2040: US is #3 Economically, #1 Militarily. What happens?

[Spiffor]

Unless nukes are somehow made useless, I see the Yanks not use force directly against the other Bigs, but against small client states (or inependent States) in order to claim them as its client. This could be very important when it comes to essential resources, such as water.

[Zulu Elephant]

Unless nukes are somehow made useless

Wasnt there something like this in Call to Power? Some kind of bacteria or nanobot that eats fissionable materials, stopping all nukes in the world from working. Thats what we need.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This could be very important when it comes to essential resources, such as water.

North America is blessed with abundent fresh water.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Pekka
It depends. I feel the culmination of things will be, because naturally this will be something that happens at some point, does it happen 2040, earlier or later is the only question but not the most relevant question.

The real question is, where the people are in those days mentally. Are they ready to accept, that someone else has gone onwards and passed them, perhaps even few countries. What will be their state of mind? THat's the question.

Because that will determine the kind of administration they have in that day. No doubt there will be a candidate who will promote 'back to No. 1' theme, but with great patrotism involved, the kind of blind mongering. Because that candidate will be a classical leadership leader. Like Hitler and Stalin. I'm not saying that candidate will be person like they were, but a leader like they were, yes, in sense of style of leading, leadership.

The other candidate will be more managment leader. The kind of leader who knows the reality of the situation, yet also knows what to do, be realistic about it. Not have this crazy gloom in their eyes like going gung ho will turn the tables, which would be untrue.

The point is, the leadership candidate will be more appealing to the voters. He will promise victory and glory, few short term solutions how the US will get back to leading position. Attractive choice. However extremely unrealistic, yet only some people sees the truth because the leadership quality is so strong, and that's why leadership leaders always get chosen even though they are going straight to hell with their plans, meaning miserable failure.

HOWEVER, if the managment candidate is chosen, he will not promise a leading position, he will promise a .. long term solution how to build on, and most of all how to accept the current situation. That's the key to success, that's the key to maintaining stability, and that's the key to prevent a whole lot of **** that will undoubtetly happen.

It's all about how the citizens are feeling those days mentally. Which one they want to go with. I'm afraid they will go with the leadership candidate though. It'll still be OK, however there will be a ... period of ... uncertainty.

Americans are stupid, we would elect the glory candidate. Americans really don't care about real issues anymore; Ever since the start of TV based presidential campaigning, the winner won because of his personality instead of issues. *cough* Reagan *cough*

[DAVOUT]

The US military power is based on technology. The Irak war has demonstrated that after the first month, all this technology was useless to win on the political ground. It demonstrated also that the US Army has lost its capacity to bring many soldiers on the ground.

Therefore, the US are in a situation where nobody wants to fight with them, and where they are not able to fight big wars at low technology level.

They will discover that the mondialisation was not a good strategical idea.

[Pekka]

DAVOUT, right, that is a huge problem for US military, but I would say it's not that they don't have the capability. I believe they do have all the capabilities and more. It's just that the public opinion in the US is a problem in that regard, there's a lot of media hype, there's lots of.. basically the mental ability to take losses is much more poor in there than it used to be, or what it is in other places. There's too much political spinning, political games into the war aspect, it is seen as an opportunity for many which it of course is, there's business around it, there's .. all kinds of things in the home front that basically makes the good old fighting a whole lot more difficult.

Basically, if everyone would just stfu and let the boys fight, and they wouldn't have to worry about something redicolous as '0 casualties', they would be very much capable and I bet willing too to do just that. But right now, they have all kinds of things to worry about, other than fighting. And that's never a good thing for soldiers and fighters, even the ones who make decisions and whose job it is to take care of things like media etc.

And another thing, it's never a good idea to have a ****ing politician to decide new doctrines, and that's for the record.

[lord of the mark]

Great Britain hit its peak power in roughly the 1860's. It was passed in GDP sometime between 1885 and 1905, with some complexity depending on how you count the empire. It continued to be one of the top handful of players, in the first rank, until world war 2. And had continued to be an important player ever since. And the UK declined much faster post 1920, and esp post 1945, than the US will, since they lost empire, as well as seeing relative home GDP decline.

They retained power, even while "punching above their weight" militarily, by participating in balancing coalitions, and by using their prestige and connections, for influence. They also made an alliance with the most politically and cultural similar of the successor powers, the US, which luckily for Britain also turned out the strongest.

This would appear to layout some of the options for the US.

Obligatory what-if: What if, in say the early 1880's, when UK is still number one, but is starting to have to make a real effort to deal with potentially threatening rising powers like Germany and Russia, someone from an otherwise weak part of the world, say China, blows up several key building in London, causing thousands of casaulties, and a resultant "war on banditry" or whatever, that requires alliances with Germany, Russia and the US - all the rising powers? Can the UK balance the diplomatic complexities? Not an easy task, Id say.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Pekka
It's just that the public opinion in the US is a problem in that regard, there's a lot of media hype, there's lots of.. basically the mental ability to take losses is much more poor in there than it used to be, or what it is in other places. There's too much political spinning, political games into the war aspect, it is seen as an opportunity for many which it of course is, there's business around it, there's .. all kinds of things in the home front that basically makes the good old fighting a whole lot more difficult.

.

This is what I meant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"war on banditry"

That's like the worst name for a hypothetical war I've ever heard!

[Agathon]

It's already happening now.

[Space05us]

As long as I have enough food to eat, water to drink, books to read, and women to impregnate I will be happy whatever the outcome.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Space05us
As long as I have enough food to eat, water to drink, books to read, and women to impregnate I will be happy whatever the outcome.

I am not sure that your happiness is an important concern for the Pentagone, particularly as a water drinker.

[Zulu Elephant]

They retained power, even while "punching above their weight" militarily, by participating in balancing coalitions, and by using their prestige and connections, for influence. They also made an alliance with the most politically and cultural similar of the successor powers, the US, which luckily for Britain also turned out the strongest.

This would appear to layout some of the options for the US.

How will ordinary Americans react when America reaches the point where it begins to engage with alliances in which it can not dictate terms. Europeans long ago accepted the fact that they would have to make comprimises with allies, but when was the last time that America joined/formed an alliance in which it wasn't the dominant partner? The First World War? Maybe that was the only time.

Can you imagine an American president announcing that America's new allies China/India/Europe/Brazil/Whoever have forced a comprimise in which America's interests have been damaged for the greater good or the greater good of another power? In other words, how would Americans react to getting screwed in the same way America screwed Britain and France duing the Suez crisis.



edited: to prevent being laughed at for absent mindedly including Russia in the "China/India/Europe/Brazil/Whoever" list

[Space05us]

I am not sure that your happiness is an important concern for the Pentagone, particularly as a water drinker.

What does the Pentagon (note there is no E on the end) have to do with water?

[Whoha]

Re: 2040: US is #3 Economically, #1 Militarily. What happens?

Originally posted by Eli
Let's assume that the current trends continue and that by ~2040 the United States will lose it's economical leadership to, at least, the EU and China, with other nations such as India not too far away.

But the US will most likely still have the military leadership. The current US military budget is enormous in comparison to the rest of the world, it leads in the development and application of new technologies, and there seems to be no sign of change here.

In addition, the US is pretty much the only power with serious plans for The Next Big Things, space warfare and unmanned warfare. And here too, all the competitors are quite a bit behind and will probably not catch up in this field for at least decades.
The most recent example is China and Russia sponsoring a conference aimed to prevent an arms race in outer space. That's definitely within their interests and they know it.

So what will happen in 2040? Could the world become an unstable place as the US tries to use it's military power to regain economic leadership?

First off, predictions into the future are very difficult. For instance China could overheat and collapse, the EU's population could have completely imploded, and the US could be suffering a massive super depression, or all three.

I'd say though, that without the economy to back it up our Position will seep away.