Slashdot Mirror
In the Year 2020
An anonymous reader writes "Every 5 years, the CIA funds a detailed forecast of the future 15 years hence. The biggest trend identified in the latest report is the economic and technological rise of Asia."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
US Unipolarity--How Long Can It Last?
A world with a single superpower is unique in modern times. Despite the rise in anti-Americanism, most major powers today believe countermeasures such as balancing are not likely to work in a situation in which the US controls so many of the levers of power. Moreover, US policies are not perceived as sufficiently threatening to warrant such a step.
Eh, with the Dollar doing as shitty as it has been and the country being run into financial ruins by someone known to have little success with any other financial venture he spearheaded I really don't think that we will be able to recover in as little as twelve years. We are digging an enormous hole right now both financially and in public opinion. When a leader sends a country to war on what we figured were false pretenses but ends up ahead at the end we might forgive them. When a leader sends a country to war on what we figured were false pretenses but ends of admitting we found squat I just don't think that public opinion will remain high...
The country may weaken itself due to internal conflict. Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.
In the future, growing distrust could prompt governments to take a more hostile approach, including resistance to support for US interests in multinational forums and development of asymmetric military capabilities as a hedge against the US.
Too bad they can't come right out and say that the distrust is justified. Who the fuck is going to go to bat for us when we get owned by more organized terrorists (or internal conflict) when anything the leaders of our country have said over the past 10 years is proven bullshit?
Many countries increasingly believe that the surest way to gain leverage over Washington is by threatening to withhold cooperation. In other forms of bargaining, foreign governments will try to find ways to "bandwagon" or connect their policy agendas to those of the US--for example on the war on terrorism--and thereby fend off US opposition to other policies.
And with the dollar so weak and public opinion (both nationally and internationally) low this will probably work. Any pressure they put on us 10 years ago would mean nothing. We would just use our leverage and shove back. With our country weakened on multiple fronts we won't have much leverage or public desire to have leverage (ie more deficit dollars).
I'd be interested to see past reports, and see what they got right. I know they having really been batting a thousand as of late.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Sweet! We slashdotted the CIA!
to "Captains of the obvious"
Anyone who can't see what Asia, especially China is going to become is blind.
Same as in 1990. Bush in the whitehouse, future not so good. Bush leaves, things pick up. Another Bush (Jeb) gets elected. Apocolypse ensues.
Rapture this baby!
I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
The U.S. is out of luck, by 2020 I will have reached Alpha Centauri and won.
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
President Jenna Bush?!? WTF!!!
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Something i would like to mention
As the report states, India and China will both be big economic powers partly due to their huge population, but the standards of living won't necessarily be better.
I've been to India 12 years ago and i've been last year, and yes the standards of living have vastly improved, but for it to be at an acceptable level, it definitely won't take another 15 years. My hope is within 50 years (and that's being optimistic).
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Really hope not, because she's dead Jim....
From what I've been reading lately, we'll have cured death, enabling us to live over 1000 years while simultaneously have turned the entire world into a gray goo by perfecting nanobots.
My guess is it'll be about the same as it is now, except I'll be 15 years older, taxes will be higher, and we'll have a whole bunch more crap that doesn't really make our lives any easier.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
would like to shuo huanying nimen lai Meiguo to our new Chinese overlords.
Zenme shuo Zhongwen "you want fries with that?"
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
and not one mention of a flying car..
=..(
OK, trollish subject aside (and yes I believe that's why it was modded up), what makes you believe that anyone else would be any more fiscally responsible?
I'll agree that Bush isn't doing us any favors, but you don't replace one big spender with another and expect things to be any different.
Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social Security and rescue it from the inevitable financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That there is no financial crisis in Social Security, that the problem can be fixed by simply raising taxes.
Let me reiterate: Bush isn't doing this country's finances any favors. But neither would Democrats. The whole lot of them need to be given a lesson on how to spend other peoples' money (hint: sparingly).
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
For those who do not want to read the entire report, here are a few key points:
* Al Qaeda is replaced by decentralized terror groups which are equally deadly.
* China and India emerge as new global players. (But they could be competitive instead of cooperative)
* Rise in military strength of China and India - could lead to conflicts.
* Russia and Central Asia decline (in terms of democracy)
* Democracy grows in the Middle east.
* More competitive world for the United States
* India's Bollywood outshines Hollywood
* Rise of Korean Pop.
Now make your own predictions.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
We as a nation have historically weathered contentious times in relatively peaceful fashion.
...
While I agree with your fears that this may be the end, contentious times have frequently seen periods marked by violence. There were numerous labor protests in the late 19th century and early 20th century, dozens of people were shot dead by the police during many riots, the crowd's lynched policemen and members of the moneyed class. Not that they teach this stuff in HS History class
In the 60s and 70s, the President was assinated, we we in a war which was much bigger then the Iraqi conflict as it is today, there were massive race riots, radicals on the left were blowing up banks, radicals on right were burning down Churches, sometimes during Sunday school with children still inside.
I'm not saying everything is better today, but things aren't nearly as violent as they have been during some periods in the past.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
It's interesting to look at the (nearer) "2010" one (done in 1996.) I was expecting a laugh, but it's not too bad. Tidbits that struck me:
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Find one Democratic President who's spent more money he didn't have than any of the last three Republican Presidents. That would be...noone. Oops.
/. sig (the economy has done better under the worst Democratic President than under the best Republican President).
The Republicans have campaigned on their superiority to the Democrats on their spending and economic records, and I'm still trying to figure out why. 2/3 of the national debt was amassed during the last three Republican Presidents. Clinton didn't run the debt in eight years that Bush Sr. ran in four (and he ran the least debt of the three RPs). Clinton had the benefit of the economy, which of course doesn't help, because of the
The claim that anyone would have spent themselves silly doesn't seem to hold, because only the Republicans have shown themselves equal to that task. Since they have spent a good deal of the past decades complaining about the spending that they have been most qualified at undertaking, they are either hypocritical or stupid.
Social Security is a problem, and one Clinton or the Democrats did nothing about. On the other hand, making SS reliant on the entity (the stock market) it was instituted to secure savings from doesn't seem like the smartest policy on the planet. Of course, removing money from the system (to invest in the stock market) while it is reliant on current income to pay current recipients without raising taxes and then saying that future and current SS recipients won't lose money seems to require mathematical legerdemain that is beyond my capacity to understand. In this case, to keep SS solvent without cutting it (which would probably sink the stock market) taxes are probably the best solution (in concert with raising the retirement age). They aren't always the best solution, but they may be in this case.
"Care to give an example of YOUR freedoms that are being continually eroded?"
Let's start with the freedom to be considered innocent before proven guilty.
Continue on to the right to a fair and prompt trial by your peers.
Continue to the right to a proper legal defense.
And then there's that pesky Habeus Corpus thing, and lots more.
All the govt needs to do now is call you a "terrorist", and you can now be held indefinitely, as in possibly for the rest of your LIFE, without being charged, without access to lawyers, and even under the threat of being shipped overseas to a country that recognizes even fewer rights.
I might have an inclination to support this and other anti-terrorist laws (Patriot Act, etc.) if I thought it would be truly used with care, discretion, and only as intended, i.e., against real terrorist cases. Terrorists play a very nasty, violent, and real game, and we need exceptional tools to fight them on their ground.
However, within 6 months of getting Patriot I passed, Ashcroft's crews were touring around the country giving seminars to prosecutors on how to use these new powers in ordinary investigations and cases. Since the enforcers immediately abused the tools as soon as they were given, they are obviously untrustworthy and must be opposed.
As Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
Your Alfred E Newman attitude is an example of this failure. You have apparently forgotten or do not care that our government is to be "of the people, by the people, for the people"? This attitude gains nothing and harms others, and as such is truly stupid (and I mean that exactly, as in the third law, not as a weak insult).
Many intelligent people are deeply concerned that we are losing the freedoms which made this country great (and not in a trivial red state/blue state way). How do we wake the others?