70 replies to this topic

[WoIverine]

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

I posted a topic earlier and as a part of it mentioned my belief that America was the most powerful/greatest nation in history.  Quite a few took issue with that idea.  So I began to wonder, if America is as inept and evil as many seem to believe then who exactly would be best to take on the role of a superpower who's morality would suit your own?  If one nation had to be dominant which nation would you prefer to see guiding the world forward into a new millenium?  Compare this new leader with America and explain why you think it would be better for mankind.

America, and the American people are not evil, however, our government is a different story, it seems.

Anyway, I'm Italian, so...my vote is to bring back the Roman empire, Roma Victor!  

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 17 April 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[TK0001]

Myles, on 17 April 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Yes. I can usually walk up to any cop and strike up a pleasant conversation.

Okay, for you, cops have not gone through a transformative process from Officer Friendly to an effort to portray an image of intimidation. Good for you. You don't subject yourself to a culture of fear and can see that policemen and women are actual people beneath the uniform.

Others, though, see them as agents of the State who are more scary than helpful and kind.

I was in Fort Worth, TX a few months ago and was walking out of a lunch establishment as three police officers were walking in. Something made me pause and consider how they were dressed and how they carried themselves - in all black, looking fierce, angry, and intimidating. More like soldiers than cops. It made me wonder how far we've come from the Officer Friendly days. I wondered if a child would feel comfortable walking up to one of these guys and shaking his hand. Basically, were they approachable, friendly looking fellows? I couldn't say they were, in the least.

I believe there has been a transformation, and that cops are now meant to be feared rather than approachable. I think it's a psychological effort to keep people scared. Maybe you see it differently, but that's where I'm coming from.

[Leonardo]

I would say that all the world's nations should be allowed to vote (1 vote apiece, blind ballot, no conferring) for which nation shall hold the 'Presidency of the World'. Then, whichever nation doesn't vote for itself gets the job.

Edited by Leonardo, 17 April 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[P4UL N0153]

I'd like to see a completely new nation rise and take over. Maybe something along the lines of a multi national neo-technocracy. Something akin to H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come. If I had a preference that is.

Correction made; thanks to 747400

Edited by Pauly Dangerously, 17 April 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[karmakazi]

Myles, on 17 April 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

I have several issues with this post.
It's realistic that there will be a greatest/strongest nation to take over.   It's been like that for a long time.  I don't see it changing.

I'm not talking about anything that actually happens in the world, I'm talking about the idea that one nation is somehow better than the rest or is a superpower above all.  Or that one nation SHOULD be either.  That is what I take issue with.

Quote

So you are in favor of not attempting to help suffering people around the world?   I'm not saying that the US is doing a great job of this, but it is something I would like to see the next superpower focus on.

IF the conditions in the US were stable and the people here were well taken care of then sure, helping other countries would be awesome.  This isn't the case.

The citizens here who feel empowered to do so can be missionaries, join the peace core, can go to other countries and teach beneficial skills.  A lot more good is done by these tactics than wars fought under the guise of helping people; when the true missions of securing good trade relations or putting people in power who will agree with or support the US is pretty apparent.


A country has to focus on themselves and get things straight on the home front before they can effectively help anyone else.  The problem is nations and empires aren't strong so that they can make the world a better place.  This is evident from their actions.  They make themselves strong because it benefits those in power.

Edited by karmakazi, 17 April 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Pauly Dangerously, on 17 April 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

I'd like to see a completely new nation rise and take over. Maybe something along the lines of a multi national neo-technocracy. Something akin to Orwell's The Shape of Things to Come. If I had a preference that is.

H.G. Wells, not Orwell. Sorry to be pedantic.
Actually I think I do agree, really; the Socialist International is on the way, comrades!

[karmakazi]

TK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

I was in Fort Worth, TX a few months ago and was walking out of a lunch establishment as three police officers were walking in. Something made me pause and consider how they were dressed and how they carried themselves - in all black, looking fierce, angry, and intimidating. More like soldiers than cops. It made me wonder how far we've come from the Officer Friendly days. I wondered if a child would feel comfortable walking up to one of these guys and shaking his hand. Basically, were they approachable, friendly looking fellows? I couldn't say they were, in the least.

I believe there has been a transformation, and that cops are now meant to be feared rather than approachable. I think it's a psychological effort to keep people scared. Maybe you see it differently, but that's where I'm coming from.

I've seen police in my area be both.  I used to work at a convienence store, and the offices that would come in usually would be quite friendly with us while they were buying their stuff, but pretty much any time they weren't directly talking to us it was the stern, fierce look.  But I also got to know a few of them well enough to know that they seemed a little worried about dropping the guise of not being friendly because they thought people would feel they could get away with things... and knowing the officers, they were likely to let minor infractions go on a warning and they were genuinely friendly guys... they just kept up the posturing to try and retain respect.  Don't get me wrong, there are cops around here too who have bad attitudes and have been known to harass people too.  I think police like any groups have the friendly ones, the jerks, and the guys who fall somewhere in between.

I do however think that as society has changed that the police have had to change their "persona" as well, because illegal gun posession, drug use, and violent crimes have increased over the last 50-60 years.  I definitely think people respect the police less than they did back in those days, and it hasn't helped that there have been widespread reports about police brutality and more and more common knowledge that some officers really do go off the deep end and cause more harm than good.  I tend to think of the "friendly" police officers as being more of a 60's/70's thing (IE before my time, lol)

Edited by karmakazi, 17 April 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[DieChecker]

lightly, on 17 April 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

If you think we are in debt now....   what do you think remote controlled robot warfare would cost!?!?!?!?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ...  come to think of it...  that's the soundest argument that it might happen.
Luckily, economic reality will prevent the possibility.

Do you know what it costs to feed, house, and deploy overseas even one soldier?

Paying $20,000, or even $100,000, for each robot warrior would be cost effective. Even if you had to totally replace each one every two or three years, the costs would be less then using a living battlefield soldier. Just as the flying drones are cheaper to build and maintain than a plane or helicopter.

A control ship could sit off shore with 10,000 gamers on it and march an armored, heavily armed army up onto the beach and raze a local area to the ground in no time. Or, they could be air dropped at a rate that no human could endure. Plus supply lines would be thing of the past. This would work especially well in areas like Afghanistan, or in concert with flying drones for air coverage, since all the robot soldiers would have to face is small arms fire. The drones would take out heavier targets. Put a quarter inch of kevlar over the things and you have low "casualties" and zero friendly dead.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

DieChecker, on 17 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Do you know what it costs to feed, house, and deploy overseas even one soldier?

Paying $20,000, or even $100,000, for each robot warrior would be cost effective. Even if you had to totally replace each one every two or three years, the costs would be less then using a living battlefield soldier. Just as the flying drones are cheaper to build and maintain than a plane or helicopter.

A control ship could sit off shore with 10,000 gamers on it and march an armored, heavily armed army up onto the beach and raze a local area to the ground in no time.

... killing thousands of civilians (although I'm sure "enemy Combatants" would be among them somewhere), and thereby guarantee more reprisals. How do you envisage that this would defeat Terrorism?

[FLOMBIE]

DieChecker, on 17 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Do you know what it costs to feed, house, and deploy overseas even one soldier?

Paying $20,000, or even $100,000, for each robot warrior would be cost effective. Even if you had to totally replace each one every two or three years, the costs would be less then using a living battlefield soldier. Just as the flying drones are cheaper to build and maintain than a plane or helicopter.

A control ship could sit off shore with 10,000 gamers on it and march an armored, heavily armed army up onto the beach and raze a local area to the ground in no time. Or, they could be air dropped at a rate that no human could endure. Plus supply lines would be thing of the past. This would work especially well in areas like Afghanistan, or in concert with flying drones for air coverage, since all the robot soldiers would have to face is small arms fire. The drones would take out heavier targets. Put a quarter inch of kevlar over the things and you have low "casualties" and zero friendly dead.

They'd cost millions.

[WoIverine]

FLOMBIE, on 18 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

They'd cost millions.

Probably billions, we can't even get a humanoid robot to walk up stairs 100% of the time yet. A lot more code is needed.