Reply With QuoteYes. I see it all the time. Today I stood 3 minutes in line at Starbucks instead of 10 seconds.
Is the US/UK in decline?
The question has come up before, and most recently in a thread related to the UK's handling of the Iran siezure of its soldiers. So the thread doesn't tread too much over old territory...
Does the rapid ascent of China, Russia, India and other large developing nations - both militarily and economically - mean an ongoing and irreversible decline in the relative strength of the US and UK? In particular:
- Can the US/UK continue to rely on each other, on Europe, Japan and other typical allies for combined strength?
- Does world dependency on petrolium weaken the US/UK military and economic power to the point of a defacto decline?
- What really defines power internationally and do the US/UK still have it?
Yes. I see it all the time. Today I stood 3 minutes in line at Starbucks instead of 10 seconds.
A Carrier Strike Group sitting off your coast.Originally Posted by prustin
I like the Starbucks line the best so far.
Here... try this:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
http://www.aei.org/publications/filt...pub_detail.asp
Is "power" finite?
If it is then logic would have it that when nations rise others must be in decline. If not...its a bit like the fed controlling monetary policy.
Not only US or UK, but there is a "theoretical" possibility that world balance of power could shift by mid-century. Well just have to wait and see or intervene to prevent it.
Have fun > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
A lot of the United State's wealth since about the 1980s has been created through shuffling paper and borrowing. That cannot continue. The wealth of China is backed with hard currency and comes from exporting goods. Eventually, China will be able to outspend the USA militarily and for longer, and if there is an arms race the US will be crippled in the same way the former USSR was. The US needs to do a massive restructure of its economy, which will involve some short term pain for long term gain. I don't think the legislature has the stomach to do that. The US needs more immigrants not less, to arrest its declining birth rate and aging population. The dependance on oil must be changed too, or Iraq conquered completely to continue with the petro dollars system.
If Iraq is lost, and Iraq, and the rest of OPEC change to Euro denominated oil sales, the US is going to be economically backslammed. I hope it does not happen. I do not think though that the current administration is up to the task of fixing the massive problems with the US economy, and these are structural flaws not short term adjustments. Unless the USA starts to export more than it imports and borrows, it cannot beat China.
I should say that I want America around for the long term. The world will be a very dark place if there is no one about to stop Russia or China.
Kinda true but 10,000 nukes or 100000 nukes, the difference really doesn't mean much. Lets not forget China will have its own internal hurdles to over come also. Everything is not so rosie with them.
I really fear for the future of the US. Debt and credit is getting out of control. The trade deficit also is really getting totally out of whack and China futhers the problem with their horribly devalued yuan.
At some point interest rates will have to greatly increase to slow the problem. Its just not sustainable. And the yahoos in the US government will have to challenge china's valuation of the yuan.
The value of the yuan is set by the Chinese government, not by trade on the open market. Its currently valued at 8 yuan to 1 US dollar (the same exchange rate as the Mexican Peso lol.) But with walmart being China's 8th largest trading partner you can bet that their pressure on the sellouts in washinton will hold off on that until theres a crisis.
The good news is that China's economy is greatly tied to the US economy so it will hurt them just as much. Lessening any shift in the balance of power.
And with a democratic congress + president on the horizon things aren't looking too good for the military either...
unlike in the early parts of the last century, the coming years will put more focus on industrial and economic strength rather than the military power of the great nations. advanced weapon systems are very expensive and can not be built with natural recources and manpower alone.
the uk and the us are still top financial centers with london and ny. hk, dubai, shanghai, singapore still do not compare
they must keep the capital there and attract more capital from other countries to keep that status and to be able to back up their debts.
strong financial and economic background = strong nation.
china's military is just playing catch up so the increase in spending is not really an increase in power that can be projected. at least not yet.
nukes will be useless for china or the u.s. when your their own citizens rise up because of economic collapse.
Yes.
Although implicit in your wording is a negative connotation which I don't think is necessarily the case. "Decline" sounds bad. I would call it normalization, since the current position of excess power and influence occupied by the US should not and can not be occupied by any nation.
I see it as a natural and beneficial development. It's simply evening out the playing field which has been unnaturally stacked for more than a decade. It also has less to do with China, India, Brazil and the other big players and more to do with the many small-to-medium sized countries who are getting their act together, developing their economies, normalizing their political relations, building up stable societies and so on. It's not even going to be a multi-polar world, which I know some US nationalists are freaked out about - it's going to be omnipolar.
I also think that the military aspect, which we're all obviously so keen on, is by far the least important. Whether China can theoretically knock out US carriers or whether India's ballistic missles can reach X km is nearly irrelevant. Wars between powerful nations, or even wars between average nations, simply are not fought any more.
Speaking of China, I learned something interesting today: there are almost 120 males in the country for every 100 females. Combine that with the government's single child policy, and I don't know if China can maintain its meteoric rise in the next generation.
I was thinking more of conventional military rather nuclear weapons. Like ships, carriers, planes...
Uk is certainly in decline compared with yesteryear. Its hardly suprising considering our size and industrial capacity. I'd expect us to end up with an even smaller armed forces than we have now in the not too distant future, regardless of whether the Tories get in or not. I suspect Iraq and Afghanistan are the swanswong of us being deployed abroad in large numbers. Up and coming countries will be Germany, PRC and India. The US will be around as a major player longer, but I would not be surprised if she cuts back and goes back to having a lot less interest in the outside world.
The English speaking speaking world is no different really to what happened in Ancient Rome. Despite the popular myth of a dark ages descending on Europe at the fall of Rome. It's offspring survived for another 1000 years and it's smaller offsprings/colonies/provinces caught up economically, militarily and culturally and made Rome appear insignificant.
What is occurring now is that the US has surpassed the UK economically, militarily, and culturally and is facing the added burden of in a proxy kind of way maintaining the empires strength which is causing the borders of the empire to feel weak and ****e to attack. (Fall of Constantinople)
Until the minor provinces (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) can take more of this burden on the empire is going to be seen as week and disjointed. However unlike Rome the empire has the resources, skill base, population and size of territory at it's advantage..
Posting Permissions
