Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Psienesis wrote:
They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.

What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

 Hordini wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.

What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

I think they provided the intel that allowed the Germans to successfully bomb Pearl Harbor.

Seriously though, I know in 1975 we fethed over the Kurds who we had been using as a buffer between Iraq and Iran (we worked with the Shah to fund/arm the Pesh to fight Saddam for a Kurdistan). Not sure how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few years later let alone the end of that war had much to do with them though.

My belief that America is a declining nation is not a personal attack on that great nation. As I've said many a time, I freely admit to being a great admirer of the USA. American history is my hobby, I love the food, obviously the culture with the books and the films etc etc

It's only the presence of root beer that prevents me from applying from citizenship

On a more serious note, my observation of American decline is based on historical trends and the inevitability that all great powers fade away.

I love American history, but I love my own nation's history even more, and my own nation was once a great power, arguably the greatest the world has ever seen.

Every empire follows a familiar pattern. Every empire has at one stage, a crusading zeal to shape the world in its own image.

The Romans had it, Britain had it in the 19th century, and the USA had it during the cold war...

But those days come and go, and eventually, somebody else comes along, which is more than likely to be China.

Like Britain pre-World War one, the USA is still powerful, still able to lay waste to its rivals, but there's something missing. The zeal is missing, and you see that zeal slipping away from the USA as it did from the British Empire.

Is America losing it's grip that much though? I can see it stepping back some (and I think that is a deliberate move by the current president) but it's hard to imagine a world in the next 50 years or so where the major movies are not produced by America, or the big brands, ideas, memes, the next Kanye frigging-kill-yourself-already Kardashian. China is still too insular to be the shaper of the world.

Who else is there? Europe's struggling to keep itself together (an ever closer union my arse) and Russia isn't trusted by anyone.

India has a chance, but it'll never dominate the global pop-culture whilst the divisions between rich and poor are more dramatic than anywhere else in the world.

Maybe the comparison with UK pre WW1 is fair. The UK dramatically punches above its weight today. Is this the future for the US?

I doubt many would argue that The US's position as lone hyperpower was sustainable for long.

There will be a reordering of things, and the US will, if not decline, at least not advance as quickly as other nations. The sheer size, population, resources, and political cohesion of the US means that any decline will be slow, barring a complete collapse, but I think its safe to say that the US will not be the hegemon forever.

Something being gradual and inevitable means that pointing to every minor shift as proof is probably ill advised.

 CptJake wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.

What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

I think they provided the intel that allowed the Germans to successfully bomb Pearl Harbor.

Seriously though, I know in 1975 we fethed over the Kurds who we had been using as a buffer between Iraq and Iran (we worked with the Shah to fund/arm the Pesh to fight Saddam for a Kurdistan). Not sure how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few years later let alone the end of that war had much to do with them though.

Aren't they the ones who brought the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance as well?

Mon Mothma wrote:"Many Afghans died, to bring us this information."

In all seriousness, it's really difficult for me to take seriously the foreign policy opinion of someone who can't consistently and meaningfully differentiate between Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

 Polonius wrote:
I doubt many would argue that The US's position as lone hyperpower was sustainable for long.

There will be a reordering of things, and the US will, if not decline, at least not advance as quickly as other nations. The sheer size, population, resources, and political cohesion of the US means that any decline will be slow, barring a complete collapse, but I think its safe to say that the US will not be the hegemon forever.

Something being gradual and inevitable means that pointing to every minor shift as proof is probably ill advised.

I see the future of the USA being similar to Britain after WW1. As you know, Britain's empire was at its zenith - it controlled a 1/4 of the globe due to colonial possessions it took from Germany and Turkey...but America was the richer country.

Despite this, and because of the USA's isolationism, Britain was far more influential in the world, mainly because of the Empire, and mainly because it was pro-active. Its business interests touched almost every continent.

I see China becoming the USA of the 1920s, and the USA becoming Britain after WW1. China too have a bigger economy than the USA, but too insular to have the USA's global influence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
Is America losing it's grip that much though? I can see it stepping back some (and I think that is a deliberate move by the current president) but it's hard to imagine a world in the next 50 years or so where the major movies are not produced by America, or the big brands, ideas, memes, the next Kanye frigging-kill-yourself-already Kardashian. China is still too insular to be the shaper of the world.

Who else is there? Europe's struggling to keep itself together (an ever closer union my arse) and Russia isn't trusted by anyone.

India has a chance, but it'll never dominate the global pop-culture whilst the divisions between rich and poor are more dramatic than anywhere else in the world.

Maybe the comparison with UK pre WW1 is fair. The UK dramatically punches above its weight today. Is this the future for the US?

It's Belgium that worries me. They have EU headquarters and NATO headquarters on their soil. They've been very sneaky about this, but I know their game!

I agree with most of what you've said - America won't fade away over night, but they are fading.

Slightly off topic but I was embedded with US forces in the states when the sequestration happened. Whenever Brits go over there we're always delighted by how much stuff the yanks have available at the drop of a hat (and how nice they are for letting us play with all their stuff). Piles and piles of stuff, man power, you name it available at the drop of a hat.

The sequestration occurred and all the US guys were seriously worried about how it was going to affect them. There was nothing we could do but laugh at them. The US military machine is one of the least efficient and wasteful organisations I've ever come across.

I'd like to imagine that this cut in man power is someone realising just how wasteful the US military is and this is a result of efficient reorganisation, but I have to be a realist. Waste a squander is so inherent in their system it would take something drastic to force a change.

 Henry wrote:
Slightly off topic but I was embedded with US forces in the states when the sequestration happened. Whenever Brits go over there we're always delighted by how much stuff the yanks have available at the drop of a hat (and how nice they are for letting us play with all their stuff). Piles and piles of stuff, man power, you name it available at the drop of a hat.

The sequestration occurred and all the US guys were seriously worried about how it was going to affect them. There was nothing we could do but laugh at them. The US military machine is one of the least efficient and wasteful organisations I've ever come across.

I'd like to imagine that this cut in man power is someone realising just how wasteful the US military is and this is a result of efficient reorganisation, but I have to be a realist. Waste a squander is so inherent in their system it would take something drastic to force a change.

I would completely agree with you on that one. The US military is extremely wasteful in all sorts of ways, however that has more to do with politicians and the useless contract system in place not to mention the ZERO Budget that we are forced to utilize.

Zero budget is if you don't spend it you lose it. If your budget is 120,000 and you only spend 90,000 of it, the next year your only given 90,000. Trust me that makes units very wasteful very quickly. Yeah they dont need that 120,000 every year, but when a very expensive piece of gear breaks and it costs 40,000 to get a new one....you get the picture.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Zero budget is if you don't spend it you lose it. If your budget is 120,000 and you only spend 90,000 of it, the next year your only given 90,000. Trust me that makes units very wasteful very quickly. Yeah they dont need that 120,000 every year, but when a very expensive piece of gear breaks and it costs 40,000 to get a new one....you get the picture.

That goes for almost everyone though. Even I encountered it while doing my mandatory service - we always used all ammo allocated for practice and if there was food left in the field we dumped it rather than return it and get less next time.

As for defending Europe we're starting to look like a big player with all the others cutting down... That's not good.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

I do hope you're joking.

 Polonius wrote:
I doubt many would argue that The US's position as lone hyperpower was sustainable for long.

There will be a reordering of things, and the US will, if not decline, at least not advance as quickly as other nations. The sheer size, population, resources, and political cohesion of the US means that any decline will be slow, barring a complete collapse, but I think its safe to say that the US will not be the hegemon forever.

Something being gradual and inevitable means that pointing to every minor shift as proof is probably ill advised.

Yeah, the US simply will not be the sole hyperpower forever, even if the US does everything right. China and India will, unless something radical happens, match and likely someday exceed the US in terms of raw power given enough time. The EU likewise has the potential to do so as well.

A multipolar world more akin to that of the early 20th century, with multiple first rate powers as opposed to one superpower, is likely to be the reality in a few decades.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

I do hope you're joking.

Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"

MUUURCA's army is bloated as feth. This is good.

Need that money for Social Security. Seriously, I wonder where the savings will go. Invested elsewhere, or realized by taxpayers by a lowering of taxes?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

I do hope you're joking.

Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"

cyber isn't necessarily reported in military spending

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

I do hope you're joking.

Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"

You make a good point. Clearly there's more going on here than money alone - it's not as if the US isn't throwing enough at the problem. I think one issue with our cyber front is the applicant pool, and we can't necessarily get better programmers by throwing food stamps at people.

I don't know, free food on top of being paid sounds like a good deal to me.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"

Wow, China is getting great mileage out of their one hundred and thirty-one dollars.



In all seriousness though, I agree with you.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's not an incredible question from me, the OP

As I've said before, any nation's authority ultimately rests on armed men and women keeping the peace, keeping control, in the form of police and armed forces. Most nations have this.

But America is an EXCEPTION. It is the most powerful nation on earth, able to exert that authority anywhere in the world, where it deems to be in its interests.

That is the true test of a great power: exerting your influence anywhere at any time.

Yes, the true test is your ability to project force. But you've gone straight from 'they're making cuts' to 'you need to project force to be a major power', without going through the middle question 'will these cuts limit the US ability to project force in the future?'

Imagine doing that with any other part of government spending. Imagine if there were cuts announced to the national parks sector, and people went straight to the internet to start talking about how parks are very important, and you need parks, without any conversation about whether the jobs being cut are actually needed to fulfill the government's role in maintaining national parks people just start talking about how important parks are and how these cuts mean a decline in the nation.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

I do hope you're joking.

This is what I like to call "pre-heating the oven" - saying something really provocative that doesn't break the rules, but that incites people to do so in response. Once the desired response has arrived, you just have to act really innocent, like what did I say, wink wink? It's gutter level posting imo.

 Polonius wrote:
Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.

Not quite. Australia did join the fight and fought German forces in Africa before Japan's entry in to the war, and did purely out of loyalty to the Empire, and a belief that if we stood by Britain they would stand by us if we were threatened. Even before Japan entered the war there was significant tension in the relationship - Australia placed a much higher priority on maintaining the strength of Singapore than England.

Following Japan's entry in to the war and collapse of the British position in the Far East, that tension reached it's extreme. Australian troops that had been committed to Africa were actually withdrawn back to Australia without Churchill's approval. WIthin a fortnight of Pearl Harbour Australia was turning the US as an ally with the capability and will to save the Pacific (and part of making that a practical operation was in Australia finally establishing itself as a seperate nation - we finally took on the dominion status Britain had granted in 1930). As fear of invasion of Australia faded we returned to Commonwealth (in 1943 our PM described us as a nation of 7 million Britons), but there was now an underlying reality that our primary military relationship was with the new Pacific power, the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Every empire follows a familiar pattern. Every empire has at one stage, a crusading zeal to shape the world in its own image.

The Romans had it, Britain had it in the 19th century, and the USA had it during the cold war...

But those days come and go, and eventually, somebody else comes along, which is more than likely to be China.

I think you're building a very broad narrative in your head, and things are generally a lot more complicated in real life. And that's led you to pick China as the next empire just because your narrative needs a next empire, but the reality on the ground is that China has cra-cra problems.

The aggressive expansionism of China alarmed Japan. The U.S. government is now looking for a new ally and so supporting Abe's effort to revise the postwar Constitution of Japan so its arms race can now becomes legal so the IJA and IJN size of Army and Navy is needed to counter Chinese aggressions.

 Hordini wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.

What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

Kurdish people have resided in Afghanistan for centuries, not just in Iran/Iraq (or in Kurdistan). They were one of the many local factions (also including the groups the US would form into the Taliban) the US used, via the CIA, to fight the Russians.

They were also hired on during the US' first foray into Iraq, though we left them hanging after that conflict. It is not without note that some of the chemical weapons used against the Kurds in the 80s by Saddam Hussein were of American manufacture, the sale of which was permitted by action of then-President Reagan.

American history with the Kurds is... complicated.

Need that money for Social Security. Seriously, I wonder where the savings will go. Invested elsewhere, or realized by taxpayers by a lowering of taxes?

Social Security is primarily funded by payroll deductions, not the government. The money that is in Social Security comes from the SS taxes that American workers pay, it is not earmarked out of the General Fund or other public source.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this premise. The Kurdish population of Afghanistan is so small that it doesn't even register as an actual ethnic group of the nation.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, I'm calling BS on this premise. The Kurdish population of Afghanistan is so small that it doesn't even register as an actual ethnic group of the nation.

No gak.

They've been there since the 1500s, so I don't know what to tell you.

 Psienesis wrote:
They've been there since the 1500s, so I don't know what to tell you.

But there is not many, and they had next to nothing to do with our involvement when the Soviets invaded.

thats like saying that their have been Koreans in the US since the 1800s and they are the real reason why we got into WW1. Completely irrelevant.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

I do hope you're joking.

As do I. Welfare and the like might be the worst governmental actions in US history. They're just implemented so damn poorly that an amazing idea turns into a gakky one.