Printable View
Empires come and go.
Who do you think will be the next dominant world power? Perhaps our childrens children will all argue about a new super-power? Or perhaps they'll be bitching about usa?
Edit: If any mod would like to fix the typo in the poll I'd be most grateful...
Canada :01:
What's a Canada?
see, you wont even know what hit you. :)
on that list... maybe europe realistically eskimos or australians. who'd waste a nuke on them? :smilie4: <<<if that doesn't exist anymore, its the one where the looks like he sat on a cactus
USA till the end of humanity.
Only cos they will prolly bring the end about themselves :lol:
You know you want to be Dominated
http://www.spatulaproductions.com/sp...mbarbiebox.jpg......
i can tell thats nervous laughter:unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
i think maybe we should move to somewhere in europe, cos when it all kicks off china, korea, japan and america will be vapourised. isreal and american iraq will do something to increase their power in the middle east, drawing russia into it. :no:
meanwhile western europe hide under their beds:01:
oh and thanks to britains special relationship with america. we're prime target on the front line with america's radar stations and nukes.:dry:
Australia should be pretty safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave
I wonder where the most bombed place will be on the planet?
north korea then japan. the US would be sparsely nuked but effectively
Why Japan? :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave
i thought n.korea wanted japan :unsure:
Yeah but do they have (m)any nuclear weapons? :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave
i think they're only short range. hence japan. so when you think about it america are invincible
Russia and China have long-range missles. Funnily enough pointed at america.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave
:01: why does the concept of america being vulnerable make me feel less desperate? :shifty:
There's probably a fair few pointed at us too though
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_n...ofn=nd02norris
I might be wrong about China...
Quote:
China is estimated to have an arsenal of around 400 nuclear warheads, down from 435 in 1993. China is thought to have produced some 600 nuclear warheads since 1964, and U.S. intelligence and defense agencies predict that over the next 15 years China may increase the number of warheads on primarily U.S-targeted missiles from 20 to between 75--100.
as the vote is for the NEXT possible dominant superpower i voted china. I don't see it happening soon, not in my grandchildrens (when i get them) lifetime.
The reason i think this could be isn't because of conflict but more economics. China is developing and i don't see that stopping. It is opening up greater trade avenues and has the ability to outgrow the USA economically and therefore the ability to be able to afford stronger defense systems.
The USA outspent the soviet union into arms reductions treaties, i don't feel that it is able to do the same to china, certainly not if it continues on this overstretched path it's on today.
USA until the end of humanity because were just too damn hard cool
:lol: :unsure: oh you were serious. sorry :ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyjuarez
Apologies
I voted without reference to who would win a fight between Meg Ryan and Godzilla.
I voted China on economic grounds. If they continue to develop as they have been doing they will be the dominant economy. In GDP terms they have gone from nowhere to second and have a GDP 55% that of the USA. That is one hell of an achievement. The should be the dominant economy within 25 years. Just for the record, I like duck in plum sauce. :)
The missile thing is largely irrelevant in my view.
what about GEP? :unsure:
:nono:
Now you are being silly!
And the fact that I don't know what a Gep is doesn't improve things. :angry:
Similar to the GOP...
Economically, China will become the next dominant superpower. They have the resources of a billion people to exploit...
Having most nukes doesn't make you a superpower. The USA will become very insular over the next few decades, their society will fracture, and nobody will trust anyone else in their own neighbourhood. They'll then spend all their time and energy on controlling the activities of their own population, that eventually they will become isolated from the rest of the world, and largely irrelevent.
accually no fuck face:frusty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai
I think that the world is becoming so homogenized and interdependent that we need to start thinking of ourselves as a common planet, not as isolated countries.
The problem with that concept currently is that the world is filled with "haves" and "have nots".
The "haves" have a certain standard of living that would be brutally curtailed if we starting acting as a global unit, and their politicians will stop at nothing to secure the resources to keep their people happy.
Don't worry though, all "haves" eventually collapse due to complacency or greed.
So my point is that as long as there are clear cut world powers, there will never be an effort to look out for the benefit of the planet as a whole and the "haves" will continue to exploit the resources of the world to their end.
This cycle has existed forever.
My answer was "other" and I was mandated to explain it, per post rules.
The next superpower I want is "no-one, I hope"
China
It seems India has been overlooked.
I see them as a contender owing largely to certain inherencies inhibiting China's overt advantages.
Of course, if/when China inherits/subjugates/annexes Russia (or, if they are smart, just Siberia), well, then, that would be game, set, and match.
Isn't Canada the 51st state? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by rossco_2004
im suprised to see china winning this
i strongly doubted them the most
and all this her,say about china having X amount of weapons is bollox!
i remember the time people used to say iraq had enuff nuke to wipe the world 9 times over!
Americans forces owned iraq with out much effort
They (China) have between 300-400 nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiber
I don't remember this time when people said Iraq had "enuff nuke to wipe the world 9 times over".
Your last point is interesting, are you suggesting that American forces would wipe the floor with similar ease in a war against China?
if im wrong about the 9 times over thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Withcheese
then why did people always talk about WMD?
my last point was about
all the hype about the WMD then when the disarm of Saddam started
no sort of WMD was used
like i said hear say
never said it would be easy to take china over
Nope! :01:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Sushi
China. It has the manpower. Couple that with technology and not too much westernisation and there will be no stopping them. Plus the fact Biggles will do anything (Anything:ohmy: ) for cheaper Duck with plums sauce.:lol:
:huh: Iraq was accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons - at no point did even people like Powell or Rumsfeld say they had nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiber
It is disturbing that such information could be so confused in the mind of the general public.
Being the next power has less to do with weapons and more to do with economics, which is why China is doing well in the poll + the duck in plum sauce thing :) Trying to equate world dominance with numbers of missiles is pointless. Russia has thousands of such weapons but this does does not translate into economic leverage.
edit:fungo-post
And that is the crux of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles