Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
UK? They did OK - but it's a mixed set of results. & they didn't take over the world, of course. Just strategic bits of it. & they ran their naval/commercial empire on the cheap, for the most part.
They did better than the Roman Empire (in its various incarnations), the Spanish Empire. France & Japan & Italy also tried their hands, with extremely poor results, to date. But the wheel is still turning, so it's not yet time to declare a winner.
It's always a mixed bag. Where England ruled, they improved. Not without flaws or pimples but they left places better off than they found them.
The US did too but on a smaller scale and we didn't keep at it for as long.
Japan, Spain, etc. just looted places and enslaved them. France did so little (except in Algeria) they might as well never have been there.
It's always a mixed bag. Where England ruled, they improved. Not without flaws or pimples but they left places better off than they found them.
The US did too but on a smaller scale and we didn't keep at it for as long.
Japan, Spain, etc. just looted places and enslaved them. France did so little (except in Algeria) they might as well never have been there.
I'm sure the Irish would argue that conclusion. & the big question is the US - are we counted as a success for UK? Or are we the one that got away? I think the UK's experience with the US (as we eventually became) made them much more cautious in their dealings with the Commonwealth countries - although again, nationalism & the massive dislocations of WWI & WWII seem to have taken UK by surprise, especially in India, the Middle East, & Africa.
we didnt have to subjugate everybody after ww2 in order to just see to it that they didn't get nukes. Once we'd nuked Russia's three main cities, that would have been that! Without their having nukes, nobody would dare cause us much of a problem. Nobody but the US has ever developed a nuke from scratch. Russia stole the info from us, gave it to N Korea and China. China, fearing India, gave the info to Pakistan or Russia did so, fearing China. We gave it to France, Britain and Israel. Israel gave the info to S Africa, who stupidly gave it up. You dont just threaten people with nukes, you NUKE some of them, now and then to remind the rest why they dont mess with you.
The US didn't develop nuclear weapons, it wasn't just 'Americans' that worked on creating a nuclear bomb! It was a joint effort by the Allies AND even German scientists that had fled Hitlers Reich. The Russians were also experimenting with nuclear warheads, if it wasn't for Telemark who is to say whether the Germans wouldn't have gotten there first.
Taking over the world would never work. We are better served by defending ourselves, aiding others when it is in our interest, and letting other cultures work out their own problems.
The US didn't develop nuclear weapons, it wasn't just 'Americans' that worked on creating a nuclear bomb! It was a joint effort by the Allies AND even German scientists that had fled Hitlers Reich. The Russians were also experimenting with nuclear warheads, if it wasn't for Telemark who is to say whether the Germans wouldn't have gotten there first.
Yes, the Manhattan Project ran on a lot of expatriate scientists, mathematicians, physicists, engineers & etc. from Europe. The US provided the industrial power, locations, & support personnel as needed, as well as contributing our own scientists & etc. Germany & Japan didn't have the industrial muscle to spare - they were busy (since the early 1930s, in Japan's case) pursuing their war aims.
Germany was haring off down the wrong track; they had a very inflated estimate for the amount of uranium needed to achieve a critical mass. & Germany never put all the research under one agency, to maximize effort. The German government (military?) was convinced that nuclear weapons wouldn't be practical until too far into the future.
The USSR nuclear effort was based on penetration of the UK/US program. The Soviets didn't have industrial plant to spare either, but they worked very diligently to get all the information they could on US/UK work in progress. With that in hand (& captured German plans/documents, plus German scientists, engineers, etc.), the USSR built up a parallel effort, which paid off in 1949.
Last edited by southwest88; 08-28-2018 at 09:27 AM..
Human animals are animals, and rather imperfectly developed ones. Sure, it's a BFD to you and me, because we are one of those human animals.
But for what other reason is it important?
Why is it a supposed "bigger issue"? Human animals vanish, and "Bingo!" it is a better world for everything from aardvarks to zebras, to trees, lakes and oceans.
Well, if you truly believe this, then why not simply kill yourself? After all, every minute you breathe, every trip to the grocery stores, and every flush of your toilet means that you personally are wreaking damage to the planet. The altruistic thing to do here, then, is to head to the beach and walk out into the surf. That way you'll be feeding the local fish population.
Taking over the world was never possible. Not even when we were the only nuclear power.
We have nukes NOW and couldn’t win in Iraq or Afghanistan.
No need to take over the world. That is always a dumb goal. It means establishing a government in hostile places which is demonstrated by Iraq and Afghanistan. Not winnable.
But remaining the only nuclear power may well have been sustainable and given us a huge stick to control behavior of other states. And the potential destructive power of the A bomb may actually have been sufficient to never have to use it. Or only in sparse demonstrations.
And the US was far enough removed from the rest of the world to be able to defend itself against any non nuclear response.
No need to take over the world. That is always a dumb goal. It means establishing a government in hostile places which is demonstrated by Iraq and Afghanistan. Not winnable.
But remaining the only nuclear power may well have been sustainable and given us a huge stick to control behavior of other states. And the potential destructive power of the A bomb may actually have been sufficient to never have to use it. Or only in sparse demonstrations.
And the US was far enough removed from the rest of the world to be able to defend itself against any non nuclear response.
It would have been a most interesting strategy.
Nah. We would’ve bungled it. Especially seeing as how we bungle everything else.
The United States doesn’t have the nads to do imperialism. We lack the experience, and it runs counter to who we are. Of course, we’ve tried it ever since the end of WW2, but we’ve perpetually sucked at it, and in the end it’s bankrupted the country and corrupted our leaders.
Using a nuke is too expensive, and the only thing you get out of it is a Pyrrhic victory at best. We never could’ve controlled the world. There are other nations that could’ve pulled it off for a short time at least, but not is. We’re too incompetent at bullying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was Churchill trying to hold back the tide?
