Ello, little drive-by posting here, as I do miss me old flaming chums from time to time.
Myself and my old toot-and-fruit Kivorn were discussing something which couldn't be more fitting for this forum.
When ya look at history, it's completely built around war, changing and shaping the world. Dominant countries/empires come and go, countries change, states emerge, boundaries decrease or increase.. A time line of history shows an ever-changing world, chiefly through acts of war.

But here we are now. Extreme, unceasing advances in technology, modern warfare capabilities, atomic capabilities, world growing smaller in a communication and economic sense.. Through all this, can we assume the world will stop changing now? Has it finally evolved through all the years (mainly AD) and we are now living in the final product?
Surely, when you think about it, war, at least on a scale to change the make-up of countries and regions, can never be achieved now. Not with such an inter-woven world, especially with Western intervention from the UN and America. This sense of global-policing has never before been achieved, only by large empires, but that was never adopted on a global scale.
So is the world set in stone? That was my point of view.
But Kiv gave another perspective, in that the world is ever-changing, maybe not on a macro-grand-scale, but nonetheless it's changing. African states, for example, through toil and war have, and are, changing considerably. The Middle East, for certain. Recent decades have seen changes around Israel and the Gulf that has even lead rise to new countries in themselves.
But will all of this ever lead to change on a scale the past has seen? Or will war and change remain on a micro scale?
But it's hard to percieve change, especially as we are today. Will America be here in 150 years? Will Europe remain so diverse and seperate? Will Russia fragment and dissolve? How many new countries will arise? How many will vanish?
Who knows. It's interesting to think of the change. Is this how it will be from now on?

Or is this all just another note in history?
Will Bulgaria be an American-like power in 500 years (don't ask me why Bulgaria)?

Interesting thought. Ok.. the few beers have made it seem so. And Kiv isn't exactly a conversationalist, for christsake!
And boy, browsing around these forums.. they sure seem dull. There's hardly any Euro-bashing anymore! Hell, there's hardly any Euro's anymore.

History is not built around war.
It is built around relationships.
When relationships go bad, you have war.

Now since its history, I would love to give a big long schpeil, but the weather at night is fucking perfect in southern california for the first time in forever now, so I'm going to take advantage of it.

Seeing things from the current situation... at some point in the near future, China will go through a massive economic depression and attempt to expand by force. There will be a second Cold War at best, a prompt thermonuclear fireworks display at worst.

Of course, a small change triggers a vast series of changes. Something else - maybe equally dismal - will probably happen before then.

We're all screwed.

It's a valid train of thought, but I'm not sure we'll ever be done changing until some sort of Star Trek like "we've got unlimited energy so we're all happy" type of thing happens.

20 years ago, people probably thought the world was set. Then the Soviet Union broke up.

What's going to happen in the MidEast when the oil runs out? Perhaps several countries could band together into one?

Of course, a small change triggers a vast series of changes. Something else - maybe equally dismal - will probably happen before then.

I would have to agree, it doesn't take a war. One good disease can work wonders for the world population. Supposedly the Black plague wiped out 40% of the world population, upwards to 60% in some areas, and destroyed entire city populations in a short span of what 10 to 15 years? This was only with the disease supposedly spreading through shipping and trade routes of the time. With globalization, could we really stop an epidemic like this from spreading like wild fire? Who says we are not putting out little fires with these bird flu and SARS cases that could explode into a pandemic catastrophy. Granted we have quite a few more advancements than those of the middle ages, but we also still have the cold and AIDS viruses around that our technology can not get cured.

We also wash our hands more than once a month, take showers, have soap, don't let rats share our pantries with us, don't share unpurified water with the entire community we're in, etc.

Things will change though. Anyone who thinks 2004 is how it will be in 3004 (or even 3104 probably) hasn't learned a damn thing from history.

We also wash our hands more than once a month, take showers, have soap, don't let rats share our pantries with us, don't share unpurified water with the entire community we're in, etc. 1/6th of the world yeah.

But anyway, you can't rationnality think that world is "set in stone". There are so many things that can/will or are changing, and with them will change the world we will live that's impossible to see how it will change, so to think it will remains the same because there is no "wars"...
Mars exploration/exploitation, China rising, end of oil (100 hundred years?), 4th age people spreading, African AIDS massive problem (how it will solve, if it does). And many many more that I can't list because I don't know them, I don't know their impact or they didn't happen already.

Our world is changing, faster than ever.

Naturally.
But it's hard to believe. It's hard to percieve, especially from our current perspective. But I guess the most forseeable changes would come through the downfall/change of America, unification of Europe, expanding China, aggressive N.Korea.. perhaps even a new world Empire.

British Empire: Strikes Back.
Got a nice ring to it I think :P

I know that somewhere deep in your limey heart you would love to see a significant loss of American power, Halo ;) , but it's not likely to happen soon, for the simple reason that the USA is sitting on an enormous stockpile of non-substitutable resources, namely arable cropland and minerals. We are experiencing population pressure to be sure, but not on the scale that most of the rest of the world is. Even if America's relationships with most of the rest of the world were to go incredibly sour, we have that base to rely on should we ever be forced into isolation, and to draw upon in times of war, something that the British Empire, relying on far-flung colonies to supply much of its needs, didn't have. The EU stands a far better chance of hanging in there over an extended period of time as an economic entity...

Being the biologist that I am, I tend to see social events involving humanity as largely a reflex response to selective pressures (in the biological sense). I do expect that the next major realignments will involve the economic collapse of the Middle East once the oil is gone (they have little else in the way of a resource base), and a major communicable disease pandemic (By the way, polio, nearly eradicated just 10 years ago, is running rampant in sub-Saharan Africa at the moment. When WHO doctors tried to bring a vaccination program into Nigeria this year they were refused by the Nigerian president, his rationale being that he knew that they were part of an American plot to sterilize and spread AIDS among Muslim Africans...). It's time for lecture so I don't have time to respond further at the moment, but nice to see you pop in...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Thanks, it's nice to pop in. The Dev's over at the Middle Earth Online forums keep me on a leash.
Can't say "arse" without the thread being closed.

'I know that somewhere deep in your limey heart you would love to see a significant loss of American power, '

- MOI?! I'm speechless!

But I do agree with you. Yet I think it's a tossup somewhat betwee lack of resource, disease, and war.
I really do think war and conflict will get the better of the Middle East before disease or lack of viable material resource. Unless, as always is the case, or has been the past century, outside parties do something major to avert the bloody apocalypse out there. But if the Israel troubles of occupied territories, and the Arab world wishing to gang-bang them, combined with terrorist and war troubled states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria don't have some miraculous and divine intervention, something terrible will happen. 20 years, perhaps 40. Maybe 50.
God forbid the fold of several of the dominant Arab nations in to a Unified Arab State, it would be like Western Hatred in a Can - much like it is I guess right now, but with borders and a unified government :P
Who knows.
But yeah, as originally said, there are those few percievable dominant factors such as the future of America, the risks of China, and declining state of Russia and the increasing hostility of N.Korea.. any major change in either of those forseeable situations is enough to change the make-up of Earth, as was often the way in the past.
Hell, this could get half-interesting if we considered the unforseeable changes.
Like them there Canadians unleashing their hidden army, paving the way for a National Facist Abootist Reign of Terror, encompassing the world as we know it!
Thrown in torture camps, forced to say ABOOT forever!

Either that or Belgium has some shocking unforseen power that will cause it to become the world's next dominant nation.

We also wash our hands more than once a month, take showers, have soap, don't let rats share our pantries with us, don't share unpurified water with the entire community we're in, etc.

That would be the "Granted we have quite a few more advancements than the middle ages comment"...:rollin

I would have to agree with Anterak, those conditions still exist in a greater part of the world. The US is what? 280 million people in a 6.4 billion person world, and we do not have all those conditions in our own country.

Change is pretty constant and it seems the changes rarely happen where you think they will.

I don't see much drastically changing in the next five to ten years, barring a 1918 style flu epidemic or a nuclear war.

China is rising as the next big power...one we will have to come to terms with. But it is still decades from becoming a superpower and has more growing pains to go through first.

I expect the European Union to keep struggling with integrating so many different countries as well. It may or may not succeed. It will be having even more problems than America I think.

I think America is in a slow decline, with the majority of it's manufacturing capability having moved to the far east. Unless something is done to slow that trend, I see America becoming more of an agricultural/service oriented nation than an industrial/technical one.

Just my guesses.

Yet I seem to be the only one mentioning North Korea.
There was a documentary on it the other evening, a reporter was allowed "in" to the country. Now I say "in", because it is completely and utterly isolated and sealed off to the outside world. They are building up their military and nuclear capabilities at an alarming rate, and their one hatred is the US and Bush. The camera went past streets where they were chanting Anti-Bush messages, spewing hatred and - as is usually the case - ignorance. When the British journalist interviewed a General, he was like a machine. He'd barely answer anything, except to spit on the West (this from a high up superior of the military), and whenever the interviewer brought logic to the conversation, the minder behind her started yelling and the general wouldn't answer. She'd turn to the crowd and ask the reason for their many problems (famine, power shortage) and they'd scream "BUSH". The General commented that the time to strike "would one day come".

That place scares the hell out of me.
They are brainwashed totally. Completely. To see their armies marching in the street, with one clear message. Well.. it makes a person think what their plans for the world are.
And me thinks they do have plans, and will take part in any change.

This "civil" version of Halo is not much fun....:rollin :p

North Korea has been that way for over 50 years...but you have to realize that the despot in charge fully enjoys his perks, life and control. I don't think he is actually going to start a war that he would likely be killed in. Even having nukes, he would not survive and could not win a war with the US. I'm pretty sure he know's this, but he wants to be as scary as possible so that he can win concessions from the west.

Because they do have nukes, an Iraq style solution is out of the question. The way to deal with North Korea is to work through China. China props up North Korea completely...if China can be convinced that North Korea needs to be brought in line with civilized society there may be hope.

If North Korea starts selling nukes for cash (as I expect them to), it will be up to the rest of the world to interdict the shipments. North Korea needs to understand that the first use of one of their nukes (by themselves or by their "customers") will result in retaliation upon them in kind.

'North Korea needs to understand that the first use of one of their nukes (by themselves or by their "customers") will result in retaliation upon them in kind. '

- Really? But how do you retaliate against that sort of threat? "Hey, stop firing nukes, or we'll send in our troops!"
That is why the threat is so alarming, it's an entire new level when it's nuclear. There is only one way to retaliate - and it seems to me it would end in a certain kind of winter.

But this does uncover a certain element of my original post. Will change actually happen under the threat of nuclear arms? Are they such a threat that the world can't possibly change on a scale it once did?
It's hard to believe there's any coming back after nukes have been fired again. So perhaps the only change we're ever going to see will be in the form of smaller, less developed countries, specifically those without nuclear arms (eg African countries).

Because let's face it, if China begins to expand under the pressure of a failing economy, who's going to stop them if they're pointing nukes? It's not the sort of situation where you "send in the troops".

Having nukes and using them are two different things. Since the US has had them, we have fought completely conventional wars on several occasions. So have the Chinese. Whoever uses one can expect retaliation in kind... so they don't get used. At least so far.

I can tell you this...if N.Korea sells a nuke to a terrorist organization who then uses it on the US.... N.Korea will be attacked, possibly using nukes but certainly involving a heavy conventional attack as well. Emotions would be running too high in the US for there to be any other response. They need to understand that.

Unless N.Korea has a lot more nukes than anyone believes (or third nuclear countries get involved) , nuclear winter would not happen if it did come to a nuclear exchange. It takes many more detonations than what would be involved between the US and North Korea. The radiation cloud would be a bitch though, and nearby countries would get the brunt of it. Obviously no one wants that to happen. But just as obviously, no country in the world would eat a nuclear attack without severe retaliation if they had the means.

Let's hope for a diplomatic solution but be prepared for the worst.

I do have a major concern with North Korea.

They are very dependent on outside sources to supply basic demands. And if that loon of a NK leader decides the only way he can stay automous is to invade SK or another neighbor then he'll do it.

The danger then is whether we'll be forced to stay out of the situation and allow him to solidify his new conquest , or if the world will wake up and deal hard knocks to avert later disaster.

Fandros...

p.s. Heya Halo good to see ya. ;)

'or if the world will wake up and deal hard knocks to avert later disaster.'

- Oi you cheeky git Fanny :P
The problem is Gulor, the conflicts America have fought beyond WW2 have been largely one sided. Ok, you may throw Vietnam in the mix. But that was *forseen* to be one sided. No one truley thought it would turn out the way it did - obviously (was that even a war? I don't think it was ever declared). And other conflicts since Hiroshima have been with countries who have no nuclear capability. It's like with the Falkland War with Britain.. we went in gunz-ablazing, but there was a sense of safety, of reassurance because Argentina had no nuclear capabilities.
So you may suggest, as you did, that the world still fights, but conflicts we've seen so far have been between countries without nuclear capabilities, or at least one without.
But of course that will change, and nuclear technology will become wide-spread within 50 or so years. Look at that wanker who spilled uranium secrets to N.Korea and Iran. So I'm just not sure whether the world will change on a scale like it previously did, due to the cloud of nuclear threat.
And I hardly see a scenario like you suggested Gulor. There's a domino effect that will dominate any situation like a country firing a nuclear weapon. You get the victim firing back, the allies of said countries firing, and then it's like an orgy of warHEAD (heh.. orgy.. head.. see what I did there?).

Yeah anywho, slightly messy post. But as I said, I can only see change on a micro-scale. Or as Nydia suggested, due to events besides war (eg disease). What I cannot picture is any large scale conflict that would result in anything less than nuclear winter. Nukes don't fly without everyone getting involved.
Which, with the exception of nuclear winter, would mean the world more or less remaining as it is.

The danger then is whether we'll be forced to stay out of the situation and allow him to solidify his new conquest , or if the world will wake up and deal hard knocks to avert later disaster.

We have about 30,000 reasons to not stay out of a conflict if North Korea decided to invade South Korea. North Korea would have to go through the DMZ with 30,000 very bored American troops with itchy trigger fingers.

The main concern I have about North Korea if they ever decided to invade our allies in the area would be America getting to gungho while beating them back to thier Northern border and set China off in a panic.

So I'm just not sure whether the world will change on a scale like it previously did, due to the cloud of nuclear threat

You have to love nuclear deterence. It was the entire basis of Reagan's Cold War, and up until recently the United States followed such protocol heavily, even after the collapse of the "Evil Empire"! With the 9-11 attacks, we switched to a proactive protocol giving us Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US has not fought nuclear armed countries, but China has. They fought us in Korea and they have fought the Russians over border disputes.

The scenario I would see is this...a North Korean nuke is used on US soil ...not in self defense but as a terrorist action.The US retaliates against North Korea with a nuke.

If you are China, do you up the ante on behalf of a rogue regime that has been an embarrassment for you and nothing but a drain on your economy for decades? Do you risk everything you have built up to defend a nutcase? I don't think so. The politics just aren't there for a chain-reaction nuclear war anymore. It would be different if the US was not attacked and decided for some reason to nuke Pyongyang, but I just don't see that ever happening.

As far as an aggressive China goes, so far their military is no match for the US. They know it too, so I don't expect China to "jump bad" in open warfare for quite some time. If they start annexing other countries, it will be places like North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan and Nepal first. I suspect they are already providing material support for the Maoist rebels trying to overthrow the government of Nepal, but that is hardly open warfare.

Resource wise, I see China having more to gain by integrating further with western economies and peaceful development than by grabbing territory. The one area they are likely to be forceful is in the Spratley Islands where oil has been found. Half a dozen countries claim jurisdiction over them (including China) and none of the other countries are militarily powerful. China will end up with them even though it has the weakest claim, mark my words.

*marked* :P
I suppose you are right. Although you are largely considering the present context. Place such a situation in the future - perhaps when China's failing economy would push it to choose hostility over logic. Yes, it would be smart for them right now to stay out of any conflict such as N.Korea.. but that is right now. Later, who knows? They may be in a position to gain from such a conflict, especially if, as Malcor said, the detterence of nuclear war is too great, and the West will go in to a war where they loose nuclear advantage.
We could well see China re-define "pushing the line".

And you have to consider the West itself in the future. Who knows what weakening a unified Europe will bring? To itself and America. And then there is America on its own.. is she growing stronger, or weaker?
Throw ourselves in a context 25 - 50 years ahead, and the threat of Korea/China could well be astoundingly scarier.

To be honest China is a threat to itself, and to the world.

The mutations of viruses due to close aproximation of a huge amount of people/pigs/foul could lead to global devestation.

The fact that many deadly viruses hop twixt folks and pigs,(mutating each hop) coupled with the amount of both in China has me worried.

This might cause the rest of the world to wish to isolate China which in turn might lead to an even greater potential for disaster. ;(

Fandros

Like.. dig a moat around its borders? :P

"Hey, what are you doing!"
"Nothing Mr.Chinaman, just cutting you off. Go back about your pig hugging!"