Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
and then

Replacing America: Who would You choose?

71 posts in this topic

The greater our techological military edge the less people we loose in war. Are you actually in favor of killing people instead of improving technology? I think that whatever the costs, we're better off with a virtually unbeatable military, then with moderate spending and a military that is satisfied with a 1 in 10 death per soldier in the warzone. I'd rather spend ten times the other guy and have no one killed. Soon we'll not have soldiers fighting at all, as everything will be operatable by robot remotely controlled from the other side of the world.

What i was saying was that overwhelming technological superiority is no use at all in the kind of wars the leaders of the U.S. have committed it to in recent times. It may be unbeatable, but doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to win. The best that can be hoped for is a stalemate that goes on for ever. And besides, it isn't virtually unbeatable, is it? Even with all this overwhelming superiority, soldiers are still killed all too frequently, aren't they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I have a problem with the idea that there needs to be a greatest/strongest nation or empire. That's exactly the kind of thinking that gets oppressive empires started on the path to trying to conquer everything. It perpetuates the idea that any one person or group can have 'the best' idea about how to live life or organize people, when in reality each individual needs to decide for themselves what is the best life for them. Because of the way societies are structured people are unhappy because they feel like they have to conform to ideals that they would not hold of their own accord, if it wasn't important to the society at large.

What difference does it make who is "best" ? For the most part, whatever place people live is going to be "best" to them anyway. Having some idea or consensus on who is best doesn't win any prizes and it doesn't make things better for anyone. It's just pointless human competition, that accomplishes little if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tis better the devil you know, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Australia as a superpower? mate.. I think we are a bit to laid back to be a super power..

mind you.. we could teach the rest of the world proper football.. good bear.. and how to barbie a snag..

There is nothing wrong with our bears they are usually quite well behaved - usually...

And we play perfectly proper football here (though I prefer college over pro)...

I have no idea what a 'snag' is but we invented Barbie...

:)

Edited by Taun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Americas political system and ideology are better than everyone elses then why does it require war for it to be spread around the planet? Surely the rest of the world would be falling over themselves to adopt it? (Snigggers).

Yeah! and, if America's so freaking great why are so many of its people miserable and hating the government and each other? I don't know where And Then lives, but it doesn't sound at ALL like the America I live in...

We need the next Superpower to have an ideology where the people come first not consumerism. I say we put the Dalai Lama in charge of the planet.

I do agree on the ideology that the people genuinely come first... and as I understood it that was the intention when the US constitution was written...we haven't been true to the forefathers in quite some time, and they knew it would happen:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts

they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of

resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

As for the Dalai Lama, I would hope he isn't subject to the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but we wouldn't know until it was too late :)

Edited by karmakazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I do agree on the ideology that the people genuinely come first... oh wait, that was the original point of this country...we haven't been true to the forefathers in quite some time, and they knew it would happen:

Agreed. The forefathers left behind explicit instructions to The People: keep your government in check.

Hard to believe the country they created and this one are one in the same, looking at the state of things now. We are taught from a young age to never question the will of the State, to be subservient to it, and to live in constant fear of it. A small example: remember Officer Friendly? Kids in the 60's, 70's, and 80's were taught that police were friends who cared about us and wanted to protect us. Nowadays police are dressed in all black and employ intimidation and fear far more than friendliness.

Is it as bad here as other countries? Not by a long shot. People elsewhere have had to live through horrors at the hand of their governments that I cannot even comprehend. But this was created to be the bastion of freedom, where people were allowed to roam free without oppression from their government. Now we're simultaneously fighting a war on terror while adopting it's principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. The forefathers left behind explicit instructions to The People: keep your government in check.

Hard to believe the country they created and this one are one in the same, looking at the state of things now. We are taught from a young age to never question the will of the State, to be subservient to it, and to live in constant fear of it. A small example: remember Officer Friendly? Kids in the 60's, 70's, and 80's were taught that police were friends who cared about us and wanted to protect us. Nowadays police are dressed in all black and employ intimidation and fear far more than friendliness.

The cops are pretty decent where I live. Where are you with the gastapo-type of police officers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cops are pretty decent where I live. Where are you with the gastapo-type of police officers?

Have you been to any major city lately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with the idea that there needs to be a greatest/strongest nation or empire. That's exactly the kind of thinking that gets oppressive empires started on the path to trying to conquer everything. It perpetuates the idea that any one person or group can have 'the best' idea about how to live life or organize people, when in reality each individual needs to decide for themselves what is the best life for them. Because of the way societies are structured people are unhappy because they feel like they have to conform to ideals that they would not hold of their own accord, if it wasn't important to the society at large.

What difference does it make who is "best" ? For the most part, whatever place people live is going to be "best" to them anyway. Having some idea or consensus on who is best doesn't win any prizes and it doesn't make things better for anyone. It's just pointless human competition, that accomplishes little if anything.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been to any major city lately?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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! :lol:

Edited by Spid3rCyd3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.