It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The American "First Reich"

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:28 PM
The U.S. had never been a large factor internationally until the end of WW II. As we gained influence throughout the world where our military had conquered, we developed the first great American Empire. Because we were countered by the Soviets for the first 45 years, we gained most of our influence in the shadow of the Cold War.

Now that we are largely the only superpower, we still aren't sure how to manage our Empire's status.

How long can we expect the Empire to last?

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:03 PM
Follow the money...

If you look at the people who financed the Nazi's in WWII, and look at these people and their family's current positions of power and influence in the world, as well as the US "empire" itself...

It could be well argued that this is just a continuation of Hitler's third reich... just it isn't so visible and pronounced- it remains hidden by TPTB.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:22 PM
The British Empire laster for over 200 years. The Roman Empire was 600 years or so.

Can the U.S. Empire last even 100 years?

The way things are going, I doubt it.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:24 PM
If Defence Spending Remains High...
A. It all depends on, how quickly the Chinese and Indian economies actually over-take US, Gross Domestic Product. Without reaching this point, the US should always be capable of "out-competing" them militarily. If only because it already has a pre-existing, industrial defence complex (well used to servicing the needs, of what (would have been) the worlds greatest military, for decades. The US complex also employs many scientists & technicians. Many with decades of experience, (and of usually of being the "best" in their particular fields, of warfare knowledge).
B. Once a country gains the ability to out-perform US military expenditure, it's going to take a while for them to exercise it, without seriously aggravating US interests.
C. When it does, I don't think the US is going to be "war shy". Ever since the Cold War ended, history has shown President's of the United States wishing to keep his military, in good, working order. They need to, because they're under political lobbying (from variety of directions) to justify their expenditure on such a large Military Industrial Complex.

If Defence Spending Falls...
1. The US could meet much of its (coming) debt repayments by substantially cutting its military expenditure. It would create loads of unemployed, and (potentially) upset a lot of powerful people. However it may save upsetting almost all elites people from experiencing, national bankruptcy.
2. US might become a more "functional" democracy (at least for the duration of a recession, because history shows the flames of political revolution are always particularly high). It might listen to it's own citizens. They will tell, where exactly, more government money, could create be spent on creating, useful, National, Employment.
3. Or it continues increasing the money supply to e.g. meet debt "repayments". Eventually this is going to leed to national bankruptcy. Unlike the 1980's other countries have already made their moves to run from the dollar, rather than continue backing it up, to indefinitely.
Interesting 2009 article about subject: Good 2007 article:
If the US did go bankrupt, defence spending would obviously need to be cut. US has debts so huge, and owed too so many different nations, that the only logical decision, would be default on all debt repayments, permanently. It simply doesn't make sense to even begin, repaying such a vast debt.
The only way I see the US surviving this, is if, when it does e.g. default on national debt; it does so, simultaneously with e.g. a few other major, western nations. This way a new currency could hold some immediate, weight.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by Truth1000

Well the "American empire£ is a wild overstatement. America did not have a number of colonies and it was the mid eighties that Ronnie Raygun decided on the "influence my own backyard" policy with things like the Carribean basin initiaitive. This tends to negate the notion of an America empire.

America was more of a geopolitical influence whereas the British had an empire that then devolved into the Commonwealth.

America is a reduced superpower but the challengers are waiting in the wings. Somehow I feel it may die with a whimper as opposed to a bang.

We are in interesting times and as a dual nationality holder I am rooting for the continued USA.

Who would want China to be the number one superpower?

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Tiger5]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:07 PM

Who would want China to be the number one superpower?

1,324,655,000 billion people and counting!! It's only slightly less people, than there are e.g. white people in all the world (apparently that's 1,376,000,000 which represent 20,25% of the world's population).

If you think of all the things white race has achieved-invented during its existence, and then realise (that all the indicators) in modern, racial intelligence, research are that the Asians (but in particular the Chinese) do better in IQ tests, than Europeans: then you need only think to yourself: "Whatever I.Q. tests measure, its something to do with performance living in modern, Western Civilisation. If the Chinese (as culture-race) do better at these tests than Europeans, and if they're building a Western civilisation, then WTF is next?"

Add to that; the Chinese have had almost no democratic government, over the last few thousand years (i.e. before empires during tribal days), then you can understand they that too have the capacity to be mean, aggressive, and nasty.
Whatever the next 50 years, I for one, don't like the looks of it. I wonder if the next century is the time when a Westerner (perhaps not unlike me) would hit the nuclear war, buttons in order preserve the Western world's, strength supremacy? I actually kinda hope not, but future remains to be seen.

Everybody criticises America; its right too as they're indeed, relevant to many world solutions & problems. But I'm nervous about what the next 20-40 years time, is going to be like, instead.

America was more of a geopolitical influence whereas the British had an empire that then devolved into the Commonwealth.

Too true. I believe it was a Channel 4 TV, documentary that last made it "fashionable" to talk about America having some Empire. Weird thing is, we British we're quite proud of the fact that in 1921 we had one quarter of the world's surface beneath our soldiers feet. It was an empire bigger than anything in all (known) human history. But today there is almost no overseas American territory, highlighted on the map, or strange countries where children are brought up, to be loyal to Mr President (that only apparently happens in US nursery schools!).
So no matter how fashionable it may be, it will always be incorrect (unless they change the language next!)

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:12 PM
If you tweaked a few laws and killed a couple of rights we would be Mr. Hitlers dream come true. It's amazing when one does the research about the comparison's.

No I am not calling any party Nazi. But I will back up the socialism side of the story.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:39 AM
I am not saying that we have the same attitudes and beliefs. What I am saying is that we are one of the top world players for the first time in our history.

How are we going to handle this position, and can we avoid imploding? While we have foreign enemies, we can survive them. Rome fell first internally, THEN externally. I am afraid we are following their example, but doing so at an accelerated pace.

new topics

top topics


log in