posted 11-09-98 03:58 PM ET            

We've gone over a whole manangerie of theories in international relations. It's been interesting to think about how each might predict the future course of the international system.

My personal conclusion on the basis of my study of IR:

The current international system seems to be a dwindling American hegemony. At the end of WWII, the only two significant powers on the planet were the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This was because the other major powers had been flattened by the warfare on their soil in the war and the developing world was still under colonialism. So at the start of the Cold War, we had tight bipolarity, it was "us against them", you were either one side or the other. The only two important actors in the system were the U.S. and Soviet Union.

As the Cold War progressed, the European states began to rebuild their economies and their infrastructure, manytimes modernizing them beyond the infrastructure of the U.S. or Soviet Union because these two states didn't bother to update their infrastructure in many areas. As the Cold War entered the late 1960s and 1970s, the United States and the Soviet Union were still the two dominant actors, but many other states had become important actors in the system.

By the end of the Cold War period, the European states had mostly rebuilt their original power from before WWII, reclaiming their position (although since individual state European power is still not comparable to U.S. power, we must view the Europeans collectively for power purposes here) as a world power. This has happened at the same time as we have seen a significant reduction in Russian power and failing of the Russian economy.

Simultaneously to all of this, many state actors in the developing world have been developing their societies and economies to a state where they have become regional powers and have gained the status of being significant actors in the international system.

Overall, it isn't so much that the U.S. power has deteriorated, the U.S. still accounts for 40% of global military spending and it's economy is still, by far, the strongest in the world. What has caused the "leveling" of the international field is more the re-building of Europe and the development of the developing world. Thus large developing states such as China and India have become very significant actors in recent years, where they were somewhat insignificant to the overall power relationships earlier in this century.

CONTEMPORARY:
Today, it seems that while the United States, especially with the demise of the Soviet Union, is unquestioningly the single hegemonic power in the international system, this possition is deteriorating quite quickly. The inability of the United States to effectively pursue its on interests is part of this.

The real power relationship in international relations these days seems to be more "Western Hegemony" rather than American hegemony. When the various European states and the United States cooperate and set joint Western goals in international relations, thing get done. No one on the planet can oppose a united West. The Gulf War and the situation in Bosnia are good examples. While those outside the West may bitterly complain about the West's power, they do not and are not willing to do much about it (Bosnian Serbs, who hate the west, being more than cordial about following the militarily enforced parts of the peace agreement in Bosnia).

When the West is NOT united on an issue, it significantly reduces the power of the West and the ability of any individual Western state, such as the United States, to pursue unilateral policy in the world. Sadam Hussien, for instance, realizing this to be the case, constanly tries to get away with "misbehavior" in the eyes of the West by attempting to keep the West divided on just "what" to do about him. He realizes that as long as the West is internally qualelling about WHAT to do, they aren't going to do anything. Several times, he has miscalculated, but he apparently considers that an acceptable risk.

WHERE WE MAY BE HEADED:

Where we are headed seems to be a more joint Europe, leading to a somewhat more unified Western approach to international relations. However, the extent to which the West can influence the world and maintain its own hegemony may directly depend on the commmittment of U.S. leaders to work inside the bounds of the international commuinty WITH its other Western allies rather than attempting to act alone. Many U.S. leader don't seem to have learned this lesson and may have to learn it the hard way over the next decade or so.

posted 11-09-98 07:35 PM ET            

SnowFire : Point taken on the "American Empire". I only used it to touch upon American hegemony.

I believe that we will begin to see rapid development in countries such as India and China. I believe that substantial inroads to improving infrastructure will be made in these countries in the next 25-50.

That being said American dominance will countinue well into the 22nd century.

One question I have is what is the food producing potential of much in China's interior? I know that's a lot of land. What would some modern farm techiques do there? Would this help will the problem of food shortages that SnowFire mentioned?

posted 11-09-98 08:51 PM ET            

Of course, that was just a dream.....

posted 11-09-98 09:44 PM ET            

Super Powers must be able to influence the politics of others, project military power over the whole world, have technological superiority, cultural assimilation. No one else, until the US is gone (only from internal strife, never from outside forces), will another nation be able to rise, and even then we will most likely return to a Great Powers system, like during the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, where many nations vye for dominace; instead of one or two having that dominance.

posted 11-09-98 09:55 PM ET            

It was July 14th, 1952. The United States invaded the iron Horse Republic, but the soviet's beat them back, proclaming their soverigenty to the world.

This has been my most haunting dream to date. Does the States fall in the dream? No. It is, however, a dream about the end of power.

An odd thread... does this mean something?

posted 11-09-98 11:18 PM ET            

I too have had dreams but of a more apocalyptic nature. More "Mad Max" like than anything, with me leading my own band of survivors. Interesting because there is very little evidence of technology. I see myself as about 45-50 years old at the time (20-25 years in the future). My band is roaming the Canadian plains.

posted 11-09-98 11:54 PM ET            

A Europe under one flag will easily dominate most of the world, countries like China have a chance of setting up a bipolar or multi-ploar world, but a united Europe is powerful! Other third world countries cunld easily be kept down without even knowing it. A cut in aid here, a small trade war there, an actual natural disaster. THe setbacks mount and they collapse. Only India, China, Europe, and maybe one or two others have a chance.

posted 11-10-98 12:26 AM ET            

Pax Amerikana will fall. America, with its vaunted free speech, is tearing itself apart as we speak. Racial divisiveness remains a scab that we continually pick at since Emancipation. Not all minorities are even accepted - homosexuals, religious fanatics, gen y, etc. And even though our world is changing at breakneck speed in the information era, we have no good leadership. I define good here as a relative term. Who here can honestly say that the public is governing itself wisely when it is demanding more "bread and circuses" in the form of smutty reports about our leaders in Washington? But let's turn away from that topic.

Pax America is falling simply because it vaunted Constitution is struggling to keep pace with the rapid changes of today's world. Obviously, the writers attempted to compensate for that with the "elastic" clause, but even that cannot keep the Ami-dino from passing on. The fathers never considered smut on the internet, subversive acts of terrorism, and hacking into sensitive personal files. How far will we allow this to go? How long will the Constitution hold up under this barrage?

As for new superpowers, it won't happen. Europe may have obvious benefits such as well-developed infrastructure, wealth, and population, but its massive bureaucracy will prevent the flow of information and internal politics will render it impotent like the Amis.

China simply does not have the political capital to become a superpower. It only has two major pillars of strength, military might and growing wealth. Wealth can dissapear at a moment's notice, and almost has already, and military strength can be destroyed with a few well-placed nukes, cbws, etc.

India cannot be a superpower simply because the nation of contrasts may already be tearing itself apart with the myriad of different ethnic groups that struggle for control within its borders. And even if it doesn't fall apart, it already is too involved in regional conflicts that stain its reputation. (Pakistan, Sri Lanka...)

As for other nations...Japan has too many nations that either despise it, worship it, or treat it as a second-rate power. It would never form a coalition at all. Israel's just got nukes...and we all know how well that works, especially in a region like the MidEast. Aussies don't really have that much influence anywhere. The Germans are part of Europe. South Africa is too divisive, and the wounds from apartheid will take decades to heal. As for South America - it's too far under the shadow of the United States.

Nobody's going north across the border either. Canada's splitting before our eyes with the native tribes and the Quebecois.

I see two ending scenarios : a WW3 in the power vacuumm after the collapse of the Amis resulting in the total or near-total destruction of mankind; or a unified world dictatorship through a series of political schemes and unifications.

posted 11-10-98 03:15 AM ET            

The United States, contrary to apocalyptic claims abounding on this forum, isn't going anywhere but where it already is, strong, very strong. However, despite being so strong, it's more a matter of what we DO WITH our strength than the fact that we have strength that makes us powerful. The reason the U.S. is currently declining in World leadership is because our government seems to have an inability right now to figure out what do with the current situation (Clinton admin.: "why can't the rest of the world just go away and leave us alone?")

I don't see the United States going into revolutionary turmoil or ethnic communal violence or anything drastic like that. May the writers of doom and gloom that write such cynical and ignorant arguments someday realize the error of such blindness. The average American citizen seems to have a peculiarly heavy cynicism when it comes to politics, always believing the end of the world is right over the horrizon. Thankfully, these people have been, more than not, drastically off the mark.

Fortunately for all of us, it is most likely that they will continue to be drastically off the mark as the world around them passes them by rather quickly. An evolving world does not mean a dying world. If anything, the continuing development and modernization of the planet is helping us.

I also don't think it to be too high of a possibility of a "world dictatorship." Such a possiblity is absurd, "why?" you ask? Simple, too much of the world's policital culture would vehemently oppose it. If the world DID unify in some way (I would think obviously only very tentatively at first and some time in the future), it will be through a process of coalition building and cooperation. I can't see the various states and nations of the earth being willing to be under one sovereignty under any other grounds. The ratio of subjects to rulers would just be too great to handle if the subjects weren't willing subjects and didn't enter into the sovereignty voluntarily.

posted 11-10-98 03:28 AM ET            

The other case would be that no body becomes a superpower.

posted 11-10-98 06:17 AM ET            

Arnelos one quick point the soviet union was called the C.C.C.P. a quick translation would be Supreme Soviet Socailist Republics. The U.S.S.R. acronym was though up because in the cold war era from an american point of view the soviets could not be the supreme anything (quite paranoid ehh?)

As for who will be the next great nation I have no idea however it will be based on that nation learning from past mistakes (their own or someone elses), regarding government (personally I think government is ludicrous <spelling is wrong> but most everyone else I know seems to think that having someone else worry about the big problems is better than thinking for themselves (no offense intended.)) Another thing will be the free exchange of information as evidenced by the last 10 years free high speed acess to information is quite helpfull in advancing science and technology across the board. Lastly whoever it is will have to keep abrest in production with everyone else this means keeping their factories up to date and as a country picking a few things to specalise in (example in the current U.S. agricultural products, cultural goods, and computer hardware/software) in order to both be competative and remain cutting edege, this should be combined with some redundancy in regards to what you are getting from other countries (dont allow yourself to become totally dependant on someone else for a supply of anything have a backup and double backup source.)

Lastly military, though violence is the last resort of the ignorant it is unfortunate that there are so many ignorant out there willing to use it. Any country that claims it wants only peace and refuses to keep its military up to date and comprable will unfortunatly be claiming that when the dictators troops roll in.

posted 11-10-98 02:03 PM ET            

On the topic: answer is simple: none.

There will be some stronger nations or supranational entities: USA, Europe, China, India, maybe Russia, Japan, South america and a south east asian "union" (ASEAN as a predecessor). Arab world and Africa maybe as well, but very far away.

But their relations won't be what we have known from the cold war or through the last 500 years (for a descreption of that, anyone read Kennedy's book: The rise and fall of the great porwers - or so ?). International law and international trade, and the multis boomboom mentioned, will play a role as well. So will international NGOs. We'll see a complicated web rather than a simple mechanic world.

posted 11-10-98 05:41 PM ET            

As for the Arab countries having nothing except oil, you forget my original post. If they nationalize their industries (without being invaded by pissed off American corporations), they can turn that oil ino money. And with that money they can buy what they need to become a superpower (again assuming that they unify). While their road to superpower may be harder than, say, the Europeans, it is still a possibility.

posted 11-10-98 05:43 PM ET            

The USA will start to decay. All of the great powers will some time. Maybe after about 50 years it's nolonger the greatest power.

EC has great problems. It has to truly unite and also accept new members. If it succeeds it will rule with China. But a lot depends on Russia. If Russia rises again EC cannot advance a lot towards it. Then again if Russia fails more than it already has, EC has a great change. Yet it will take time before the leaders of our countries will stop protecting their own country and try to work for the best of the union.

posted 11-10-98 07:39 PM ET            

After that, ties between Europe and North America link the two together, Complete Democracy in China, further rebellions in Africa, and the more industrialization in S America.

posted 11-10-98 08:28 PM ET            

The Russian letter for the sound for the *soft 's'* appears "C". The Russian letter for the "r" sound appears "P" (the sound "p" is a funky looking P without the under part of the curve). So the three soft "s" sounds in the name are CCC and the fourth word, republik with an "r", appears as a P.

posted 11-10-98 09:30 PM ET            

Soviet education: They might have been better, if they had taught the truth. Biology and history are two areas in which Soviet education were substandard. Physics was the one area of Soviet science that was relatively free of political ideology similar to Lysenkoism due to its importance to the Soviet bomb project. As far as history goes, RAH reports in an essay that during a trip to the Soviet Union in 1960, he found people that did not know that the Baltic states used to be independent from the Soviet Union. This is typical of the revisionism that went on(no, I'm not implying that there is no historical revisionism going on in the US, but that there is nothing this blatant).

Soviet military technology in general: Close to the US and other western powers(in advance of the US in some areas, namely tank design. The US Army didn't have a truly competitive tank until the Abrams.).
Their aircraft were superbly engineered, if not to the same high tech compuer standards of the West. This made for planes that are cheaper to produce and easier to maintain in the field. Early on, their planes were actually superior to their US counterparts. For example, the MiG-15 Fagot vs. the F-86 Sabre.
Their navy. They lagged far behind the West in aircraft carriers. The closest they came to an American style CVN was the Ulyanovsk which was begun in the 1988 and then scrapped scapped in 1992 when 40% complete. The Kusnetsov class carried an air wing about half the size of a Nimitz class. The Kievs were on a par with the British Invincibles(with a better ASuW punch), though with lass capable Yak-38 Forgers. The Moskvas were helicopter carriers. At present, the only carriers even nominally in service are the Kuznetsov and the Gorshkov(Kiev class).
Their submarine forces gave(and still are, though at reduced capacity) the West a run for their money. The Severodvinsk class is according to some sources equivalent to a late Los Angeles. Granted, these are probably discontinued for economic reasons, but the designs are sound. Their diesel boats, such as the Kilos, are excellent as well. This was the center of the Northern fleet, as it's task was to prevent convoys from coming across the Atlantic in time of war. The other prong of this were the Bears, Badgers, and Backfires of Naval Aviation.
As far as their surface fleet goes, only the Slavas and Kirovs approached the capabilities of modern US cruiser as the Ticonderoga class. They were more optimized for ASuW than US ships, as the US Navy has their carriers. They closest they came to the Spruance class for ASW was the Udaloy class. The Sovremenny class has no real counterpart in the US Navy, being an almost pure ASuW platform with a little AAW and extremely limited ASW capabilities.
From what I have heard(mainly about the calculator program), Soviet electronics were a paradox of unreliability and durability. When you got something from the factory that worked, by god it worked -- forever. The trouble was getting something that worked in the first place.

Back to Rome. Another bad precedent from the time of Marius was the senatus
consultum ultimum in 100 BC to deal with Saturninus, Glaucia, and their followers holed up in the Capitol(by beseiging them). Though similar measures had been passed before(in 121 and 133 BC, for example), it had never been used by so popular a leader as Marius, and this gave a legitimacy to the concept of breaking laws to save the state. It also gave legitimacy to the use of force in internal political matters.

posted 11-10-98 09:40 PM ET            

I am aware that the Rosenbergs were spies, but no one know what they stole (if they stole anything at all, but that's improbable). The fact is, they were convicted long after USSR started making nukes. Furthermore, USSR developped it's own nukes, with the help of it's amazing Physics communitie which was until the 1980s (collapse of Zeldovich's team) far more powerful than anything in the world. When it comes to research, USSR was the best, whether you like it or not.

-USSR never could have beaten the US of A.

That's wrong. I don't see how you can say that. There was a time where USSR had much more power than the United States.

-That "we sent the first man to the moon" so who cares if they sent a man first into space and Mir is falling apart...etc

Didn't Armstrong say "One small step for Man, one Giant leap for Mankind"? Yes he did. And so you're getting the completely wrong picture. Plus, sending the first man to the moon *was* an achievement.

-That American education is fine...etc

That's also wrong. The American way of thinking was the most impotant factor here. You can't even imagine how much better the education in USSR was, and still is.

Are you a teacher? Because you're always adding lesson #. I think that's arrogant on your part, and I don't see why you're so aggressive to the USSR.

posted 11-10-98 11:58 PM ET            

You think that the Amis will still survive. Granted, we are strong right now in the world, with riches, military power, and science. I'm happy that you see that. Anybody can see that. And anybody can see with the news and the media, that we are going to fall from our golden age in the near future. Not a hundred years from now. Half a century, maybe less. We will never be as great as we once were.
Also, not once did i say that we were suffering from this widespread communal violence. i didn't even imply that. maybe my word choices were bad, but when i said strife and what not, i meant political division, ending in multi-partisan weakness. Whatever happened to "One nation, indivisible"? we are divided now, and any minority that forms up to a tenth of a percent of ourpopulation could drastically affect our nation. As someone here said, voter apathy is at an all time high. That small percentage would most likely be enough to completely alter the outcome. There isn't a cohesive revolutionary group now. I didn't say there was and i didn't say there would be. I said that the government and its bloated elephant for a democracy (no puns intended) will collapse under its massive obesity. We're electing pinheaded wrestlers (no major offense intended) and crooks into office! does that sound like a well run government to anyone? History will repeat itself, with awful precedents like snooping into celebrities and politician's sex lives for all the world to see (and laugh and point and sneer at the fat Amis). If we keep this up, we'll end up in a deep pile of our own political sewage.

As for a world dictatorship? yeah, Arnelos, maybe you're right. Too many plebes and proles to maybe one or two leaders. But a democracy won't be feasible either. Too many divisions, too many petty quarrels. Mankind won't unify unless forced to, and the only thing that could force us to unify is the upcoming energy shortage - and that more likely to result in a cataclysm than a peaceful settlement and a equitable division of the remaining resources. The smaller nations will wonder why so much goes to the bigger ones. The bigger ones will carp about the fact that they aren't getting as much anymore. What comes next? SMAC and a few wars tearing up our beautiful blue marble (might be gray and ashy by the time we're through).

Also: regarding the Russians: Victor, i don't know what you've been smoking (no offense), but soviet aerospace technology was not as good as the west. They chose brawn and quantity over brains and quality, and their side would have eventually lost. Yes, they did have some advanced technologies, such as welded stainless steel fuselages instead of titanium ones, yada yada yada. Still, the rader and the missiles on the west were superior. The sidewinder missile on our side was the best for at least a decade before the soviet irs started to catch up. And it still never really did. Our stealth was superior, and their newest one, built with newer technology and consequently newer stealth materials, won't be built because nobody's buying! Their other new fighters are good, but same fix there - nobody's buying the new designs, and there aren't any facilities to build them.

As for the romans - victor is right. Marius and Sulla were both pig headed power-obsessed men who lived in the time of the Republic. You could argue that we are as well with Clinton, Gingrich, Starr, and a host of others in those places. Plus, if we move to the empire, i go back to the entire "bread and circuses" thing. who the heck cares about our "dauntless and fearless" porn star of a president's life with some slutty intern? you may say you don't but there are enough half-brained nitwits out there who salivate over the newest smutty details, which feed the devouring media machine. How will this once great nation survive? Will there be any good leaders after this? or will they all be like Carter, a good man who couldn't lead properly at the proper time? the Marcus Aurelius of Pax America died a long time ago, fellow citizens. It's time we woke up and did something, actually try to fix some of these problems. my only sorrow is that it may be too late to do anything about our fall. we've gone past the event horizon, and there may be no turning back.

As for Russia as a superpower. i'm already chortling. its only pillar of strength was its oversized military (and possibly the bloated bureacracy with top secret documents which never did anything or pushed them to attack us). its science lagged far behind after the complete computer revolution of the stone age 80s, and it never had a strong economic base. As for its nukes, they are irrelevant to its superpower status. it's tantamount to a little kid saying, "Hey! Look at me! i have a uzi!" and waving the thing in front of kids with pistols and daggers.

posted 11-11-98 07:05 AM ET            

For WWII: The US army was bigger than the red army - about 10/11 to 5/7 million. The contribution of the US was mainly equipment and air power until 1943, but I'd doubt that the red army on its own could have beaten the germans beyond driving them out of the USSR. Japan would have been beaten by the US regardless, no red army required.

Cold war: USSR as a superpower ? The truth is somewhere in the middle. Regarding economic potential, the USSR only achieved about 30 - 40 % of the US. Take the alliances together, and NATO/Japan outnumbered the warszaw pact about 5:1. So the only way to be a superpower was to spend a much higher percentage of GDP on the military. Given the lack of economic basis, the USSR did remarkably well in the quantity and quality of their armed forces, but in the longer run, that ruined the economy.

In a hot war, the only chance of the USSR would have been a fast victory. In a longer war, the west could have translated it 5:1 economic supremacy into a similar military supremacy. I doubt whether the USSR could have achieved that. True, the US military potential in land forces was rather weak in comparison, but this is due to a sort of burden sharing within NATO. About 15.000 tanks of the US, and the same number for their european allies, vs 50.000 of the red army. Just that the number included a lot of older models hold in reserve. So despite the western propaganda of "we have to catch up", there has been a military balance. This isn't changed by the fact that only a part of america's forces were stationed in europe; the USSR needed a lot of its miliatry at the chinese border.

PS: Autarch, if you are giving lessons to other people, you should have your facts 100% "in order". Victor (I think it was him) is not incorrect in referring to the late roman republic as "empire". The term is derived from "imperium", meaning the power of a magistrate first and the land under roman power later. Imperator in the emaning of "emperor" came after imperium.

"the Empire came after and the seeds of its decline do not lead back to the Republic. All you have to do is read Gibbon."

This could be disputed. The role of the military goes back to the late republic, and while the emperors in the 1st and 2nd century managed to deal with the problem quite well (main exception: 68/69 AD), it could be argued that a problem dating back to the late republic resurfaced heavily in the 3rd century. And Gibbon is in no way the undisputed source for roman history.

"Other than that the Soviet Union was still backwards as you can get and still is."

posted 11-11-98 11:21 AM ET            

Okay, the Roman empire evolved into a feudal society as the strength of the senate declined. When the powerful landowners did not have to stay in the capital anymore they instead sought ways to gain power and profit from more effective use of their estates.
The increasing pressure from the Huns turned the regions inward for protection and the unity of the western part of the Roman empire just stopped taking orders from Rome.
And Edward Gibson is extremely church hostile and a bigot. I can tell even if I've only read a hundred pages by him. Besides it was published in 18whatever.

Concerning the 2.WW:
The Americans didn't get involved until an American passengership was sunk by German subs and by then there had been killed so many civilians that it hurts to think about it.
America was in it for the money that's all. I have quite the suspicion that it earned way more on loans and war materiel than they gave back with the Marshall-help/relief whatever it was called.
Don't get me wrong I'm still extremely grateful to the men that lay down their lives for our freedom but not to the policy that was lead.
Three flukes ( ) saved Russia from losing the war:
1. The unusually cold winters.
2. That Germany postponed a push forward to the spring.
3. Spies reported that Japan was unable to invade Russia (can't remember why) so the Sibirian elite forces could return to Moscow and basically kick some German butt.
You have to remember that Stalin had purged the army two-three years before the war and "removed" 85% of the officers so the Red Army was on it's ass back then.

And nobody knew that America didn't have any more bombs so saying that the Russians declaring war scared off the Japanese is plain silly.

On another note, I don't think the EU will ever be a superpower in the cold war sense since we are too divided/selfconcious and slightly humble in a way to make big waves.

posted 11-11-98 11:33 AM ET            

That's the only positive thing I could say about Gibbon... he produces some great rants, but very little substance.

"Concerning the 2.WW: The Americans didn't get involved until an American passengership was sunk by German subs..."

Isn't that the wrong world war ?

posted 11-11-98 03:06 PM ET            

Ahem, Autarch (that better? sorry...), but the nation that lost the most people in the war was the RUSSIANS. They were the ones who fought the brutal war of attrition against the Germans and weakened them so much (and suffered terrible causalties in the process, they used to say that 10 German soldiers were more than match for 25 Russians due to their superior training).

"Didn't Armstrong say "One small step for Man, one Giant leap for Mankind"?"

Actually he said "That's one small step for *A* man, one giant leap for mankind." The static from the transmission makes the "a" hard to hear though.

"4) The "barbarization" of the Legions also had its detrimental affect on the Empire."

Actually this is what helped keep it to survive so long. Without recruiting the "barbarians" themselves to fight for the empire, it might have collapsed long earlier due to the lack of patriotism for volunters and money for more "real Roman" soldiers.

"3. Spies reported that Japan was unable to invade Russia (can't remember why) so the Sibirian elite forces could return to Moscow and basically kick some German butt."

And yet the spy who reported that never got the Red Banner, which was his one goal, because Stalin distrusted spies. He had also reported that Germany's invasion was imminent, but was ignored. After that, they payed closer attention to him... and found out the tip on Japan not attacking.

"In a hot war, the only chance of the USSR would have been a fast victory."

If you ever read Red Strom Rising, you'll know that a modern war is a fast war, maybe 3 months long. It takes about 9 months to build a fighter, not to mention pilot training. If you're going to have a war, you have to make sure everything is set up and ready to go, because you're not going to have the time to build much more. And as for the comment earlier about Eisenhower building nukes rather than conventional weapons, well that's nice, but that means that you have to initiate Armageddon in order to win the war. And indeed, NATO had a "will use first if neccesary" policy for a long time concerning nukes, while the Warsaw Pact had the more enlightened "no first use." (though whether they would honor that is things went sour is an open question). It'd be nice to stand a better chance of winning the war conventionally than relying on the nukes fallback option.

I agree with the statements on quality vs. quantity. In the Gulf War M1A2 Abrams, thrice as expensive as their Soviet counterparts, killed about 5 or 10 T-89's for each Abram lost.

posted 11-11-98 04:45 PM ET            

As for Africa, I'm not too sure. I always thought Afica was a rigid and corrupt police state. If I had to place money on it though, I'd bet on South Afica.

posted 11-11-98 05:07 PM ET            

Egypt -- 90% Sunni
Jordan -- Almost exclusively Sunni(among the Muslim population), the Library of Congress report 2000 Shia
Kuwait -- 80% Sunni
Qatar -- Mostly Sunni
Saudi Arabia -- 95% Sunni
Syria -- about 85% of Muslim population Sunni, 1% Shia, 13-15% Alawis(which is a Shia sect, viewed as heretical by most of Islam)

posted 11-12-98 12:56 AM ET            

As for the superpower debate: America is a superpower - the only one in the world. Here are my criteria: military power, wealth, and information, and vision.
The US has all of the first three in near-gluttonous amounts. As for vision...i can't say. Doesn't seem like we're doing too good there.
Japan doesn't have military power.
The EU may get a bid, but it simply won't happen because it looks more toward the past than to the future.
Africa doesn't have anything but the vision. That situation will take a while to remedy - and by that time, it won't matter.
South America also has nothing except vision - and i don't think all of them even have that.
India doesn't have the wealth and barely meets the information criteria.
China doesn't meet the wealth and information criteria, but it's getting there (slowly but surely won't help it here).
Arab states - the entire world, unfortunately for them, view the majority of them in a bad stereotypical light - Islamic fundamentalists. they don't have and won't get the credit they need for superpower status.
the UN - no dollars, no soldiers, no brains, and its vision isn't being followed...much to my dismay.
simply put, not one of these nations can step in and fill the vacuum of power that will be left behind in the wake of the sinking USA (no BIG iceberg seen, not yet at least.)

Also, regarding the roman debate - victor is right, empires rise and empires fall. but the links about marius and sulla now seem a bit tenuous, and not as strong as they might seem. yes, they did set a precedent, but no, what they did did not affect everything in an indirect way. their precedent did not affect the roman's obscene desire for abhorrent entertainment (i'm citing the colusseum here), which led to the fall. m&s did not cause the widespread tax farming of the empire. it did not lead to the persecution of the chrisitians, and it did not result in the split of the empires. their little corner in this matter is that they simply destroyed the possibility of near-perpetual peaceful succession and a working system of limiting the power of the men in charge - not just following the ones with guns.

posted 11-12-98 06:16 AM ET            

As has been said already, that wasn't the point.

Snowfire: "If you ever read Red Strom Rising, you'll know that a modern war is a fast war, maybe 3 months long."

Doesn't change my point, and that was about the same thing people thought in 1914...

Aga1:"The E.U is trying to do this but even know they are predegist againts nations like turkey."

What are you referring to ? Turkey is lightyears behind some basic standards.

Victor: "You must have some weird figures for the size of the red army. They LOST 5-6 million soldiers during the war, and their army was not half destroyed."

If the red army was stronger in numbers, they were even weaker in quality. The germans had about 3-4 million soldiers at most on the eastern front.

Q cubed: "their precedent did not affect the roman's obscene desire for abhorrent entertainment (i'm citing the colusseum here), which led to the fall. m&s did not cause the widespread tax farming of the empire. it did not lead to the persecution of the chrisitians, and it did not result in the split of the empires."

posted 11-12-98 07:59 PM ET            

Ben Music, as I have said in the past read the whole post and THINK before you respond. I did not say that America was specalised but that those were the most PROFITABLE areas and that it should keep them that way instead of using up valuable resources to try and rework what is working.

Victor, I must disagree with you on the a few things I am currently living in a former soviet republic and the average technological level was in my opinion 10 to 15 years behind the west at the time of the fall. It is to date still behind by a minimum of 5 years. Medical technology is much more behind possibly up to 40 years (as in just after antibiotics/x-rays began enjoying general use.)

The American educational system is currently **** the number of people who not only are capable of expressing themselves properly in English much less any other language is dropping with every graduating class. Part of the problem is that politicians are interfering with the education of the young for whatever reason...

Andrew, try this forget what you learned in history in russia and go to a few history classes in America. Then combine the two, the truth is found by not believing the lies told by both sides.

Generally, the Russian space program pound for pound was able to get more into space, unfortunately pound for pound their tech was unequal in terms of electronics and cameras (dont argue with this one guys I do have proof) so for the use both sides were putting it to they were at best equal.

Soviet military tech in terms of Submarines, Tanks, and Avionics (fighters mainly their bombers were though big not as fast) was top notch and quite able to hold its own. As to tanks and ships I cannot talk those are not my main areas of intrest, fighters though the early migs were generally faster and more manuverable than the US planes of the time, and cheaper. This is one of the things that led to the development of the F-16 the military needed a fast manuverable and cheap fighter plane. Later designs built on the earlier ones and to date are still some of the most impressive aircraft ever developed (but I still think that the F-15 is the best fighter in the sky cause my grandfather helped keep them there.)

Heckler

posted 11-12-98 10:48 PM ET            

I agree with you mostly. These thread is began to run circles. But about aircraft - I've heard from our spec's that F-16 was total failure - it could not meet necessary criterias, and even later modification could not save it (only give to it more weight, slower turn rate and same). I am NOT a specialist, but I remember that only F-15 (in some modification) was labeled as real opponent to Su-27 - even with AURAAMs and Sidewinders. Was not a simulated fight somewhere in USA between some Su-27 with our pilots and some F-15, where F-15 lose completely - could not even find Su?
But americans win in organization (attack means radar support, missiles strike, air support, and so on). But russian had a habit not rely on technics absolutely, so in case of some failure they simply follow it's flight pass. And so on, and so on...

I didn't try to say, that russian is better, than USA. I say, that BOTH (and others also) countries had some good sides. Does it REALLY neccessary to measure wich &*() is longer?

posted 11-13-98 12:46 AM ET            

The UN Human Freedom Index two years ago (haven't seen a more recent version) put European countries in the first 9 spots (Sweden no. 1), with Canada 10th and US 12th.

But, you seem to take it for granted the USA is number one, so tell us: what freedom do Americans have that West-Europeans, Canadians and Australians do not have?

posted 11-13-98 06:27 AM ET            

Well, Germany and Italy were founding memebers, so clearly, there were no standards for them to "join", but just a common set of standrads that made the six founding memebers compatible.

For enlargement: Some factors required are 1. an economy able to compete, 2. a certain per capita GDP (mainly for budgetary reasons), 3. a working legal system (EU integration is based on law in the first place), 4. human rights standards, especially equality for minorities.

Let's see Cyprus and Turkey:

1. and 2. Cyprus is in a better position there, I won't bother stats now.
3. and 4. I don't know too much about Cyprus (it has, however, a lot less trouble with the ECHR), but Turkey is in an absolute mess there. There is a reason why it is again and again condemned by the European Court of human rights for blatant violations of the ECHR. Freedom of opinion is suppressed if you happen to be a Curd, an alawite, an islamist, a leftist etc - if you are not killed for that in the first place.

posted 11-13-98 06:48 AM ET            

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
- Shelley

posted 11-13-98 04:03 PM ET            

--