10:20 PM
I guess, we as Americans, would feel a little down. :rimshot:
http://www.zuckermanpharmacy.com/images/products/big/853085.bmp

:grunt:

bhk
09-21-06, 11:29 PM
I'd wait for John Connor to show up and do what he says.

bballing
09-21-06, 11:39 PM
I was watching Jericho last night, and it made me wonder. Let's say that the US was effectively destroyed by nukes (terrorists, most likely) in its major cities, and there was no chance of retaliation.



This little hypothetical doesn’t work because we would have the chance to retaliate. You do realize that we have subs in the water loaded with nukes? And nobody really knows where they are.

If 50 nukes went off at the same time, one for each state, we would still be able to retaliate.

hahn
09-22-06, 12:43 AM
But what if... the United States was destroyed by little kids with big fluffy pillows???

http://us.inmagine.com/168nwm/imagezoo/iz069/iz069032.jpg

WHAT THEN, HUH? WHAT THEN??? :brickwl2:
We'd have to confiscate all pillows then. Duh. And any kid who looks well rested will be held on suspicion for using a fluffy pillow. Whether it's big or not will be determined through the use of alternative interrogation techniques.

Ranger
09-22-06, 12:50 AM
Since I live in a flyover state, a terrorist attack isn't much of a concern. :)

I think that if the US was destroyed, a lot of the world would be greatly affected by the chaos in terms that financial markets would sink and other terrorist groups would try launch their own attacks.

X
09-22-06, 01:49 AM
Since I live in a flyover state, a terrorist attack isn't much of a concern. :)Do you think the outlet for the Mississippi River wouldn't be a strategic target?

Josh-da-man
09-22-06, 01:59 AM
Do you think the outlet for the Mississippi River wouldn't be a strategic target?

No need to bother with it. Mother Nature took care of it last year.

Ranger
09-22-06, 01:59 AM
Since I live in the red stick, I'm pretty suret that I'd be safe from the blast radius in New Orleans. Last year's storm did cripple the shipping area but I don't think the nation was really affected.

Josh-da-man
09-22-06, 02:01 AM
All economies would dive. Most little nations would become rotting areas for bodies. All other countries would cease aid elsewhere and tend after their own. The ME would try to eradicate Israel, and when that didn't work they would step up taking over places with large immigrants like Spain, France, etc.

So you're saying nothing would change.

X
09-22-06, 02:38 AM
Since I live in the red stick, I'm pretty suret that I'd be safe from the blast radius in New Orleans. Last year's storm did cripple the shipping area but I don't think the nation was really affected.The impact of Katrina on shipping commodities had a negative impact of about .5 to 1% of GDP for a couple of quarters. The mouth of the Mississippi handles about 25% of this country's imports and export. Not to mention that about 15% of our petroleum comes from the area.

Silly Burrito
09-22-06, 05:48 AM
Well, hell, I'll answer...

Thanks. I recognize the scenario is a bit far-fetched, but this makes sense. I hadn't thought about the EU becoming as powerful of a force, but that would probably happen. Although, I would think it would then be a race for supremacy between the EU, China, and Russia. I don't think we'd get a nuclear war out of the three, though.

The reason for not including the subs: Ok, if the US is destroyed, and the subs are still floating around ready to fight without a direct target, I would think that the commanders would possibly see the futility of blowing up the world in revenge (sort of like Joshua in Wargames? ;) ) Of course, then you have a rogue nation's nukes coasting around the world like a friggin super game of Marco Polo, just waiting to resurface, so my scenario takes them out of the game. I could really get wild thinking of how that happened, but I'm just throwing a hypothetical situation out, not writing a fiction Armageddon book! :)

OldDude
09-22-06, 08:13 AM
The reason for not including the subs: Ok, if the US is destroyed, and the subs are still floating around ready to fight without a direct target, I would think that the commanders would possibly see the futility of blowing up the world in revenge (sort of like Joshua in

Having lived through most of the Cold War, I am guessing there is a doomsday plan, that they have assigned final targets in that case, and would follow orders based on a belief that their assigned targets were directly responsible for the deaths of theoir families and loved ones. The rules of MAD don't allow for winners.

Would we be right? Who knows. The list is probably whoever the current Axis of Evil is.

NCMojo
09-22-06, 09:00 AM
You know, a much more realistic option would be for the US to drop off the world scene because of the Rapture.

http://www.sonrisemusic.com/The%20Rapture.jpg

wendersfan
09-22-06, 09:46 AM
Having lived through most of the Cold War, I am guessing there is a doomsday plan10 women for every man, and the women would be chosen for their breeding characteristics, particularly youth and physical attractiveness. Naturally, societal norms regarding monogamy would have to be discarded... :D

eXcentris
09-22-06, 10:12 AM
10 women for every man, and the women would be chosen for their breeding characteristics, particularly youth and physical attractiveness. Naturally, societal norms regarding monogamy would have to be discarded... :D

If we are going back to caveman days, I suggest clones of:

http://www.genreonline.net/Genre_files/OneMillionYearsBCBIG.jpg

Geofferson
09-22-06, 10:25 AM
It'd be curious to see what happens to socialist countries.

If American Imperialism isn't around to cause their poverty, perhaps classic Marxism would resurface and the world's poverty would go back to being the natural condition of man living in an agricultural mode of production.

sarah99
09-22-06, 12:40 PM
I think most of the world would dance for joy if America disappeared.
People outside the USA see it as the main force of oppression in the world today.

Their are a few US fanboys around (like Tony Blair) in the UK but he does not represent the general population (we don't get to elect a PM, he is selected by his peers)

Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you ain't all that popular with Johnny Foreigner.

PS "The Rapture"
How do these guys get employment? As far as I can see the first sign of trouble and they all leave their jobs without working their notice. Seems silly to give them anything important to do, if they won't be there when they are needed.

Mordred
09-22-06, 01:00 PM
I think most of the world would dance for joy if America disappeared.
People outside the USA see it as the main force of oppression in the world today.And there are lots of idiots in the world too. They would dance for joy and then watch as their economies collapse and chaos rules. The world may not like us for obvious and often correct reasons, but the smart people know they need us or someone else just as big and powerful. A power vacuum that large would create a free for all around the world that would probably take 50 years to recover from at least.

Tracer Bullet
09-22-06, 01:21 PM
People outside the USA see it as the main force of oppression in the world today.

Yeah, I mean, I can't believe America annexed and invaded Canada, invaded Mexico, and bombed Europe.

America doesn't have clean hands; no country does. But I have to question people that are so clearly out of touch with history that they truly believe that America is a force of oppression.

Ranger
09-22-06, 01:34 PM
Yeah, I mean, I can't believe America annexed and invaded Canada, invaded Mexico, and bombed Europe.

America doesn't have clean hands; no country does. But I have to question people that are so clearly out of touch with history that they truly believe that America is a force of oppression.
Perhaps oppression is the wrong word - imperialism, maybe? Regardless of views of history, I think most people can admit that the U.S. does have something of an empire considering its superpower status.

Minor Threat
09-22-06, 01:35 PM
I wish outer space guys would conquer the Earth and make people their pets, because I'd like to have one of those little beds with my name on it.....

Bushdog
09-22-06, 01:41 PM
I think most of the world would dance for joy if America disappeared.
People outside the USA see it as the main force of oppression in the world today.

Their are a few US fanboys around (like Tony Blair) in the UK but he does not represent the general population (we don't get to elect a PM, he is selected by his peers)

Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you ain't all that popular with Johnny Foreigner.
:lol: Jealousy is so unappealing.

I travel abroad quite a bit, I respect the host country I am in and I am always treated well. I guess Johnny Foreigner likes my money, or perhaps you overestimate the hatred for the U.S.. :shrug:

eXcentris
09-22-06, 01:42 PM
We're confusing hatred for the US government with hatred for Americans again.

Tracer Bullet
09-22-06, 01:44 PM
Perhaps oppression is the wrong word - imperialism, maybe? Regardless of views of history, I think most people can admit that the U.S. does have something of an empire considering its superpower status.

Strictly speaking, we don't have an empire. We've never shown much interest in the long-term control of other countries, and we're actually pretty bad at it. We're also not actively engaged in the pursuit of more land. We don't forcibly extract money or resources from other areas.

I think we may have a "cultural empire", if such a term can be employed. If the rest of the world doesn't like us, they could stop giving us money.

Bushdog
09-22-06, 01:46 PM
We're confusing hatred for the US government with hatred for Americans again.
I'm not, Sarah is. She just talked of happiness that a majority of people would have if several hundred million Americans ceased to exist. I'm actually quite disgusted by her comments but held my toungue to the extent possible.

I guess in England some people lack the capacity for nuance between wishing hundreds of millions of people gone and disliking a regime.

Bushdog
09-22-06, 01:50 PM
Strictly speaking, we don't have an empire. We've never shown much interest in the long-term control of other countries, and we're actually pretty bad at it. We're also not actively engaged in the pursuit of more land. We don't forcibly extract money or resources from other areas.

I think we may have a "cultural empire", if such a term can be employed. If the rest of the world doesn't like us, they could stop giving us money.
Exactly. Do we force our films to be watched? Impose our blue jeans on people?

No, culturally people embrace what America offers. Sorry to be the one to tell you this Sarah99. ;)

The U.S. also has worked to subvert governments in the past, in order to advance its own political and financial goals, but I'm incredulous that we get specifically singled out. At a macro governmental level, nations are less so people as much as they are strategic pieces to a game. And I really believe most worldwide regimes view the world through such a lens (if not via that language).

What of Iran (and Syria) funding Hezbollah. I wonder where the condemnation is for that amongst this invisible majority of people worldwide?

wendersfan
09-22-06, 02:06 PM
In Britain's defense, I know a great many people from that land who love America, holiday here whenever possible, and are mature enough to disassociate a land and a people with its government's policies. But perhaps our Cornish poster isn't old enough or learned enough to remember Dame Thatcher?

wendersfan
09-22-06, 02:09 PM
(we don't get to elect a PM, he is selected by his peers)Really? I'd never known that before. Thanks for educating me!

:lol:rotfl:lol:

eXcentris
09-22-06, 02:12 PM
A whole lot of Brits would probably rejoice at the thought of the entire Chelsea team dying in a plane crash.

A whole lot of Americans would probably rejoice at the thought of the entire Yankees team dying in a plane crash.

"At the thought"... I doubt many people would rejoice if it actually happened.

Just think of the US as the world's Yankees. :)

wendersfan
09-22-06, 02:14 PM
A whole lot of Brits would probably rejoice at the thought of the entire Chelsea team dying in a plane crash.Yes, but in truth, very few Englishmen would be harmed in such a mishap (although I suppose John Terry would be missed.)

Bushdog
09-22-06, 02:15 PM
A whole lot of Brits would probably rejoice at the thought of the entire Chelsea team dying in a plane crash.

A whole lot of Americans would probably rejoice at the thought of the entire Yankees team dying in a plane crash.

"At the thought"... I doubt many people would rejoice if it actually happened.

Just think of the US as the world's Yankees. :)
And I personally cannot get past that. It puts little value on human life.

Also, didn't you just say that a regime is not a people. This post kind of implies them being tied together.

Again, I think it shows a lack of nuance and ability to see things more circumspectly (Isn't that what the U.S. gets accused of doing so often?). From what I know, I like the people of Iran. From what I know, I detest the regime in power in Iran. I see a world of difference. :shrug:

VinVega
09-22-06, 02:15 PM
Just think of the US as the world's Yankees. :)
Now I feel REALLY patriotic. :D

Bushdog
09-22-06, 02:16 PM
Now I feel REALLY patriotic. :D
:lol: Me too!

Ranger
09-22-06, 02:20 PM
Strictly speaking, we don't have an empire. We've never shown much interest in the long-term control of other countries, and we're actually pretty bad at it. We're also not actively engaged in the pursuit of more land. We don't forcibly extract money or resources from other areas.

I think we may have a "cultural empire", if such a term can be employed. If the rest of the world doesn't like us, they could stop giving us money.
I wasn't talking about a cutlural empire at all.

What do you expect people to think if a country, esp. one that is a superpower has its own military bases all over the world?

eXcentris
09-22-06, 02:22 PM
Also, didn't you just say that a regime is not a people. This post kind of implies them being tied together.



I said that. I was just demonstrating that for a lot of people the line is blurred and that a lot of this "hatred" isn't logical, just like hatred for sports teams. There's just some perverse satisfaction in thinking (or hoping) that whoever is at the top will take a tumble.

VinVega
09-22-06, 02:23 PM
I said that. I was just demonstrating that for a lot of people the line is blurred and that a lot of this "hatred" isn't logical, just like hatred for sports teams. There's just some perverse satisfaction in thinking (or hoping) that whoever is at the top will take a tumble.
That is human nature, I agree. Perception is reality unfortunately.

Tracer Bullet
09-22-06, 02:24 PM
I wasn't talking about a cutlural empire at all.

What do you expect people to think if a country, esp. one that is a superpower has its own military bases all over the world?

I would hope that they would understand the difference between an empire and a country possessing foreign military bases, but I'd probably be wrong.

eXcentris
09-22-06, 02:33 PM
I would hope that they would understand the difference between an empire and a country possessing foreign military bases, but I'd probably be wrong.

I'd say you need to stop using the traditional definition of the word. You no longer need to conquer land today in order to build an empire. The US certainly is an empire. Oddly enough, it seems that the only people who have problems admitting this are Americans. :)

Ranger
09-22-06, 02:35 PM
I would hope that they would understand the difference between an empire and a country possessing foreign military bases, but I'd probably be wrong.
I'm not really sure if there is a difference though. The bases are there for strategic reasons so it's not really a stretch for people to think that the bases is part of an empire.

Some locals may not approve of the bases being there. For example, there's that accidnet about some jets that clipped a ski booth in Italy and Marines raping a girl in Japan.

I remember that scene from the Karate Kid movie where there is a huge base in Okinawa that may push out the local villages because of more military build-ups at these bases.

wendersfan
09-22-06, 02:36 PM
Surely <b>Pharoh</b>, <b>BA</b>, and I aren't the only ones here to have read

http://users.ameritech.net/cinemastuff/colosus.jpg

:confused:

Numanoid
09-22-06, 02:37 PM
Thank goodness the British government never took part in any imperialism.

Numanoid
09-22-06, 02:38 PM
Back to the original question: no one thinks that the Brits or Israel would do some retaliatory nuking on our behalf?

Tracer Bullet
09-22-06, 02:39 PM
I'd say you need to stop using the traditional definition of the word. You no longer need to conquer land today in order to build an empire. The US certainly is an empire. Oddly enough, it seems that the only people who have problems admitting this are Americans. :)

I'm not using the traditional definition of the word; I admitted as much when I said that America has a cultural empire. Just having military bases in foreign countries does not make a country an empire.

I also think our military prowess is seriously overrated- we're excellent at bombing the shit out of things, but if Iraq can overstretch us, I'm not sure how much a military threat we could possibly be.

eXcentris
09-22-06, 02:49 PM
Surely <b>Pharoh</b>, <b>BA</b>, and I aren't the only ones here to have read

http://users.ameritech.net/cinemastuff/colosus.jpg

:confused:

Nope, I read it too. And oddly enough, I was just reading this article a few minutes ago:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901fareviewessay82512/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire.html

Puzznic
09-22-06, 03:18 PM
I also think our military prowess is seriously overrated- we're excellent at bombing the shit out of things, but if Iraq can overstretch us, I'm not sure how much a military threat we could possibly be.

It's not that the US military is overrated, it's just that we keep getting ourselves into these situations where the people we are trying to kill and the people we are not trying to kill look exactly the same and are all mixed together. It would be a different situation altogether if we decided to label an entire countrie's populace as the enemy or if a country was crazy enough to bring a uniformed military against us.

wendersfan
09-22-06, 03:36 PM
It's not that the US military is overrated, it's just that we keep getting ourselves into these situations where the people we are trying to kill and the people we are not trying to kill look exactly the same and are all mixed together. It would be a different situation altogether if we decided to label an entire countrie's populace as the enemy or if a country was crazy enough to bring a uniformed military against us.Not to be glib, but the concept of one nation-state at war with another nation-state seems so 20th century, at least where advanced, industrialized democracies are concerned.

Bushdog
09-22-06, 03:43 PM
You're being glib, Matt!

http://arabic.cnn.com/2005/entertainment/12/18/tom_cruise_and_scientology/top.cruise.lauer.jpg_-1_-1.jpg

VinVega
09-22-06, 03:50 PM
Not to be glib, but the concept of one nation-state at war with another nation-state seems so 20th century, at least where advanced, industrialized democracies are concerned.
Not saying it can't happen, but I agree, especially if the world continues down the path of globalization. It will be a good thing if it can prevent global World War. What we will see in the future are smaller, regional conflicts and asymmetrical warfare waged by and against terrorist organizations. The problem is with NBC (nuke, bio, chem) warfare profileration: The potential destructive capacity of a small group is a thousand times greater than it was even 50 years ago. I kind of laugh at the theme of this thread though because the kind of wholesale destruction of an entire country is completely out of the grasp of a terrorist organization at this point in time.

Mopower
09-22-06, 03:52 PM
It's not that the US military is overrated, it's just that we keep getting ourselves into these situations where the people we are trying to kill and the people we are not trying to kill look exactly the same and are all mixed together. It would be a different situation altogether if we decided to label an entire countrie's populace as the enemy or if a country was crazy enough to bring a uniformed military against us.


Especially when your hands are tied politically and you are more worried about public relations than winning the war.

VinVega
09-22-06, 03:59 PM
Especially when your hands are tied politically and you are more worried about public relations than winning the war.
How do you "win" against an insurgency though (especially without turning the populace against you)?

I think the best thing to do is avoid wars where the bar is low for the enemy and incredibly high for yourself. It's going to lead to eventual frustration.

Mopower
09-22-06, 04:31 PM
How do you "win" against an insurgency though (especially without turning the populace against you)?

I think the best thing to do is avoid wars where the bar is low for the enemy and incredibly high for yourself. It's going to lead to eventual frustration.

The majority of Japanese and German people were against us and we won that war.

VinVega
09-22-06, 04:35 PM
The majority of Japanese and German people were against us and we won that war.
WWII was not an insurgency war. It was a conventional military war. I'm confident we can win those. Not so sure about the insurgency ones, especially against fractured, tribal societies, which neither the Germans nor Japanese were.

hahn
09-22-06, 05:00 PM
The majority of Japanese and German people were against us and we won that war.

Define "win". I suspect you mean we "won" in the sense that the representative governments stepped down from power. How will you do that with a group of people for whom there is no representative government nor official chain of authority? How will you do that with a group of people you cannot even identify geographically? How will you do that with a group of mostly poverty stricken, uneducated people who see democracy as less of a concern than food, shelter, electricity, and running water? Do you see the problem with making comparisons to Japan and Germany?

This isn't a conventional war and you need to start understanding why to see why liberals are opposed to it and consider it unwinnable. It doesn't mean we'll lose if we get out of it. It just means we cut our losses. The sooner people stop thinking of this war in terms of "winning" and "losing", the sooner we can get out of this mess.

Bushdog
09-22-06, 05:06 PM
Could not one also define "win" by saying we stopped them from their goals of world domination and destroying our way of life? I think the comparison is apt, then.

Numanoid
09-22-06, 05:34 PM
Certainly not the former. The latter would be preoccupied with sheer survival.Don't you think one would go hand-in-hand with the other?

Jason
09-22-06, 06:29 PM
Especially when your hands are tied politically and you are more worried about public relations than winning the war.

Yeah, that whole slaughtering-of-civilians thing is a real PR disaster.

Mopower
09-22-06, 06:34 PM
Define "win". I suspect you mean we "won" in the sense that the representative governments stepped down from power. How will you do that with a group of people for whom there is no representative government nor official chain of authority? How will you do that with a group of people you cannot even identify geographically? How will you do that with a group of mostly poverty stricken, uneducated people who see democracy as less of a concern than food, shelter, electricity, and running water? Do you see the problem with making comparisons to Japan and Germany?

This isn't a conventional war and you need to start understanding why to see why liberals are opposed to it and consider it unwinnable. It doesn't mean we'll lose if we get out of it. It just means we cut our losses. The sooner people stop thinking of this war in terms of "winning" and "losing", the sooner we can get out of this mess.

Are the people of Japan and Germany not better off today than they were under imperialistic dictatorships bent on world domination and genocide?

Did Saddam provide food, shelter and electricity to his people? Was it provided under tyranny and the oppression of political freedom? Is that a good trade off for a people?

Silly Burrito
09-22-06, 06:38 PM
Back to the original question: no one thinks that the Brits or Israel would do some retaliatory nuking on our behalf?

I don't think so. I think that the Brits would probably fear for their own safety if we were taken down. I would imagine the horrors of an entire country nuked would take that option off the table mighty quickly. How long has it been since we dropped the bomb? Have we had another nuclear attack since then? Just imagine a fresh version of that with all the media that would go with it. I doubt the Brits would nuke.

Unfortunately, if Israel were backed in a corner, they may use whatever they've got to repel attackers, but I think that it would be overtaken or destroyed.

Numanoid
09-23-06, 12:07 AM
I don't think so. I think that the Brits would probably fear for their own safety if we were taken down. I would imagine the horrors of an entire country nuked would take that option off the table mighty quickly. How long has it been since we dropped the bomb? Have we had another nuclear attack since then? Just imagine a fresh version of that with all the media that would go with it. I doubt the Brits would nuke.Well, if terrorists managed to destroy the entirety of the sole superpower in the world, and I was leader of that superpower's number one ally, you'd be damned sure that I would take the opportunity to take the terrorist nation out, ASAP. What else would you consider an appropriate measure of defense?

GreenMonkey
09-23-06, 12:34 AM
Are the people of Japan and Germany not better off today than they were under imperialistic dictatorships bent on world domination and genocide?



Depends on whether you include the people that died in the basically destroyed, firebombed cities, and the 2 nuked cities. :D

Goldblum
09-23-06, 01:32 AM
Depends on whether you include the people that died in the basically destroyed, firebombed cities, and the 2 nuked cities. :D
He said the people there "today."

GreenMonkey
09-23-06, 02:17 AM
He said the people there "today."

So...following this train of thought (destruction for the greater good in the long run)...if we firebomb and nuke the middle east into basically complete destruction and then occupy it, they'll be better off in the long run? -wink-

Silly Burrito
09-23-06, 05:38 AM
Well, if terrorists managed to destroy the entirety of the sole superpower in the world, and I was leader of that superpower's number one ally, you'd be damned sure that I would take the opportunity to take the terrorist nation out, ASAP. What else would you consider an appropriate measure of defense?

Don't get me wrong, I think that they would retaliate, just not in a nuclear way. I would hope that the British people would agree with that course of action.

SlartyBart
09-23-06, 07:45 PM
If the US suddenly disappeared, there would be some significant economic fluctuation, but no large scale world recession. Most essential goods and raw products are sourced elsewhere, so the major impact for the world would be a major loss of export markets. Advanced technology research facilities (consumer electronics, semiconductors etc.) are found throughout Europe and Asia, so the source of these products would be realigned. Areas that would take a significant blow would be medical research, advanced theoretical research and anything requiring high financial expenditure, which the US is very good at.

The EU would become more of an economic powerhouse as it assumed the technological role of the US. China's economy would be temporarily stalled due to the loss of a US market, as would the economies of the major OPEC producers. Britain would not become the major power in Europe, it lacks the military capacity and population to do so: Germany or (less likely) France would take this position. Taiwan would become a much more economically valuable proposition, which might prompt an invasion from China. Israel would maintain its current position, as it has a well-developed internal military infrastructure; it might even expand advanced military goods sales into China and Europe and its nuclear capabilities would be expanded. Likewise, Russia and China would take the opportunity to fill the huge gap in military sales produced by the absence of the US.

The situation in the Middle East would remain as it is now, in a near state of chaos. Syria or Egypt might attempt to become more powerful players in the region. The large number of US troops stationed there would find themselves in real trouble without a viable supply line.

Worldwide pollution levels would drop dramatically, and the supply of popular culture goods (music, movies, literature) would come to a sudden halt.

Things might be more difficult for a few years, but the rest of the world would continue on without any insurmountable problems. There would be hardships for some, but the US economy, despite its massive size, is very insular so the impact on the rest of the world from its removal would be less than many might suspect.

Nonhosonno
09-25-06, 09:19 AM
Things might be more difficult for a few years, but the rest of the world would continue on without any insurmountable problems. There would be hardships for some, but the US economy, despite its massive size, is very insular so the impact on the rest of the world from its removal would be less than many might suspect.

Considering how much U.S. taxpayer money is wasted on places like Africa, I'd have to disagree with this.

Giantrobo
09-25-06, 09:29 AM
Perhaps oppression is the wrong word - imperialism, maybe? Regardless of views of history, I think most people can admit that the U.S. does have something of an empire considering its superpower status.

Amer-ricaa!! FUCK YEAH!!!