4too is like a vastly enhanced version of Prosper 
The US is in decline but has a navy
- Thread starter DammitBoy
- Start date
- Status
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Yoshi525 said:4too is like a vastly enhanced version of Prosper
Careful now Yoshi. That is considered an insult in some communities.
4too a version of Prosper? Hah! When I joined in 2003, 4too was already a well-established legend of these forums for his incisive arguments and extravagant writing style. Prosper is just an annoying troll that showed up two years ago and won't go away.Yoshi525 said:4too is like a vastly enhanced version of Prosper
TorontRayne said:
Pretty well. Because nobody felt like backing Georgia. But y'know. That's Georgia.
4too said:Anyway, may be time for tax payers to demand value for their contributions, and one locus of agreed value is the U.S.Navy.
So in a holistic, interdisciplinary, ecumenical way, DammitBoy is talkin' economics.
Haha. Good point.
Meh. Their respective writing styles have a lot in common, and considering the apparent uniqueness of said style, I do mean a lot. Prosper may be insane, whilst 4too genius, however the boundary between the two states is a thin one. Hence
Oil resources? You may want to look up how long those are predicted to last, at current production rates. Big fat bank account? A bit of a stretch there. Gas resources? Yes...and? Perhaps what you are groping for is naval might? They do afterall have the second largest navy?
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Yes, Russia itself have changed. It isn't that mindless communist machinery anymore, most of the state property belongs to a private owners now. Still, who knows what they will do? Perhaps they will demand even Alaska, which have belonged to them long ago. Keep your guns and navies ready, boys!
yeah and neither Britain nor France have access to nuclear weapons and Germany is not even having any tanks! Seriously! Who's going to stop them! We are DOOMED I SAY! DOOOOMEEED!DammitBoy said:
One of the last things the Soviets ... I mean Russians will do is to alinate their best consumers. Europe. They need us just as much as we need them. They earn a lot thx to the gas and other resources they sell to Europe. Just as how China has no interest in a collapsing US economy it is the same with Russia and Europe. What ever tensions there are because of Georgia or Chechenia. But behind the curtain its the economy and relation that counts. What will happen from here is another question. But I doubt it will lead to "military aggressions". Again. They need us as consumers. Just as how we need them as supplier. So it is rather unlikely that we will see their tanks marching trough Paris any time soon.valcik said:
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
This just in, this isin't the Cold War anymore. Russia has 0 interests in invading Europe. ''Reclaiming lost territory''? Even during the USSR Ukraine, Poland and co. were mostly considered deadweight in Russia, except for the ressouces they handed over. Nowadays, they still sell these ressources cheaply, no need for an invasion force to get em; cutting gas supply works well enough as a ''negociation'' tool. Same reason, say, the US won't invade Canada; of course, they could roll right over us, but beyond the obvious international and internal protests, what's the point when they already have everything they want from us?
Not to mention France and Great Britain have nukes and powerful armies of their own (insert tired old joke about the French surrendering here, so that we can get it over with). Germany is an economic powerhouse you don,t want to alienate.
Methinks you read too many Tom Clancy novels. So when's the war between China and Russia over oil (lol) coming then?
Well, obviously because a navy means you can dick around economically and no one will ever bother you because of your navy. That's how it works, right? In your analogy, the navy is the penis, right?
How is any of this related to economics, the topic of this thread and the thread this was split from?
How is any of this related to economics, the topic of this thread and the thread this was split from?
I don't know, but for their sake I hope it's to use it as a red herring and trick the US into sinking trillions of dollars into obsolete aircraft carriers, while directing the bulk of its own spending into missile technology, the real key to military dominance in the 21st century.DammitBoy said:
In a hypothetical war between China and the West, the biggest loser will be anyone relying on Cold War-era military doctrines - which is everyone. And once the Pacific becomes littered with husks of carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and other anachronistic rust-buckets, the powers involved will quickly use the only recourse they have available. And it will be the last war they will ever fight; perhaps the last one anyone will ever fight.
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
Any war between major powers would just be a nuclear exchanged. In fact I would hope for it.
What's the difference between dying of a bullet wound or radiation burns? At least the war would be short and the devastation so catastrophic the survivors might actually value peace afterward.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
What's the difference between dying of a bullet wound or radiation burns? At least the war would be short and the devastation so catastrophic the survivors might actually value peace afterward.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
I'm reading the writing on the wall. It's been there for a while now, and it says clearly and unambiguously: the navy is dead. Any country that relies on the navy in a symmetric war is dead, only it doesn't know it yet.DammitBoy said:
And therein lies the danger. How likely do you really think it is that a country, which has been on a (super)power-trip for the past hundred years, and which has just had the majority of its military assets turned into scrap in a matter of hours, will go down gracefully? How graceful was the Roman Empire in its fall? Or the Third Reich? And neither of those possessed nuclear weapons.
Which is why this hypothetical war won't happen. It can't. There's a lot more at stake than global economy and commerce, and stakes are set against everyone who gets involved. I want to believe that deep-down, policy-makers everywhere, including US and China, are aware of this, and are merely building up their navies for the sake of posturing, rather than entertaining illusions that these navies can in any way be of use in a real, symmetric war.
well the advantage of such a navy is not just in a war but there are many situations where it can be useful. Smaller conflicts like in Africa for example. A group of carriers has here the clear advantage of giving support.
Not to mention a navy doing its patrol in areas full of pirates is needed as well. That is what many european ships do right now.
Hands down there will not be any conventional warfare. Not as long most of the powers on this earth contain nuclear weapons.
Not to mention a navy doing its patrol in areas full of pirates is needed as well. That is what many european ships do right now.
Hands down there will not be any conventional warfare. Not as long most of the powers on this earth contain nuclear weapons.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Let's hope people are smart enough. The Cuban crisis back in 1962 almost started WW3 due to the nuclear arsenal.Crni Vuk said:
donperkan
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
DammitBoy said:
In that scenario youre fucked. Navy, or not.
Look at it from other side. That huge naval force runs on dollars, do you think it will reamain so powerfull when america steps down from it's throne.
EDIT: Stupid question considering america would rather sacrifice all social spendings than cut war budget.
- Status