Pax americana

Can anyone here tell me the ACTUAL chances of pax americana being destroyed/dismantled in the near future? Anything like state balkanization, economic collapse, economic bubbles bursting, civil war or an outward war that is unwinnable qualifies, because, at the very least, it will drastically reduce the americanizing influence around the world, allowing other superpowers to take control of the internationalist vessel.

Attached: 20150426_SpecOps.jpg (1230x606, 140.72K)

Other urls found in this thread:

academia.edu/1019471/Drones_A_New_Chapter_in_Modern_Warfare
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
youtube.com/watch?v=zUVbrOtQenQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

why even call it "pax americana" unless you're retarded?

Because who even gives a shit? Rather call it "pax americana" than "the american hegemony" or "the american empire" tbh.

Define "near future"

Attached: 1451878012957.jpg (414x656, 32K)

Anywhere from very soon to 40 years from now.

absolutely counterrevolutionary, kys

What's the problem mister?

NATO collapsing is more likely than the US itself suffering defeat. I think a political crisis over funding for the military is more likely than any external shock destroying American supremacy. That could happen as soon as the next recession.

This. Burger hegemony is resilient and will take a long time to fade.

Fuck you, commie faggot you're all American's now. Get over it.

(You) right now.

Attached: ameriwojak.jpg (204x250, 8.88K)

Around 100%:

1. Americans themselves are tired of paying for it.
2. America's military-industrial complex would rather have bigger planes and submarines
3. Most of America's power is through their markets. As markets collapse (due to the inherent contradictions of capitalism Marx predicted), most of America's power will melt. This is where the biggest cost of American imperialism, free trade, has become a sum too large for Americans to tolerate. The more trade barriers that go up, the less power the NYSE has.
4. Eventually aircraft are going to become so efficient (or just nuclear powered) that drones or airborne drone carriers based in the continental US will be able to fly around the world without refueling. At that point the current chain of air/sea bases becomes far less important.

The whole point is to get costs down. This should sound familiar: corporate strategy bleeds into military strategy. Cut out as much personnel as possible so only a small group of leet but replaceable drone operators can do all the work. This sounds like a foolproof plan on paper but in practice it will lead to American power dissolving as Americans choose to bunker down rather than keep a global influence. Just look at Trump's attempt at building a wall: Americans no longer want to interact with Mexico at all (even if such actions are imperialistic and to their favor) and want Mexican influence to just stop. For this purpose an immense amount of resources have gone into the border, which could have otherwise gone into pacifying rural Iraq or eastern Ukraine.

wheres the triple chin

Sounds good to me tbh.

100%
probably be completely gone by 2030

It seems like American power has already collapsed and we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. The obvious corruption and dysfunction in American politics has everyone else on edge and unsure of how to react. It's recent wars are mostly failures that produced little but chaos and rubble (and high stock prices).
A civil war is still a ways off but a recession could lead to bankrupt state governments pretty quickly as tax revenues plunge.
If it's a war, maybe that will be when the left gets its act together and organizes general strikes against the war.

...

With imperialists, a relative peace is the best you'll get.

Disney will just buy the US Army

But i'm not morbidly obese.

Attached: 11e8zh.jpg (500x327, 17.15K)

I think South and North America should be one giant nation, the Eurasian Khanghanate and divide Africa between us.

why? They already own the Anaheim PD.

epic epic EPIC epic EPIC

Attached: bc7da13e5d56a5524de79a1348fc0d1e03ecf23ebcf78e9de75b45d3e6979bea.jpg (960x794, 78.81K)

100%

pls no, we Latin Americans refuse to live under one nation with amerimutts

Attached: how about no.png (525x633, 106.62K)

It's not Americans you'd have to worry about but Mexicans. They'd effectively force their culture onto the rest of latin america, because Americans think all latin americans are Mexican.

Russia's hypersonic missiles make those carriers obsolete today. They're only effective against 3rd world countries.

America has hypersonic missiles too. Guess where they're launched from? Airplanes. Having a plane that can fly from South Dakota to Russia and back round trip without any refueling is incredibly valuable because a massive attack can be staged using stealth aircraft.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, for everything else the idea is that you'd just fly a single plane over which would deploy blimp UAV carriers that'd do the entire job of warfare without any human interaction on the ground. Taken to the maximum extreme it'd be NASA's Venus airship concept merged with DARPA's Blackwing concept: UAVs and airships would fold out of missiles rather than be launched from an airport. Whereas UAV assassinations of the 2000s required careful planning and timing America could just decide to put a country under 24/7 surveillance and blow up anything they don't like immediately. Or as I call it, fascism.

Attached: perdix-drones-swarm-over-the-desert-without-human-intervention.jpeg (800x600 174.83 KB, 134.42K)

If they do they're being awfully quite about them.
My father was in the military as infantry. They used to have a saying he said:
"You can bomb, nuke it and shoot it but until there's a dumb grunt with a rifle standing on it, you don't control it."
You need a lot more than missiles to control an area. You need boots on the ground, boots you can't get on the ground if you're carriers are sunk.
Wouldn't airplanes be vulnerable to Russian anti-air?
These all seem like smoke and mirrors from the US defense industry. I've read Russia has the hypersonic missiles from reliable sources, I haven't even seen US propaganda outlets say the same about burgerland.

America's military is shockingly corrupt. It's the biggest issue that no one will talk about because it's too terrifying to consider how the MIC has infested and taken over the government.

Just you wait, twenty years ago nobody thought UAV warfare would be a thing due to ethics concerns and R&D. 9/11 changed that and made it reality by 2005.

I didn't say it would be successful. Despite all the UAV-borne killings in the middle east over the past decade and a half (a huge amount of time if you think about it), America's mission there is at best a tire fire and at worst a complete failure. But these facts won't stop them from trying to improve it and make it work by killing more people with better weapons.

Launched from aircraft carriers, whose obsolescence increases by the day as HCM ranges increase, forcing ACC further out to sea to avoid being sunk.

Making drones come out of a blimp is just the same problem of putting expensive toys on a big, slow moving target.

It would be incredibly valuable if it weren't a round trip of thousands of miles and relatively few aircraft. The F35 is supposed to do just like what you describe, and is foundering upon the innumerable problems associated with trying to make a long-range-stealth-fighter-bomber swiss army jet. The further it has to go, the more fuel it needs, and the less bombs it can drop.

So your SD->Russia trip becomes a lot less valuable when your jet is costing you millions in jet fuel just to fly to Russia and deliver a single bomb.

doubt.png

academia.edu/1019471/Drones_A_New_Chapter_in_Modern_Warfare

Attached: 894d1c72db3a299cd5a39eb084df46efefd0aab50401459fa6d7f2e501d58baf.gif (500x375, 981.47K)

I think we'll see it inside of 5 years. There's so many spinning plates, like how can it last. Also the nuclear deterrent becomes weaker by the day.

Attached: images.jpeg (256x196, 12.7K)

It's kind of hilarious that the US empire and capitalist hegemony won't collapse because of some heroic triumph by some communist state, but by burgerland's own shoddy engineering.
This allegory was encompassed by the ED-209 robot in "Robocop".
Robocop defeats ED-209 not because he had more fortitude, it was because ED-209 couldn't walk down stairs.

Attached: index2.jpeg (300x168, 10.26K)

Will anons please join in, I really want to talk about MIC incompetence.
t. 12 years as a military contractor.

Well what facets of MIC incompetence do you want to discuss, because that's a long fucking list.

Attached: imperialism.jpg (510x499, 115.98K)

Anything entertaining or related to OP, in that it's indicative of an impeding collapse. The most famous being the F-35.

Attached: index.jpeg (256x197, 8.05K)

Is the military even capable of things beyond being air support for mercenary militias? I'm concerned about war with Iran but I'm skeptical that America would be willing to put hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way.

There's the Millennium Challenge, the US's big showpiece war theater back in the early 2000s. The idea was to stage war games where the US and pals invades via the sea Some Country that is totally not Iraq or Iran. Team Blue was the US, consisting of army, navy, and airforce, with all their respective gadgets and gizmos. Then there was Team Red, which were supposed to be the bad guys, and all the sorts of things that those countries which totally aren't Iraq and Iran could reasonably have, speed boats, rockets, etc, plus anything that they could whip up in the field.

To say that it was one sided would be an understatement. All their electronic warfare and surveillance equipment were useless because Red Team refused to use electronics to send or disseminate orders. Instead everything was sent by courier via motorcycle. The majority of the invasion fleet was "sunk" before the troops were even able to land. The combined militaries of the US and other Millennium Challenge participants were made to look like fools in the face of a determined and experienced enemy armed with little more than conventional, soldier-mounted weaponry, WW1 era communications equipment, and a bunch of tactics that the USArmy wasn't prepared for in advance.

So the military did the only thing they could do, was call Time-out and No Fair and "refloated" all their sunk vessels, and then forbade Red Team from doing anything that would make the military look foolish in any way. Blue team "wins," and the American general in charge of Red Team writes what is basically a huge expose on the farcical nature of the whole thing.

Reading about the MC and its fallout, it's really easy to see how the US is in the mess they're currently in, particularly Afghanistan. It's a sea of wilderness more or less controlled by the Taliban once you're past the city limits, and if it weren't for the AF running supply and support missions constantly to keep the Americans from being overrun, they'd have been kicked out long ago. Volumes could be written about US military incompetence in Afghanistan alone.

The US makes a lot of hay about their electronic wonder weapons, but reading just a little about them reveals that most don't work as intended, if at all. The closing tech gap between the US and their various clients, adversaries, and contemporaries terrifies them, and that hysteria only grows more acute by the day. If the US seems like it's in an irrational hurry to start WW3, that's why, because the long term numbers don't really look good for them.

There's also the Bradley Tank. It's development was so stupidly corrupt they made a comedic movie about it.
I've heard for years there's some major vulnerability in either the Bradley or Abrams tank that just stops the tank cold if you can land a shot on it. I believe it considering how corrupt the US Military is.

Attached: pentagonwars.jpeg (188x268, 10.9K)

Son of a bitch, I knew there was something behind that, I knew it couldn't be hubris alone.

God Damn that's hilarious, do you have any sauce on this.

If I remember correctly there's a scene where they need to demonstrate the Bradley to the top brass, but it's cannon doesn't work.
They have a flamethrower shoot flames out of the cannon to give the illusion of a fired round, then blow up it's target with manually set explosives.
This story actually happened.

I think you should off yourself

I hadn't heard of that, but it's not surprising. Reading about Reagan's "Star Wars" program really sheds a lot of light on the ineptitude involved in a lot of these programs. IIRC, one of the Star Wars "tests" was as carefully scripted and choreographed as a ballet, and despite that the interception system was still less than 25%.


No, not hubris alone. I think hubris does play a significant role in things, but a lot of it has to do with technological developments that the US, Russia, and China are making.

The US's modus operandi since Vietnam is to not get militarily engaged on the ground if at all possible. In some respects, the modern American foot soldier is just bait/spotter for the Air Force. Send them out on patrol, wait for contact, and then glass the area they think Charlie is in when the army makes the call. This requires either access to friendly bases, like in Qatar, Bahrain, Okinawa, etc, or having a fleet in the vicinity with an ACC.

The Rus/Chi workaround for this is to develop hyper sonic cruise missiles that can be mass produced yet are accurate at range. In theory, a single missile in the right spot can sink an aircraft carrier, and these are designed to be launched in vollies. These missiles are able to be produced for a fraction of the cost of a single ACC, especially if it's one of the new Gerald Ford-class supercarriers, which are not only much more expensive than their Nimitz counterparts, but also eschew much of the Nimitz's defenses.

The effect that this arms race is having now, is basically the US is caught in a trap because the better these missiles become, the less effective their carriers become. ACCs would have to launch their planes much further out to sea, lowering their amount of ordinance that they can carry to accommodate the fuel they need for a round trip.

There's a video that I can't find atm of Putin talking about the tensions between the US and Russia, and how the US is basically racheting up tensions by returning to nuclear weapons development, and that the US now has a missile that basically turns any Tomahawk launcher into a portal nuclear launch pad, which is interesting.

But the long and short of it is that the US sees the writing on the wall, that more likely than not China will eclipse the US in terms of wealth and power, and that changes in economic centers and technological developments make it seem as though for the US is destined either for a long, slow decline into irrelevance or renewed hegemony after flattening its two chief rivals.

Sorry, I got distracted and lost my train of thought.


Are we sure this isn't Sgt Bilko we're describing?


I don't think I have anything at hand atm, but
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Attached: 1194994627225.jpg (1003x629, 96.71K)

lol I think I was.

youtube.com/watch?v=zUVbrOtQenQ

Aircraft carriers are just floating tripwires for nuclear war. They're getting more vulnerable by the day but they keep building them because trying to sink one could mean a nuclear response.
What can America do once it runs out of effective mercenaries as seems to be the case in Syria? If the recent escalations are any indication failure is not an option, but what's the next step? A ground invasion would be a disaster.

Attached: implying demo is OP.jpg (300x300, 59.24K)

You americans with all your fancy talk of empires

a thread this long with no mention of me?

Yes.. good…its working

Attached: Xi Jinping.jpg (530x298, 16.59K)

won't take 5 years from now

Mr. Honey-addicted diabetic manbearperson!

What's wrong with honey? It's good, and good for you.

Pajeets dislike honey for some reason.