Everything you think you know goes out the window when there are no rules. It's survival of the fittest, and if SHTF the US will fucking destroy anyone and everyone in their way.
Hyperinflation Doomsday? Wut?
- Thread starter Pulse
- Start date
He's on that 2012 stuff man, that's what's hot in the skreetz these day, U aint know???
Exactly. That's what everyone is scared of.
If the US decides to unleash holy hell on the world, guaranteed every last individual on this planet will feel it.
Sure, if the US wanted to win in Iraq or Afghanistan, they could easily just turn it in to a parking lot because neither country has the ability to prevent that, or to strike back at USA's home soil.
I don't believe that to be the case for Russia and China, especially if they banded together. It's one thing to say that the US will just send in their entire Air Force to bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan, without any fear of interception or retaliation. You don't think that the Russians have the means to defend air space? That the US Air Force could just fly over Russia and bomb Moscow? Just like that? Not turning this into a debate as to who has Air Superiority, USA or Russia (that's another debate of its own), however I think it's silly to think that USA would just be able to fly over undeterred and bomb whatever they wanted to bomb.
Fair is fair, so the same could be applied to the other countires (Russia, China). We don't know what they have up their sleeve either. Remember, if we know about something, that means it's either out dated or useless.
Interesting read:
Russia’s new stealth fighter to challenge for supremacy of the skies [video] | SmartPlanet
As long as you see that China is MORE likely to have these supertoys than we are, then I agree. -But of course then there goes your assumed point of our domination with them.
Alright, it's time to nip this line of thought in the bud. I feel like I'm herding kindergartners here some days... :arcadefreak:
Dudes, there is no point talking about how much ass the USA can kick if we're allowed to pull out all of the stops... The only conceivable scenario in which we would could do so against the BRICS would mean that we lose our ties to the UN and NATO. We'd become THE bad guys, exactly like the 3rd Reich. (Hell, we're 1/2 of the way there now. Just gotta start killing us some Jews and the story will be complete.)
There is no way to 'whip out the big guns' anymore on this tiny planet without international support, and a fight against the BRICS will not get any of that. The BRICS are the new superpowers; we're clearly on the way out.
If we did decide to go it alone and take their capabilities out before we're too far over the hill, then they'd be stupid no not just nuke us to oblivion anyway. We can't kill them all with our smaller number of nukes, but they'd certainly be able to turn this continent into a shiny pane of glass. They don't need us anymore, so why not? We're nothing but a huge, warmongering security threat to them now.
So please shut up about how our military capabilities are #1 and consider for a moment what the price is for using them.
I never said anything about nukes and I really feel no modern country would use them unless they were about to face annihilation.
I was stating the US could win a war between the countries minus Russia and China all at the same time and I still stand by that, because it's true. In reality though it wouldn't be just them so yes, you're correct. The thought of us actually declaring a real war on India (or any of the BRICS countries) is far out there it's laughable. If we did anything it would be subversive actions against their governments and economies.
It would have ended fairly well for Hitler if he would honored his non-aggression pact with Russia in 1939 and prevented the Japanese from bombing Perl Harbor. Pretty much all of Europe would be under Russian and German control right now. Russia and the US are the only reason -Joe- isn't speaking German right now.
People have been ridiculing MrOsok, but he has a point. Eisenhower ran an economy where the top rate of tax was over 80%, but bottom rates of tax were low (which meant people had the money to spend on what corporate American was producing), plus he ran budget surpluses and trade surpluses plus he managed to build the interstate - which increased internal commerce massively as people in far-flung out-of-the-way places were able to get goods to market. He did good.
Lots of people are invoking Germany, Zimbabwe and even Yugoslavia to describe current USA - but to me 21st Century USA looks like pre-revolutionary France.
People in the Anglo-Saxon world tend not to study pre-revolutionary France, but it is THE template for what happens when the "elite" gets things wrong.
Pre-revolutionary France was prone to speculation - one of the earliest speculative bubbles that occurred involved France and the Mississippi company (remember Mississippi and most of central USA was French till Napoleon sold it to the USA in the Louisiana purchase). Here's a flavour of what happened:
It is during this period that words such as "entrepreneur" and "millionaire" are coined (both are French words absorbed into English). France was into speculation, setting up businesses, and yes, not paying tax and indulging in dodgy dealing.
Pre-revolutionary France also spent the equivalent of about $40 billion in today's money helping the Americans defeat the British in the American revolutionary war, even though it didn't benefit them directly - does that sound familiar to modern Americans spending billions on bringing "freedom" to places like Iraq?
The debt incurred from the American war, added to the debt incurred by Louis XIV on his palaces, plus the debt resulting from the government indulging in speculation with the Mississippi company, plus the inability of Louis Quinze to raise taxes, resulted in the government nearing bankruptcy.
By the time of Louis XVI, France like 21st century USA, had massive, massive debts. Louis proposed that the aristocrats pay tax for the first time ever, but they revolted at the idea. Taxes were for the "bourgeoisie", the merchant/business class and for the peasants (they called them the "sans cullottes", people without underpants, modern American elites refer to these types of people more kindly as the "little people").
Louis was weak and caved on his tax-raising for the elites, and raised taxes even further on the sans-cullottes, - but this coincided with the failure of the harvest, and the peasants rose up in revolution and ended up guillotining him and all those aristos who refused to pay taxes. And yes, they suffered from horrendous hyper-inflation during this period as well. Years later, when a diplomat was asked what he did during the French Revolution, he responded simply, "I survived".
Incidentally, the USA managed to remain friends with the new post-revolutionary French regime, who hated the British as much as the old regime, LOL. (As an aside, the French are the only nation in the world to have spent real money helping Americans (at the beginning), and practically the only country America hasn't been to war with, which is something you should remember when they try to give you good advice such as when they tried to persuade you not to waste your money in Iraq based on their own hard won experience!). Your history is entwined with theirs - either you learn from what happened to Louis XVI or you repeat his sad fate.
Eisenhower's method of running a country looks very sound by comparison. He recognised that commerce is determined by how ordinary people spend, the elites cannot spend even a fraction of what they have, so you might as well tax them, so he taxed the top and had low taxes at the bottom. When he was president, the USA was at it's zenith, and you've been on a downwards trend ever since.
But given the allergy to increasing tax on the top, I predict you'll suffer a French revolutionary experience...
Gonna throw this out there because some of you seem confused as to why 'Merik's military kicks ass.
Gentlemen, as long as the fighting stays conventional, our military prowess comes from one thing that makes all other forms of military dominance possible.
One word: Navy
Russia HAD one. (and is selling it to...)
China is building one.
But no one else comes close...
And having a carrier battle group in your backyard within 24 hours is a very bad thing.
Just ask Iraq who had the third largest armored force prior to desert storm.
Edit: that is all I care to point out is that most of you are failing to realize why people think USA #1 for military. I don't want to argue about why lukep thinks the world will end this week.
Gentlemen, as long as the fighting stays conventional, our military prowess comes from one thing that makes all other forms of military dominance possible.
One word: Navy
Russia HAD one. (and is selling it to...)
China is building one.
But no one else comes close...
And having a carrier battle group in your backyard within 24 hours is a very bad thing.
Just ask Iraq who had the third largest armored force prior to desert storm.
Edit: that is all I care to point out is that most of you are failing to realize why people think USA #1 for military. I don't want to argue about why lukep thinks the world will end this week.
Yes I keep wanting to change it but it is perfect(ly ironic) for threads like these.
How would you keep war to stay conventional? like youre gonna kill them if they don't go by your rules?
War is always messy and many great power have tried their luck and failed. In many occasions its more about the will than the force.
I think you confuse war with battle
A couple more factors to consider are:
comparing the 'soldier'
comparing the mood of the population
US soldiers are highly skilled, that is without question. However, time and again we have seen the the US soldier can also act juvenile, undisciplined and can be mentally broken down. Remember where these soldiers are coming from. US soldiers are recruited from.....wait for it....'The Greatest Country In The World'. The soldiers (generally) have led their pre-military lives at higher living standards than any Chinese or Russian soldier. They have not endured the hardships or shite living conditions that many of the Russian or Chinese soldiers have. Relatively speaking, US soldiers have led a pampered life in comparison to their adversaries.
What about the citizens of each country? How many Americans grieve when troops are lost? Will there be a public outcry when the body count reaches drastic numbers? I doubt there will be the same outcry in China. I think the American public faces a HUGE battle in population morale if they enter an all out slugfest, where they suffer lots of casualties. Also consider this. When was the last time an enemy took it to the US on their home soil? You think 9-11 was bad? 3k casualties (not making light of the loss) is nothing in all out warfare. Would the US population be able to Keep Calm and Carry On when Russians and Chinese are bombing the fuck out of America? US suffered a large number of casualties in Vietnam and WW2 but the casualties were troops. What happens when it is civilians? Russia (USSR) fought parts of WW2 on it's own soil. I'm sure the generation that lived through it has either since passed or is elderly, but it wasn't that long ago, and the memories remain. I think Chinese and Russian populations are more capable of dealing with a high soldier/civilian bodycount than the US.
comparing the 'soldier'
comparing the mood of the population
US soldiers are highly skilled, that is without question. However, time and again we have seen the the US soldier can also act juvenile, undisciplined and can be mentally broken down. Remember where these soldiers are coming from. US soldiers are recruited from.....wait for it....'The Greatest Country In The World'. The soldiers (generally) have led their pre-military lives at higher living standards than any Chinese or Russian soldier. They have not endured the hardships or shite living conditions that many of the Russian or Chinese soldiers have. Relatively speaking, US soldiers have led a pampered life in comparison to their adversaries.
What about the citizens of each country? How many Americans grieve when troops are lost? Will there be a public outcry when the body count reaches drastic numbers? I doubt there will be the same outcry in China. I think the American public faces a HUGE battle in population morale if they enter an all out slugfest, where they suffer lots of casualties. Also consider this. When was the last time an enemy took it to the US on their home soil? You think 9-11 was bad? 3k casualties (not making light of the loss) is nothing in all out warfare. Would the US population be able to Keep Calm and Carry On when Russians and Chinese are bombing the fuck out of America? US suffered a large number of casualties in Vietnam and WW2 but the casualties were troops. What happens when it is civilians? Russia (USSR) fought parts of WW2 on it's own soil. I'm sure the generation that lived through it has either since passed or is elderly, but it wasn't that long ago, and the memories remain. I think Chinese and Russian populations are more capable of dealing with a high soldier/civilian bodycount than the US.
Enlistment numbers swelled post-9/11.
Pearl Harbor same
Vietnam was 'over there'... and with a draftee Army
You start killing grandma and even the 'liberal media' gets 'on board' and starts foaming at the mouth for blood. (9/12)
People will literally line up at the recruiting stations to get in on the action.
Draft Armies have far poorer morale and perform worse with causalties than volenteer armies. Just look at Vietnam from your example. Or Russia in Afghanistan in the 80s.
One thing you don't do is back America into a corner.
That's actually the cause of all this shit... The plebes are too comfortable to too ignorant to really get pissed off about all this crap that is going down.
