PDA

View Full Version : What if...



veggieboy
02-14-2010, 01:46 AM
America decided to take over the world? And what if it teamed up with other powerful countries like China, Russia, France, Britain, Germany, and Brazil... How would this play down? What would be their reasoning?

I've always kind of wondered this.

I think that if the U.S. did take this stance, it would be for something righteous. Kind of like, yes lots of people may die, but the end result [Paradise] will be worth it. I don't think it'll go the Germany-route and kill a bunch people of a certain group. I think they'll do it to unite the world under one leadership, like a world wide country. One type of money. Help the areas of the world in need (ex 3rd world countries) and stomp out all those evil dictators.

No theocracy, so for those anti-this for loosing rights, its the U.S. leading.

I've always wondered why we had to be so split up.

Hmm, going off topic.

Anyway, I've just always liked to play pretend and see the United States march into some evil country and take it over.

ward_rb
02-14-2010, 02:12 AM
if america, or any country for that matter, tried to do that it would backfire horribly. there would be massive revolts, wars against countries who are against it, etc. any country that tried to "take over the world" would end up destroying itself. the reason for the takeover would not matter, other countries wouldnt just stand idly by and watch.

veggieboy
02-14-2010, 03:16 AM
Okay... so this is more of a fantasy than a debate for me. I've always wanted to be part of World Domination. Except, my ideal America takes over the world would be for different reasons.

I mean, "what if...", somehow the world came to terms of agreement and we all became one big happy family.

It could possibly mean no more war... We wouldn't have to fight for anything.

yerkyerk
02-14-2010, 04:26 AM
EDIT; nvm...

veggieboy
02-14-2010, 05:51 AM
Couldn't you have deleted the post all together Yerk

Edit- My iPhone's autospell makes Yerk into Yeti, sorry.

Violos
02-14-2010, 06:30 AM
I think that if the U.S. did take this stance, it would be for something righteous. Kind of like, yes lots of people may die, but the end result [Paradise] will be worth it. ... Help the areas of the world in need (ex 3rd world countries) and stomp out all those evil dictators.

That's what they woluld say, for sure. Like they do today. The only way to end "The Terrorism", or somethnig along those lines.

But you don't believe those are the reasons, do you?

veggieboy
02-14-2010, 09:51 AM
I would want to believe those reasons, but I'm not that naive. Then again must you be so cynical?

Kir4
02-14-2010, 10:02 AM
There's a lot of things I don't like, and the concept of "nations" is among them...

Humankind would work without any form of national idendity as well. If America "took over the world", humanity would turn into one "state", thus losing that idendity.

No more "We are Bromborian, and we hate Gogllians!" or "We, as Crappingtons, declare war against ****hampton's government!". On paper that sounds pretty good, in practice it wouldn't work though.

However, in case America's (or any other powerful countrie's) inhabitants and government would be perfect in terms of moral, reasoning etc., I'd actually like to see that happen.

veggieboy
02-14-2010, 10:12 AM
Its a dream that will never come true.

I just don't see the point of us all be separated by some imaginary line.

We can still have all the customs, languages, religions, etc. that make us who we are, but we need to be all united. The world is only get more worse and wars and all those poor people aren't helping.

Its enough with mass genocides and racial differences. This is going to sound really gay (and I mean UBERGAY), but we all just need to hold hands and embrace each other with hugs! HAPPINESS AND SUNSHINE> FAMINE AND WAR.

yerkyerk
02-14-2010, 04:55 PM
The only way to achieve world peace is by nuking every last human to death. No more suffering, no more death, no more pain. Because there is no more to be had.

The world isn't getting any brighter as it is :goth:

veggieboy
02-15-2010, 03:08 AM
I think that world peace is unrealiatic, but nuking is into oblivian won't help.

yerkyerk
02-15-2010, 06:53 AM
Why not?

I'm not suggesting to do that, but it'd be the only guaranteed way to achieve a state of serenity.

veggieboy
02-15-2010, 07:09 AM
By nukin everything, there would Brno serenity. The world would be a charred mess and most if not all living thongs would be dead. That incldes animals.

So by using one of the mankind's worst inventions, weapons of mass destruction, there would be serenity?

yerkyerk
02-15-2010, 07:20 AM
Yup. Why so surprised? Humankind always uses violence to attain peace.. that's actually exactly what's being done with nukes.

You gotta make sure no human survives though, else it'll start all over again.

Asheron
02-15-2010, 07:58 AM
No matter how nice it would be for the entire world to become one, it will never happen. It is in our nature to destroy and wage war. And to be worse, large profit is made from warfare.
We don't have to unite, just avoiding conflicts would be nice.

nathrakh
02-15-2010, 09:28 AM
Asheron. You are very likely to be wrong in my opinion. How can you say that it will _never_ happen?

I am pretty sure that the world humans live in in after say, 500 hundred years is much different.

Not to talk about thousands of years. If our race hasn't killed itself by then, technology must be quite **** advanced. Humans may have even invented immortality by then! (some kind of symbiosis with robots like very small "nano-bugs" from movies or something).

Violos
02-15-2010, 10:49 AM
Our technology already is advanced. We have the means and resources to provide food, water, shelter and even healthcare to everyone on this planet.

The problem is that (like in many things), our brains and instincts are not designed for this kind of scenario. They would have to be overcome by reason.

Just like communism is basically a good idea in theory, but fails when attempted with human beings.
There are game theory models that actually prove why this has to happen.

veggieboy
02-15-2010, 11:55 AM
I've just never understood the concept of having countries. I also don't understand how countries like Haiti can be so impoverished.

There isn't a day that goes by where I don't stop, think and realize how trivial the important things are in my life. I care about what I wear and having nice things when people all over the world are struck by famine and genocide and life threatening disease.

We SHOULD unite. If we don't change the way we live, then we're doomed to forever endure hardships like war.

yerkyerk
02-15-2010, 12:34 PM
Peace, although nice (though I think severely overrated), has to be kept.

How do you keep the bullies at bay? The easiest way is by being a bigger bullie. A somewhat more dangerous way is by having a bigger stick than them and hope they won't attack you or cooperate with other bullies.
Something that doesn't work is not having a stick. Because the bullies will beat you - and probably to death if they can. Well, that's perhaps the best solution, as you'll be freed from the retarded world and they'll be left behind thinking of what they've done and perhaps have a negligible chance at repenting it. But still, there's precious few people who are willing to make that sacrifice, if any at all.

veggieboy
02-15-2010, 01:58 PM
1) Peace is not overrated.

2) No one has every seriously bullied me in school, but fighting violence with violence is in my opinion... idiotic. Think about that.

3)The world isn't really as bad as you're making it out to be Yerk, nor is humanity. Just because certain people are horrible, doesn't mean us as a whole are. I actually enjoy living, so I hope that you're never elected into any sort of important governmental position.

4) You need a therapist.

ward_rb
02-15-2010, 02:18 PM
gee, i sure wish i had an ivory tower to live in. :rolleyes:

seriously, yerk and asheron are right. it is human nature to wage war and grab for power. true peace is only a dream, because in the world we live in, peace will only bring more war.

bonobo4
02-15-2010, 03:10 PM
I don't understand why more work isn't done for charity. I mean, money is basically worthless. You can print more, it's just paper. The only reason why I think governments don't help places like Africa is self-interest. People are selfish, we all are. Like veggieboy said, we worry about having nice things when most are starving. We're all guilty of it. But it is human nature.

Also, there's not much we can do for Haiti sadly. We can give them aid, and I think we should, but in a few years or so, there's going to be another disaster. Same with all countries prone to disasters. It's just abvout how prepared you are for them that reduces the damage and the cost.

And I like the idea of a unified world, but it'd very unlikely work. Different governments, different views, different religions.

1. Soviet Union decides to spread Communism over Eastern Europe. The UN disagree and unify to form NATO. You end up with many millions of families ruined during 1950-1975, in the Korean and Vietnamese Wars. Simply by disagreement over government plans. And also in 1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia for failed anti-Communism revolts. I like the idea of Communism, but it doesn't work in practice, as I've just explained.

2. Osama Bin-Laden disagrees with American government and goes on a Jihad for his extremist Muslim views (which in my opinion can't be considered Islamic.) He becomes the leader of al-Quaeda and kills thousands of people for his beliefs. Now, I don't know enough about this, whether he has an evil mind, is deeply religious, or hates America, or whatever, but whatever it is then there's clearly disputes over the way things work and he disagrees with unity.

3. "Death solves all problems, no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin. This goes back to Yerk's nuke the Earth to Oblivion idea. I kinda agree, in that man is one of man's main problems. Einstein said "As long as there are humans, there is war." I agree, man will always disagree with something and wage war.

So, whilst the unified world seems in theory, like Communism, a great idea, in practice I don't think it will work, at least it's very unlikely to work.

Kir4
02-15-2010, 04:01 PM
Or, to put it short: People are stupid. :/

I want an ivory tower as well. :)

yerkyerk
02-15-2010, 05:18 PM
I mean, money is basically worthless. You can print more, it's just paper.Well, that's how you get your money devaluated, actually making it worthless...
Money in itself is not worth a thing; but it's basically an "I owe you" thing. You can't trade in chickens and in service hours anymore. But you can change in something with a general and fixed value. Currency - and that's what money is, so calling it worthless is perhaps a bit too easy, even though it is.

And veggie, I agree my view of this is pretty dark and colorless. But at least it's not naive. And when you look at the world - that's exactly what happens today.

Violos
02-15-2010, 07:42 PM
The good thing is that the moment you "print" and spend the money, it has the current value. Only later, everyone else's money is devalued. So they basically pay for you without knowing it. Great, huh? :)

veggieboy
02-15-2010, 07:57 PM
Saying "People are stupid" is so wrong, as a lot of us aren't. Or well I'm not *rolls eyes*

But its part of animal nature, violence is. So even though we're gone, violence won't be. There will be another race like the humans that dominate all other animal species that will go and ruin the world. So instead of destroying ourselves, inevitably ending in some sort of situation we're now, we should just fix it.

Kir4
02-16-2010, 12:35 AM
A few people aren't stupid, but, well, people in general...

...

Yeah, "stupid" is the wrong word. When I say "stupid" in this context, I mean "defending/clinging onto an selfish advantage at the cost of an altruistic aim that, on the long run, would turn into an advantage for everyone, including the selfish person".

Obviously, that's too much to write repeatedly... "stupid" saves me decent amounts of time.

Also, I don't think people should be allowed to use the own animal offspring as an excuse. Unlike animals, we have the ability to reflect on our deeds and to evaluate possible consequences over a huge period of time. If people would actually start to use those abilities to their best, world peace wouldn't be fiction. :/

ward_rb
02-16-2010, 01:33 AM
Also, I don't think people should be allowed to use the own animal offspring as an excuse. Unlike animals, we have the ability to reflect on our deeds and to evaluate possible consequences over a huge period of time. If people would actually start to use those abilities to their best, world peace wouldn't be fiction. :/

yet we are still "just animals". as a species, humans still have that innate subconscious desire to be better than the rest. its what makes us selfish, but it has also allowed our species to not only survive, but to thrive.

its easy to say that because we have the ability to reason, we should be able to put aside selfish goals and work towards peace...but that selfishness is ingrained in us, a primal survival mechanism. it is extremely unlikly that billions of people would be able to surpress those inner urges in order to work towards a true state of peace.

ginum
02-16-2010, 04:01 AM
yet we are still "just animals". as a species, humans still have that innate subconscious desire to be better than the rest. its what makes us selfish...


If you wanna get a better view at this check the roman's and their conquest, just because the barbarians have not got baths and eat sausages they were like aliens to the Romans and the Romans thought they should be destroyed...

Violos
02-16-2010, 04:41 AM
that selfishness is ingrained in us, a primal survival mechanism. it is extremely unlikly that billions of people would be able to surpress those inner urges in order to work towards a true state of peace
That's basically what I meant by the mismatch between instinct and modern-day circumstances. Just like a woman's subconscious still rates muscles to be more useful for survival than brains.

Evolution would need to speed up... a lot. ;) But since there are few people who die from being "unfit" these days, natural selection has been more or less halted. If you measure "fitness" in education/work and look at the average number of children, it even gets reversed.

So all we have these days is technological progress that our genes are unable to keep up with.

Kir4
02-16-2010, 06:55 AM
yet we are still "just animals". as a species, humans still have that innate subconscious desire to be better than the rest. its what makes us selfish, but it has also allowed our species to not only survive, but to thrive.

Of course you're right, but to some extent we're already overcoming our "innate animal nature".
For example, it's generally agreed upon that violence is a bad way to "solve" problems, although we pretty much biologically prepare for a fight whenever we face a situation of conflict. Law (which should be a result of common morale agreements) and self-reflection prevent us from unleashing the animal. At least most of the time.

I mean, abandoning the inherited selfishness is a big step to make, but considering the steps we already did take, it's just a logical consequence that'll happen eventually. We'll probably not see that day though. :/

Edit:

Oh, and to build the bridge that leads back on topic: :)

These aforementioned rules work rather well in social life, but since people are stupid, they usually ignore them when it comes to certain topics, such as the invisible walls defining a nation (1).
Or religion (2).
Or situations when the own life is in severe danger (3,not included in "stupid").

1 and 2 are concepts we can do without. Chances for 3 would diminish rapidly in a world that trades 1/2 for altruism.

yerkyerk
02-16-2010, 08:59 AM
While religion as a manmade thing is certainly something we can do without, God is actually the only thing that matters in anyone's life. If there is no God, nothing matters. All will perish, all will die and nothing will be left.

Nevertheless, we don't abide by laws because they are there; rather, the laws are created based upon the morale we already innately have, or have developed through culture, upbringing and whatnot. If there's a nation-wide incompatiblity between law and morale, the law, not the morale is more likely to change (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, equal rights to women, etc...).
If you force people to abide by the law rather than by their own morale (and especially if the two are conflicting), there's a good chance people will revolt and try to overthrow the government.

To get this back on topic; different countries have different morales. Western countries usually have compatible morales, but there's generally no war between western countries either. The conflict arises when one country tries to force their morale upon others (from the western side that would be forced democracy, equal rights for minority groups, capitalism to a degree), from the eh.. usually islamitic countries, this would be their religion (which unlike law, can force morale upon people succesfully), non-capitalism and more.

Violos
02-16-2010, 10:53 AM
If there is no God, nothing matters. All will perish, all will die and nothing will be left.

And if there is? What will be different?

I don't mean to make this another "religious discussion"... but it always amazes me how people have no problems with the fact that they didn't exist before their conception, yet cannot accept the idea that they will, in fact, disappear again.

Even if nothing mattered in a "greater scheme of things" way, there's no reason we can't value life.

yerkyerk
02-16-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't mean to make this another "religious discussion"... but it always amazes me how people have no problems with the fact that they didn't exist before their conception, yet cannot accept the idea that they will, in fact, disappear again.
Well, don't you think that the fact that everything you'll ever do in life will eventually accumulate to nothing and that our lives haven't mattered one bit isn't just a tiny bit disturbing? Ofcourse, that's if you assume that this live is all there is.

Ofcourse, what we do now, matters now. But now, the future as well as the past won't matter anymore eventually.

ward_rb
02-16-2010, 12:38 PM
Well, don't you think that the fact that everything you'll ever do in life will eventually accumulate to nothing and that our lives haven't mattered one bit isn't just a tiny bit disturbing? Ofcourse, that's if you assume that this live is all there is.

Ofcourse, what we do now, matters now. But now, the future as well as the past won't matter anymore eventually.

i personally find that fact comforting. i wouldnt want to live forever, whether its this life or an afterlife. think of life like a rollercoaster. it has ups and downs, twists and turns, and you have fun on it. but eventually there is an end. if there wasnt, no matter how much fun it was, you would eventually get bored of it.

but youve said "God is actually the only thing that matters in anyone's life. If there is no God, nothing matters. All will perish, all will die and nothing will be left." in one of the religious threads already, so i wont get into it too much here.

yerkyerk
02-16-2010, 12:46 PM
Myah, I'll let it go, there's too much fuss about that already in other threads.

Still the issue about morale stands. And forcing morale upon others (which might be part of morale - e.g. forcing democracy) is what often causes war.

bonobo4
02-16-2010, 01:29 PM
I like to think what I do in this life matters in the future/afterlife (if there is one.) You can't say that life has no effect in future.

Violos
02-16-2010, 02:59 PM
don't you think that the fact that everything you'll ever do in life will eventually accumulate to nothing and that our lives haven't mattered one bit isn't just a tiny bit disturbing?

Sometimes. Just like thinking about the origins and limits of the universe is.

And even though we obviously have a desire for answers - I rather accept the fact that there are things we may never know than fill the blanks with, no offense, a comforting story.

Not that I could, being aware of this intent. But even if it was possible for me to convince myself of one of the beliefs being offered and clear my memories, I would probably not choose to do it, because it feels like the easy way out.

And maybe I would be happier if I was raised with such a belief from the start, so it feels like a natural thing.
But then I might end up as one of the "Knight Templar" people who depend so much on upholding this picture of the world that they will hate and fear all who might question it. People the world would be better off without.

So... yeah. But that's definitely going into religion now.

veggieboy
02-17-2010, 09:53 PM
Well, don't you think that the fact that everything you'll ever do in life will eventually accumulate to nothing and that our lives haven't mattered one bit isn't just a tiny bit disturbing? Ofcourse, that's if you assume that this live is all there is.

This absolutely and utterly UNTRUE. As long as humanity lasts, our lives have made a difference. After humanity, well... yeah we're pointless.

And Christianity is a fairly new religion. This planet has been here for billions of years. Christianity is a speck that will inevitably disappear. I don't know why people waste their lives on such frivolous BS.


Anyway- even if we were all united, there will still be terrorists, but I don't think they'll be able to do such damage.

I also believe that if we're all united that a lot of economic problems would be solved.

I'm sure there will be down sides, like the length of the process. =/

yerkyerk
02-17-2010, 09:57 PM
It should come as no surprise that I disagree with most of what you say. Anyway, I won't be discussing that again here, as this topic should be about ehr... a fantasy world where we can all live together in peace? I'd want to give it a name, but it already has one; Utopia. Or Fantasia. Whichever one you'd prefer.

veggieboy
02-18-2010, 12:27 AM
I don't want a Utopia.

A world as one unified nation would still have issues, rebellion, and whatnot. But I think that this would drastically decrease crime, war, and all that stuff.

ginum
02-18-2010, 04:12 AM
The only way to achieve world peace is by nuking every last human to death. No more suffering, no more death, no more pain. Because there is no more to be had.

The world isn't getting any brighter as it is :goth:

*cough*Hydrogen bombs are more powerful, the word ''nukes'' might sound better but hydro bombs were made later and make bigger booms.

only downside is no radiation but you wanna end someones life(or the planet in this case)use a hydro bomb but do it when the clock strikes midnight

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://joshmccolough.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/doomsday.gif&imgrefurl=http://joshmccolough.com/%3Fp%3D147&h=374&w=359&sz=18&tbnid=takkq2MkH4TsoM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddoomsday%2Bclock&usg=__dTzgZA717-xLnQne7fc85pdQ588=&ei=1QN9S6D0OYr20wT89uXNBQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image&ved=0CBsQ9QEwBA

EDIT:dammit it wont let me upload a picture of the doomsday clock

veggieboy
02-18-2010, 04:26 AM
Well, right now its 6 minutes to midnight.
http://joshmccolough.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/doomsday.gif

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oBu53nHaF6o/STse87bXoJI/AAAAAAAAAkM/V7Ljuw-ugts/s400/070112_doomsdayClock_hmed_5p.widec.jpg

yerkyerk
02-18-2010, 07:17 AM
*cough*Hydrogen bombs are more powerful, the word ''nukes'' might sound better but hydro bombs were made later and make bigger booms.

That could well be.. I don't have too much knowledge concerning explosives :)
Perhaps a virus would work better.. or somehow destabilizing the earth's core. Oh well.

Anyway, if we all decided to join up together now, I'm pretty sure the world economy would fail miserably and we'd be all pulled down. It should go slowly and I think the earth is indeed moving slowly in that direction. The earth seems to be chunked up in ever-growing portions. The US, China (which is going through a lot of economic growth changes), the EU (which is (usually) expanding) and than perhaps the United Arab Emirates (not sure if that really qualifies as one, don't know enough about it). Perhaps there's more, I don't know.

We'll see how that fares.

ginum
02-18-2010, 07:26 AM
Guys if alien attack (The word IF is the most important here)the earth will unite...

yerkyerk
02-20-2010, 02:24 PM
*cough*Hydrogen bombs are more powerful, the word ''nukes'' might sound better but hydro bombs were made later and make bigger booms.
Btw, isn't the H-bomb a nuke itself?

Violos
02-20-2010, 02:59 PM
Guys if alien attack (The word IF is the most important here) the earth will unite...
That's what Ozymandias thought. ;)

It's funny how a common enemy seems to be indispensable in making greater numbers of people work together.
Maybe because positive goals have a higher common denominator... and too many selfish (short-timed) interests conflicting with them.

ginum
02-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Btw, isn't the H-bomb a nuke itself?

guess you are right...


''The second basic type of nuclear weapon produces a large amount of its energy through nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs), as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). However, all such weapons derive a significant portion – and sometimes a majority – of their energy from fission (including fission induced by neutrons from fusion reactions). Unlike fission weapons, there are no inherent limits on the energy released by thermonuclear weapons. Only six countries—United States, Russia, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, France and India—have conducted thermonuclear weapon tests. (Whether India has detonated a "true," multi-staged thermonuclear weapon is controversial.)''

It cames classified as a nuke but also thermonuclear weapon.

bonobo4
02-22-2010, 03:09 PM
I find it odd how Germany haven't fired one yet. I guess with the Cold War they weren't a unified country and now there are a lot of laws to stop them being tested.

AntarcticSNAKE
03-06-2010, 05:36 PM
Germany started BOTH of the previous world wars, how'd you think people would react if they started testing nukes now?

And no, I'm not in favor of the united nation thing. Nature is built up entirely balanced based on different counterparts. Herbivores - Carnivores, Protons - Electrons, Intelligence - Ignorance. To create stability two differing sources must be in balance and I don't think a united nation would work.

First of all, the utterly horrible culture that is america would spread worldwide. All other cultures would be eliminated and the rebellions would by far override the the wars to come the nearest future. If america tried to occupy for example russia, I think they'd at least go out with a bang or 100 (think nukes). It would be the end of the world as we know it.

Second of all, I think natuionality is an important trait of the world. It is currently in balance, but if a worldwide occupation was to occur, all export/import would for a time be hassled, and that brief time could completely unbalance the economy of the world together with other similar happenings.

That's just my 2 cents.