WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines World War Three vs Pax Americana

What will happen, World War Three or pax Americana?


  • Total voters
    14

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#1
Read this BEFORE you vote. The last sentence is the question.

Ok so I'm too lazy to write a long, complete thread about it so I'll just try keep it short, even though it doesn't seem short. (Btw, this is not an anti-capitalist thread. Read it.)

The first phase of capitalistic globalisation took place in the 19th century in European countries. The euro market was liberalized, wich means the States (States as in governments, USA or US = United States) no longer tried to control their own economy, instead they let the economy roll by itself with free-trade and a globalized economy (not in the whole world, only in Europe). England was the center of it all, the commercial superpower. Between 1815 and 1914, Europe was in a state of relative peace and economic expansion.

This first phase of capitalist globalization slowed down and ended with the uprise of nationalism, fascism and even imperialism in the rest of Europe (William II of Germany tried to extend its military hegemony over Europe, Italy became fascist). By 1914, the signs of this rise of protectionism/nationalism/fascism became obvious. The global nature of Europe's market took a great blow.

The second phase of capitalistic globalization started at the end of the Cold War. The US was the center of it all and beneficiated most (commercially) from the newly liberalized world market. The States (again, governments) no longer claimed economic autonomy and monopoly, but rather let the economy follow is course under global interdependency and free-trade.

This short second phase is almost over. Already in the last 6-10 years we've seen the rise (again) of nationalism, in China, Russia, Japan, and Europe (Italy)

As for the US, heart of the global capitalistic system, nationalism took a more sharp form, imperialism.

Yes, imperialism. One little example on the side(other than Iraq): it seems the US have already engaged in clandestine operations in Iran and Syria in the intent to provoque a regime change in these countries.

The first signs of this transformation were in 1994 when the republicans took Congress. When the government turned to the republicans as well, the Cold-war era nationalistic neocons slammed the brakes on liberal capitalism and global inter-depency.

The neocons in power today are closely related to the militaro-industrial complex. Their goal is to achieve monopoly and hegemony using force. The PNAC, a neocon project started and supported by most of the Bush administration, clearly outlines their plot to increase militaristic investment and fight wars in order to achieve global and future dominance over potential superpowers in their document called "rebuilding Americas defenses".

These deeds are showed by two governmental decisions and objectives : 1- To develop miniature nuclear weapons of first strike and 2- To achieve global strike potential from space ("militarisation of space"). Their objective is to establish and maintain spatial superiority, allowing to destroy missile bases and command centers at any time, anywhere, from space.

These two programs threaten world stability : the first one provoques nuclear proliferation and the second provoques a new spatial arms race.

Because of that, China and Russia, both considered future rival powers to the US, will have no choice but either try to follow the US in military investment, spending more and more of their (limited) ressources on the military (hurting national economy), or accept the US potential strategical supremacy.

Wich one will it be, will Russia and China try to match up with the US (possibly leading to World War Three) or choose American global supremacy, (possibly leading to a "pax americana" < american forced peace)
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#2
Personally I feel neither. Why?

I've noticed that these trends only happen when conservatives are in office. As we all know by now, the North is sick of dealing with these people, namely the South, religious extremists, and certain Republicans.

Well, personally I doubt that by 2008 we'll be ready for World War III, and if our next president is also conservative, which is rapidly becoming a reality, we will have a second civil war within years. The culture clashes are enormous, and I, as well as my peers, and adults I know feel that the South is destroying the U.S.

I feel that by then culture clashes and resentment will have grown to epic levels. Who will start it? Most likely the North, but the South may start it also if their rebel nature comes into play.

But while one side will be fighting for America, the other may be fighting for another newly named country or the C.S.A.

Many Americans want to remain blindsided about this, but if you think about certain cultural trends it's more than feasible.
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#3
you asked, here goes...

rage,

your suggestion that china and russia will become one in order to combat the usa PREMATURELY and FORCEFULLY is thought provoking, frightening even. may you be so fortunate to be privy to the intentions of those who spell out their destiny as you believe PNAC's mantra does.

WWIII is unlikely to occur with or without star wars. what we are capable of today leaves a potential WWIII with the expectation of reaping rewards, practically impossible; juxtaposition of risk and reward makes WWIII an idiosincrasy.

at face value, i suppose my ideolgy leans towards a pax-americana but not really. theoretically, neither will occur due to the inevitably that today's third world will be the future; often mistakenly characterized as WWIII by westerners due to fear of change, bias, culture...whatever! yes we will have to deal with an empowered russia and china long before this becomes true- i'd say starting within the next lifetime or so, however, it will hardly be overwhelming given the amount of time it will take to happen.

when i imagine what life would be like if we rolled over before another was ready to take the reigns, i see chaos. as much disdain as you may have for the USA, we serve our purpose to the best of our abilities, and for that you ought to be thankful. knowing this will never happen, the USA continues onward, meanwhile affording you intermittent rewards of unjust actions, righteous behavior, and outright belligerance so you may feel comfort for another day- you're welcome.

ps. nothing will ever happen between the north and the south again, civil war? are you mad descent!?
 
#4
I think that there will first be a pax americana. However, any more US global domination, in my opinion, would be nearly impossible to control. Occupations, including economical control, do not last forever. As the global economy polarizes further, the global community will become less stable, causing uprisings and eventually an other world war.
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#5
I dont vote.

I do still have something to say though.

Liberal capitalism is much responsible for the current state of the world. If we take Japan and lets say USA to a closer look we see the differences more clear. Japan and the US started industrializing at approx the same time. Japan went the government owned business way as the US went the Adams way, liberal capitalism. So straightforward, in Japan government owns the businesses, in USA the businesses own the government.(this is common knowledge and i dont see any use in more clarifying, ask if you will)..

First lets take a look at the USA, and the effects of liberal capitalism.There is no real healthcare-system. It is all based on insurances.. insurance is business.
Many, many citizens of the US live in poverty. That is due to the fact that in capitalistic society property is not distributed evenly. (in japan poverty is not that big of an issue (it is to some exctent in every nation))

When this liberal capitalist-ideal adds up with the old imperealist it leads to many unwanted reactions, terrorism for one.
Let me explain.
Western capitalists are the reason why the 3rd world is so poor and why there is so much hatred in the world (caricaturized, it is only like 2/3 of the reason)
When some are greedy, others get jealous, expecially if the greedy ride on their account.
For example cash crops. Many Latin American countries have a government practically run by US. They helped certain people to power and they thank by obeying their helpers. El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Columbia.. They all have suffered from the same disease. They are practically forced to raise cash crops, fruits and the like that are then sold by multicorp. companies. The farmers have enough to barely survive. All dissidents are murdered, it´s an atmosphere of fear. Western corporations (and countries) stomp down the nations own economy. India was a blooming society, well known for its cloths. Then, under the brit empire, brits forced the indian economy to either undersell or give in... Then they bought the companies and imported the finest cloth, rolling the money off the indians and in to their own imperalist pockets..
The same can be seen in every starving nation. Kongo, Ruanda, Latin america, where ever.
This causes poverty. Which causes hate. Non-US world to a great exctene sees the USA as a great oppressor or exploiter.
It hasnt been USAs fault that the world lies on its stomach, it just is the only superpower that so openly continues to act like an imperealist. France, Britain and many others have done that too.. HAVE.

I see terrorism growing, not only in the mid-east (where they have rather good reasons to be angry, look it rom their view) but also inside the western societies. (I dont support any sort of terrorism, except verbal and printed word)

If USA continues to act like this, attackin random countries in the mid-east just to show off, they will soon see that they stand alone.The power of the people is greater than the power of government.
USA has continued with the Cold War-like policy, eventhough it ended over ten years ago, and there really isn´t any need for it...


My only hope is to see awareness rise.
 

Janglenut

Particinator
863
0
0
#6
Good topic.


I myself, can see how the world could go in either direction, and all of your replies have made me think a different way; but I am leaning more toward a World War. With the world in it's current state I don't believe the U.S. could simply keep the peace up for that long. As said, people get jelous that they are not the ones living the "good" life.


But, someone brought up poverty in the U.S. You must take into account, the "Poverty" level in the U.S. is the middle to high class in most countries in this world.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#7
I voted neither.

Pax Americana is further away than ever.
And a world war isn't likely.
Maybe some clashes between the Chinese and Americans in the long run.

(I wouldn't build a house in Taiwan if I were you)

P.S.
@ Rage
As a European, I look at history from a different angle than your story.
For me the British were allways stirring the deadly soup of war on the continent. Even kicked some asses in America, and even set fire on the White House.. Must have been the Black House then.. :p
 

Hater808

The hate still Shapes me
660
0
76
#8
I also choose niether. Though I think it would be World War before Pax Americana. Simpily becasue nobody likes to be ruled. So eventually someone will step up to the US and after other countries see this, they will step up as well. But in the near future I don't thnk(well, after the bush election "I hope") the American people won't allow there country to move in that direction. So neither, with a hint of war.
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#9
The US government is investing so much in military spendings for a reason - global domination. It's called imperialism - and the signs are obvious.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#10
RageAgainst said:
The US government is investing so much in military spendings for a reason - global domination. It's called imperialism - and the signs are obvious.
Most of it is trivial. We spent more on three new F-22 fighters than we did on all of our school funding combined. And three F-22's cannot do too much, even though they are the most powerful aircraft on the planet due to their stealth technologies. They were most likely purchased for evaluation. Strike operations usually require a few wings of at least four fighters due to payload reasons.

I also have flown a couple Novalogic F-22 flight simulators, and the aircraft doesn't have as much payload capacity as one would think. At most, around 4 Amraam missles, 6 Sidewinder missles, 2 JDAM bombs, and around 500 cannon rounds. It sounds like a lot but in hostile territory the only air-to surface weapons you have are the dumbfire JDAM bombs.

Also, as to Imperialism - We're so far in debt I would never count on it. If we were to invade Iran, North Korea, etc. the North would react in the manner of "WHAT THE FUCK?! ANOTHER IRAQ WAR?!" and that would not be pretty.

We would most likely never have the required funds to do that anyway with our current economic conditions.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
262
302
#11
I voted neither. I feel the USA will crumble financially before WW3 and especially before PAX Americana. The USA does not have the endless resources and credit it imagines, and when it drops, it will plummett ala USSR. I don't think it will take more than 2 decades to fall from within. just my thoughts.
 
3,559
2
0
#12
I, like Descent, think that there will be a second revolutionary war as this WW3 is about to start. However, I don't think it will be the North against the South, I think it will be the left against the right. I know not all Republicans agree with Bush and might fight with the revolutionaries to overthrow the Bushies, but most neo-cons want Bush in office. I think that WW3 will begin to start, when it's just about America, and there will be a revolution. Seeing as how it would benefit Cuba, among many other nations, well to see the Bush administration overthrown they will send the revolutionaries soldiers. China may intervene to fight on their own terms to claim America as property of China, or they may send troops to help the revolutionaries. The terrorists would fight everyone, wiping themselves out in the end by attacking too many nations. With the end of the terrorist threat Russia and N. Korea decide to send in some troops to help China and/or the revolutionaries. Then, with their combined might the revolution is a success.

That might happen or I'm just a crazy commie. :happysad:
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#13
Descent said:
Most of it is trivial. We spent more on three new F-22 fighters than we did on all of our school funding combined. And three F-22's cannot do too much, even though they are the most powerful aircraft on the planet due to their stealth technologies. They were most likely purchased for evaluation. Strike operations usually require a few wings of at least four fighters due to payload reasons.

I also have flown a couple Novalogic F-22 flight simulators, and the aircraft doesn't have as much payload capacity as one would think. At most, around 4 Amraam missles, 6 Sidewinder missles, 2 JDAM bombs, and around 500 cannon rounds. It sounds like a lot but in hostile territory the only air-to surface weapons you have are the dumbfire JDAM bombs.

Also, as to Imperialism - We're so far in debt I would never count on it. If we were to invade Iran, North Korea, etc. the North would react in the manner of "WHAT THE FUCK?! ANOTHER IRAQ WAR?!" and that would not be pretty.

We would most likely never have the required funds to do that anyway with our current economic conditions.
Trivial. LMFAO. 400 billion dollars, trivial. Well, fuck me (no, not really). Go back to sonic world :thumbsdn:

The US has a better army : strategically, technologically, technically, they have more of everything than any other country, except for potential soldiers (China wins on this one)

And if you read my thread and what I said about nuclear and space research, maybe you'll understand what kind of military threat (aimed at Russia, China and other potential enemies) I'm talking about. Who needs F22's when you have fucking missile command FROM SPACE.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#16
RageAgainst said:
Trivial. LMFAO. 400 billion dollars, trivial. Well, fuck me (no, not really). Go back to sonic world :thumbsdn:

The US has a better army : strategically, technologically, technically, they have more of everything than any other country, except for potential soldiers (China wins on this one)

And if you read my thread and what I said about nuclear and space research, maybe you'll understand what kind of military threat (aimed at Russia, China and other potential enemies) I'm talking about. Who needs F22's when you have fucking missile command FROM SPACE.
When I said trivial I just realized that I forgot to say I was talking in terms of the advatages it would give our military. The amount of money is fucking huge, yes, but the amount of offensive power it gives us is disproportionate.

My mistake :).
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#17
just curious- star wars is a very old idea, what makes you think it isn't already true? with all the space exploration the USA has been doing for decades now...? the USA spends more money on space exploration than any other nation, how would they or we know for that matter what's out there?

the USA has never had a victorious war against any asian country other than when we dropped the bombs on japan. do you think the USA has not learned from history? i still say, if there is a WWIII, we'd go nuclear against any asian country. being it's our only prospect of winning, you might as well forget it altogether. the world would be destroyed, period.
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#18
gurlgonewild said:
just curious- star wars is a very old idea, what makes you think it isn't already true? with all the space exploration the USA has been doing for decades now...? the USA spends more money on space exploration than any other nation, how would they or we know for that matter what's out there?

the USA has never had a victorious war against any asian country other than when we dropped the bombs on japan. do you think the USA has not learned from history? i still say, if there is a WWIII, we'd go nuclear against any asian country. being it's our only prospect of winning, you might as well forget it altogether. the world would be destroyed, period.
You seem to be over-optimistic. You're underestimating human stupidity.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#19
gurlgonewild said:
just curious- star wars is a very old idea, what makes you think it isn't already true? with all the space exploration the USA has been doing for decades now...? the USA spends more money on space exploration than any other nation, how would they or we know for that matter what's out there?

the USA has never had a victorious war against any asian country other than when we dropped the bombs on japan. do you think the USA has not learned from history? i still say, if there is a WWIII, we'd go nuclear against any asian country. being it's our only prospect of winning, you might as well forget it altogether. the world would be destroyed, period.
Current spacecraft do not manuever as well as they need to. Sorry to drag FreeSpace 2 into this, but until you play a militaristic space-sim game in that vein you won't be able to see my point.

For one:

-Current spacecraft do not have engine technologies advanced enough to promote acceptable handling

-They are not resilient to damage, and will breakup in one shot and be a costly worthless gamble

-They are not able to travel quick enough to be of any real strategizing value

-Launching a spacefaring fighter is still much more expensive than taking off a fighter jet due to booster rockets, etc.
 
1,723
90
112
#20
I voted war, look at it this way, we have the European Union, the USA, Russia, and China with a lot of destructive power. Add Israel and North Korea and that's plenty of powerful nations. Whenever there are that many world powers with conflicting interests, war is probably inevitable.