Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MBowman325" data-source="post: 1405216" data-attributes="member: 6825"><p>I was talking with a friend of mine a couple of months ago about the state of the world. </p><p></p><p>I see three options that we can attempt, none of which are all that easy. </p><p></p><p>1) Go with status quo. Balance on the edge and try to keep everyone happy. While not bound to fail, I don't see that it'll have great success unless we can negotiate something to bind China, Russia, and most of the rest of the world (current allies are assumed on board) for some true-to-god hardcore sanctions. (Which really seem to only hurt the citizens of targets country anyways)</p><p></p><p>2) Make a massive swing in doctrine and become an introverted state. Leave everyone else alone. (Don't see that happening)</p><p></p><p>3) Replace the UN with some other global council with each country sending X% of their military force and if there's a trouble making country, roll in with 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops to pacify the place. This would be wildly unpopular and probably quite bloody. Possible abuse abounds and potential to become like the current UN seems somewhat high (offense by committee ect ect) . Half a century with low-moderate bloodshed and occasional points of massive retaliation should be just enough to pull it off.</p><p></p><p>New World order? Nah.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MBowman325, post: 1405216, member: 6825"] I was talking with a friend of mine a couple of months ago about the state of the world. I see three options that we can attempt, none of which are all that easy. 1) Go with status quo. Balance on the edge and try to keep everyone happy. While not bound to fail, I don't see that it'll have great success unless we can negotiate something to bind China, Russia, and most of the rest of the world (current allies are assumed on board) for some true-to-god hardcore sanctions. (Which really seem to only hurt the citizens of targets country anyways) 2) Make a massive swing in doctrine and become an introverted state. Leave everyone else alone. (Don't see that happening) 3) Replace the UN with some other global council with each country sending X% of their military force and if there's a trouble making country, roll in with 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops to pacify the place. This would be wildly unpopular and probably quite bloody. Possible abuse abounds and potential to become like the current UN seems somewhat high (offense by committee ect ect) . Half a century with low-moderate bloodshed and occasional points of massive retaliation should be just enough to pull it off. New World order? Nah. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom