What could the US have done to stay waaaaay out in front?

[Masada]

Russia, Europe, Pakistan, China, Japan etc etc the US is going to police these places indefinitley?

No, and that's the whole point!

The Soviet Union behind the Urals isn't going to threaten anyone. A White Russia on the other side of the Urals can be propped up just enough to keep the Soviet Union invested there. The chances of a White Russian success would be mitigated by the exiled Whites reclaiming the properties they lost. Neither power is anywhere near the United States in power and neither would be anything short of dysfunctional.

Europe can be left largely in fascist hands: Communism if it takes hold can be used as a counter balance to Fascist Europe. America could even repatriate pro-Soviet Communists back into their European states of origin. Conceivably it could occupy Northern France giving time for a serious Communist to form in opposition to Petain. This miniature European Cold War could conceivably be kept simmering indefinitely if America was willing to wildly oscillate between its positions -- supporting one side one day and the other the next.

Pakistan just needs to be strong enough to adsorb India's attentions. America covertly supporting it with arms would be a start. Really, all we would need to do is ensure that Kashmir fell to Pakistan. A quick thrust into the Gangetic plains becomes realistic at that point and the ability of Pakistan to seriously threaten India increases exponentially. This would be mitigated by the Eastern Pakistan (nee' Bangladesh) remaining in Pakistani hands. America could simply act as the Great Mediator at this point ensuring that neither party gains a serious enough advantage to press the point. Que a debilitating and utterly pointless arms race like OTL only longer.

China is easy enough to deal with. The Nationalists could simply be circumvented by propping up the warlords against the central government. Any struggle against Mao's Communists would be longer without Soviet support. The United States could also lean against them by providing arms to the Nationalists and Warlords. The whole aim would be to insure that China was always embroiled in war. It would have no chance to seriously pose a threat to the United States.

Japan without the possibility of serious Soviet subversion doesn't need to be rebuilt as a major industrial power in its own right. It can be kept at the level of building tin soldiers like was originally envisioned. A poorer weaker Japan still has the potential for a market in China which can constrained by tying military assistance to the Nationalists to economic policy. Furthermore, Japans economy should and must in this scenario be tied to Americas.

I would allow Southeast to fall under Australiasian industrial influence. Since neither party is particularly large or could conceivably be much larger population wise than now. That would allow the region to subsist under the auspices of close American allies who do not have the potential to become large players under their own steam.

In 1945 the USA was the worlds biggest power by long way, and they had a lot of friends. Your plan would jepordize both these things.

In this scenario it won't need friends. It can dictate to the world at will. The only potential player who could pose a threat to America post-World War Two: the Soviet Union is dead and gone and doesn't have the benefit of Eastern Europe to prop itself up with. Honestly, even with Eastern Europe the Soviet Union was always going to be inferior to the United States economically. While the American bloc might be somewhat smaller that hardly matters. Its doesn't need a large bloc now because it has no-one to compete with it.

Instability is very useful for empire-building, especially in modern times when outright annexation is harder. The most advantageous role for the empire is that of arbitrator between weak, squabbling lesser states. Would you also suspect, as I do, that at least the latest war in Iraq must have happened according to this kind of plan?

Yes. You've hit it on the head. America could intervene decisively in any given conflict in this world and re-set the balance in a favorable way. Honestly, I'm not sure about Iraq it seems well ******** even at the time... I would have had a rapprochement with Saddam which was becoming increasingly palatable as he ran out of enemies to liquidate. He would have been a sound ally in the War Against Terror. Likewise, I would have sought a rapprochement with Iran on the understanding that we both hate detest Sunni Takfiri and that we're willing to let bygones be bygones provided Iran shifts its hatred to better targets like: Al Qaida. Both could be just viewed as understandings for the moment with the PR work to come as the successes roll in.

However, this great plan might greatly overestimate American power and the willingness of the population to get dumbf***ed.

I came up with a slightly amended scenario last night. If Germany had invaded the Soviet Union and then the Wehrmacht disposed of Hitler before America become seriously intellectually invested in destroying Fascism at any cost. Then we have a scenario that could conceivably work.

In this scenario the Wehrmacht agrees to peace with the Western allies by vacating Czechoslovakia, Poland and France. However, it maintains that the fight against Communism and the Soviet Union is far more important than anything else because of the obvious threat that the Soviet Union poses to Europe. The United States not yet intellectually invested in the fight against Fascism instead becomes invested in the fight against Japanese Imperialism on the one hand and Soviet Aggression (invasion of Poland, Baltic States, Finland etc) on the other hand! This allows America to continue to recognize the legality of Petain's government and all the fascist Anti-Communist states set up by Germany. The Japanese might be left alive just that little bit longer but its probably inevitable that the United States will push that little bit harder and it will react. The result will be forgone. I presume that Japan's reign will be that much shorter for the want of it. Its still pie in the sky but it isn't impossible merely improbable.

What had been achieved by the US during WWII was only possible due to huge debts and an economy serving the purpose of war only. But those efforts would only have been the start if your plan would have been realized. Not doable except an exploiting dictatorship Stalin-style would have been put in place in the US and America had risen to the one and only true evil empire. Then maybe workable for some time.

Sure, good point. But America still has to deal with the Soviet Union and the all backlash of establishing friendly states in the world. It will still have to fight albeit on a much reduced scale. Even taking into the relative weakness of its military machine compared to OTL it still won't have a serious competitor. Its still to late in the war for the British to not collapse.. and much of the Empire was on the way regardless of what happened in the next decade. Although it would be cool to have an insular and increasingly xenophobic British Empire fighting against the natives and getting progressively nastier as it attempts to hold onto the Empire. Churchill was an ardent Imperialist... he still has a few years left on the throne and if he could frame it as Anti-Communism and sweep the next election (less domestic problems) we have what six years to get Britain doing the nasty in the colonies. Churchill as Lord Protector ftw!

You have a great imagination though.

Thanks.

You think like a modern Kautilya

BWAHAHAHAH

The right-wing think-tanks in America just have to offer you a job after reading this.

I'd prefer to be a writer.

 

[Quackers]

lol @ neo-liberalism

 

[Lord Baal]

Reading this thread makes me want to have Masada's babies. And I'm a dude.

 

[GoodGame]

After the collapse of my beloved USSR, the Americans were completely and utterly unchallenged. Russia was on its knees, China was still a mid-level player with little care for the outside world, Japan was entering recession and the EU wasn't even the force it is now. Latin America was just about to be subjected to ridiculous neoliberal economics, left-wing parties in Europe were moving to the right, and the US gave Iraq a sound thrashing in Kuwait.

Nowadays, things are quite different. China is fast catching up with the US, and most people agree it will eventually surpass it. Latin America has moved dramatically to the left, and noeliberalism is a laughing stock. No party in Europe bar Polish and Baltic ones want to seem too close to the US, and Russia has had many successes in the last few years rolling back American influence.

How could the US have made sure it retained its position of total supremacy?

1. Taken the Al Qaeda intelligence more seriously and pre-empted 9/11, and the related expenditures.

2. Not have enacted the financial deregulations that contributed to the 2008 financial problems.

3. Invested in relations with Africa instead of China?

4. Developed and Marketed renewable energy that was profitable, to Europe, to dull Russia's value in energy exports to Europe?

I don't think there's much to do about China. I suspect population growth is part of the reason for the US decline, and there's no politically acceptable solution to that.

And invading Iraq in the 90s would have been stupid, no?

@ Masada's ATL, I don't think Japan would allow itself to be kept down indefinitely.

And I agree with Disgustipated's analysis. America culture kind of stagnated some in the 1990s. Not absolutely, as we did do some cool projects like the Human Genome, committed to particle accelerators and fusion projects, and misc NASA stuff. Not sure what to put a finger on except maybe it's karma for a history of poor race relations, and general war fatigue from the WW2+cold war proxy wars. I think it can be said that no one fights an eternal war. So if culture is a central issue, there might be no ATL to make the USA totally rock.

But on progress, I wonder if the patent system were overhauled some, to make it more progressive and flexible, would that have helped. Same for the culture of anti-science conservatism, which may be as much to blame as a lack of interest in education.

 

[Flying Pig]

You have to separate relative decline from absolute decline. India and China have 4 times the population of the US. So if they reach 1/4th our productivity and standard of living, then they reach our GDP.

This. People in my country almost all want a greater world standing but think we can do it with a population of 60 million and no immigration. We can't have both - Germany has 80 million and they're considerably (although not far enough to be secure) ahead of us in economic terms; Japan has blooming shedloads and they're competing with China. And they've got the Germans and Japanese!

 

[Ahovking]

The Us Need to stop spending money is going bankrupt just look at is debt. they need to pull out of the middle est and begin to show support to her Allys.

 

[rollo1066]

Don't think that rise of China could or even should have been stopped. A bit of rivalry is ok for both the US and rest of world. The USA can do fine (probably better) for itself and its people without being absolutely dominant.

 

[otago]

Actually a pretty good statement. Competition will be good for us. It can be a bit dangerous with too much government spending, however. Reagan went a little crazy with the military spending. I'm a navy vet, and even I say bringing the battleships out of retirement was stupid. And a 600 ship navy wasn't necessary. Reagan was the one who started the obscene government spending. G.W. just continued in that tradition. Obama has taken spending to even higher levels.


I'd like to clarify my earlier post. It wasn't a good choice of words. I didn't mean it "brought them down" but it keeps them down. Religious intolerance in particular is a bad thing and restricts scientific and social progress. And this is what I fear from the conservative movement in the U.S. While I may be an economic conservative, I do not support these whacko conservatives who don't understand why separating church and state was a good thing. If you look at Turkey, they are one of the more progressive middle eastern countries because they do attempt to keep their government secular.

But my point is if you have a culture that fears change and places little importance on education, it will keep you down.

Hmm, I wonder about the battleships, with 80% of the worlds population within twenty miles of the coast I wonder if fire support would not be a cheaper if delivered by 16 inch guns rather than by aircraft off a carrier ?

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

 

[Dachs]

80% of the world's population may be within 20 miles of coastal waters, but that doesn't mean 80% of United States military operations are.

 

[BuckyRea]

Elected Gore instead of Bush.

At the risk of nitpicking, I think the verb you want is "inaugurated."

1. Taken the Al Qaeda intelligence more seriously and pre-empted 9/11, and the related expenditures.

Disagree. While the thousands of lives lost were tragic, the attacks became an important defining moment for the country as a world power. Granted, we had leadership at the time that sought to misapply (or misdefine?) American power at that moment. But the initial attack actually clarified for the world just how much it benefited from American geopolitical supremacy. That "We are all Americans" sign in Paris was telling. Inevitably the US was going to run up against the BRIC nations over trade policies. But in terms of world leadership, 9-11 did create a small window in which a real cohesive "virtual empire" under US guidance could have been cultivated, had the momentum afterwards been properly husbanded. This is where I pontificate about the need for a real liberal agenda.

Instead we got distracted into an ideological struggle by neocons. But real moral leadership on climate change, energy policy, global fair trade, poverty reduction, 3rd world birth control, women's rights, and regional peace initiatives could have kicked the can 50 years down the road, as far as conflict between the regional powers within the trade-connected 1st & 2nd world.

3. Invested in relations with Africa instead of China?

China's doing all the investing in relations with Africa, but it's not doing them much good. Their real assets remain their increasingly educated workforce, not their friendly relations with primary resource providers in Africa. Africa will, sadly, continue not to matter in world affairs until they start educating their workers. Primary economy providers have always been the pinatas of world history. Once Africa starts following the South Korea model (which is really the post-WW2 Japan model) of industrialize first, democratize second, they'll get it right. Unfortunately, they're still chasing that cash crop/mineral wealth bunny around the track.

For the US, keeping on China's warm fuzzy side is critical to staying relevant to the game.

2. Not have enacted the financial deregulations that contributed to the 2008 financial problems.
4. Developed and Marketed renewable energy that was profitable, to Europe, to dull Russia's value in energy exports to Europe?

A-freakin'-men.

And invading Iraq in the 90s would have been stupid, no?

The humanitarian cost of the sanctions against Iraq were close to as bad as the war, although they did considerably less damage to the country's infrastructure. But Yugoslavia's history suggests ethnic ugliness in a post-Saddam Iraq would have happened one way or another. The real difference the 2003 invasion made was to make it look like it was America's fault (which I guess it kind of was, but it didn't have to be).

I think a smarter, if uglier, way to go would be to openly back Iran in the 80s instead of backing Saddam. Realigning the US with the Shiites would have carried some medium term costs, but Iran was always going to be more stable. The Saudis would've been pissed at us, but they seem manageable as long as they want our AWACs and pretty guns and dollars. It's not like they were going to be chummy with the Soviets.

there might be no ATL to make the USA totally rock.

The land of Mickey Mouse and Levi Strauss is going to rock, no matter what. It's just a matter of properly husbanding all that good will we get from inventing Coca Cola and MTV, which should both be Great Wonders in Civ5, but probably won't. There's always trade offs involved in being the top dog. The key is playing your cards right at those clarifying moments (e.g., the Marshall Plan, which looked good on TV, but mostly just helped Europeans buy US goods) and not being too big a bully in the downtimes when no one's looking. For instance, for all the harm the Vietnam War did to US relations, they're still a huge trading partner with us today because we're still not China.

I don't think the "culture of anti-science conservatism" is that big a harm to the big picture of maintaining a sustainable empire. The "heads in the sand" crowd always show up when you have a successful society. As long as they keep buying stuff and sending their kids to community college to learn marketable trades, they can believe whatever hocus pocus they like about Noah bringing velociraptors along on the Ark. In the long run it's what they do, not what they think, that matters.

 

[Colonel]

I don't really buy that China or India have even come close or ever will come close to the US. I mean both are in effect the same as Russia a "Regional Power". Without help from the United States no other country on the globe can project the full force of its military on an isolated part of the world like the US can. I mean hell if I am not mistaken the Pacific is still sometimes referred to as an American lake because of how much of a military presence we have in that region.

In the coming years China will attempt to meet us militarily, most likely in the Pacific, and we will overwhelm them with the full force of the American Pacific fleet. Not to say their will be any actually fighting involved, my guess would be they would try an "exercise" to show off how strong they are and the American fleet would come out on an "exercise" as well to remind them of just who is in charge.

As far as India, so long as China is attempting to keep up with the US, India will be focused on keeping up with the Chinese though I doubt they will ever try to challenge US supremacy.

 

[Cutlass]

Hmm, I wonder about the battleships, with 80% of the worlds population within twenty miles of the coast I wonder if fire support would not be a cheaper if delivered by 16 inch guns rather than by aircraft off a carrier ?

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

That's a very expensive way of dealing with something you'll very rarely have a use for.

 

[Jabarto]

American culture used to be highly centered upon traditional morality and virtues.

What do you consider to be traditional values and virtues?

This is largely becoming replaced with hedonism that's justified with that stupid "you can't ban/restrict X, because you have no right to impose your beliefs on others" argument.

I'm not gonna lie; I spent the last 5 minutes staring at this trying to comprehend the psychology behind it. Could you throw me a bone here and elaborate a little?

 

[BuckyRea]

Originally Posted by LightSpectra

This is largely becoming replaced with hedonism that's justified with that stupid "you can't ban/restrict X, because you have no right to impose your beliefs on others" argument.

I'm not gonna lie; I spent the last 5 minutes staring at this trying to comprehend the psychology behind it. Could you throw me a bone here and elaborate a little?

As the poster is not forthcoming, I'll take a stab at authorial intent. I believe what he means is "Other people are out having drugs and fun and no one invited me, but I didn't want to have any of their stupid old drugs and fun anyway, so there! Now excuse me, I have to go tune in to Limbaugh so I'll know what to think tomorrow."

 

[LightSpectra]

What do you consider to be traditional values and virtues?

Hard work, family, duty, humility, austerity, etc.

I'm not gonna lie; I spent the last 5 minutes staring at this trying to comprehend the psychology behind it. Could you throw me a bone here and elaborate a little?

Any manifesto that's in favor of legal abortion will inevitably use this argument at some point; "whether or not you're okay with killing people, it's not your prerogative to enforce your beliefs on others."

Couldn't tell you if the root of the problem is our cultural idols themselves becoming more decadent, or if our declining education system is what spawned the aforementioned people.

As the poster is not forthcoming, I'll take a stab at authorial intent. I believe what he means is "Other people are out having drugs and fun and no one invited me, but I didn't want to have any of their stupid old drugs and fun anyway, so there! Now excuse me, I have to go tune in to Limbaugh so I'll know what to think tomorrow."

If by "out having drugs and fun," you mean "puking their guts out in a homeless shelter while their family forfeits their house," sure. But just because you're indifferent to people ruining their's and others' lives, doesn't mean the people who care are all Limbaugh conservatives.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Exactly. The USA are liberastic thugs, and their liberasty/tolerasty will bring them down

 

[Lord of Elves]

As a simple answer, it is arguable to say nothing.

 

[Cutlass]

The US could have not paid to help rebuild its former allies and enemies. That would have delayed them a few more decades. Would not necessarily have been a good idea, though.

We could have had less conservative policies at home. That would have given us greater growth.

 

[North King]

I'm a little confused. The United States is waaaaaaaay out in front, a colossus that has never been rivaled in cultural or military history. At this point there is no individual military which could do more in conventional war than slow down their American counterpart, and American culture, vulgar as it often is, can be found in every country in the world. What more do you want, world conquest? That's never been achieved in all of history; it seems unrealistic that America could somehow manage it on a whim.

 

[Cutlass]

I think they are more or less referring to the fact that in 1945 the US accounted for about 50% of global industrial production. And now it's some 21%. But the simple fact is that the 1945 figure was highly artificial and temporary. Most of continental Europe was either crushed or looted by the Germans. Germany was crushed by the US and USSR. The UK was exhausted by overuse of its economy. Japan was crushed by the US. China was hurt by Japan and its own internal struggles. Other parts of the world were either damaged by war or not fully recovered from the Depression.

So the US possition was not sustainable. The rest of world was going to recover eventually.