G'day,
For work I recently read the book "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. I'm
not sure I really agree with some of his logic, but the
last few chapters made for an interesting sci-fi short story read.
So I'll do a quick summary here (sorry if this counts as spoilers) and I
wouldn't mind getting your opinion on how feasible it all seems.
I won't bother going through all the economic ups and downs he predicts,
suffice it to say that by 2035-2040 US is still the worlds major
superpower, its paying migrants to come to the country to pad out a
contracting workforce that even robotics can't compensate for and the jihadist
movements are basically old history. oh and an attempt by Russia to regain
past glory failed and they're a worse basket case than ever.
So Russia's collapse leaves some wiggle room on its borders. He writes off
China as not having enough cohesion and India as hemmed in by geography and
instead proposes
1) Japan gets power by first economically allying with productive coastal
regions of China and them militarily going after the Pacific rim areas of
Russia. He goes through how they build up their military etc to prepare, but
basically the crux is 500 mile radius from Japan gets you from Shanghai to
Vladivostok so they don't need a super huge military to pull it off.
2) Turkey as a regional economic power pushes up into the Caucasus as Russia
collapse and acts as the peaceful hand in the fragmenting Arab
nations/Muslim world and even moves into the Muslim areas of the Balkans
(US and Arab world initially supports them as less objectionable, for
different reasons, than Iran or Israel and Pakistan isn't healthy enough to
step up)
3) NATO falls apart but Poland heads up a coalition of dynamic
Slavic/eastern European and Baltic states that soak up ex-Russia's
eastern boundary (i.e. Ukraine, Belarus etc), again with US support (western
Europe is in financial decline due to aging populations so don't play a big
part apparently)
4) 2030s-2040s Japan and Turkey's space presence buidls up, though is
never as large as the US's (many nations also have commercial space traffic at
this point)
5) Polish Bloc and Turkey will end up at loggerheads (US ends up more behind
the Poles)
6) US puts many of its military eggs in space based command and control
centres which coordinate the strike capabilities of hypersonic aircraft that
can reach most of the world's surface (form US bases) in less than an hour or
so
7) Americans assume no one is as good as them at tech, thinking sneaky etc and
also that all threats will come from Earth (i.e. missiles fired at satellites
or satellites vs satellites using the kinetics that was
spoken of on the sf-consim list the other day)
8) US doesn't like growing military (especially naval) power of Turkey and
Japan, who in turn feel that US is trying to crush them so everyone gets
"tense"
9) No one takes nukes seriously as an option (except as a last resort) as they
don't want the PR disaster of civilian casualties
10) Many nations build industrial/research colonies on the moon by 2040s
11) In 2050 Turkey has a "crisis" with Poland over troops in the Balkans, a
ruse to keep the US attention there (President gets the PMs together etc,
seems to talk them down, great kudos etc everyone goes home for the holidays
happy). Japan does its bulk standard quarterly military drills so no one
really pays attention. The Japanese then make a "secret" first strike by
launching rocks (with rocket motors attached) from secret part of their moon
base, initially on "random" orbits so just look like steroids so automated
systems of US "Battlestars" ignore them and even Space tech Joe Bloggs goes
"Hmmm meteors are a bit higher than normal but none headed for us so ok". On
3rd day from moon launch of these rocks they go into terminal missile burn
that redirects them at the 3 US Battlestars. This is timed for late in the
afternoon of
Thanksgiving so its hard to get the Joint Chiefs/important people
together. Battelstars put up valiant self defensive effort but overwhelmed by
more rocks. US is blind. Japanese have also got their
hypersonics airborne and hit US airfields/land command and control. In
the final hour Japan finally tells Turkey the plan... who activate
pre-made battle plans and smash Polish facilities.
12) US did get some of their own forces airborne, and do some damage to Japan,
but not sheet loads.
13) The Japanese-Turkish coalition isn't after capitulation just
breathing space so now push for political settlement - an agreement to
all stay out of each other's way/areas of influence.
14) US actually freaked out by the attacks and begins ratcheting its
responses - first gets US geekforce to upload new control programs for
remaining "old" satellites which go and kill Japanese/Turkish
satellites; mutual raiding and destruction of moon base capabiilities by the
secrte military guys inserted in each research team; the US industrial complex
rolls into action and turns out new gen aircraft (in about 2 years) and uses
mothballed secret bases to house them (they had purposefully built these and
kept the secret since 2030s or so just in case)
15) Meanwhile Turkey kicks Polish butt, using hypersonic aircraft as artillery
and old fashioned land based invasion. US uses its remaining airforce to help
the Poles out and push the Turks back (buying time for
a US rebuild) - Turks also don't want to be too stretched as have to
keep Egypt etc under control.
16) 2051-2052 Germans agree to coalition with Turkey to defeat the Poles
(they get northeast europe in return if successful) and drag in the French
too. Britain is appalled and secretly hands its intel, airforce resources and
airbases to the US. Turks and Germans pusg througheastern Europe again using
power armoured troops (with robot minions so don't need huge numbers of human
bodies). Initially the electrical grid is defended as both sides want ti to
feed their PA. The US then reveals its last trick, which is space based solar
power beamed down to troops via microwave (i.e. to on ground recievers) and so
the Polish scorch earth the electrical grid and Turkish advance grinds to a
halt. On top of which Congressional budget blocks will mean that a 4th
battlestar was built way back when but never launched and now it is... Japan
and Turkish advances reversed (again no requirement for unconditional
surrender, though US gets space to itself).
17) Poland will prosper, eventually reforming something vaguely like NATO and
economically sucking up beleaguered western Europe. US feels
threatened and now stats to back Turkey - Poles feel betrayed.
18) Military funded space based electrical power will see that form of energy
take off as most economic as commercial industry doesn't have to pay for the
infrastructure (as was the case for the interstate and early
internet/www) and you get another US boom
19) Meanwhile by 2060s-2080s Mexico has pulled itself together and is
now the Latin economy of note, moreover through now legal migration the
Mexican cession areas of the US are largely Latino populated (they are almost
a majority there now in 2000 so this isn't too far fetched)
20) Robotics and cheap energy means the labour force is finally not needed for
real and skill displacement can't soak them all up (population problems
compounded by genetic advances in health care areas). End result US decides to
go back to limiting migration and sending home anyone on a temporary visa
regardless of residence time. Latinos (some of whom have now been in the US
for decades) and Mexico (who doesn't want waves of unemployed) get upset.
Political tensions in Mexico City and amongst Latino representatives in
Washington, small scale radicalisation in the "borderlands" sees some strikes
on federal facilities. President tries to federalise the national guard along
the Mexican border to protect federal installations. The Latino governors tell
him to go jump (and largely Latino national guard in those areas support the
governors). Radical strikes continue so Congress agrees to allow US army in
down there, Mexican army is moved to the border in response. Mexican and US
Presidents meet to parly with the Mexican President effectively speaking for
the Latinos in the Mexican cession areas as well as Mexico itself.
21) Change to Mexican constitution allows for diaspora to vote.
22) Mexico ramps up military forces
23) US army could probably take out the Mexican army (ok likely for sure
could) but it couldn't pacify the borderlands... the world holds its breath to
see whether the borders are formally redrawn.
Like I said interesting, but how plausible is it?
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 03:04:56PM +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
I love building histories. Even if they had a nasty tendency to have killer
robots in them.
> So Russia's collapse leaves some wiggle room on its borders. He writes
I rather disagree with both. They both have lots of people who see the
standards of living in the west and want them. But pace that...
> 1) Japan gets power by first economically allying with productive
They have a similar problem to the USA - younger people basically not
interested in being part of the wage-slave culture - and often a
similarly rabid anti-immigrant attitude...
> 2) Turkey as a regional economic power pushes up into the Caucasus as
Turkey is fairly Islamic already, and the more the US throws its weight around
the more it goes that way...
> 4) 2030s-2040s Japan and Turkey's space presence buidls up, though is
Has there been a revolution in the world financial system so that you no
longer have to care about quarterly profit figures?
> 6) US puts many of its military eggs in space based command and control
More likely they're on the ground, the space-based stuff just acts as
relays. But with Project Piss Off The Planet such a huge success, the
tech is certainly heading for "start in the US, blat somewhere half-way
round the world, home in time for medals" rather than foreign bases.
> The Japanese then make a "secret" first strike by launching rocks (with
Um.
Have to say I have a bit of a problem with that.
The number of rocks big enough to be useful for something like this that get
closer than the moon is pretty low. And even if there were others for
camouflage, and even if the manoeuvres were done on farside so that nobody
could see the drive flares, a bunch of rocks suddenly appear from behind the
moon when nobody saw them before? Panic time.
(In practice, either earthbound or farside astronomers _will_ see the
drive flares of initial deployment.)
> 13) The Japanese-Turkish coalition isn't after capitulation just
The modern US would be saying "to hell with that, let's kill someone NOW". Has
its national character changed so much?
> 16) 2051-2052 Germans agree to coalition with Turkey to defeat the
I really don't see the culture going that way. The Germans have a lot more in
common with the Poles than they do with the Turks.
No time to read more now...
R
Beth, The National Guard IS a Federal Government organization, and the State
Militias exist in mane only with no weapons or even uniforms not supplied by
the feds. The Texas National Guard can defeat the Mexican Army by itself. Note
that the Unorganized Militia ( the Armed People) can defeat the entire
military and organized militia of the U.S. The estimiated number of firearm
owners in U.S. is estimitated at 80 million. If only one of ten decides to
fight, 8 million troops are in the fields and towns sniping day and night.
This is the reason the U.S. will never be taken by a foreign army.
Bye for now,
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>wrote:
> [...]
Concur
> The number of rocks big enough to be useful for something like this
We have the technology now to find and track small asteroids/large
meteoroids (heck, we're detecting /*planets*/ around other star systems,
by the 2020s or 2030s we should be well into imaging them*). There is a group
of astronomers who are dedicated to locating and tracking NEAs (Near Earth
Asteroids). I would put forth that with a space presence, our techniques
and technology will be much better and we'd be able to locate/track
objects from pretty far out, so a bunch of rocks (how large are these things
supposed to be?) suddenly appearing (esp without any 'reason' - such as
a
cometary debris train (and most of that would be dust-sized stuff)) is
going to be mighty suspicious.
* - we damn well better be, anyway :-D
Mk
Oh boy this could open a can of worms or two.
Anyway here's my 2 cents (AUD) worth before I run for cover.
1) China is united, very united. There maybe cracks but that is true of USA,
UK, Europe, Australia, Iran..... 2) Japan has a serious problem with an ageing
population and loss of heavy industry.
Outcome: Japan never has the power/resources to take anything off China
3) China is still reliant, though less so with every pasiing year, on
exports to Europe and USA to support/drive it's economy.
4) The major Western economies are in some trouble, Europe probably a lot but
it remains to be seen just how much, partly as the result of supporting ageing
populations. 5) China has been steppping in to some degree to prop up some
European economies, and thus it's own 6) Continuing economic growth keeps most
Chinese people happy under Communist rule, keeping the country united (see 1
above)
Outcome: China becoming increasingly interested in maintaining the status quo,
at least economically, of the world until the middle of this
century.
7) Europe has an enormous issue with imigration both legal and illegal, from
Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe (though the later is slowing). This
in turn is driving the rise of extreme right wing politics even in places like
liberal Netherlands. Negative outcomes if
the ER wins, perhaps Positive outcomes if the Liberals/Socialists
continue to hold sway. (For all you Yanks out there these terms are used
in a British/European sense not a US Republican sense)
8) The "Arab Spring" is still young and as yet, impermenant, see Egypt. Upshot
is that there is likely to be much fighting and bloodshed yet to come, see
Sryia. I'm betting that this will last at least a generation. Positive
outcomes would be of course result in active democracies across
the region, Negative would mean oppresive leaders/regimes remain in
place for another 20-25 years.
Outcome: Variable. Mostly likely that the Liberals will hold sway in Europe
and that the Arab Spring will be an "Indian Summer" before repressive forces,
secular and religious, slam back down again. Thus there will still be huge
migration pressures but more liberal policies in Europe allowing more people
in would see a change in the population dynamics and an economic boom for a
time providing basic goods (housing
etc) and services to the new citizens. Providing jobs/income for all
will be the challenge but the boom would be enough to stave off Turkey. The
cultural revolution that would go with events would be very interesting
indeed.
9) Poles hate Russians. I mean HATE Russians. 10) Russia has possibly begun to
throw its weight around a bit, see Georgia. 11) Turkey has had it's own
internal problems of late, and has ethnic minorities that are afraid to take
up arms, though they haven't yet with
any long term commitment, yet.
Outcome: Poland will work to keep NATO together and even make it stronger.
Currently the Nato is USA, Germany, UK, France plus others but
in the future we are likely to see Poland take a leading role and see the US
fade more to the background with regards to NATO.
Outcome: Turkey never gets a look in at becoming a major power again. Europe
remains fairly prosperous and united whilst Turkey is also under threat from
other Muslim states and it's own interal "Arab Spring".
12) Mexico. Well yeah I can see that one.
Flies in Mr Freidman's future ointment:
1) Israel - They cause wars, they win wars, people love 'em, people hate
'em,and none of us can make them go away. Besides they have nukes and who the
hell knows what they call "last resort".
2) North Korea - paranoid, racist dwarfs with nukes, who the hell knows
what they call "last resort".
3) Iran - paranoid, zealous nutters with nukes, who the hell knows what
they call "last resort".
4) INDIA - soon to be (if not already) the world's most populous nation,
rising tech power (where are all your tech support call centres again?),
rising military power, pheonominal potential for economic growth (likley
next cheap manufacturer after Japan, Korea, China) and dictator of world
cricket (though not absolutely yet). Mr Friedman does not seem to consider it
at all which means in my mind all Mr Friedmans bets are off,
period. Oh and they could make nukes if they wanted to.
Just some thoughts and hot air.
Am 15.01.2012 05:04, schrieb Beth.Fulton@csiro.au:
> G'day,
Haven't read Friedman's book (or anything else by him, except maybe an article
or two), but he has been around for quite some time commenting on US foreign
policy. From comments by others, his predictions seem not to have been too
accurate (but then, whose are?).
> So I'll do a quick summary here (sorry if this counts as spoilers) and
If you want to do future history, demography and economics are the foundation,
so they do deserve attention.
For the given timescale (a few decades) demography is pretty much a given,
though as nations develop, growth may be slower than expected now. A point
that is often overlooked is that China is aging quite rapidly, too, though it
is, still, younger than Japan or Europe. Anotehr
point: countries with a large overhang of young people tend to have more
volatile politics.
As to economics, I think that the ease of modern communications, travel and
trade create a strong trend that skills, infrastructure and living standards
become more and more similar around the globe. There will still be
differences, but nowhere like the differences between industrial nations and
the rest of the world at the beginning of the 20th century. This means that,
give or take a factor of 2 or so, GDP per
capita will be similar everywhere and a nations' economic strength will
depend mainly on its working-age population.
By implication, the US will soon fall behind China and India, several other
large countries will rival European Countries and Japan.
Within the timescale, the main problem zone will still be Sub-Saharan
Africa. Not to say there will not be problem spots elsewhere (Haiti, North
Korea, Papua...)
Short of a major Nuclear War, I don't see anything that could stop this trend
to more equal conditions around the globe.
More soon Karl Heinz
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Hmmm. Some interesting ideas in here, but I think a fair range of
'NAC/ESU'
like reaches....
--------------
I won't bother going through all the economic ups and downs he predicts,
suffice it to say that by 2035-2040 US is still the worlds major
superpower, its paying migrants to come to the country to pad out a
contracting workforce
----------
[Tom] I have a doubt the US will ever do that. I foree it going heavily
robotic instead. The latent xenophobia (mostly economically driven) in the US
seems likely to prevent them paying anyone to come to the US. And with Eastern
Europe, Russia, India, and some other regions of the world beating
the tar out of them today in contracting and out-sourcing, I'm not
seeing much chance those places will cease to dominate until their economies
match or beat the US economy in terms of standard of living.
Cost advantages will still continue to predominate and I do not see global
transnational CEOs (rich folk) doing anything other than locating for cost
advantage.
Most work that is 'good enough' can be done elsewhere and our cost per
man-hour is not going to get cheaper unless there is a massive housing
crash, a massive wage crash, a breaking of a large number of varied labour
unions, and a vast reduction in expectations from the West.
The only reason we'll see more local manufacturing is a peak-oil
scenario making global trade more problematic, but that will impact everyone's
standards of living and several countries economic models (the West and China
most notably, but it also really guts Japan whose costs to import energy will
not be avoidable).
Oh, and if there was a country to be screwed by the population curve, it is
Japan. Japan has some very serious old age vs. young folk issues that won't be
handwaved away entirely by robotics without also thoroughly gutting the
prospects for 80% of the young people. It can be solved by allowing
immigration, but Japan has land-space issues and cost issues that make
that immigration expensive (to live, you need to have some serious income,
which kind of negates the cheap labour aspect).
China too might be screwed by its own tampering with the population curve.
That's having a toll on crime, mental health, and other societal aspects.
China is big enough to take the hit, but I suspect it'll slow them down a lot.
They are already talking about this meaning their entire economy has to
transform from being 'the factory of the world' (which requires lots of young,
cheap, hardworking labour) into something else. They don't seem clear yet on
what this is but I suspect higher education and modernization will play a
role, if they succeed.
--------------
that even robotics can't compensate for and the jihadist movements are
basically old history. oh and an attempt by Russia to regain past glory failed
and they're a worse basket case than ever.
---------------
[Tom] Any Russian attempt to regain old glory is less likely than the
attempt of the oligarchs/kleptocrats to attempt to maintain their own
standard of living and wealth. They retain the trappings of old Russia, but
the power now is in the hands of a rich elite (intertwined with organized
crime and the state). That elite isn't so much ideological (despite the
rattling of the occasional sabre) as it is about money. Unless a strong case
can be made in their attempt for a big cash return, they'd rather just use
their existing energy and political clout and domestic power to stay
rich and to arm-twist their neighbours.
---------------
So Russia's collapse leaves some wiggle room on its borders. He writes off
China as not having enough cohesion and India as hemmed in by geography and
instead proposes
--------------
[Tom] Hmmm. That's a fascinating way to write up 40% of the World's
population. Methinks that's too convenient by half!
--------------
1) Japan gets power by first economically allying with productive coastal
regions of China and them militarily going after the Pacific rim areas of
Russia. He goes through how they build up their military etc to prepare, but
basically the crux is 500 mile radius from Japan gets you from Shanghai to
Vladivostok so they don't need a super huge military to pull it off.
---------------
[Tom] I can see economic ties, I can't see the overall Chinese identify
as allowing them to support them as a vassal of Japan. They are a pragmatic
folk in most cases, so it could happen. And military clashes with Russia could
occur one supposes.
What of Mongolia? What of the other regions along the Russian/Chinese
interior borders that don't really like either of them?
---------------
2) Turkey as a regional economic power pushes up into the Caucasus as Russia
collapse and acts as the peaceful hand in the fragmenting Arab
nations/Muslim world and even moves into the Muslim areas of the Balkans
(US and Arab world initially supports them as less objectionable, for
different reasons, than Iran or Israel and Pakistan isn't healthy enough to
step up)
------------------
[Tom] The assumption here is that the Arabs can't get themselves
together enough to be stable and successful without Turkish intervetion? I
think (for example) Libya, in the mess that it is in, has more potential for
being a functional state than Pakistan. This also ignores the possibility of a
large scale Muslim coalition of states arising. They'll still be sitting on a
lot of oil.
And what does Nuclear Israel do about the Turkey expanding into the Arab
world? And what does the large Persian nation of Iran do? Is it still hobbled
by US actions? If not, it too has a vast amount of human potential. And has a
large body of reasonably culturally similar people within its borders.
I think here we write off the Middle East a bit too easily.
------------------
3) NATO falls apart but Poland heads up a coalition of dynamic
Slavic/eastern European and Baltic states that soak up ex-Russia's
eastern boundary (i.e. Ukraine, Belarus etc), again with US support (western
Europe is in financial decline due to aging populations so don't play a big
part apparently)
------------
[Tom] I could see Poland soaking up former East Bloc states; The Poles
are a dynamic people when operating under a system that alows that.
------------
4) 2030s-2040s Japan and Turkey's space presence buidls up, though is
never as large as the US's (many nations also have commercial space traffic at
this point)
------------
[Tom] I see Japan moving ahead on this front if their demographics don't
sink the $ needed for this. Turkey... I'm more skeptical. The Turkish
government has always seemed (historically) more focused on matters on terra
firma. What has happened to the Kurds? Would they not resist any Turkish power
expansion like the devil? Are they still fighting a guerilla conflict in and
outside of Turkey? Or has an expanded Turkey crushed the PKK? And have they
invaded the Kurish section of Iraq?
------------
5) Polish Bloc and Turkey will end up at loggerheads (US ends up more behind
the Poles)
6) US puts many of its military eggs in space based command and control
centres which coordinate the strike capabilities of hypersonic aircraft that
can reach most of the world's surface (form US bases) in less than an hour or
so
-----------
[Tom] This fits with a leaner, meaner, more responsive DoD. Does this
assume they demobilize their surface fleets and ground force projection
capabilities? I can't quite see that unless the economy is a true basket case.
Without the ability to put troops on the ground anywhere, you aren't the
global superpower. That requires a navy for the heavy sealift involved.
I do forsee the investment in hypersonic strike aircraft but also a large
investment in cyberwarfare (which does not require so much physical presence)
and in remote strike platforms (why risk pilots? also should outperform human
pilots and have smaller silhouettes).
-----------
7) Americans assume no one is as good as them at tech, thinking sneaky etc and
also that all threats will come from Earth (i.e. missiles fired at satellites
or satellites vs satellites using the kinetics that was spoken
of on the sf-consim list the other day)
-----------
[Tom] A somewhat reasonable supposition, given our lack of ability to
defend vs. attacks from space anyway. However, I do thikn that monitoring near
earth objects will have to become a higher priority for strictly practical
reasons with more and more orbital space traffic and offworld
traffic to the moon/etc. arising. I can't see us not having a
better-than-today level of monitoring.
-----------
8) US doesn't like growing military (especially naval) power of Turkey and
Japan, who in turn feel that US is trying to crush them so everyone gets
"tense"
----------
[Tom] I notice this history doesn't much mention: Africa, the Middle
East (except the parts under Turkey), and South America. It conciously writes
off Europe, which may be somewhat valid given the financial and demographic
mess they constitute.
----------
9) No one takes nukes seriously as an option (except as a last resort) as they
don't want the PR disaster of civilian casualties
----------
[Tom] I have two subpoints to make: Israel, in your scenario, would
probably have to consider their use at some point unless Turkey managed to
change some of the attitudes. Either that or Israel is the most scared, tense
place on the globe. Secondly, I think that Iran will have nukes and not want
to be ignored. Also you might want to consider that orbital use or space use
may be within the realms of feasible as they lack the PR aspects (moreso space
than orbital)
----------
10) Many nations build industrial/research colonies on the moon by 2040s
----------
[Tom] Still waiting on someone to convince me this makes sense. It makes
sense to me based on pushing humanity to the stars and to Mars on the way
there. It makes little sense for industrial purposes as far as I can tell. And
nobody has ever come up with a solution to the major long term habitability
issues for the Moon or Mars that I have seen, the foremost being the effects
of reduced gravity on the human immune system as well as other subsystems in
the body. If we need silica, there are closer places than the moon. Research,
maybe. Industrial? Don't see it.
----------
11) In 2050 Turkey has a "crisis" with Poland over troops in the Balkans, a
ruse to keep the US attention there (President gets the PMs together etc,
seems to talk them down, great kudos etc everyone goes home for the holidays
happy). Japan does its bulk standard quarterly military drills so no one
really pays attention. The Japanese then make a "secret" first strike by
launching rocks (with rocket motors attached) from secret part of their moon
base, initially on "random" orbits so just look like steroids so automated
systems of US "Battlestars" ignore them and even Space tech Joe Bloggs goes
"Hmmm meteors are a bit higher than normal but none headed for us so ok". On
3rd day from moon launch of these rocks they go into terminal missile burn
that redirects them at the 3 US Battlestars. This is timed for late in the
afternoon of Thanksgiving so its hard to get the Joint
Chiefs/important people together. Battelstars put up valiant self
defensive effort but overwhelmed by more rocks. US is blind. Japanese have
also got
their hypersonics airborne and hit US airfields/land command and
control. In the final hour Japan finally tells Turkey the plan... who activate
pre-made battle plans and smash Polish facilities.
--------------------
[Tom] US already has the best rock detection capability in Space
Command, does it not? I expect this to improve, not get worse.
And you can bet if Japan and Turkey have bases on the moon, the US probably
would too. And surveillance satellites would likely be orbiting the moon and
keeping an eye on each colony's constructions. Space around the moon would
probably need to be swept for orbital debris and for traffic control much like
the space around Earth would have to be. Rock launching seems unlikely to me
from the moon without being detected.
I also find it unlikely that the US military does not have contingency plans
for just about any scenario. The JCS are important, but NORAD or Space Command
generals would undoubtedly need the ability to react more quickly than you can
assemble the JCS (assuming you can't just hook them in via virtual presence)
in a world with hypersonic strike aircraft and cyberwarfare. I do not see the
US being unable to muster a response just because it is a national holiday.
Yes, perhaps the response would be limited in scope and defensive, but much
like how things operated in the Cold War with SAC, they'd simply put all their
birds in the air, even if final targeting was not ready. They wouldn't leave
them on the ground to be hit at the bases.
BTW, this case is another reason you'd still have a nuclear submarine
strike capability - even if it was only a dozen subs - it offers another
system that the enemy can't knock out easily. This is another reason for the
USN.
Many of my objections to this scenario go away if the Americans are no longer
a global superpower due to serious economic collapse. If they can't pay for
space command, if they can't pay for the USN, if the price of the workers
drops dramatically due to the crash of financial, housing, equity, and stock
markets, etc. then maybe some of these lapses make sense. But then they aren't
a hyperpower or superpower and probably their ability to interfere with much
beyond their continent is limited.
-------------------
12) US did get some of their own forces airborne, and do some damage to Japan,
but not sheet loads.
---------------------
[Tom] You can hit the US military, destroy all of their space based
direction centers, and nobody gets nuked? Not buying that. Japan is a small
place. 10 or 15 decent sized nuclear strikes would utterly crush any civilian
economy. Look at what one partial meltdown has done to a whole
segment of their very limited physical space. Multiple multi-megaton
strikes would pretty much write them off. They lack, in a geographic sense,
strategic depth.
--------------------
13) The Japanese-Turkish coalition isn't after capitulation just
breathing
space so now push for political settlement - an agreement to all stay
out
of each other's way/areas of influence.
-------------------
[Tom] An incredibly unwise policy I suspect.
-------------------
14) US actually freaked out by the attacks and begins ratcheting its
responses - first gets US geekforce to upload new control programs for
remaining "old" satellites which go and kill Japanese/Turkish
satellites; mutual raiding and destruction of moon base capabiilities by the
secret military guys inserted in each research team; the US industrial complex
rolls into action and turns out new gen aircraft (in about 2 years) and uses
mothballed secret bases to house them (they had purposefully built these and
kept the secret since 2030s or so just in case)
-----------------
[Tom] If the US can kill most military satellites, odds are they will
also kill civilian ones. This will attrit Japanese and Turkish military
capability and economic. The Turks and Japanese would probably reciprocate.
Net effect is bad for everyone.
----------------
15) Meanwhile Turkey kicks Polish butt, using hypersonic aircraft as artillery
and old fashioned land based invasion. US uses its remaining airforce to help
the Poles out and push the Turks back (buying time for a
US rebuild) - Turks also don't want to be too stretched as have to keep
Egypt etc under control.
--------------
[Tom] I have my doubts the Turkish military could take on the Poles
unless they'd got a lot of technology transfer (and a sizable culutral shift
within the military). One presumes the US provided tech transfers to the
Poles. I suspect if Turkey has its hand all over the ME trying to control
various states that are currently political basket cases (Egypt isn't the only
one), this sort of even would be perfect for revolts to happen, either
populist or triggered by US and Israeli influence. (And, for that matter,
possibly Russian, Indian or Chinese influence).
I had a friend suggest the recent assassination of an Iranian nuclear
scientist via motorcycle delivered car bomb could have been a Chinese action.
They have as much desire to keep Iran in check as anyone and they know it
would get blamed on the US or Israel. This principle applies in cases like
this where other powers can interfere even if their own interests are not
directly involved in the conflict and more safely so when there is a more
obvious enemy to blame the action upon.
-------------
16) 2051-2052 Germans agree to coalition with Turkey to defeat the Poles
(they get northeast europe in return if successful) and drag in the French
too.
------------
[Tom] So in the next 40 years, the Germans will have undone the last 40
years of becoming fairly strongly anti-military and reasonable and the
French will want to win a bunch of countries they may have to rule against the
will of those countries? That's not France's style anymore. And I forsee
Germany and France recalling they don't like paying for everyone else in their
power blocs since that's what will eventually sink the Eurozone.
-----------
Britain is appalled and secretly hands its intel, airforce resources and
airbases to the US. Turks and Germans pusg througheastern Europe again using
power armoured troops (with robot minions so don't need huge numbers of human
bodies). Initially the electrical grid is defended as both sides want ti to
feed their PA. The US then reveals its last trick, which is space based solar
power beamed down to troops via microwave (i.e. to on ground recievers) and so
the Polish scorch earth the electrical grid and Turkish advance grinds to a
halt. On top of which Congressional budget blocks will mean that a 4th
battlestar was built way back when but never launched and now it is... Japan
and Turkish advances reversed (again no requirement for unconditional
surrender, though US gets space to itself).
-----------
[Tom] Why would Japan, having engaged the US in orbit and having blown
out most of its capability there, not be continously putting up surveillance
satellites with some limited kinetic kill capabilities? All they have to do is
slightly disrupt any launch in progress and it will go awry (based on
our prior record of space efforts...). A handful of ball-bearing sized
debris hitting the battlestar's launch platform, a laser, a railgun shot, a
small in-atmo nuclear detonation (say 50kt), a directed EMP weapon....
etc.
I think once you've lost control of space but that threats can still be put
into LEO or high atmo that can prevent easy, unopposed launches, that nothing
is going into space until that situation is resolved.
If Japanese defense planners didn't plan for this sort of contingency, they
should all be fired.
-----------
17) Poland will prosper, eventually reforming something vaguely like NATO and
economically sucking up beleaguered western Europe. US feels threatened
and now stats to back Turkey - Poles feel betrayed.
18) Military funded space based electrical power will see that form of energy
take off as most economic as commercial industry doesn't have to pay for the
infrastructure (as was the case for the interstate and early
internet/www) and you get another US boom
--------------
[Tom] This history calls out for someone to illustrate what happens when
an equipment malfunction, sabotage, or cyberwarfare redirects what is
essentially a large microwave projector at a city.....
If Japan still has high-atmo or LEO assets, they can probably put up
some sort of power the same way. I can't see it being just a US boom. And what
about all the 'neutral' countries who will want to put up stuff and be left
alone by both sides? Russia, China, India, South American and African
countries, etc.
--------------
19) Meanwhile by 2060s-2080s Mexico has pulled itself together and is
now the Latin economy of note, moreover through now legal migration the
Mexican cession areas of the US are largely Latino populated (they are almost
a majority there now in 2000 so this isn't too far fetched)
--------------
[Tom] No signs of this now. If anything, I'd say it is headed the other
way (re: Mexico pulling itself together). The economics of the drug trade
augur against any of this changing anytime soon. 2080 is a long way off, but I
think this one is totally pulled out of the ether as I don't see any
indicators today of this happening.
US having big Latino population? That's coming no doubt. But many will be
citizens. Those born in the US will be and that will be the majority even if
the parents were illegals.
--------------
20) Robotics and cheap energy means the labour force is finally not needed for
real and skill displacement can't soak them all up (population problems
compounded by genetic advances in health care areas).
--------------
[Tom] And here rich elites prosper and the majority of the world's
population gets the shaft. We see what the 1%/99% dichotomy really will
look like here. This one I see coming. One might argue, people in my field are
bringing this to fruition to our own detriment.
--------------
End result US decides to go back to limiting migration and sending home anyone
on a temporary visa regardless of residence time. Latinos (some of whom have
now been in the US for decades) and Mexico (who doesn't want waves of
unemployed) get upset. Political tensions in Mexico City and amongst Latino
representatives in Washington, small scale radicalisation in the "borderlands"
sees some strikes on federal facilities. President tries to federalise the
national guard along the Mexican border to protect federal installations. The
Latino governors tell him to go jump (and largely Latino national guard in
those areas support the governors). Radical strikes continue so Congress
agrees to allow US army in down there, Mexican army is moved to the border in
response. Mexican and US Presidents meet to parly with the Mexican President
effectively speaking for the Latinos in the Mexican cession areas as well as
Mexico itself.
-----------
[Tom] I assume you are including Arizona, New Mexico, and California in
that assessment? Texas should be too, but I don't know if it will follow the
same trajectory.
-----------
21) Change to Mexican constitution allows for diaspora to vote.
22) Mexico ramps up military forces
------------
[Tom] Given they are a basket case today - almost a failed state with
little sign they are going in any good direction and with current realities of
corruption and illegal drug economics, given their military is ineffective in
comparison with a military like the USA, do you forsee 70 years as enough for
them to mount any sort of viable challenge to the US? If the US has been going
'leaner and meaner' with its global footprint, you can bet US domestic
politics will have once again come to the forefront. I can't see the US not
having some plans in place and forces to deal with this sort of scenario (they
have plans TODAY). Unless, of course, they are no longer an economic
superpower... and can't afford to.
------------
23) US army could probably take out the Mexican army (ok likely for sure
could) but it couldn't pacify the borderlands... the world holds its breath to
see whether the borders are formally redrawn.
------------
[Tom] If the Mexican Army started a fight, Mexico would revert to being
a failed ruin of a state as the US could certainly project hypersonic strikes
into many of its key industrial and military complexes. Unless Mexico is
magically a lot more stable, educated, urban, literate, etc. than today (not
just a little bit), then this might well leave Mexico shattered. I'm not
really seeing the percentage for the Mexican Army to go this way or for the
Mexican government to support it, even with the diaspora vote.
Now, if you argue there is some sort of escalation, some incidents, then a
scuffle breaks out... maybe. But then it would be short, contained, and still
leave Mexico the worse off, rather than a larger general war. It could leave a
lot of bad feelings in Mexico and the territories.
But what do all the non-Latino US citizens in these Latino-dominated
territories do? I am fairly certain many of them are heavily armed, so the
problem is not just the US having restive Latino population within some
states, but also restive non-Latino populations. We're talking Missouri
in the Civil War years... depopulated due to back and forth raids and
reprisals by militias. We're talking about breaks even within families. We're
talking about at least a 3 or 4 state internal civil war potentially.
Can the US government keep such a conflict contained? What sort of
draconian measures are they willing to take for their non-Latino
citizens? What are those citizens willing to do to defend their homes and
their American identity?
Or do they all just pack up and flee, en masse, to non-Latino states,
much like Quebec anglophones did during our secession crises? I'd say US
mentality is more towards fight than flee, but if the odds are very bad
population wise in some areas, you could see smart people leaving.
-------------
Like I said interesting, but how plausible is it?
------------
[Tom] As plausible as the IF, NAC, and ESU.
Anytime you write near term history, you can probably do the next 20 years
from current trends. Beyond that, you're making it up. Once you get 40+
years out, all bets are off. And you'll be wrong from the minute you set pen
to paper.
It's an interesting exercise. In the same case, I'd have said China instead
of Japan - bigger economy, lots of technological know how, a reasonable
amount of cultural uniformity and identity, a vast economy of trade, lots of
experience with a big military, with espionage, a long view to problems,
reasonably good at diplomacy, and with experience in space. I'd have left
Japan as a lonely US ally in a hostile neighborhood (the Israel of the Pacific
Rim).
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
KHR, with whom I largely agree, said:
As to economics, I think that the ease of modern communications, travel and
trade create a strong trend that skills, infrastructure and living standards
become more and more similar around the globe. There will still be
differences, but nowhere like the differences between industrial nations and
the rest of the world at the beginning of the 20th century. This means that,
give or take a factor of 2 or so, GDP per capita will be similar everywhere
and a nations' economic strength will depend mainly on its
working-age population.
--------------
[Tom] My only argument with this is there are
cultural/political/economic
factors that will still distinguish the net outcome in societies.
For instance, Russia has a problem of corruption that is endemic and that saps
up a lot of that GDP into the hands of a few. The US has this, but to a lesser
extent (the US doesn't have the same murder stats as Russia:
80+%
solves except if you are a journalist, where it is 2%).
For another instance within my own country, any large project done in Quebec
will cost more money and there will be more wastage. Quebecois have come to
expect the corruption and the graft and don't get a frothing outrage on about
it.
So, although I do agree that global economics in developed, connected
countries (and that will include some portions of India and China) will
certainly head in the direction you indicate, there will still be sizable
differences based on corruption, politics, organized crime, etc. And you can
add to that some governments will work to keep their people ignorant ('if you
only read one book, and that's all you need, read <insert religious text of
choice>') and their living standards back in the 7th, 11th, or 14th
century....
Haiti is a mess and it is within a short hop of the most prosperous nations
in the world. I don't forsee Aghanistan (the non-urban portion anyway)
becoming particularly prosperous anytime soon. Nor tractable, while I'm
thinking of it.
> On 14/01/2012 11:04 PM, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
[MUNCH]
> Like I said interesting, but how plausible is it?
I've read the book myself, and was subscribed to Stratfor around
2004/2005
(loved the content, but, it was just too expensive to keep up as a hobby). I
think it's plausible enough give the assumptions he's making. However, as
other people in the thread have pointed out, you have to wonder whether the
assumptions he's making are valid.
In the long run though, counterfactual / "What If" history can be fun,
and can be demonstrative in terms of finding key turning points. But, once you
explore past a certain point, it really does degenerate into a sci-fi or
fantasy story (especially since no future projection can adequately compensate
for 'Black Swan' events.)
So, I found the book illuminating in terms of the key things to watch: the
effect of technology on the military, potential new geopolitical and rivals,
the evolution of the "American Empire". But, I wouldn't consider it a slam
against the book if (for example) Turkey doesn't
ascend to Great Power status in the next twenty years -- indeed, it
would be illuminating to see why it didn't the happen. (The same way the
"Japanese Century" didn't occur, and why people right now expecting the
"Chinese Century" may be disappointed in the long run.)
In general, I think the best statement on "What If" is something Sir John
Hackett et al. wrote in "The Third World War: August 1985", when commenting on
the accuracy of his own "What If" history:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
"There is a nice story of a political prophet in Munich in 1928, who was asked
to prophesy what would be happening to the burghers of his city in five,
fifteen, twenty and forty years' time. He began: 'I prophesy that in five
years' time, in 1933, Munich will be part of a Germany that has just suffered
5 million unemployed and that is ruled by a dictator with a certifiable mental
illness who will proceed to murder 6 million Jews.'
His audience said: 'Ah, then you must think in 15 years' time we till be in a
sad plight.'
'No,' replied the prophet, 'I prophesy that in 1943 Munich will be part of a
Greater Germany whose flag will fly from the Volga to Bordeaux, from northern
Norway to the Sahara.'
'Ah, then you must think that in twenty years' time, we will be mighty
indeed.'
'No, my guess is that in 1948 Munich will be part of a Germany that stretches
from only from the Elbe to the Rhine, and whose ruined cities will recently
have seen production down to only 10 per cent of the 1928 level.'
'So you think we face black ruin in forty years' time?'
'No, by 1968 I prophesy that real income per head in Munich will be four times
greater than now, and that in the year after that 90 per cent of German adults
will sit looking at a box in a corner of their drawing rooms, which will show
live pictures of a man walking upon the moon.
They locked him up as a madman, of course."
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
It sounds like it is heavily pitched at a US centric audience.
The US has just abandoned manned space exploration for a generation so to go
from NASA's current strategy of relying on 70 year old Soyuz to launch
astronauts to having manned battlestars in 25 years sounds like a huge mess.
Large parts of the US are essentially bankrupt and it will take years to get
back to the kind of economy that will allow enough money for significant space
exploration.
I don't see the US being able to spend that much on space exploration and
defence for a long time. As has been noted the US army is pretty ground down
after IRAQ and the Naval ships will all need replacing in the next 25 years.
That's a pretty major expenditure to refurbish the armed forces.
I can see the Eurpoean Community splitting up. The common market worked OK
when there were only a few countries and the more basket case countries that
have beend added the more ineffective it has been..
I can see Germany and the Eastern European states getting sick of bailing out
the failing economies of western Europe and ditching them in favour of their
own union.
England has never enjoyed being part of the EU and would be better
strengthening it's ties with it's commonwealth countries to regain it's
sources of supply.
Russia is doing well with it's supply of oil and gas to Western Europe so has
far more income than it ever did during the cold war. Under Putin it also
seems to have the drive to regain it's prestige as a world super power.
The whole of the pacific gets completely ignored other than Japan. The idea of
Japan allying with China is pretty unlikely given the experience the Chinese
had when the Japense last invaded.
The idea of a Muslim superpower seems somewhat unlikely seeming how they value
the tribe above the nation and there is a lot of hatred between the different
relgious sects. The idea of Turkey (a non religous
government) trying to rule / lead populations that have religios leaders
as their political leaders sounds unlikely. The Turks also have their own
separatist problems that they need to resolve.
Africa also doesn't get a mention, there is a lot of resources in those places
and not much of an effective military, so it would be pretty easy to set up
your prospective warlord to sponsor your resource exploitation.
What do you do about the piracy around the horn of Africa? It's appently
costing 7Billion out of the world economy. Does someone get serious and smash
the pirates for good or is this still an ongoing festering sore?
I do agree that much of the conflict of the future will be electronic and
financial. As economies are intertwined manipulation of stock
markets and finance rates becomes a big thing. Trade embargos / trade
wars are much more effective that bombs and rockets. Whether the US tech
weenies are clever than those of other countries remains to be seen.
The rise of corporations also seems to be compeltely ignored. Companies now
have the GDP of a large country now and the political will to use their
economic muscle.
From: "Beth.Fulton@csiro.au" <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
To: sfconsim-l@yahoogroups.com; gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: More future history questions
G'day,
For work I recently read the book "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. I'm
not sure I really agree with some of his logic, but the
last few chapters made for an interesting sci-fi short story read.
So I'll do a quick summary here (sorry if this counts as spoilers) and I
wouldn't mind getting your opinion on how feasible it all seems.
I won't bother going through all the economic ups and downs he predicts,
suffice it to say that by 2035-2040 US is still the worlds major
superpower, its paying migrants to come to the country to pad out a
contracting workforce that even robotics can't compensate for and the jihadist
movements are basically old history. oh and an attempt by Russia to regain
past glory failed and they're a worse basket case than ever.
So Russia's collapse leaves some wiggle room on its borders. He writes off
China as not having enough cohesion and India as hemmed in by geography and
instead proposes
1) Japan gets power by first economically allying with productive coastal
regions of China and them militarily going after the Pacific rim areas of
Russia. He goes through how they build up their military etc to prepare, but
basically the crux is 500 mile radius from Japan gets you from Shanghai to
Vladivostok so they don't need a super huge military to pull it off.
2) Turkey as a regional economic power pushes up into the Caucasus as Russia
collapse and acts as the peaceful hand in the fragmenting Arab
nations/Muslim world and even moves into the Muslim areas of the Balkans
(US and Arab world initially supports them as less objectionable, for
different reasons, than Iran or Israel and Pakistan isn't healthy enough to
step up)
3) NATO falls apart but Poland heads up a coalition of dynamic
Slavic/eastern European and Baltic states that soak up ex-Russia's
eastern boundary (i.e. Ukraine, Belarus etc), again with US support (western
Europe is in financial decline due to aging populations so don't play a big
part apparently)
4) 2030s-2040s Japan and Turkey's space presence buidls up, though is
never as large as the US's (many nations also have commercial space traffic at
this point)
5) Polish Bloc and Turkey will end up at loggerheads (US ends up more behind
the Poles)
6) US puts many of its military eggs in space based command and control
centres which coordinate the strike capabilities of hypersonic aircraft that
can reach most of the world's surface (form US bases) in less than an hour or
so
7) Americans assume no one is as good as them at tech, thinking sneaky etc and
also that all threats will come from Earth (i.e. missiles fired at satellites
or satellites vs satellites using the kinetics that was
spoken of on the sf-consim list the other day)
8) US doesn't like growing military (especially naval) power of Turkey and
Japan, who in turn feel that US is trying to crush them so everyone gets
"tense"
9) No one takes nukes seriously as an option (except as a last resort) as they
don't want the PR disaster of civilian casualties
10) Many nations build industrial/research colonies on the moon by 2040s
11) In 2050 Turkey has a "crisis" with Poland over troops in the Balkans, a
ruse to keep the US attention there (President gets the PMs together etc,
seems to talk them down, great kudos etc everyone goes home for the holidays
happy). Japan does its bulk standard quarterly military drills so no one
really pays attention. The Japanese then make a "secret" first strike by
launching rocks (with rocket motors attached) from secret part of their moon
base, initially on "random" orbits so just look like steroids so automated
systems of US "Battlestars" ignore them and even Space tech Joe Bloggs goes
"Hmmm meteors are a bit higher than normal but none headed for us so ok". On
3rd day from moon launch of these rocks they go into terminal missile burn
that redirects them at the 3 US Battlestars. This is timed for late in the
afternoon of
Thanksgiving so its hard to get the Joint Chiefs/important people
together. Battelstars put up valiant self defensive effort but overwhelmed by
more rocks. US is blind. Japanese have also got
their hypersonics airborne and hit US airfields/land command and
control. In the final hour Japan finally tells Turkey the plan... who
activate pre-made battle plans and smash Polish facilities.
12) US did get some of their own forces airborne, and do some damage to Japan,
but not sheet loads.
13) The Japanese-Turkish coalition isn't after capitulation just
breathing space so now push for political settlement - an agreement to
all stay out of each other's way/areas of influence.
14) US actually freaked out by the attacks and begins ratcheting its
responses - first gets US geekforce to upload new control programs for
remaining "old" satellites which go and kill Japanese/Turkish
satellites; mutual raiding and destruction of moon base capabiilities by the
secrte military guys inserted in each research team; the US industrial complex
rolls into action and turns out new gen aircraft (in about 2 years) and uses
mothballed secret bases to house them (they had purposefully built these and
kept the secret since 2030s or so just in case)
15) Meanwhile Turkey kicks Polish butt, using hypersonic aircraft as artillery
and old fashioned land based invasion. US uses its remaining airforce to help
the Poles out and push the Turks back (buying time for
a US rebuild) - Turks also don't want to be too stretched as have to
keep Egypt etc under control.
16) 2051-2052 Germans agree to coalition with Turkey to defeat the Poles
(they get northeast europe in return if successful) and drag in the French
too. Britain is appalled and secretly hands its intel, airforce resources and
airbases to the US. Turks and Germans pusg througheastern Europe again using
power armoured troops (with robot minions so don't need huge numbers of human
bodies). Initially the electrical grid is defended as both sides want ti to
feed their PA. The US then reveals its last trick, which is space based solar
power beamed down to troops via microwave (i.e. to on ground recievers) and so
the Polish scorch earth the electrical grid and Turkish advance grinds to a
halt. On top of which Congressional budget blocks will mean that a 4th
battlestar was built way back when but never launched and now it is... Japan
and Turkish advances reversed (again no requirement for unconditional
surrender, though US gets space to itself).
17) Poland will prosper, eventually reforming something vaguely like NATO and
economically sucking up beleaguered western Europe. US feels
threatened and now stats to back Turkey - Poles feel betrayed.
18) Military funded space based electrical power will see that form of energy
take off as most economic as commercial industry doesn't have to pay for the
infrastructure (as was the case for the interstate and early
internet/www) and you get another US boom
19) Meanwhile by 2060s-2080s Mexico has pulled itself together and is
now the Latin economy of note, moreover through now legal migration the
Mexican cession areas of the US are largely Latino populated (they are almost
a majority there now in 2000 so this isn't too far fetched)
20) Robotics and cheap energy means the labour force is finally not needed for
real and skill displacement can't soak them all up (population problems
compounded by genetic advances in health care areas). End result US decides to
go back to limiting migration and sending home anyone on a temporary visa
regardless of residence time. Latinos (some of whom have now been in the US
for decades) and Mexico (who doesn't want waves of unemployed) get upset.
Political tensions in Mexico City and amongst Latino representatives in
Washington, small scale radicalisation in the "borderlands" sees some strikes
on federal facilities. President tries to federalise the national guard along
the Mexican border to protect federal installations. The Latino governors tell
him to go jump (and largely Latino national guard in those areas support the
governors). Radical strikes continue so Congress agrees to allow US army in
down there, Mexican army is moved to the border in response. Mexican and US
Presidents meet to parly with the Mexican President effectively speaking for
the Latinos in the Mexican cession areas as well as Mexico itself.
21) Change to Mexican constitution allows for diaspora to vote.
22) Mexico ramps up military forces
23) US army could probably take out the Mexican army (ok likely for sure
could) but it couldn't pacify the borderlands... the world holds its breath to
see whether the borders are formally redrawn.
Like I said interesting, but how plausible is it?
Beth
I've pretty much given up on "future history", and this summary of Mr.
Friedman's book reminds me why I did: The sheer backward-looking
laziness of much of it, the determination of the authors to ignore cultural
factors in cultures other than their own, and the apparent
influence of today's publishing/commercial considerations on predictions
of the future.
> So Russia's collapse leaves some wiggle room on its borders. He writes
China is not cohesive? Friedman must use some massive double-standards
here, considering the strange bedfellows he does not hesitate to imagine
elsewhere. About the last parts of China that might be less than fully united
into the nation are the eastern, industrialised parts (which include Beijing
incidentally) he predicts will somehow ally with *Japan*. I thought we were
past the old "Japanese and Chinese are basically the same so they'll have no
problems getting together under Japanese leadership" viewpoint (it worked *so*
well in the past...), but no.
I translate this whole thing into: "My publisher didn't want me to write
another 'Rise Of China' book, so I had to come up with some excuse to leave it
out".
> Japan gets power by first economically allying with productive coastal
Does Mr.Friedman realise that much of the Pacific rim area of Russia used to
be Chinese? And that although the Chinese government has
pragmatically settled its hash with Russia over the Amur/Heilong Jiang
river region, a lot of Chinese people still regard it as such? They have to
put up with Russia having grabbed it in the 19th century, but Japan now? Just
throwing that out there...
> 2) Turkey as a regional economic power pushes up into the Caucasus as
Culture-ignoring conflation of Muslim and Arab? Incidentally, China is
not cohesive, but the notoriously fissiparous Middle East is united
under Turkey? And Turkey's own ethnic/cultural divisions don't count?
Lazy thinking.
> The Japanese then make a "secret" first strike by launching rocks
While an ageing population neuters Western Europe, it somehow turns Japan into
an economic dynamo (see my comments above about Japan "allying with productive
coastal China" bit) the and military aggressor? In a *very* obvious recycling
of the attack on Pearl Harbour. Lazy.
There seem to be some wildly optimistic assumptions about how quickly new
technologies can be rolled out into production. A glance at the
problems Nazi Germany had in converting cutting-edge research into
useful weapon-systems on the ground in mid-war might have been
worthwhile. Or a look at how long it took to roll-out centimetric radar
effectively after the invention of the cavity-magnatron in 1940 despite
its crucial importance in winning the Battle Of The Atlantic (hardly a
side-show, after all).
G'day,
How can a guy that claims to advise the Republican party not know that?
Thanks John
Beth
> On 15/01/2012, at 7:51 PM, John Leary wrote:
> Beth,
G'day,
> rising tech power (where are all your tech support call centres
A lot are moving to the Philippines and even some in Indonesia. India's hold
on that aspect of tech is moving on.
Cheers
G'day Tom,
> [Tom] I have two subpoints to make: Israel, in your scenario,
I think this was a slip of the typing fingers Tom, but just to be clear
this isn't "my scenario" its most certainly Mr Friedman's - I'm just
asking what people think not adopting it as something I think will happen. I
was going to toss the book through the window in the earlier chapters, but the
final ones were as "fun" as many scifi novels (which I have come to think of
this book as).
> [Tom] Given they are a basket case today....
They're 14th largest economy in the world, not exactly a basket case -
though in absolute terms the EU as a bloc rates above the US so maybe its not
100% clear cut;)
G'day,
Thanks for the responses.
I would have to agree that I found the book constraining and very
one-eyed, ignoring whole ranges of alternatives. On the hobby front I
enjoyed the Years of Rice and Salt much more (and it was openly sold as
science fiction).
I've had to read a whole heap of futurist journals and stuff of late and all I
can say is that any of you could probably do a better job than the majority of
the guys who do it for a living (especially as they never
seem to go back and check where they went wrong) - so if you're ever in
need of a book deal idea just relabel yourself as a strategic
adviser....
Thanks
> G'day,
Hehehe! So, Beth, reckon that between us all we could sell a
(slightly revised) GZG-verse to these guys? Seems to be as plausible
as anything else I've read on this thread so far.... ;-)
Best,
-----Original-Nachricht-----
> Von: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Fools never differ ? :-)
> [Tom] My only argument with this is there are
Certainly.
> And you can add to that some governments will work to keep their
Becoming increasingly hard to do, I have read a number of articles about North
Korea and even there, information is seeping in more and more.
> Haiti is a mess and it is within a short hop of the most prosperous
Afghanistan may remain intractable and poor, but the technical skills
are growing, even if its to built cell-phone triggered car bombs.
Greetings Karl Heinz
Beth, Only trying to correct some misconception!
I do not 'advise', except to my son.
bye for now, John L.
> --- On Sun, 1/15/12, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> From: Beth.Fulton@csiro.au <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> G'day,
Heh! That's excellent, Beth - what were their reactions when told it
was a game background, and can you remember any specific comments that any of
them made while discussing it, as to any particular bits that were more or
less plausible than others? That kind of feedback
from a bunch of "experts" in the field could be very useful...... ;-)
G'day,
> Heh! That's excellent, Beth - what were their reactions when told it
Over all they generally had two views, one "good", one "bad" for how each
region might end up. It usually hinged on some key assumptions.
It was back in July so only have vague recollections now, but to sum up what I
remember the membership of many of the power groups was about right in their
estimation, though how they came about was often questioned;)
IC - They were of the opinion that a strong ASEAN alliance/economic bloc
is very possible, especially in response to a stronger China. Originally China
would be on board, but if they really do dam the Mekong and other southeast
asian waters then they would be going it alone (and many of the continental
southeast asian nations could be in serious trouble pinched between dwindling
freshwater and saltwater inundation of coastal deltas). It partly comes down
to how easily IC gets through its current multiethnic tensions and past
previous corrupt practices (many of which are already turning around). It
basically comes down to power gradients, at the present "shit flows downhill"
so to speak and Indonesians get pushed into illegal activities in Australian
waters because they are being pushed form the south, if the area stabilises or
the pressure
gradient shifts they cold see movement north again ($250+ million people
is a lot to fit on such tiny islands).
IF - That really came down to what emerged from the last years worth of
events, at one point of the triangle you got a coalition/federation of
some form of modern at least quasi-democratic states, at another chaos
and at the third strong religious leadership. One guy thought that empowerment
of women would lead to widespread change, just as it has in the west. There
was a lot of argument about how likely it was, with as many people pointing
out how unlikely it seemed in the past in the west. There was no good
resolution on that front.... it came down more to past cultural practice for
each region and whether the post Mohammed teachings would be weakened in the
same way the post Bible rules have in Christianity. Its always enlightening to
compare what a holy book actually says vs how old bearded men interpreted it
after the fact;)
OU - They could see a Pacific without Australia in an ASEAN based power
bloc, in which case absorbing NZ and the larger Pacific Islands made sense
(the smaller ones will be underwater and already have their
governments largely based in Australia/NZ already). They questioned
whether the trade ties would be with Japan or China, but basically the same
thing (kinda). The alternative was Australia becoming much more Asian in
alliances, outlook, population etc (investment wise we are already a
significant Chinese holding so to speak). They did think conflict of resources
(i.e. Australia fighting others off) may be a significant concern in the
future... especially when the government realises it sold the whole reserve
and left nothing for us....
UN - they didn't think it stood significant chance of being a power in
its own right while still being dependent on member contributions
RH - while they couldn't see a Tsar at its head come hell or high water
the actual make up of the hegemony didn't really phase them, beyond dropping
at least some of Russia, more just including the eastern edges of it and maybe
also picking up some of the other east european nations.
PAU - they saw this as having a lot of potential, it was more the
details of how dynamic it was they argued about, some saw it growing with
demography to be significant, others saw the spectre of aids and
poverty dragging on. The key there seemed to be whether ngos/governments
continued to just "give" them things (like irrigation systems) vs teaching
them how to do it for themselves (most aid projects are derelict in a few
years as no one was taught to do the maintenance and parts can be hard to
get). On the other hand if they had local education supported and local
leadership then it could become quite strong. More than half thought the later
would occur given African peacekeepers are now most active in African affairs
and progress is being seen on the ground. They did think that transition could
get rocky in spots however
NAC - though many could see the US weakened they didn't see it
completely fall, at least so quickly, though they had some fairly harsh things
to say about the state of education and quantitative skill base vs demand and
the potential for radical views to derail things even if the majority don't
really support them. For instance they pointed to how an isolationist like
approach post 2001 has seen an erosion of the
number of foreign scientists seeking/finding employment in the US and
the implications for their R&D base. As to the rest of the NAC, well they
thought south America would be a power bloc in its own right (at least
eventually) and that while they cold see the UK leaving the EU (remembering
this was even before the latest debt tensions) they saw them turning to a US
or commonwealth trade based alliance (so a cross Atlantic alliance, a bit like
the NAC in composition in some aspects, but with a different means of coming
about).
ESU - While they saw the 3 component powers flexing muscles and
reshaping borders they didn't see it as one huge unit any time soon. They
especially didn't see India taking on Chinese rule, though they could see them
with trade links or negotiating over how to carve up the neighbours. It kind
of came down to whether each one ended up weak or strong as a result of their
industrialisation and the development of a middle class. Russia they thought
could potentially pick up some of the central asian countries, but not much
beyond that at least in the middle term.
FSE and NSL - they could see smaller parts of the EU survive even if the
whole didn't, though they tended to see it more as "rich countries stick
together" (i.e. France/Germany) and "the less well to do get the boot"
(so Italy, Greece, Spain all in individual heaps... maybe not that inclined to
band together as not a lot to offer each other beyond more debts... though
that could be too short term focused). They could also see the Scandinavians
sitting back and watching safely from a distance as they dealt with their own
social and environmental issues.
Cheers
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Beth said:
UN - they didn't think it stood significant chance of being a power in
its own right while still being dependent on member contributions
[Tomb] This is my most significant and lasting criticism of the UN's
situation. Even if it were not deeply corrupt (which it is), even if it were
not greviously inefficient (which it is), and even if it could draw scientists
and soldiers from countries freely without national rules of operation or
engagement (which it cannot), it cannot fund its operations except via
charity. There are, to me, two clear preconditions for the UN as a power bloc:
a) The UN must have sufficient revenue independent of donations which may be
withheld by members at whim b) The UN must have the ability to recruit and
train military and other sorts of staff and experts whose loyalties are not
mixed or beholden to other powers before the UN
Both of the above are, at least in some respects, a function of holding
territory [1]. Once you hold territory, you're just like every other state.
Then you can no longer be the coordinating/negotiating/collective body
that the UN is.
re Mexico v. Russia:
What I said about Russia is only slightly different than Mexico's current
condition. Murders all over the place (police, government, judiciary,
innocents, media), a drug trade/organized crime that are running the
show and are intertwingled with the political structure and government
(executive, legislative and judicial), law enforcement that in large part is
influenced by money and power, an economy which may be making some rich but a
lot of the money is going to drug czars or organized crime bosses or corrupt
politicos (to the extent these can be separated), and generally there aren't
many signs that the attempts by the good people are winning the day.
Mexico and Russia both suffer from the similar issues for different reasons.
Russia its a mix of drugs, oil, and weapons. Mexico its probably mostly drugs.
There is so much money in the illicit economy and the scumbags running that
have so deeply inveigled themselves into the political and governmental
structures that rooting them out is an almost unimagineable task. And nobody
from the outside world is going to be able to help much.
You can always imagine Mexico pulls itself together, and I sincerely hope it
does, but I think this one goes under the WAG not particularly suggested by
current data category.