What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Modern US steps down from UN Security Council

Which G4 country would become a new P5


  • Total voters
    21

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
This is just like what happens if the US goes isolationist (which isn't a thing because 1) the US has never been truly isolationist and 2) getting dragged into two European conflicts sort of annihilated the idea of isolationism) the world literally becomes on fire. No US, world is engulfed in flames. No UN, world is engulfed in flames.

A world without the US and/or UN is basically going to force the world back into human norm and have major wars erupt every two decades, if we're lucky.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
A world without the US and/or UN is basically going to force the world back into human norm and have major wars erupt every two decades, if we're lucky.
*yawns*

Is this the silly idea that the US military keeps the peace, that some people use to justify the absurd overspending for an ineffective tool? Just asking, because it would be an absurd claim to make, when the US military is, well, not that stronger effectively than the other UNSC ones:

1) It can crush the military of tinpot dictatorships and utterly fail to build up on it afterwards.
2) It cannot win a war with anyone who spends the cash on a deterrent, nuclear or other.

Major wars have stopped not because of big toys compensating for some inadequacy but because they cannot be won in the era of MAD.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
*yawns*

Is this the silly idea that the US military keeps the peace, that some people use to justify the absurd overspending for an ineffective tool? Just asking, because it would be an absurd claim to make, when the US military is, well, not that stronger effectively than the other UNSC ones:

1) It can crush the military of tinpot dictatorships and utterly fail to build up on it afterwards.
2) It cannot win a war with anyone who spends the cash on a deterrent, nuclear or other.

Major wars have stopped not because of big toys compensating for some inadequacy but because they cannot be won in the era of MAD.
Problem, you assume the military is the keeper of the peace. The reality is that the Woods System -i.e. global commerce- did more to keep the peace than nukes outside of the US/USSR grudge match.

Since all those resources are now 'freely' available without colonial empires denying them, a lot of the reasons for war simply evaporated. The US military being it's immense size is simply the requirement for the Woods System to be viable. The UN without the US pretty much causes a repeat of the League of Nations: it becomes completely ineffectual, it starts being screwed over with situations that it couldn't handle, then it ultimately collapses and the world is literally on fucking fire.

MAD is simply a theory that no one wants to test yet. Without the US and UN, the chances of some idiot wanting to test MAD goes up sharply.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Problem, you assume the military is the keeper of the peace. The reality is that the Woods System -i.e. global commerce- did more to keep the peace than nukes outside of the US/USSR grudge match.

Since all those resources are now 'freely' available without colonial empires denying them, a lot of the reasons for war simply evaporated. The US military being it's immense size is simply the requirement for the Woods System to be viable. The UN without the US pretty much causes a repeat of the League of Nations: it becomes completely ineffectual, it starts being screwed over with situations that it couldn't handle, then it ultimately collapses and the world is literally on fucking fire.

MAD is simply a theory that no one wants to test yet. Without the US and UN, the chances of some idiot wanting to test MAD goes up sharply.
You seem to be working on a 19th century mindset, in which resources justify war on an economic standpoint. Economy and industry demolished that state of things, in that raw resources are not really worth the cost of a modern war anymore. Profit is made through services and more and more advanced industrial processes rather than raw resources while the cost of warfare has risen sharply. Consider the Iraq War of Aggression in 2003: the oil resources there would not justify the cost of the war and subsequent occupation, which is a pretty good argument to debunk the thesis about an oil-justified war.

Invading a country for its natural resources will end up costing you much more than what it gets you, putting you in a worse position in the end, even in the unlikely case you manage to shift the resource flux towards your country. Unlikely because, as we saw with Iraq, the chaos will lead to a loss in productivity. Resource acquisition is done much more effectively with trade and politics these days, because while not one-sided as a good ol' military stomping might be, it still provides more resources at an acceptable cost. Thus China "gently" taking over large swaths of Africa without giving a shit about political or military control of the area, simply paying whoever is in charge and not asking any question.

The world moved on from Victoria II, Aaron. New game engine, new economy mechanics, new strategies. The military victory gameplay belongs to outdated updates.
 

Chatokay

Self-proclaimed FiC official absinthe provider :)
Anyone? Germany maybe?
There is already two Europeans member, adding a third would be a bit disproportionate in my opinion. If we really need to put a replacement, then I would say Brazil, as it is on the same continent than the US.
 

Mark Poe

The majestic cock
Author
India is a good choice given their military, economic, and technological prowess, not to mention their 3rd way cred among a lot of developing countries. It's also a good check of PRC's power in the far east.

At least among the choices presented. I'd rather suggest Ukraine instead, for very obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:

Yesman

Not-Hostile Robot Caretaker
Author
So who would be new hegemon? While I've heard of countries like England and France [COUNTRY THAT IS NOT FRANCE] having successful interventions, I doubt that England alone could do everything the Yanks are doing right now.

Japan being new Hegemon is just... its putting a hat on hat, on another hat then putting the mess of hats on a volcano.
 

ScreenXSurfer

Ain't no bitch who can do it like me
*yawns*

Is this the silly idea that the US military keeps the peace, that some people use to justify the absurd overspending for an ineffective tool? Just asking, because it would be an absurd claim to make, when the US military is, well, not that stronger effectively than the other UNSC ones:

1) It can crush the military of tinpot dictatorships and utterly fail to build up on it afterwards.
2) It cannot win a war with anyone who spends the cash on a deterrent, nuclear or other.

Major wars have stopped not because of big toys compensating for some inadequacy but because they cannot be won in the era of MAD.
How come when I make this argument I get called a dumb isolationist.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
How come when I make this argument I get called a dumb isolationist.
Probably because you are surrounded with people who need their compensating tool. The same people who apparently believe, despite thousands of years of counter-examples, that winning a war means killing more people than you lose, thus explaining how these people’s dream military has won two wars in sixty years: Panama and 1991 Iraq, failing to win its numerous others despite big tech and huge budgets.
 

ScreenXSurfer

Ain't no bitch who can do it like me
Also, India is just in such a precarious position with its neighbors. I don't think the rest of the world wants to amplify drama in that region by giving India more influence.

Japan doesn't even have a military, so I'm not sure what to think of that.
 

Yesman

Not-Hostile Robot Caretaker
Author
Good joke! It just has a "self-defence force" that is among the most armed fleets on Earth.
To quote one of your enemies on SB
"They just don't call it a military"
however Japan having such power would probably cause many angry nations such as mine.
 

IndyFront

Yokkiziikzekker
Author
Also, India is just in such a precarious position with its neighbors. I don't think the rest of the world wants to amplify drama in that region by giving India more influence.

Japan doesn't even have a military, so I'm not sure what to think of that.
Particularly China, which is itself a Security Councilor, fucking hates India. I would have to echo Chatokay with Brazil, since they are on the same continent and have a similar size of manpower to the US.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Particularly China, which is itself a Security Councilor, fucking hates India. I would have to echo Chatokay with Brazil, since they are on the same continent and have a similar size of manpower to the US.
But nothing in terms of power projection. Noone gives a shit about Brazil’s military when it cannot be significant much further than its boerders.
 
Top Bottom