The reason America (or any other Western nation).......

[Reeve]

They are still at least two decades away to fully bring out that almost 1 billion that is living in almost Medieival type of poverty.

And the challenges that this process will bring are bigger than some anticipate : http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/end-c...#axzz3EEWmoHhL

Even if they don't bring their billion out of poverty, they'll still have the other 300 million middle class, which is incidentally still more middle class than the United States. It may not be as strong as the US yet, but it's on its way. It's an enormous domestic market.

[Aeno]

Thank the US for that.
its fun that the stupidest president, was arguably, the one with a Doctorate...

Thank France and Britain for that. They pushed their own agendas against Germany to punish it and keep it weak, and the US was turning isolationist with a Senate opposing the LoN and any involvement with Europe. Hilariously post-WWI was the peak of Liberalism in global politics, so I fail to see how your comment has any validity to it.

[Dreknar20]

yes democracies, such pussy's, for not being as readily willing to utilize force...

seems to me Western democracies are a lot less willing to bear large casualties than other countries

[Sledfang]

seems to me Western democracies are a lot less willing to bear large casualties than other countries

In my opinion we are less worried about our casualties and more worried about "offending" people by winning.

[Deleted]

seems to me Western democracies are a lot less willing to bear large casualties than other countries

yes, the average western state has to give a shit about what its soldiers think.
that being said, when the shit hit the fan, the people, by virtue of personal involvement, are willing to bear much greater sacrifices.

[Aeno]

It`ll take a lot more than that to overtake US as the ''gravitational centre'' of the world, ie superpower - China doesnt have in it to pull off imperial project of any sort, not that they would anyway but the most that they can hope for is to become ''one of many'' or be just right behind US sniffing its farts.

China is already acting imperialistic with nearby territories.

[FN1TGhost]

WWII didn't change the mindsets of great powers from seeing that Versailles was an idiotic idea. They just relearned what was already a practice before WWI.[/QUOTE]

WWI never ended. We see the results now with Israel/Palestinians (Balfour Declaration) and ISAS in Syria and Iraq (Picot-Sykes).

[Reeve]

It`ll take a lot more than that to overtake US as the ''gravitational centre'' of the world, ie superpower - China doesnt have in it to pull off imperial project of any sort, not that they would anyway but the most that they can hope for is to become ''one of many'' or be just right behind US sniffing its farts.

I don't know what's going to happen in terms of China's future growth. I suspect it will slow down. But their domestic market is already significant, and it would be foolish to ignore it as a major economic force both within China and without.

- - - Updated - - -

China is already acting imperialistic with nearby territories.

Moreso with Africa.

[Sledfang]

That depends on what we do.

If we become a leader, in say, green energy, space mining, etc, etc, we could keep that stuff at bay.

Also, moral high ground (the white knight image) is also kind of important. You can be rich as a nation, but have a horrible human right track record, you will mostly attract a lot of people purely looking for economic security, but none that really create/advance culture like the west tends to do.

We moved from Russia to the US because of the "total" package my parents saw in the country..

I hope your philosophy actually works out tangibly.

Moral high ground and superior culture wont help the white knight if all of his wealth (sword/armor) is siphoned off to the black knights of the world.

[FN1TGhost]

Hm...simplified eh? Like Genghis Khan or America's subjugation of native populations?[QUOTE=Catta;30560769]Such military strategy. Much smarts. Very kill.

Wow.


You arent going to win a war aimed at removing terrorists by decimating the local population where they are. You are only going to further their recruitment doing that.

Also even during total war plenty of prisoners are taken

[Deleted]

Because when that shit happens, nukes come out to play, and no-one likes it when that shit happens.

[Deleted]

They had the Morgentau plan, basicly anihilation

That's not how you destroy the power of an opponent state. Hurr Durr "We destroy their factories so they can't build bombs". Such a state, if it pursues to do so, will have new factories and be ready for war again in a few decades.

No if you're serious about destroying the power of your opponent, what you want is divide et impera. Win the war. Occupy the enemy lands. And divide the opponent into lesser states, that are easily manageable by the victor.

This is, broadly speaking, what happened to the Soviet Union, who the US-led West was pretty serious about. The Soviet Union at it's time had a population of almost 300 million. After the dissolution of the union you had a dozen smaller states, with some alligning to west and others just going their own way, and you have Russia which was the main actor of the union. Russia still has a population around 150 million today giving them considerable strength, but still they do not however wield anywhere near the power close to that of the Soviet Union. That is how you annihilate the power of your opponent.

[Eurydemus]

There's no compelling reason right now to wage the kind of total war we've had in the past. It's not because the West (or any country with the capability, for that matter) can't do it. There's just nothing valuable enough at stake to warrant such a confrontation.

[Cloudjumper]

vietnam was not total war. w11 and ww2 was with bombing of the civilian population

[Dreknar20]

There's just nothing valuable enough at stake to warrant such a confrontation.

Competition for dominance could still happen today just as it did in the World Wars.

- - - Updated - - -

vietnam was not total war. w11 and ww2 was with bombing of the civilian population

it wasent just that, it was the whole mobalizing of nearly aspects of society toward the war effort.

[Eurydemus]

Competition for dominance could still happen today just as it did in the World Wars..

There will always be competition, but not the kind of life and death struggle that would require entire societies to be put on war-footing. Should a catastrophe like that present itself though, I have no doubt in my mind countries like the US, Russia, China and the EU bloc can and will engage in total war.

But let's hope that never happens.

[Spectral]

What definition of "win" would you use for which the USA didn't "win" against Iraq? They rolled in, obliterated the standing army that was present, hunted Saddam and eventually dragged him out of a hole and killed him. They installed a governmental style of their choosing and occupied the land for a decade.

I think it's a shit outcome, but they certainly won the war.