No empire lasts forever,

With regard to China, their economy has been vastly overrated. This has been news for a while now but it has yet to sink into the collective consciousness.

somebody mentioned. America vs china(no nukes included) america looses...us population 300 million. Chinise woman military 400 million. heck if they just start katapulting bodies on us troops they would win.

America is and will remain a superpower for some time...but eventually same will happen with them as with all other that wannted uber rule, ala my culture is superior to yours-We are good guys all other needs direction...one will make way too many enemies, politicians will kiss eachother asses and all wars and invasions you started, no matter how much you belive are noble and politically correct will breed contempt against that country nation.

I hope us will remain superpower in my liftime, better the devil you know, than...

Because of the emergence of "just war theory" philosophy. For a variety of reasons "The West" has been working to limit civilian casualties in war since the 1950s. In theory this makes us the "good guys".

The problem is that war is a battle of civilizations, and civilians provide for the soldiers. To defeat a civilization, you must attack both the civilians and the soldiers... to crush the will of the entire civilization to fight until they capitulate. This was pretty standard military doctrine around the world up until about the last 50 years.

While avoiding civilian casualties has humanitarian advantages, it directly works against the goal of winning a war. Iraq has what, 27-28 million people? America has killed how many total? 300,000? 500,000? I doubt that many. The war could have been won (although fewer would have had the stomach for the decision, but that's politicians for you) if the US had been willing to inflict about 4 million to 5 million casualties right away. It would have been a harder sell to the American people, to the UN (for as much as that quasi-legal body matters at all), and it is questionable whether the threat Iraq posed even with (putative) WMDs would have been worth taking so much life.

But IF you had simply carpet bombed the country, civilians and military, you would have crushed the people's will to keep fighting. Many people like to refer to Germany or Japan after world war 2, but I think a better example was Rome's final solution to Carthage. After being wiped, Carthage never again revolted. Coming with a gun in one hand and a peace treaty in the other was poor planning, and not the strategy of a military mind. It was perhaps more humanitarian, but seeing the suffering play out... how different would Iraq be if America and Britain had "decimated" (to kill one in ten, a Roman practice to quell revolts. A very EFFECTIVE Roman practice to quell revolts) the Iraqi population (2.8 million casualties) and the rebuilding could have started in earnest 4 years ago?

I'm not saying that Iraq was or was not such a threat that a loss of life on that scale was in America's, or the world's, interests. What I'm saying is, hard though it may be to hear, that is what it would have taken to win. "Shock and Awe" where the US detonated its munitions above the targets (ooh, sparkly) was not a winning strategy... it is like telling your opponent before you start that you won't hit them, you are only going to try and scare them to death. That will never beat a determined foe.


The US military is very powerful, and right now it is the most powerful in the world. This will not be the case forever, so eventually the US will not be the world's superpower. Given topography it will be difficult for an actual invasion to be successful, but that doesn't mean that America - especially if its Navy declines - can't simply be ignored by powerful civilizations.

In fact, until the US - or west in general - finds the fortitude to inflict casualties en masse again, the west will continually lose to guerilla style wars of aggitators and emerging powers. See the whole Russia vs. Chechnya history for a modern example.

To be clear - I'm not making a stand for the beliefs of a political party or country. My interest is as a historian of wars and how "might makes right" effects human relations in the present and throughout history. War is a dirty business. To win, you have to be willing to kill lots and lots and lots of people. Including civilians.

Of course - America should have learned that when Russia rolled into the Kabul, declared themselves the conquers of Afghanistan despite inflicting minor losses on the populace, and then were surprised when everyone kept fighting.

~ Wyndstar

Noting by your avatar Wyndstar, you must be familiar with the Tarkin Doctrine. There is elegance in the simplicity of slaughter.

Total War......not a good idea when you don't want to anger a dozen other nations, beside the one you are fighting. Difficult for the US to have any allies in the middle east if it started decimating the population of the countries they invaded.

Besides, looking at it from an historical and localized view, the Middle East, since the times of the Romans, have never truly being united under one goverment/leader. The people there, historycally, are not easily controlled by any foreigners.

Weren't they already mad? Total War is how you win wars. There are many books written on how Sherman's march to the Sea where he just butchered southern town after southern town was what really broke the will of the South in the American Civil War. In anyt case, that needed to be part of the calculation before deciding to resume the war after it had been on pause for so long.



Unless you threaten to decimate them too. According to President Musharafs book, that is exactly what the US government told him to get Pakistan's help in Afghanistan.

Look, I'm not arguing for or against the Iraq war. I'm telling you how it could have been won. Past tense. From where the US is at now, I don't know where they go. But I know what civilizations do to win wars against other civilizations. It is not PC to talk about anymore ("Politically correct" an invention of the 60s).



What about the Ottoman Empire?



Look, people will follow any order, convert to any religion, conform to any morale code... etc. if you kill enough of them first. How many depends (historically speaking) on how different what you are trying to force on them is from what they had. Protestants vs. Catholics during the Renaissance?

Generally speaking, a civilization's will seems to break (from my own research) at about 6% to 12% casualties... although in some cases if you are attempting a radical change you may have to get closer to 20% casualties before the civ's will is broken. REALLY broken. Less casualties and you just lead yourself open for another war later or continued revolution.


The more interesting question is what will the Geneva Convention do to the West if it continues to fail in vigorously destroying its foes. I don't think nuclear weapons are the end of war. I understand the GC's goals are to encourage "gentlemenly wars" that move away from the millions killed during world war 2. However, things like the prohibitions from killing civilians, I think makes following the convention and winning a war at the same time almost impossible. The Convention rightly recognizes that the killing it TAKES to win a war is horrible and should be avoided.

In fact, IF the US falls from becoming a super power soon, it will be (IMO) because it fails to ever actually use its power when seriously under threat because it tries to follow the Convention - combined with an economic collapse due to unchecked inflation and a fluid currency no longer backed by real value. THAT can only happen if the dollar stops being the reserve currency however... which is why the US should be worried about the Euro. Not the EU, just the Euro.


But I'm getting distracted. The point - my response to the original "if we are so great why didn't we..." question is: no matter your country's military ego, it doesn't help you WIN WARS unless you kill people. Millions and millions of people.

If you don't like that, don't get into wars.

~ Wyndstar

hahah what

if we dropped gunpowder out of planes and it burned people's skin off yeah

your argument is equivalent to saying that because hydrogen cyanide is used in dye that Zyklon-B is not a chemical weapon

It is good that we are divided; it is good that the government is inefficient; it is good that the gears of various departments move slowly and cannot be speed up. It prevents tyrants from being able to take over by "uniting us" behind a single "idea of the moment" and then seizing power over all aspects of the government before cooler heads have an opportunity to take a step back and discuss the ramifications of such actions or have an opportunity to expose the true intentions of said tyrants. Some of the most efficient Governments in the world have been the most tyrannical.

After all the only head of state in the 29th century to keep ALL of his campaign promises was Benito Mussolini.

He was very efficient at making the trains run on time!
He made it a capital offence. If the train was late the train conductor was shot as soon as the train entered the station and was replaced. Exceptions were made for such things as the train broke down, tracks were washed out and there was a wreck. (In which case the trains never made it to the station)

Just imagine what people like Bush and Cheney would have done after 9/11 had they been able to control all aspects of the government at that time.

We would not be having an election now cause;

"It would threaten us to change leadership in the middle of a war"
"Changing leadership now would send the wrong message to the world and to our enemies"
“In time of war the powers of the president are unlimited, any attempt to constrain
the powers of the Presidency in time of war are therefore an act of terrorism”

Even now without the hypotheticals stated above, we all know the controversies we are having concerning the administration’s actions in regards to power, imagine had we had an efficient government that would have enabled them to gain control over all the branches of government before anyone even thought to stand up and say “Now wait just one minute, I have a concern about this”.

Just keep those thought in mind when we scream about government ineffecincy and how slow change is within the gears of government.

also for those who would say that you think that those examples above would have beeen a good thing or have merit, change the statements to something you would NOT want to have hapen and see if you still want efficency after all.

if you guys compare country with a parliament system, be it a european or a UK based system comparing to that of a US presidental system, the ones with a parliament system are more efficient, but lacks slightly with checks and balances in comparison with a presidental system in the US. a good reference is two volumes on call Global convergence of Democracy and Global divergence of Democracy, both edit by Larry Diamond. The balance between having more checks and balances or more efficiency is not an exact science. Even communist countries like Russia or China have checks and balances, but it is just much less than western countries. However having said that, it is probably true that Russia have much more less checks and balances than china, i think in china, the checks and balances are more within the one-party system, more like intra party checks and balances. There are rules for elections to party positions, there are rules governing the proper following of those rules. Besides, china's party is so big, it can be split up with plenty of left overs.

Here is a way for China to take over the world. Please think slowly on this and follow the logic.

1. pass a law making it illegal to have more then two children.
They have this

2. Rather than aborting the "extra" children allow them to be adopted by foreigners and sent to those countries.

They do this

3. Those children grow up in the foreign countries and marry into the dominant ethnic group in that country.

Show me how this would NOT happen

4. We all have a natural tendency to feel more comfortable around that with which we are familiar. If we grow up surrounded by a large percentage of people who are part Chinese we would most likely feel comfortable around people who are from china itself.

Now follow me on this.

Fifty years later
Now within the world politic there is a bit of a struggle (not military mind you, but economic), as too who will basically have over all control of some aspect of trade dominance around the world.

Now the two primary groups that are seeking control in a peaceful manner are as follows

Group one consist of people from an ethnic group from which I know little or nothing, they are nice enough but they look, sound and act different from that to which I am accustomed to.

Group two consist of the Chinese, Yea they sound different than I am used to but they look just like many of the people around me, besides I am part Chinese myself, after all my grandmother was from China & a lot of my friends are also part Chinese. So I say we go with those guys (everything else being equal)


Fifty Years after that

Most of us are part Chinese and share a common ancestry with that country and culture. At the very least many others have an affinity for it. It is time that we start to bring the world together in peace and eliminate a lot of the barriers between us. Let us unite behind one common ideology, let us stop this infighting that has keep us apart for so long. It is time to just bring everyone together and being that most of us are part Chinese I say we allow the shots to be called from Beijing from now on! After all America has had it’s chance as world leader for almost 200 years now and they have not been able to bring us all together! Let’s just try this for awhile, besides, what harm can it do? We are, after all, all part Chinese ourselves! Let us reunite with our heritage!

Just a thought.  

Wow, SpacePony, that sounds shockingly similar to what white supremacy groups put out.

Don't underestimate other cultures' pride.



My mistake, I should have specified "foreign goverments/leaders". The Ottoman Empire was Turkish.

Windstar, you are only looking at the small picture. X country win over Y country. But there also dozens of other countries, dozens of others mature cultures, and in this day and age, global politics play a much larger role than 100 years ago.

Although you are right, the Geneva Convention does make it harder to win wars. But I think that is one of its goals, to try and deter wars.

http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

It seems to me that being a "super power" requires a few things.

First and foremost, is having a large population, since the larger your population, the larger your economic capacity, and the larger your overall raw military capacity.

Second is having sufficient natural resources to support your people's, and country's needs (i.e. economy, military, etc...) "Resources" includes food, energy/fuel, and raw materials (like metals, wood, textiles, etc...)

Third is to have a significant, and reasonably well trained and motivated military. It doesn't necessarily have to be well equipped, just substantial and/or suicidal (see how well the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong did in the Vietnam war, or the "insurgents" are doing in Iraq...) Having a substantial AND well equipped military helps, though.

Fourth is to have either a strong economy (or a potentially strong economy, if developed properly) or some other way to motivate the people in the country to work for a common goal.

Fifth is having a stable political/social environment.

Lastly, having strong scientific/technological capabilities is also important, since, in general, a greater degree of technical capability tends to grant advantages to whomever owns them.

There's probably lots of other things that make a significant difference, but the above seem to be the main things that create superpowers.

Put them all together, or even a number of them together (especially the first one) and you tend to get a "superpower" or at least a potential "superpower."

The USA is in a stage like the last century of the Romans.