United States v Time

[Samael88]

Break free? I don't think anyone in the rest of sweden wants to keep Skåne, and when you finally get to "break free" you're probably back to denmark

That would be awesome. Grab a shovel start helping me dig then

And sweden might not want us, they need us.
We stand for about 30-40% of the swedish crop/farm-industry.
And we also stand for one of the most important trade routes aswell. I am of course talking about the trade over to denmark. Many trucks drive there thru there to get to sweden.

You serious dude? First off, yes, the Romans did fight equal opponants with equal, just most of them were just said to Barbarians just because they werent Roman. They beat the Greeks, and invaded part of the Middle East, Eygpt, Gaul, Iberia, and North Africa. Carthage? Pontus? The Huns? The Franks? Then add on the innumeral Germanic Tribes. Weapons wise they were about equal. Some even had better (for instance the Hun's composite bow). The Romans won because of professionalism. Youre trying to compare that to the British mowing down African and Indian tribes with guns and cannons?

You got a real good point there. It is like when germans attacked polen during ww2(think it was, might have been 1). They had rifles, even MG's and the polish came with their state of the art cavalleri and sabers.

Second, the U.S. can be considered a modern empire because its the strongest nation-state on Earth. It owns territorys such as Puerto Rico and Guam. The U.S. military has been a factor in the instalation of multiple major governments. They are not puppet governments, yet they are set up based on our own. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, West Germany (eventually all Germany). The U.S. military has golbal reach and has shown to be the most willing military to use that global reach. U.S. culture is spread all over the world and emulated throughout. Also the worlds most valuable commodity, oil, is traded soley in USD.

I don't know how much of that wich is true, probably more than I think. But he actually has a point. I don't really think that the empires owning stuff outside it's borders count.

If you do count those Wiseman, then brittish owns the falkland islands. Just so that you know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Check the collumn on the right: Government!

I for one don't call the brittish as an empire now a days, the whole thought of feels just plain wrong. Maybe beacuse it is small in landmass, I don't know, it just does not have the right feeling to it


Is it not even so that the Japan is the only empire that remains still today?
To me they are the only one that has an emperor, and I always thought that it was that wich put the emp in empire:nuts:

 

[uberfoop]

Is it not even so that the Japan is the only empire that remains still today?
To me they are the only one that has an emperor, and I always thought that it was that wich put the emp in empire:nuts:

Being an empire and calling your monarch an 'empire' have not much to do with eachother. Japan has almost 100% ethnic Japanese population and officially functions as a constitutional monarchy.


States more easily to be argued to be empires are ones like America, with military bases everywhere, exercising political power over everyone possible, and bombing the **** out of regions in what it sees as it's sphere of influence that don't comply. Or Russia, with central power in Moscow commanding an extremely diverse population everywhere, with a couple regions that have at points in recent years been rebellious and subdued by force (namely, Chechnya).

 

[Seb!]

Is it not even so that the Japan is the only empire that remains still today?
To me they are the only one that has an emperor, and I always thought that it was that wich put the emp in empire:nuts:

An Empire is a bunch of culturally different civilizations ruled by one, foreign power. And Japan doesn't really have an emperor, like England doesn't really have a Queen. It has like a prime minister, and a bicameral legislature, and the whole balance of power idea. You've seen too many movies.

 

[Varine]

What territory is this?

Puerto Rico and Guam I guess. Used to have the Philippines when it was considered an empire.

 

[Samael88]

Uberfoop, and seb, if I may say: Of that entire post, you chose to pick up a dialog on the ending joke Of course I know that it is not like that, but I just thought it was a funny coinsidence. Almost every empire back in the days had either an emperor or a warlord of somekind as their leader, but still just a joke.

And seb: One can never see to much movies

 

[Varine]

Or Russia, with central power in Moscow commanding an extremely diverse population everywhere, with a couple regions that have at points in recent years been rebellious and subdued by force (namely, Chechnya).

Man, I feel for Chechnya... I'm waiting for Siberia to do the same thing now. I would root for that.

But I don't see how Chechnya would really count in that, though. I mean, technically it should have been a part of Russia when the USSR fell apart. It's not like they just decided to bomb the fuck out of them because they were there.

 

[Wiseman_2]

I don't know how much of that wich is true, probably more than I think. But he actually has a point. I don't really think that the empires owning stuff outside it's borders count.

If you do count those Wiseman, then brittish owns the falkland islands. Just so that you know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Check the collumn on the right: Government!

I for one don't call the brittish as an empire now a days, the whole thought of feels just plain wrong. Maybe beacuse it is small in landmass, I don't know, it just does not have the right feeling to it

Did you read my post properly? No-one says the British have an empire these days because there isn't one!
And did you perhaps not stop to think that I realised the Falklands were part of the UK? We faught the Argentinians over them, and goddammit we kept 'em.

It owns territorys such as Puerto Rico and Guam.

Many countries on this planet have satellite states. France has them, Britain has them, and a whole load of other countries have them, but that does not make them an Empire.

The U.S. military has been a factor in the instalation of multiple major governments. They are not puppet governments, yet they are set up based on our own.

By this you imply that they ARE puppet governments; if they were not, then it doesn't really factor into the equation of an empire, regardless of how they are set up.

The U.S. military has golbal reach and has shown to be the most willing military to use that global reach.

Only because you've had a cowboy in office for the last 8 years

Look, don't get me wrong, the British Empire was good, but don't make them God.

I'm not, but you are certainly making the US out as one.

You serious dude? First off, yes, the Romans did fight equal opponants with equal, just most of them were just said to Barbarians just because they werent Roman.

I'll concede that point though

 

[Samael88]

Did you read my post properly? No-one says the British have an empire these days because there isn't one!
And did you perhaps not stop to think that I realised the Falklands were part of the UK? We faught the Argentinians over them, and goddammit we kept 'em.

Dude. You asked about it. I just answered. The other part about them not being an empire was not focused to you.

Hence the space, as this

And just to be clear. This part is not pointed directly at wiseman2
Shall I write like that in the future just to make me clear enought?

 

[New_U.S.]

I got your joke at least Sam

By this you imply that they ARE puppet governments; if they were not, then it doesn't really factor into the equation of an empire, regardless of how they are set up.

No, we just say that they must have a government like our own. When we invaded Iraq, we didn't really care who was the top official elected, to be honest, the U.S. gets along better with Sunni Muslems then Shiite Muslems that now rule Iraq. We just say that their goverment must be democratic.

I'm not, but you are certainly making the US out as one.

I said from the begining no one country is the greatest. I guess Rome would probably be the closest. IMHO, its rivalrys that contain the most global power. (Soviet Union v United States; Christian Europe v Islamic Middle East) These are longer term power struggles that hold sway over massive amounts of land.

 

[Wiseman_2]

Dude. You asked about it. I just answered. The other part about them not being an empire was not focused to you.

No, I asked what territory the US had outside its borders, not the UK.

And just to be clear. This part is not pointed directly at wiseman2
Shall I write like that in the future just to make me clear enought?

Yes, but please spell my name properly

No, we just say that they must have a government like our own. When we invaded Iraq, we didn't really care who was the top official elected, to be honest, the U.S. gets along better with Sunni Muslems then Shiite Muslems that now rule Iraq. We just say that their goverment must be democratic.

So you are saying democracy is the only form of government that works? I'm not sure I can recall an empire which ruled under a democracy, or at least one which we would see today... I would use the current British government as an example of such a government but it seems to be heading the way of Stalin's Russia...

 

[New_U.S.]

So you are saying democracy is the only form of government that works? I'm not sure I can recall an empire which ruled under a democracy, or at least one which we would see today... I would use the current British government as an example of such a government but it seems to be heading the way of Stalin's Russia...

No, many types of governments work, and some work better then democracy, for example China's government works very well. The thing I'm saying is, if the U.S. has any imput into what a new government is going to be, it only accepts that government to be a democracy. For example, Iraq's government is a democratic republic like the U.S., however I don't really think that was 100% the best way to go.

 

[Samael88]

No, I asked what territory the US had outside its borders, not the UK.

Bah, you god damn "now it all", I must have missread the posts then.

Yes, but please spell my name properly

You just don't get enought of this, do you

This time I will spell it right

And just to be clear. This part is not pointed directly at Wiseman_2

I leave this conversation now Good luck on finding a solution people or an understanding or something. There has to be a answer somewhere

 

[Blackveiled]

Uhhh, lol. Size of countries doesn't really matter anymore, since you can just blow it up with a missile. H-Bombs ftw? No. They can seriously destroy a nation.

Now, the nations that are world powers, are the ones with the insane weaponry, wealth..etc.

 

[Seb!]

Spoiler

This shows the USA territories controlled. Just to clear that up. It's a big picture, by the way. Here's the link if it doesn't work.

 

[uberfoop]

Uhhh, lol. Size of countries doesn't really matter anymore, since you can just blow it up with a missile. H-Bombs ftw? No. They can seriously destroy a nation.

'A' missile? That would have to be one hell of a missile. I mean, if you have a small nation in the 20,000km^2 range, and the missile in question is the 38 x 250Kt warhead version of the R-36 that the Soviets never developed partially as a result of SALT II, maybe.

Usually national destruction takes a good deal of missiles. Additionally, people commonly underestimate the amount of thermonuclear weapons required. The most power bomb in history was the RDS-220 developed by the Soviets in 1961, which had a theoretical max output of 100Mt (though the test was performed at half yield by replacing some of the final fission reaction material with lead with the intent of cutting almost all the fallout). The RDS-220 had dimensions of 8x2x2 meters, weight 27 tonnes, could at the time only be carried by a Tu-95 with the bomb bay doors cut away to make room for the bomb, and was obscenely inneficient with land coverage as a result of detonation that much energy in one spot rather than using several smaller bombs for area dispersion. This having been said though, it was a pretty ****ing awesome explosion. Anyhow, according to some reports, the airburst was able to reliably destroy some unfortified structures 55km away from ground zero and the thermal pulse could cause 3rd degree burns ~100km away. Double the yield for the 100Mt blast and the numbers would grow slightly larger, so for nation destroying, unless the political entity you're out to get is the vatican or something, you would need a good deal of them. Then consider that modern strategic nuclear weapons are usually 1/100th of that power or smaller.

It takes a lot of missiles.

Which is why if the UK were to launch a first strike on Israel (yea, it's unlikely, whatever), it's quite likely that their 200 warheads would be sufficient to prevent a counterattack. But if they were to launch a first strike on Russia, the Russians would sit in bewildered amazement for a moment at what just happened, and then the stuff would start flying. And then the Russians would be all like 'Haha, we have nukes on trucks and subs, nubs!'

Oh dear, it would appear that I got carried away.

There's a reason why MAD is mentioned all the time as well, and it's because even if you DO have the warheads to destroy a nation, you'll still all die if you try to exercise your power.

National size also maters for loads of logistic reasons. Without all that useless Siberian land, Russia wouldn't have direct contact with Pacific holdings like Vladivostok from Moscow. More land means more available and diverse resources under your direct control. Of course, size can also get in the way, which still indicates significance, even if negative.

 

[Varine]

Uhhh, lol. Size of countries doesn't really matter anymore, since you can just blow it up with a missile. H-Bombs ftw? No. They can seriously destroy a nation.

Now, the nations that are world powers, are the ones with the insane weaponry, wealth..etc.

How big is this nation of yours?

This shows the USA territories controlled. Just to clear that up. It's a big picture, by the way. Here's the link if it doesn't work.

Those are technically self-governing territories so don't count in making the US an empire.

 

[Wiseman_2]

Uhhh, lol. Size of countries doesn't really matter anymore, since you can just blow it up with a missile. H-Bombs ftw? No. They can seriously destroy a nation.

Well, technically, they could certainly destroy a government's leadership if they targeted the capital. One nuke on London, for example, and it might only destroy an area +/- 20km in radius, but it sure would screw up the country.

But then you've got all those other safeguards countries have in place in case the chain of command is broken in such an attack so it all comes back to MAD again.

 

[Varine]

Well, technically, they could certainly destroy a government's leadership if they targeted the capital. One nuke on London, for example, and it might only destroy an area +/- 20km in radius, but it sure would screw up the country.

But then you've got all those other safeguards countries have in place in case the chain of command is broken in such an attack so it all comes back to MAD again.

Yeah most developed nations also have billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth of detection and protective systems that would probably alert them to such a launch almost immediately and give them plenty of time to evacuate the delegates.

 

[Blackveiled]

>> How big is this nation of yours?

It does always help to look at the location. Haha.

I live in the U.S.

 

[Varine]

>> How big is this nation of yours?

It does always help to look at the location. Haha.

I live in the U.S.

That's one big fucking bomb.... You could do it with chemical and biological warfare, not so easily with nuclear.