I have come to the conlusion that US might is overblown, a paper tiger.

We all have heard about the US trade deficit, and some of us understand the true dangers that the US trade deficit has on the global economy. The US trade deficit has widened very much in the last decade, especially during the Bush administration.

According to CNN, in 2004 the US economy had a trade deficit of around $618 billion. Sources on the internet show a US defence budget of around $416 billion in that same year. Given the fact that the US trade deficit has become a structural problem, one can conclude that the US is on a structural basis spending more than she deserves.

So, the might of the US military is partly resting on an economic bubble. Just like someone who is showing off his wealth (expensive cars, designer clothes, exclusive perfume etc.) to the public but is in fact almost bankrupt.

It's true that the US appears on the surface to have some nifty classified technology, but reality also shows that the US in the open market has an ATP (Advanced Technological Product) deficit since 2002.

With this all I have come to the conclusion that the US might, militarily and economically, is in reality very much overblown -a paper tiger.

If one realise this, and also take into consideration that globalization will create a multipolar world (a world with not one super power but multiple world powers) then one can only conclude that the US no longer has the room to act as a superpower, but that she in reality should strife for multilateralism. The war on terrorism, or any other wars, should therefore be fought through some consensus in world politics, instead of unilateral moves, to avoid disasters for the world but also the US itself in geopolitics as well as in economics.

Blobber



[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

Beware Of Paper Cuts

The U.S. was in much worse shape than this at the beginning of WWII, but that doesn't seem to have led to defeat.

Transposing economic analyses over military capabilities can be seductively misleading.

Aside from the example of U.S., we can consider the far more dramatic example of Germany. When Hitler came to power, Germany was in economic shambles.

In less than a decade, it had conquered almost all of Europe, significant chunks of Africa and had almost undisputed control over several major strategic sea lanes.

A “paper tiger”? Perhaps.

But by that definition, even paper tigers can still be deadly.

History is full of surprises.

They are a paper tigers among paper cranes. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are toothless, just the fact that if they suffer other feels the pain, shows how much power they do have.

EVERYBODY will face an interesting times ahead.

i can not even think of the US as a paper tiger. iI think that if i owed someone 1,000,000 dollars he had all the gas for my car a home and all i had was a gun. i know i would take all that he had and not owe him a cent.in the world the US is a real tiger.

Originally posted by Majic
Beware Of Paper Cuts

The U.S. was in much worse shape than this at the beginning of WWII, but that doesn't seem to have led to defeat.

Transposing economic analyses over military capabilities can be seductively misleading.

Aside from the example of U.S., we can consider the far more dramatic example of Germany. When Hitler came to power, Germany was in economic shambles.

In less than a decade, it had conquered almost all of Europe, significant chunks of Africa and had almost undisputed control over several major strategic sea lanes.

A “paper tiger”? Perhaps.

But by that definition, even paper tigers can still be deadly.

History is full of surprises.

The comparison with WWII is wrong mainly because:
1- in WWII the economy was focussed on the war and an economy focussed on a war can not be sustained indefinately
2- globalisation was not in effect

I have never had the intention to imply that the US cannot win any war. What I have stated is that the current American way of acting (military) is based on a bubble (trade deficits i.e. being a paper tiger), they cannot continue to act as being the single superpower.

Seeing that we are moving to a multipolar world (with no longer one superpower but multiple world powers of which the US will be one of) it can be disastrous the way the US is acting now (unilateral) for geopolitics but more so economically -it cannot be sustained.

Blobber


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

Originally posted by RaiderJose
i can not even think of the US as a paper tiger. iI think that if i owed someone 1,000,000 dollars he had all the gas for my car a home and all i had was a gun. i know i would take all that he had and not owe him a cent.in the world the US is a real tiger.

People tend to think money as only being paper or coins -not necessarily directed to you, often they forget that it's the equivalent of products, raw materials, technology etc.

So the US military is resting on a bubble (see trade deficits) funded by others with money, which are in effect products, raw materials, technology etc.

What if others stop funding it as it's for sure it cannot be sustained indefinately?

Regarding owning the guns: perhaps the others don't have so many guns as they have a more sane fiscal policy avoiding their military might is partly resting on a bubble.

Blobber

PS: I have never intended to imply that the US is toothless -perhaps I should have avoided the term "paper tiger"


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

It's absolutly true, the political entity - 'USA' will go bankrupt in the near future, like 10 years or sooner and then there will be a serious recession, or depression while America is forced to dismantle her military machine, which is a labor intensive body dependent on money borrowed from foreigners, during this time the USA will break apart into several different parliamentary democracies as the USA is downgraded to an EU type system. a good book was recently released called "Running on Empty" it's about the empending US bankruptcy

I'm going to respond to this thread with all due respect:

The clueless rantings of several braindead wannabes.

Next topic, please.

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm going to respond to this thread with all due respect:

The clueless rantings of several braindead wannabes.

Next topic, please.

If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything at all the next time: people may then think you are a little bit credible you know.

Blobber


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

Originally posted by xphantomx
It's absolutly true, the political entity - 'USA' will go bankrupt in the near future, like 10 years or sooner and then there will be a serious recession, or depression while America is forced to dismantle her military machine, which is a labor intensive body dependent on money borrowed from foreigners...

I definately agree with this, but I hope it doesn't happen abruptly as it may spiral the whole world into a recession.

Blobber


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

America is being destroyed by design. All interests have been sold to foreign entities. And these people do really care about the American citizen. They care that we are spoiled and overpaid, and they want us brought down to the same level that they use to exploite human labor, in exchange for the mere luxury of survival. We cost too much. War on the other hand, makes a common goal to keep the masses working together, and is sort of the egg in the batter (binder).
To keep people focused away from the appauling acts being done to us on all levels. In a total control society, perpetual war is a must. We have the best fighting force in the world, and could get the job done anywhere, anytime if need be. The problem is that we just want to bomb the crap out of people, with limited hands on fighting, because its easier to drop a million dollar bomb, at taxpayers expense, and put half that cost into their pockets. Its about money, politics, and Psychological warfare. Not as much a group effort of industry and peoples to fight a common "enemy". Who is it that is getting filthy rich off bomb making, and other defense contracts that would want a war to be swiftly and decisevly won? No one.

Interesting thread Blobber. The military spending and deficit point is an interesting fact.

However, I believe in order to sustain an army such as that of the US, war is the only option. We have to remember that although the cost of war is great, once such an army is formed, many rely on its existance. The amount of jobs and money such an army creates is massive, it supports an economy and it supports many people and suppots many industries. You have to remember the amount of industries that support a force such as the US' and the jobs and money it adds to the economy.

A paper tiger? I do not know. However it seems if the US is to keep its well being, it must continue to be at war, if it wants to survive. Once such an unsustanable force is created and the economy relies on said army, the only way to continue is war.

If the US had no reason to have such a force, now it has it, it would collapse.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Kriz_4]

I think when push came to shove (which is what really counts), we have the citizens, money, manpower, bombs, guns, boats, missles, planes, and other assorted killing items, to wipe out way more people than would be needed for most wars.

We may be a "paper tiger" generally, but not when truely backed into a corner and it's a real struggle for survival.

When we go down, it'll be truely ugly.

OMFG we do shave a lot of doomsayer her on ATS who think if one thing goes wrong the world is over and everything is destroyed.

Like someone said if push comes to shove, I'm going with the "paper tiger" that can take everyone down with them, with one push of a button.



West Point, Out.

Originally posted by Blobber

Originally posted by Majic
Beware Of Paper Cuts

The U.S. was in much worse shape than this at the beginning of WWII, but that doesn't seem to have led to defeat.


History is full of surprises.

The comparison with WWII is wrong mainly because:

1- in WWII the economy was focussed on the war and an economy focussed on a war can not be sustained indefinately
2- globalisation was not in effect


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

Majic was comparing the US economy at the beginning of WWII. Not during.

The US was still in the great depression at the outset of WWII. Far worse than current conditions. Unemployment, bankruptcy, etc. Bad times. Financially speaking, WWII was what saved the US economy.

Correct, Facefirst.

The deficit to military spending is applicable being the two are interlinked, but the US has and will maintain high levels of military spending. This won't change anytime soon, barring an economic collapse. The doctrine here is known as "to stay on top one has to pay through the nose to maintain it."

If you want to be the best or be the top dog, you will have to spend and maintain like one. Ask Russia.

Personally, and to not disrespect anyone, but to insinuate that the US military is a "paper tiger" is beyond definition and borders on ludicrous.
If the US military is a "paper tiger" then it would be safe to assume that the Chinese military is a "paper dragon". That Russia's military is a "paper Ivan". The Canadian military is just "paper", etc, etc, etc.

All of which are neither, with maybe the exception of Canada.







seekerof

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Just want to pose one "what if" situation in relation to the not so good economy the US is currently in.
What if the US Fed Gov just decided to default on all its loans? The US and world economey would quickly turn bad because the US Fed loans in a large % do come from other countries. So rufly 30% or so of the US spending will no longer be going to the loan holders.
However, that 30% or so could then be put back into the US economey. Civil projects, military, research, schools ect. And with the numbers the US Fed deals with that is a lot capital to put into one contries economey. Yes it would be bad for the US, but I think it would be worse to other parts of the world.
Just one thought.

One of the most annoying things in this world is when people who don't live in the US and may have never even visited the US reads a book and then lays claim that they know the US is going to break up into different areas of politics where there are different countries. The US will always be comprised of at least 50 states, and there will never be different countries within the US. Get a clue.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
One of the most annoying things in this world is when people who don't live in the US and may have never even visited the US reads a book and then lays claim that they know the US is going to break up into different areas of politics where there are different countries. The US will always be comprised of at least 50 states, and there will never be different countries within the US. Get a clue.

Ryanp,
Just whated to let you know that there have been numerous threats to succeed from the union from more then one state, and one state in particular at many different times. That is what led to the US civil war you know. Not saying that I agree with any of it, just that it is more of a possibility then what you seemed to be stating.

Originally posted by Blobber
With this all I have come to the conclusion that the US might, militarily and economically, is in reality very much overblown -a paper tiger.

Blobber
[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]

You used trade deficit as an example of how the U.S. is a paper tiger. Did you know that publically traded stock, accounts for over $12 trillion and exports account for over $80 billion per month. What is our national projected wealth? $50 trillion, $100 trillion? Well it really doesn't matter as this is all paper, as is our debt - paper; based on the daily gamblings of men. There is no real currency only an economy which continually moves and one of which the world feeds off of. Maybe you should take a class in advanced economics rather than gleaning the B.S. of trade deficit reviews.

Our military, however, is not made of paper, but the most advanced military on the planet. We have seen paper tiger's, the Soviet Union collapse in 91 was a pure example. We are no paper tiger.