OPINION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! (White Giant)

Very learned discussion. Robert, your comments were exceptional. The only point on which I would chime in is that the Brits most assuredly did NOT hand over Palestine to the pre-Israeli's. Quite the opposite. The infrastructure of the area, notably the police stations complete with armaments, was given to the local arabs. A black spot on modern British culture is the anti-semitism which was most evident in the implementation of the UN partitition plan.
History has been seriously muddled in recent years regarding how Israel was created and who the real troublemakers were.

Excellent summary of the current geopolitical situation as well.

We are transitioning from loose bipolar model to a mutipolar one. I suspect the distribution of world "power" will closely resemble that of the 1920's in form, if not actors, within a generation.

The US is credited for being the sole "superpower" due to our unrivaled capacity to project force not for our overall strength.

Mostly what I was refering to the US as being the only superpower was mostly the 1991 - 2000 range (one could argue we still are, but I'm not about to make that argument)

There is one thing China isn't quite up to speed compared to us if it ever came to (conventional) blows: And that's a Navy. I'm sure they have a strong navy, but not as technologically advance. Control the oceans, and your pretty much a fortress. Not that any conflict of any type would even be considered by either party. It would be incredibly idiotic to even talk of such things. We have a rocky relationship with that country to be sure, but the last thing either side would want is a war, conventional or not...

I know I'm not nearly as smart as you guys when it comes to history, but I think I DO have a pretty good IMPRESSION of history, and the reasons why people made some of the decisions they have. One of the biggest problems I have with people saying "oh, that was a terrible decision" or "why would other people think that way? The problem I have with that attitude, is that they're using hindsight, and ONLY hindsight. By putting yourself in they're shoes, and taking yourself back to those times, I believe most people should have a better understanding of history.

As for the Norman invasion in 1066, I knew the year ended in 66, I said 1166, or 1266, or 1366 or some damn thing. And I said the invaders came came from Normandy...is that right? Not terribly sure.

Anyway, back to what the original topic was about, it is completely unreasonable for people to actually hate the US the way they do. They may dislike it...or the government. And yes, the US does things purely out of self interest, but ya know what? There are now over 300 million Americans. It is the govmnts responibility to look after its own ppl and to do what's best for us. in fact, EVERY nations' govmnt has that responsibility, not just the US. Only the US has all this EXTRA abilities, and just tries to take care of others around the world as well. Sometimes that means getting involved in controversial things with other nations, but those nations have innocent people who would be more than welcoming to see someone cares about them, and is thinking of them, and is trying to do SOMETHING to change their lot in life.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Big Bad USSR becomes a more civilized, democratic Russia, and isn't really considered as much a threat....<!-/Quote-!>

Russia still has over 5000 nuclear weapons deployed and unlike the United States has been dismantling older weapons and upgrading to mobile and high accuracy warheads. Russia also is testing a new SLBM on par with a first generation Trident. The SS-25 is a road mobile launcher with shoot and scoot capabilities. Not good enough for counterforce but plenty capable of retalitory strikes on the 100 largest American cities. Or over half the population....

Excellent point Sam. The Russians are also continuing to develope top of the line conventional hardware, most notably high performance aircraft.

Woo-woo! Somebody (or bodies) gets it.

Russia has been very skillfully flying under the radar ever since Putin was elected. He was able to counter the malaise that the population had sunk into, in much the same way that President Reagan brought this country back from the disaster of J. Carter, by appealing to the national pride AND by making the country economically sound again.

The major reason the USSR collapsed was economic. Those of us playing SC are well aware how hard it is to give your people both guns AND butter. The economic recovery in the US during the Reagan administration and the accompanying increase and modernization of the military caused much concern in the Soviet Union. Their effort to "keep up" while at the same time running a war in Afghanistan AND dealing with widespread dissatisfaction in Eastern Europe was too much, and the economy imploded.

Make no mistake. Putin has publicly declared his desire to reunite much of the old USSR. And the man is a hero to his people. During the most recent election cycle (yes, I do know he's not Pres any more, but they created a Prime Minister type position just for him)the number one song on the Russian charts was a rock and roll group singing about Putin being the "savior" of the country. Putin learned his lessons from the previous collapse, and is quietly returning Russia to a force to be reckoned with.

Meanwhile, in a sort of deja vue all over again sort of scenario, the Clinton administration under the guise of a "peace dividend" did everything it could to castrate the US military and intelligence services. Then the current administration repeated the mistakes of a generation ago, and now it's the US falling asleep at the switch with a struggling economy and a war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

MM, the largest part of the Chinese modernization program has been their Navy. They are spending double what the US does on naval weaponry and R&D. They have consistently tested the US response. Do you recall the incident where they captured one of our intel gathering aircraft and refused to release the crew for weeks? I'm not sure we ever did get the plane back. They ran a massive military excercise off the coast of Taiwan. One of their "stealth" subs with nuke capability was able to shadow a US carrier group without us knowing it was there until it had to surface for one reason or another, and it was so close the carrier escorts could see it without binoculars! There have been incidents of both Russian and Chinese aircraft "buzzing" our planes. The Chinese are also intensely developing their space program and "star wars" type space based weaponry.

Bottom line is, as Farmer pointed out, history tends to run in cycles. The names and nations change, but the "game" remains the same.

Anyway MM, your gut instincts and the original reason for restarting this thread are valid, so don't stop just because you don't feel knowledgeable enough. We all specialize in different things. I have an advantage because I earn a portion of my living by writing about history, US and other. Don't let me intimidate you.

Now the God of War, on the other hand... (just joking)

MM: As for calling Scots, or Irish, or Scots-Irish British, I know my brother whole family he married into would take offense to that lol. I can only hear it now "I am NOT British!!" in his father-in-law's scottish accent.

Quite! And woe-betide any American (or other non-Brit) who makes the grave error of calling a Scot, English! (I've seen it happen.) It looks as though Scotland will eventually become independent from England. I must say, I'd be tempted to move there if that happens as I have agreed more with the policies and actions of Holyrood than Westminster (separate parliaments for Scotland and England+United Kingdom).

We do have a whole bunch of everything in London and, mostly, they all get along. The 7/7 bombers were from Bradford which is much more divided by race and religion.

Reason why America gets involved in world affairs in these modern times, for the most part, is because others around the world are needlessly suffering tremendously. We being the richest, most powerful, resource-rich nation the world has ever seen, coupled with our Christian background, we have a concience, and feel like we can, and SHOULD do something to alleviate that suffering, despite what others may believe.

This, I would disagree with, in part. I don't believe ANY country has ever gone to war for any reason other than political. In WW2, Britain declared war on Nazi Germany supposedly because we were Poland's ally. Even though there were plenty of reports of the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany at the time, they didn't even get a mention in our declaration of war and Poland only got mentioned once (not much, bearing in mind that the document ran to tens of pages).

If America really wanted to do something about suffering, they would have invaded Darfur in the Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe and probably a whole lot more. The first two were definitely a problem before the most recent invasion of Iraq and arguably, the suffering in Iraq has increased post-occupation.

In the past, America's military actions were used to defend Capitalism against Communism. That was a political battle. Nowadays, I'm not so sure what it is about. I think the invasion in Iraq was more to do with retribution for 11/9 (that's 9/11 to you guys) as a worrying number of Americans still think Iraq had something to do with it. Strange given that Saddam had booted (the Saudi) bin Laden out who had moved to Afghanistan to recruit for the attack. That would make it political in the sense that the American people wanted to see some action in response to 11/9.

I don't necessarily think that it's a problem that all wars are fought for political reasons, nor do I object to any or all actions of the US as a result of political considerations. I just wish it was acknowledged sometimes.

Hitler is a perfect example of a democratically-elected leader, and he led the world into one of the worst tragedies in human history

Hitler was NOT elected Chancellor democratically. The Nazi party, including Hitler, did gain a significant portion of seats in the German parliament democratically during the 1932 election. However, the previous ruling party failed to secure an absolute majority. Hitler and the Nazis entered a coalition government with the NSDAP and DNVP. The most powerful figure was supposed to be Papen, a devout Catholic and head of the Catholic Zentrum party, who intended to use Hitler as a figurehead which is why Hitler was given the position of Chancellor, with Papen stepping down to Vice-Chancellor. The Catholic Church in Germany released a statement wiping out previous criticim of Nazism and congratulated Hitler on his assumption of power. Previously, the Nazi party had garnered much of its support from Protestant churches in Germany. With the nod from the Catholic church, the Nazi party drew in support from both sides of the sectarian divide.

The next election in March 1933 produced even greater support for the Nazi party (possibly due to a fire in the Reichstag building blamed on communists). This was the pretext for additional powers suspending basic rights (including habeus corpus) and suppression of the Communist party. The Nazi party failed to gain an absolute majority, but was returned as the senior partner in a coalition government. An enabling act was signed using support from the Zentrum party (given following verbal assurances of the liberty of the Church) that gave the Cabinet legislative powers. With this combination of legislative and executive power, Hitler was able to suppress the remaining political opposition. The SA paramilitary were used to push Hugenberg (Zentrum Minister for the Economy) to resign isolating Vice-Chancellor Papen.

"President Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor)." (Wikipedia).

As you can see, although Hitler became a junior partner in a coalition government through legitimate means, he used this limited power, and the muscle of the SA, to seize total power with a veil of decency.

I, more or less, completely agree with your comments on the Cold War.

JMR: Were you aware of just how close the British Isles came to being something completely different?

I was actually. It is a fascinating story. The poor army had to march from North-East England to the south coast within weeks of a big battle and arrived exhausted and unprepared for another major invasion attempt.

I think that the British Empire (upon which the sun never set) was successful in part due to the fact that they copied one aspect of the ancient Roman Empire. That aspect was that, after conquering a region, both of those Empires more or less allowed the region a good deal of self-rule. Yes, the Governor would be from the Empire's homeland, but as long as the local rulers kept the population quiet, the Empire let them do their own thing. My personal bet is that Britain learned from their experience in North America during the latter half of the 18th century!

I agree, up to a point. Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa and our Asian colonies were granted considerable local power. India in particular was ruled primarily by the Indian Civil Service, staffed almost entirely from local people. The ICS is still a beacon of un-corruptibility in a post-decolonisation world full of corrupt bureaucracies.

We did, however, make a right pig's breakfast of Africa. This, I am ashamed to say, was mainly due to racism. It was thought, much as it was in the US at that time, that black people were uncivilised and incapable of ruling for themselves. That's where the white man took over in the guise of colonial government. The state of Africa now is, in part, a result of that. When we granted independence, we left most African states without any form of civil service as the preceding governing bodies were all staffed by whites (and Indians) who left. Africa was left without the expertise to govern itself properly leading to civil wars and shocking corruption.

There's an old Arabic curse which goes "May you live in interesting times." I think we are, and I'm curious to see how all this washes out.

LOVE IT! I must remember that one.
MM: As for the Norman invasion in 1066, I knew the year ended in 66, I said 1166, or 1266, or 1366 or some damn thing. And I said the invaders came came from Normandy...is that right? Not terribly sure.

Yep, Normans invaded 1066.

Various peeps: USSR becoming a more civilised, democratic Russia

I wish it were so. Despite a veneer of democracy, Russia is in some respects very un-democratic. It's been through a lot of turmoil since the fall of communism, but is getting back to strength again. Quetzalcoatl and others, are right to worry about the new warheads, etc., in development in Russia. More so because Russia is taking offence at American plans to build a missile defence shield in the Czech Republic.

On the Scottish independance thing...

Scotland would soon go bankrupt if it split off from the UK. Their policy is one of overspending in relation to their actual income, hence why so much of Scotland's services are funded from Westminster. A split for them would ultimately be a disaster. Their total economy is weaker than that of the county of Yorkshire, which ought to put it into perspective.

Scotland is a nation of some 5 million people, with an economy and public services heavily reliant on that of England. Devolution is a grand idea, but full independance would be catastrophic.

And Scottish bankrupcy was the reason they wanted the union in the first place.

That's one of the arguments frequently put forward against Scottish Independence. However, Scotland's economy is fairly strong (per capita, it is the third region in the UK after London, and the South-East) and might not necessarily require contributions from England.

Oil revenues also help prop up the Scottish economy although this is unsustainable as North Sea oil production peaked in 1999. Much of the revenue from this went to Westminster rather than Scotland.

That said, I would agree that full independence for Scotland would weaken both Scotland and England.

A quick analysis of the various regions of the UK yields the following results for GDP per Capita in US Dollars:

London $71,041.60
South East $50,080.00
East $44,444.80
South West $43,756.80
East Midlands $42,692.80
West Midlands $41,489.60
North West $40,633.60
Yorkshire $40,480.00
Scotland $39,680.00
Northern Ireland $38,813.94
North East $36,617.60
Wales $30,546.00

As for the oil, it didn't really matter where the revenue went at the time given that it was owned by the British Government. Now, I believe it's mostly a private venture. And any territorial claims to the waters would be under much dispute. The closest nation doesn't always own it. Falklands, Gibraltar, etc.

And then there would be the whole mess created by figuring out who owns which overseas territories. Everything from services to infrastructure, economy to armed forces would have to be broken down.

It would all be very messy.

And, as you say, Scotland has nothing to gain from leaving the union other than their national pride. England has nothing to gain other than a lowered demand on government finances. Scotland and England work so much better together within the UK.

The global ramifications, also, could prove startling. The United Kingdom would no longer exist. What would happen to the seat on the UN security council? What would happen to all British Crown Dependancies overseas? What would happen to institutions which are heavily integrated into every nation of the UK, such as the NHS, military, industry and commerce?

And imagine the cost of removing all that lovely blue from the Union Flag...

Where did you get your numbers from? I've found this list, but it's GVA which takes into account tax and subsidies (Economy of UK regions). The Office of National Statistics seems particularly fond of this measure.

Anyway, the decision will be political rather than economic.

Re: The global ramifications. That is pretty startling. The Crown Dependencies would remain as such. Alex Salmond (First Minister of Scotland) favours becoming a Dominion like Canada and Australia so that wouldn't be affected. The NHS is devolved to Scotland already (from before the establishment of their parliament) and I suspect Scotland would retain the Pound Sterling. Given that much of our economic activity is already regulated by the EU, I don't think industry and commerce would be overly affected. Neither side would be likely to impose trade embargoes!

Our international obligations are a different matter. I would expect that we would remain the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland which would leave much of things unchanged. When the numerous states of the USSR separated (the Baltics, Ukraine and Belorussia that were politically part of the same entity, rather than Poland et al. which had puppet governments), the seat on the UN security council remained with Russia.

Scotland would gain independence from the UK, so I would assume something similar would apply.

Re: the Union Flag. Damn good point! Maybe we'd work the Welsh dragon into it at the same time: Wales is currently unrepresented!

THAT would be freakin awesome looking! The british flag with a (golden?) dragon in the middle! It would be like "yeah, we're the UK, don't mess with our fire breathing dragon!"

Zetitec: About the Chinese sub shadowing the US carrier group, I DO remember that.

The media was all abuzz about that. However, the Chinese govnt may be spending twice as much on their R&D for their military as we are, but does that mean their as efficient? The American defense contractors are incredibly efficient at what they they do. My brother was in the Navy about 8 years ago, and worked for Spay-war up until last year.

He was talking a bit about some of the Top Secret projects he was able to see. Well, all he said about 2 of them was they they were pretty damn cool, and other nations better not even THINK of messing with us, or our allies....so yeah, I'm not terribly worried about that aspect a whole lot. The Russians are so far behind both the US and China, that neither nation would be terribly worried about them (Well, except their nukes, obviously, but if it had to come to that, the world would just end immediately anyway. I'm mostly thinking of conventional warfare, since nuclear warfare is pretty much out of the question, except for terrorists)

And besides, why in the hell would nations like China and Russia, who are finally coming out of hard times, want to risk all that they have worked so hard for in the past decade. The building of all these new weapon systems are to be used as a deterrant against aggression. Much like how the nuclear buildup after WW2 was used.

And wasn't it Cambodia/Burma that just had a huge earthquake several months ago? Whatever country it was, the govnt refused to open their borders for international aid, and I seem to remember the American govnt doing everything it could to get the aid to those ppl. So no, not everything the US is is based purely on politics...The majority of what it does may be political, but not everything.

I guess I'm just a more glass half-full, kinda guy.

Ok. Where to start on this discussion?

As a 100% American Scotsman, the entire clan picked up and emigrated to the colonies in the 1740's, I say with pride that we are only good for fighting, screwing, and inventing ridiculous sports. Despite the history, Scotland is firmly bound to the UK. Though my people may be stupid enough to talk about independence, eventually the whiskey runs out and we sober up.

The scary thing about the Chinese is their progress in areas that exploit American vulnerabilities. They have demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites, adios GPS navigation and targeting guidance. Also, they are likely the world leaders of the next generation of warfare, cyberwar. They have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar many times in that arena.

Why would China seek conflict when their economy is booming and they would seem to be on the verge of reestablishing the middle kingdom as a preeminent world power? Why did Japan in 1933?
Is the Chinese position now in regards to resources any different than Japan's in the 30's?
Who did Japan view as the greatest potential threat to their regional hegemony at the time? Would Chinese strategic assessments lead to different conclusions?

Wars are most frequently about population pressures and their economic consequences. Follow the money. In some leader's minds over the course of human history, it was an easy decision to choose to take by force what could have been gained by other means. For the exercise of power is the greatest drug ever known to man. The ruling oligarchs of modern China are extraordinarily powerful individuals. At what point might they realize for China to take the next step towards becoming a true superpower, they will require more resources than can be purchased or traded?
Interesting times.

Why would Russia be following a similar path? Who is on their SouthEast border? Nuff said.

We Westerners will be facing some hard realities in the coming decades. Are we now seeing history repeating itself with new players?

Wales isn't on the Union FLag because it technically isn't a nation. It's a principality of England.

In regards to comparing Japan in 1933 to China now:

In 1933, you remember, the entire world's economy was pretty much dead. Japan was still an Imperial nation, who wanted to just go about land-grabbing. Also, there was no such thing as nukes back then. You seem to forget the knowledge of the power of nuclear weapons that people have. That power is incredibly enourmous. There is no way China, in it's right mind, would want to risk such a catastrophe. Remember how Russia "blinked" during the Cuba missile crissis? That was because they were just as afraid of war as Americans ever were. I believe the Chinese are just afraid of it as well.

Now, considering that people cannot live in fear forever, either 1 of 2 things will happend:

1: The superpowers of the world (USA, Russia, China, perhaps the EU) would come to terms, and begin to establish a more peaceful world, or...

2: We'll end up blowing eachother up after all.

I don't think the second option will happen. (There's the possiblity of course, but still)

I DO believe it is very possible Red China will fall, and leave in its place a True People's Republic of China. It won't be any kinda of large revolution like in Russia in 1917. It won't even be any kind of collapse of their economy like Russia in 1991.

Instead, it'll take place slowly, and evolve on its own. After the Cold War generation is dead and gone, hell maybe even after MY generation is dead and gone. It's already taking place. Beijing is huge construction zone of city, in which millions of square footage of office space is opening. Same with Shanghai. The office tower is the most powerful symbol of a free market/free society there is, which is why terrorists target such buildings.

The Olympics are coming to China (I know they don't exactly have the best human right's record in the world, which is why I'm reluctant to defend that nation at all to begin with). But the leaders of China HAVE been trying to rectify it as much as possible. I'm not giving them a whole lotta credit there though, all things considering.

Their Justice System is evolving, it isn't nearly as corrupt as it was, even 10 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, they are an incredible threat to the West. But like I said, people cannot live in fear forever. Either one thing or the other is going to happen. And I pray with all that is in me that China does reform, and become a great friend of the West.

Which brings me to another point: The Chinese people...the normal, everyday people I mean, are actually in love with American culture, much like how the Japanese people are. And the American people, vice versa. There are many Americans who are obsessed with Eastern culture, which is why I don't think any kinda of warfare is going to be feasible for all parties concerned. And if warfare were to happen, that would just make it that much more tragic anyway. We'll just end up playing these silly little war games with eachother for a while, but I highly doubt anything big is ever going to come of it.

Jeez, go away for a bit and miss a bunch! Just to touch on the interesting prospect of the Scottish Kingdom devolving from the UK. I need to spend some time over in the UK outside of London again. I wasn't aware that the idea was even being considered. I would hope that the idea is similar to the Quebecquois in Canada, something they continually grumble about, but don't really intend to do.

I have some very fond memories of Scotland. The first out of country trip my girlfriend and I took was to the UK. We based out of a resort in Stratford-upon-Avon, and the only mistake we made was renting a car (as Americans WILL do!) instead of getting a two week BritRail pass. We drove up to Scotland (yeah, from the Midlands, on the back roads)and checked out Stonehenge, then motored over to Edinburgh. Got there just as dark was falling so we decided to park the car and find a pub for some dinner. Walked around, got lost, suddenly came upon this tiny little place that I wish I could remember the name of. Had a GREAT meal, and the absolute best cider I've ever drank in my life, before or after. We had parked close to the castle, and the barkeep kindly directed us back there. Came around a corner, and there was the castle, lit up and one of the most impressive sights I've seen. Needless to say we did not drive back that evening. And we've been back 3 or 4 times looking for that pub, and it's as if it was the magical beings of Scotland that eve, 'cuz the darn thing just isn't there. And neither one of us can remember the name of it.

I ramble. My apologies. I just feel that both sides would be overall losers if it ever came to fruition. The history of the two is so intertwined.

Now I need to slip back to the other topic. Farmer, you're dead on in your assessment of the Chinese. One of the reasons the US "needed" to use a missile to shoot down that errant satellite a while back was to show the Chinese government we had the capability also. As you mentioned, the Chinese had without warning done the same thing with one of their's earlier.

It's eerie you mention good bye GPS, etc. The US media did not cover this, at least to my knowledge, but earlier this year a handbook which is issued to all Chinese General officers found it's way into Western hands. It covers all the basics, and includes the methods to be used in the case of civil disturbance. But the most interesting part of the manual is at the end, where various scenarios and battle plans are laid out.

You have either seen that report or know something of it's contents. There is a scenario which deals with the recapture of Taiwan, something the mainland has wanted since it became independent. That scenario calls for, simultaneously, a massive disruption via cyberwar to all US military and government systems in the Far East, and an attack via missile launches to destroy as many satellites as possible to leave the US Navy high and dry. While this is going on a series of tactical nuclear strikes (yes, I said nuke) will be launched against selected military complexes in Taiwan, the Chinese Navy will move to block the Straits of Formosa, and the invasion fleet will set out, preceeded (sp?) by an aerial bombardment.

This is not fiction. MM, I really appreciate your viewpoint. Everything you say makes sense to Westerners, who place a value on human life. But if you will allow me, a brief synopsis on China.

China is an ancient Kingdom/country. It has been around for thousands of years. The Chinese people believe it is their destiny to control, at the very least, all of the Far East. Korea has been through much of history under their hegemony. Japan has been their traditional enemy for eons, both those cultures believe it is their destiny to have a controlling interest in the region. Since the end of WWII Japan has had to be content to be the economic power, which of course the Chinese are in the process of supplanting. If they have not already.

Another thing that's hard for us to understand is the viewpoint on human life. We in the West demand and expect personal freedom and rights, and expect our governments to safeguard our lives and liberties. In the Eastern culture it's completely opposite. The individual is secondary, one's allegiance to family, clan, and state supercede all other considerations. Honor is the only thing an individual can control, and the code of honor is immense. To "lose face" no longer requires ritualistic suicide, but it can destroy lives and careers nonetheless.

Do you have any idea how many bodies are buried inside the Great Wall in China? The peasants were worked up to 16 hours a day to build it, and when a peasant died from whatever reason they were just mortared over. Tens of thousands of them died and are entombed in the Wall. And the bizarre thing? They did it willingly, because the Emperor had decreed it.

Granted, things are much improved over there now. But don't look for a revolution any time in the near future. Remember Tiananmen Square? Thousands of students tried to protest for more freedom. The Army ran them over with tanks. The mentality hasn't changed. You can get the internet now, but you won't be reading this discussion there. Google, Yahoo, and the rest agreed to allow the government to censor what it's citizens could see.

One last thing about the Chinese, they have a LOT of patience. They don't really care if it takes generations to accomplish their goals, they've been around for a mess of generations already, and expect to be around for a mess more.

I agree with you on the construction bit, and on the fascination with Western culture among the young. And I second your hope that the reforms continue. As I said earlier, I really respect your thoughts and opinions. I like to think of myself as a "glass half-full" type too. But as two heros of mine said: "Walk softly, but carry a BIG stick." Theodore Roosevelt, US President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, first conservationist, and the buster of the monopolies in the US. And "Trust, but verify." Ronald Reagan, whom I don't need to tell about.

I would hope that the idea is similar to the Quebecquois in Canada, something they continually grumble about, but don't really intend to do.

Well, they've been grumbling about it for decades and have got their own parliament out of it. The Scottish Nationalist Party finally won a majority (though not a controlling majority) at the last election and have promised a referendum before 2012. They don't have enough support in the parliament to push it through, though, and it won't be legally binding as constitutional matters are still under the control of Westminster.

That said, if the Scots voted for independence, there would be a lot of pressure on Westminster to accede to the demands.

the only mistake we made was renting a car (as Americans WILL do!) instead of getting a two week BritRail pass.

Our rail network is much better than in the States, but leaves a lot to be desired after decades of under-funding. That said, the amount of congestion on the roads generally makes rail travel more appealing.

We drove up to Scotland (yeah, from the Midlands, on the back roads)and checked out Stonehenge, then motored over to Edinburgh.

Not sure what you saw in Scotland, but it wasn't Stonehenge. That's near England's south coast, some 600 miles from Scotland. It's not the only Stone Age stone circle, though, just the most famous.

Thank you Robert for contributing the details about Chinese history and Eastern cultures.

The point being folks, that in real world discussions of this type, the planning process revolves arounds THREATS and RESPONSES. This is how militaries function at the strategic level.
Who are our potential enemies?
what are their current and projected capabilities?
What are their plans and intentions that we can determine from their weapons programs, training regimens, and force structure.
Order of Battle?
Etc., Etc., Etc.

We then make the same assessments of ourselves and plan responses for all manner of possible conflicts and political crises. So when NCA calls a theater CINC and asks "what can we do about this?", that general or admiral can turn to his J3 and get firm, preplanned answers in the form of up to date operations plans. So goes the theory anyway.

The point I am making here is that this debate is not quite as theoretical and hypothetical as you might believe. Conflicts WILL occur at some point in that area that involve Western powers. The nuclear capabilities of some of the actors only decreases the likely scale of the conflicts but does not mitigate the perceived NEED for military actions. "Incidents" among the PRC, PI, and Vietnam have occured already over oil fields in the South China Sea. That is only one area of potential strife in that AO.

Robert, Japan, with US encouragement, has been considering taking a much more aggresive role in their regional security. Even to the point of becoming nuclear capable with our blessings. The recent AirForce screwups involving strategic ordanance and components have the devious part of my mind wondering if we aren't "losing" things through "accountability errors" that end up in Japanese hands. Not like this hasn't happened before. There are many ways aroung Congressional oversight.

Though my work in the intel field was focused on the Warsaw Pact, China has always represented the geatest long term threat to US interests. Your assessment of their psychology is spot on, though they are not monolithic in their culture and politics. Many unquantifiable variable are in play in China, and we have always been woefully lacking in assets to gauge their internal political heirarchy.

When stepping back and looking at China's actions and progress, however, one cannot be more concerned when one considers the ramifications of their current economic and military policies. Their energy demands alone will dwarf the West's in the next 10 years. They are not attempting to make a technological generation leap into renewables, but are rather following in our footsteps to develope a modern real world economy based on the old systems. Factories, IC engines, coal fired power.

While their urban populations have been granted much greater freedoms to embrace the fruits of capitalism and hence contribute to the economic progress of their nation, their political freedoms have remained unchanged. In Western societies, the development of a large, productive middle class inevitably led to devolvement of political power into more egalitarian political systems. Such need not necessarily be the case in China. The pressures to share political power with those who have the economic power will be there, but whether China's ruling oligarchy is willing or able to do so is very much in doubt.

As you said. Interesting Times.

A discussion such as this is entirely proper in the context of SimCountry, however.

Can you see real world parallels between how political/military assessments are conducted?

I would LOVE to visit Scotland. From all accounts, it's an incredibly lovely country. I wish I could see it. My brother's wife (sister-in-law I guess you could say?) is from Edinbourgh. When they came to visit, she just kept remarking how Pennsylvania (my homestate) is so much like the country-side in Scotland (with quite a few more trees, of course)

In fact, while driving on I180 (a highway which goes through my hometown, Williamsport) she even remarked how she could swear she was driving on the wrong side of one of the highways that run through Scotland down to England.

[I]I agree with you on the construction bit, and on the fascination with Western culture among the young.[/I]

Which gives me hope of a good future for that nation. Maybe in 30 - 50 years, the more idealistic young people now will come to power in China, and begin to take on some Western morals, such as the various freedoms we enjoy here. That has already happened in Japan, which is a country that's just as ancient, with very similar codes of honor and so forth, as China.

The great thing about my hometown, is the Little League World Series is held here every year. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world come here every single year, and each year brings more and more people.

From 1993 - 1998, I was a soda vendor/program vendor at the ages of 10-15 (back then, it was only a week long, and there was only 4 American teams, and 4 International teams. Now it is double that, at 8 American, and 8 International.) While I would walk around selling my soda, I couldn't tell you how many of the various Far-Eastern people would travel to the opposite side of the globe to come to Willyport.(whichever country happened to qualify that year, used to be Taiwan. Japan was there once, and China was there as well)Seems the Far-easterners consistently had far more, louder fans, then any other team that made it. They were also the most polite as well. And I couldn't tell you how many times a family would stop me and take a picture of me with my dumb little vendor holder and take pictures of me. Then take pictures of me with their family members.

Watching them downtown, their eyes were always wide open, taking everything in. ALWAYS taking pictures of everything. They would also sell out the movie theater as well. They always seemed like they had the most fun than any other countries. They are also the ones that bring in cow bells by the thousands. It is a very nostalgic thing to me, hearing cowbells at baseball games, cuz that's all you would hear at the LL Complex.

Anyway, my point is, if we could hold off any conflict for the next half generation, the people coming into power in China could very well make much-needed reforms. Seems every new generation of Chinese are getting a bit more liberal than the previous generation

I mean classic liberalism, which is freedom from coercion. Not mordern-day liberalism, which is basically every single interest group under the sun has more rights than the majority of Americans. Those people irritate me to no end.

I am also very familiar with Teddy Roosevelt. One of my favorite teachers was obsessed with teaching us about the guy.

AAHH, about the energy thing. China is making a serious mistake with trying to copy our energy models. The use of Fossil Fuels is not sustainable. Many people across the US are making a push for more renewable resources. Many Western nations have already made that transition.

When fossil fuels run out:

Some argue we wont for hundreds of years, and others argue that we already are running out. From my point of view, I tend to agree more with the assessments of the latter than the former. I am now making more money than I ever have, and am struggling more than ever in putting gas in my car so to me, that is an indication that we must be running out. And whenever that happens, the countries that have not made the transition to green energy will be left in the dust.

That is one thing that angers me about this nation: we have the means/technology to begin switching to greener energy, but people refuse to do so for some completely, stupid....GAWD there's no word to describe these people!

An example: Lycoming County (in the state of PA) was planning on building a large wind farm, that a retired farmer donated to the county government. This windfarm would produce enough power to supply half the county, including Williamsport. The nuke power plant in Berwick would be able to scale back. However, there were these "[b]PEOPLE!!!!![/b] that think these wind mills would hurt wildlife!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was in the Billtown paper. I was like WTF?!?!? hurt wild life??? The hell kind of an argument is that? GAWD I was PISSED. I immediately wrote the Sun Gazette, in complete opposition to the article. After that, I swear, people kept writing into the paper for the next 2 weeks on that subject. The big argument against the wind farm was some stupid little bird that tends to nest in these windmills, and they endanger these birds' lives for some god-unknown reason. The windfarm never got built! Now we're stuck with high energy costs! AND we get brownouts because the nuke plant cannot keep up with the supply of power! All because some stupid, cretin, tree hugging hippies wanted to preserve the most idiotic bird in existence!!!

If ANYHTING, the damned windmills would help to not only PRESERVE wildlife, by producing the cleanest possible energy in the world (THE WIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) but it would help to alleviate high energy costs, stop the brownouts, use less nuclear waste (Thereby preserving EVEN MORE wildlife) and well....damn...

heh, anyways, sorry bout that stupid rant, but the thought of using all that oil, not producing the hybrids, not building windmills, not building geothermal plants, not producing solar panels in bulk...well...that just pisses me off to no end. I should just move to Iceland, which gets 99% of its energy completely naturally.

Will come back later for more discussion, but just HAVE to say "egg on my face!" with regard to Stonehenge! I COULD say I was just testing you Zetetic, but I'd be lying.

We did see Stonehenge on our two week trip, but we also saw some famous attraction in Scotland prior to going on to Edinburgh, but guess I'm getting old. It was 20 years ago or so, and we've been over there 10-15 more times (try to do a once a year) since then, so things tend to blur a bit.

Again, gracias for pointing out my error. I normally do a proofread and double check of facts before I post, but naturally the time I don't I get caught! Oh well, I guess a 90% is better than zero.

Looks like I end up with a double. MM, you and I are going to bang heads here a little. Not that I disagree with the thought of moving away from "dirty" energy into cleaner burning fuels, I do think so.

You are paying higher prices at the gas pump not because oil is scarce, it's not. The US, thanks to the environmentalists, has not built a new refinery in over 30 years. The current refineries are running at 100% capacity, and have been for years. When they have to shut down for annual maintenance, we have shortfalls. When they make the transition from gasoline to heating oil production and back again we have shortfalls. Just recently for the first time in its' history The US had to begin importing REFINED gasoline. That's asinine.

There has not been a new nuclear power plant built in this country in over 30 years. France has no energy problem because the vast majority of their electricity comes from nuclear power. If we would have built just one plant every 5 years since the 70s, we would not have a problem. Thank you again environmentalists.

If Detroit would have increased the mpg of vehicles by just 1/4 of a mile per gallon each year since the 70s, we would not have a problem. Thank you big auto, who are now paying a heavy price for sticking their heads in the sand.

Even with all that, the primary reason the price of oil went through the roof is not lack of supply, it is speculators. Oil is a commodity, bought and sold in contracts along with other commodities on the various commodity exchanges around the world. The majority of these contracts are not traded by corporations, but by individual investors who have no intention of using the product. I won't go into a lesson on commodities here, but suffice it to say that George Soros made hundreds of millions of dollars trading oil contracts in 2007. Those of us who were around in the 70s probably remember when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market, and the price of silver went from 5 bucks an ounce to over 50. Same thing here.

The Dakotas have been sitting on an estimated 500 billion barrels of oil for over two decades. It is in a hard to reach location, and will cost about 20-30 dollars a barrel to get it out, so until the past couple years it just wasn't profitable to drill. Last year the state finally began issuing drilling permits, and guess how many are in operation now? None. Before the ink even dries on the permit the environmentalists are filing lawsuits to block it. Not because there is anything in the area as far as wildlife or natural beauty that should be preserved, it is being done because these people are off the wall and determined to block any and every effort to help the US become energy independent.

Foreign countries are putting up oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, and laughing all the way to the bank as we stand by sucking our thumbs.

Anwar should be opened. The Alaska pipeline has actually been beneficial to the wildlife in the areas it passes through. The pipeline needs to be heated to protect the flow of oil, and small animals and even caribou have made their nests/home territories in it's neighborhood.

There are hundreds of oil rigs in Texas just begging to be uncapped and production resumed. Not happening.

The entire thing is just a simple scam being foisted on the common guy by people with an agenda. Just like the recent ethanol fiasco here in the US. A simple feel good measure by our politicos so they can tell the people they're doing something about the energy "crisis".

Ethanol is a farce. It decreases mpg. It costs more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. Due to it's volatility, ethanol cannot be pipelined. So it needs to be trucked from point of manufacture to point of use, using more gas.

Ethanol here in the US is made from corn. It can, and is, being made in other countries by using sugar cane, which is more efficient than corn, and is actually a pretty decent alternative to gasoline. Brazil in particular manufactures huge quantities of it. But gee, the politicians made sure to outlaw any foreign ethanol purchases when they made the law!

Noticed your grocery bills skyrocketing? Can you guess why? What does livestock eat? Corn, soymeal, alfalfa, other crops. If you are a farmer and can get 8 bucks a bushel for corn or 5 for soybeans, what are you most likely to grow? With the demand for corn for ethanol use, a huge chunk has been taken out of the animal husbandry food chain. Hence, higher meat and dairy prices.

Thanks to a 40 year old law making it illegal for US companies to buy sugar anywhere except the US (the late Sen. Inoue of Hawaii was responsible for that bit of hocus-pocus), the vast majority of sweetening product used in sodas, candy, etc., is corn syrup. Up goes the price of anything which needs sweetened.

If we flattened the entire US and planted every acre with corn, we would still not meet 25% of our consumption needs. The ethanol thing is a crock, and it's costing the average Joe a lot of money in a lot of different ways.

Wind power is one alternative source, and one which the technology is improving, but it is still not very efficient. Solar power is another technology which is improving, but the critical thing there is getting the storage capability squared away. If you're in Arizona or southern Cal., solar is great. Elsewhere they need to find a more efficient storage method for it to be practical.

Iceland is unique. A volcanic island that indeed gets most of their energy from geothermal. I'd like to see more geothermal usage here in the states. It's reliable, it's efficient, you don't need to worry about birds or if the sun will shine today. And the technology is already proven.

Almost hate to say this, but I would have been on the birds' side in the great windmill debate in Williamsport. Wind farms, under the current tech, are just not efficient enough. If you don't have a consistent source of wind, such as close to the shore, it just doesn't pay. I doubt if you would have seen an appreciable decrease in your bills. And if the brownouts come from lack of capacity at the nuke plant, the small amount that the wind farm would have produced would not have impacted that very much either. Not sure about "your" birds, but out West they have had a lot of trouble because the wind farms are built in the direct migratory path of some species, and they get sucked into the windmills and instant McNuggets, killing them by the thousands. Where were the environmentalists for that? Windfarms are part of their agenda, that's why they didn't bother to file lawsuits. Where are my buds from PETA?

Now I'm ranting, so I'll close by saying that you may have sold me a soda as a youngster at the LLWS. A buddy of mine and I went to see the LLWS in 1996. He lives in Philly, and I was visiting, so it wasn't a hard commute.

Wind power has potential, but it is limited. Because the energy comes from the Kinetic Energy of the wind, if the wind speed halves, the energy produced goes down by a factor of 4 (energy is proportional to the square of velocity).

Geothermal is great, but there are few areas that are able to produce it.

Hydroelectric is excellent. Norway gets nearly all of its electricity from hydro and Switzerland gets a large portion (topped up by nuclear). It also has the advantage of almost instant supply. We have a number of hydroelectric dams in the UK and they are used to provide power when there is a sudden spike in demand. A hydroelectric dam can go from producing zero to full power in 30 seconds, whereas a coal plant can take up to a day. It's used when Coronation Street (very popular soap here in the UK, hate it myself) goes to an ad break (commercial break). There is usually a huge spike in demand as everyone sticks the kettle on for a cup of tea.

Britain is investing too much in wind power to my mind (and the environmentalists keep opposing new wind farms anyway which means more than half of those planned, never get built). We are also putting money into wave and tidal power (of which we have plenty to exploit being an island), but it is expensive and the technology is not quite advanced enough yet.

Likewise, we have been foolish enough not to continue expanding our nuclear capacity. The current government seems in favour of doing so, but even if we start construction tomorrow, the new plants won't be complete by the time our current lot have to be decommissioned. Also, we would still be reliant on volatile supplies of uranium which does nothing to help our energy security. Most comes from Canada at the moment, but other important Uranium mining countries are Russia, Niger, Namibia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Solar power is more advanced than people give credit for. Unfortunately, we're generally a bit cloudy here, so can't exploit it terribly well. There has been a proposal to cover large areas of the Sahara in solar panels, which would generate more than enough energy for North Africa and Europe, but the infrastructure to get the power across the Med and distributed throughout Europe, just isn't there without a huge amount of investment. Plus: energy security if our electricity is generated in Africa.

Personally, I think the best bet is locally produced electricity. Stick a few solar panels on your roof, and a moderately-sized turbine in your garden (as many have already done) and you can end up selling electricity back to the National Grid. If it clouds over or the wind speed drops, you can then draw on the National Grid so that you have a constant supply.

Combine that with more efficient electrical devices and you have the makings of an energy efficient economy.

Transport is a separate matter. There has recently been a considerable improvement in fuel cell technology which raises hope for an alternative to petrol and diesel. However, you still need to generate the electricity to separate the oxygen and hydrogen in water to fuel the cell.

If we can manage to generate enough clean power to run vehicles off fuel cells, and invest in electrification of our rail network, we could almost eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels as a source of energy. No one potential solution will suffice, I think it will have to be a combination of everything we have available to us, including energy savings from more efficient appliances.

WOW! Lots to reply to!

I have to admit, I know nothing of commodities, or commodity exchanges. And I personally think it's all a huge scam anyways from, all accounts.

As for the use of gasoline/ethanol: What's assisnine is people who promote the production of ethanol from corn. As you said, corn is incredibly inefficient to use. Instead of corn, there's a type of grass, called switchgrass, that is HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY effective.

Corn requires very careful care, and maintenance. So much so, that the land that is needed to grow it is actually incredibly valuable. Whereas switchgrass can pretty much be grown ANYWHERE. Now what type of land in this country is not being utilized at all, in which there are literally millions of square acreage that could be used for one crop, and only one crop, called switchgrass? That land would happen to reside along all the highways of America. Well, mostly the eastcoast highways, in which both side of the highway is mostly open grassy areas as it is. No farmer would be able to grow corn, even if he was allowed to, along these loooong stretches of un-utilized land.

Switch grass has proven to also yield a much higher return of energy, per acre, than corn

Citation: http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

"Test plots of switchgrass at Auburn University have produced up to 15 tons of dry biomass per acre, and five- year yields average 11.5 tons—enough to make 1,150 gallons of ethanol per acre each year."

There are soooo many more benefits on this article that I care to list here. The one I sited above was the one that stuck out the most. This grass could be grown almost virtually anywhere in the continental US. NOT true for corn. In other words, the good plots of land would be reserved for corn, soybeans, and many other types of food vegetation. So there would not be the conflict of "guns or butter" so to speak, in this case.

And yes, the reason why I'm glad to see the American auto-makers going broke is for the reason you stated: they refused to do R&D on alternative fuels. They deserve to go under. Not that it's beneficial to us, but I'm hoping when they finally do, it'll be a wake-up call for all the other industries. The reason Toyota, Mazda, and other foreign manufacturers are doing so well, is because they didn't sell out to the oil industry, and have instead, been doing extensive R&D into better fuel-economy cars. Case-in-point: A local technical school in my town, Pennsylvania College of technology, is one of the the premiere tech schools in the state, has been working extensively with Toyota. Toyota donates 2 or 3 alternative-fuel cars a year to the school, so the students can learn the ins-and-outs of how the engine is designed.

As quoted from: http://www.pct.edu/schools/tt/bau/

"The automobile industry's future, of keen interest to the automotive teachers mentoring tomorrow's vehicle technicians, is today's reality at Penn College. The North American Council of Automotive Instructors, holding its 35th annual conference on campus, heard presentations Tuesday on vehicles that use technology to reduce petroleum dependency and greenhouse-gas emissions. Toyota brought along a prototype fuel-cell vehicle, which attracted considerable attention (and some willing test-drivers) from attendees and the media alike. Also on hand was The Pennsylvania State University's EcoCAR research vehicle, which gives engineering students the opportunity to design and build cars that demonstrate leading-edge technologies, with the goal of minimizing the environmental impact of personal transportation. Among the visitors was WNEP's Norm Jones, whose report on the Toyota vehicle aired at 5:30 Tuesday evening. Additional coverage, including his interviews with conference organizers and attendees, tentatively was to broadcast later in the day. The Williamsport Sun-Gazette also published an article about the car on the front page of Wednesday's editions."

Another switch of topic: The whole idea of other nations setting up oil rigs right off our shores and we are not aloud to do the same, is laughable. As I said in another thread somewhere, all the interest groups in the US, have more rights than the majority. THAT is laughable as well, and downright infuriating. Which is why I was so upset over the opposition to wind-mills. (Nuclear power kinda scares me a bit. Nobody is still allowed to step foot on three-mile-island down in Harrisburgh, which just a 2 hour drive away form where I live. Berwick is the closest I live to a nuke plant, and is only 45 minutes away. The opposition to nuke power is quite understandable, considering the high-risk they involve.) The wind farm proposal is situated on a tree-less plateu (spelling?) in the north-east corner of Lycoming county. There are plenty of wind sheers up there. And considering the county population is pretty sparse, the wind-mill WOULD put a dent in energy costs in this region. And since local taxes would support the mill, it would not have to be put on the National Grid. It would still help the Grid, by taking 100,000 households or so off of it at some points throughout the year. Especially throughout the fall and winter months.

Geothermal energy: The entire West Coast of the US is full of hypothermal vents. Sure, it may not do much directly for us inthe East, but California is notorious for brownouts. The East...indeed, the entire nation, would benefit for the reduced dependance on oil. I know I read somewhere there was serious talk about contructing geothermal stations up in Washington state, and one in Hawaii.

The East coast has many, in fact, it is full, of rivers and their tributaries. granted, they could effect the wildlife, particularly the fishing migrations, above the dam, but ecosystems have been known to adapt to, and change around the damn. Indeed, life is incredibly resilient that way. If it wasn't we would not even be here discussing this right now, if you think about it. There is only 1 major hydroelectric dam on the East Coast that I can think of, and that's up in Buffalo. Canada gets half the electricity from that dam. There are a bunch in Tennessee, I am sure, from the TVA project back during the Great Depression, which i think is still around. I'm not terribly sure about that though. someone can correct me if I'm wrong here.

Solar Power: like you said Zetetic, would only be effective in Arizona, and CA (actually, NM, TX, and all them other Southwestern states would benefit form it just as well). However, if we could take THOSE states off the Grid by insituting solar panel electricity throughout that region, it would reduce our dependance on fossil fuels by at least 1/4, if not more, without the construction of more nuke plants. Plus, also, like you said, the UK is developing a wave-powered source of electricity, the US should be doing the same. Hell, we got more mileage of coast land than any other nation on the entire globe. OF COURSE we would benefit HUGELY from such a technology, and WHY are WE not devloping such a technology? The Gulf Stream alone could produce millions, if not billions, of kwh.

I guess to sum it all up, it isn't just 1 source of green technology that should be used, its a combination of some, or ALL of these technologies. My first example of a wind farm was just that, an example. The example would reduce the dependancy of my small little county that I live in. Yes, it's just one little population out of 300 million, but if ALL these small little populations throughout the nation were to do some small little green contribution like this, then the US could be more like Brazil, or Iceland. We wouldn't have to worry about oil, and the Middle East would be worthless to us. As it should be right now, but isn't because of these greedy, selfish corporate commodity types. Little do they know, if this keeps up the way it's going, they will begin to lose out as well in the end.

*Deep Breath!*

Zetetic, it would be awesome if I did end up selling a soda to ya back then. Although in 1996 I believe I got "promoted" to selling programs instead hehe.

Double post. Sorry, that last statement was meant for JMR not Zet. My bad.

As for the rail thing, the US has been beuilding more rail, because it's simply cheaper right now for large corporations, like Wal-Mart, to ship their products by rail, rather than by road. However, it will be much more difficult and expensive for our government to construct as extrensive a rail system as the UK has simply because the UK is only about the size, if not smaller, than the STATE that I live in. In other words, the US is at least 50 times the size of the UK, with much more varying landscapes than the UK has as well. So the use of road will forever be used more often than rail in this nation. Simply because the volume of a road can be many time that of rail.

I don't know where I was going with that, but I guess, mostly because I was afraid the English people on these boards would think Americans were morons for not utilizing the railroad as much as they do in the UK. It's, simply put, a lot harder for us to do so, and would require hell of a lot more money to maintain and create in order to use the amount of volume that is required.