Photos from Alternate Worlds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Four battleships from United Kingdom of America's Atlantic Fleet, leaving Norfolk for the South Atlantic to blockade the People's Republic of Congo. Pictured are the older HMS American Sovereign (American Sovereign class), HMS Vanguard (American Sovereign class), and the brand new HMS King Alexander I (King Alexander class), and HMS King Philip I (King Alexander class). Not Pictured is the rest of the fleet including 2 Battle Cruisers, 7 Heavy Cruisers, 20 destroyers, and 17 Destroyer Escorts. It is roughly half of the entire Atlantic fleet.

Navy.GIF
 
Prime Minister Churchill of Britain, Ambassador Xenuib of Epsilon Eridani, President Roosevelt of the United States and General Secretary Stalin of the USSR at the famous 'Eridani Conference'; deciding the fate of Earth towards the conclusion of the war against the axis of Germany, Japan and the Duuge sect of Sigma Draconis.

yalta_eridani.jpg
 
flag1.png


U.S Flag after being changed by Executive Order on July 4th, 2012. In addition to being a move to stir support for the war effort in Iran, it is a political move establishing executive dominance over the already weakened congress. For the first time in history the U.S Congress did not reconvene after a break because a quorum wasn't met following a breadown in talks between Republicans and Democrats over the use of Active Duty Soldiers to suppress a riot in Los Angeles.
 
It seems odd to me that the US would ever change it's flag- It's such an important symbol of the nation, and has a long history... What happened to discredit it?
 
I would assume that rioting in Los Angeles would be a part of a greater breakdown in social order across the nation. As the baby boomers get older and more conservative and the moral decay in the United States reaching higher and higher limits - breaking envelope after envelope of public tolerance, something like a radical movement lead by the sitting president, whomever he may be, takes root. Its opponent, a Congress held hostage by a nearly tied opposition party, represents that movement's opposition. Two political forces, two flags, the newer one being representative of the Executive's faction.

edit: On a more pragmatic level, the Executive ordered change of flags would "cut out" the Congress in yet another function of government. It would be largely symbolic, but would be a clear signal that a deadlocked congress doesn't mean a deadlocked government. The Executive will simply assume command.

Traditions are only a generation away from being erased, people underestimate how easily drastic change could be implemented with any sort of people, even a people like Americans.
 
Well, I figure if we are to go to war in the future, we'll be forced to privatize the occupation in Iraq, handing the job over to private consortiums of manufacturers, oil comanies, and construction companies willing to foot the security bill in exchange for cheap labor and rights to the resources. The freed up troops would be used to similar incursions into other problem countries, with a similar answer to the problem of an over-extended fighting force: privatization.

edit: I think the future will see a decrease in the importance of the nation-state and a rise in the power of private fighting forces - more agile and capable of long term occupation and population management than a national fighting force, though I don't see national armies disappearing at all - just the opposite, actually. With the prospect of occupation becoming less of a concern, military expeditions will become much more lucrative.
 
The New State said:
Well, I figure if we are to go to war in the future, we'll be forced to privatize the occupation in Iraq, handing the job over to private consortiums of manufacturers, oil comanies, and construction companies willing to foot the security bill in exchange for cheap labor and rights to the resources. The freed up troops would be used to similar incursions into other problem countries, with a similar answer to the problem of an over-extended fighting force: privatization.

edit: I think the future will see a decrease in the importance of the nation-state and a rise in the power of private fighting forces - more agile and capable of long term occupation and population management than a national fighting force, though I don't see national armies disappearing at all - just the opposite, actually. With the prospect of occupation becoming less of a concern, military expeditions will become much more lucrative.
.......

That doesn't answer my question. Why would we even want to go into Iran in the first place? It would be like sticking your hand into a beehive (Iraq), then going off to find five more to stick your hand into at the same time.
 
For the same reason we went into Iraq. Like I said, An attack on Iran would assume my prediction of contract-occupation comes true, freeing up battle hardened Active Duty Divisions to use their skills in other middle eastern countries.

edit: On a bigger scale... In addition to taking the war on terrorism to "their" backyard, WHY would we subjugate OPEC nations? You answer that :)
 
The New State said:
For the same reason we went into Iraq. Like I said, An attack on Iran would assume my prediction of contract-occupation comes true, freeing up battle hardened Active Duty Divisions to use their skills in other middle eastern countries.
Which is? To find "WMD's"? Look at how much dissent the war in Iraq has created. The public has way too much of a voice in this country to allow that happen to a much larger degree. I don't think we would attack Iran just for the sake of attacking it.
 
If you're saying a political reason for an attack on Iran is impossible, one needs only to look at current talks concerning their nuclear program. Say a nuclear bomb goes off in Israel, how likely would it be that the bomb was supplied by Tehran? The only reason a War in Iran is somewhat unlikely is because of the base of passive support the US has from Iran's youth. If that dissolves, then there's not much protecting them.
 
The New State said:
If you're saying a political reason for an attack on Iran is impossible, one needs only to look at current talks concerning their nuclear program. Say a nuclear bomb goes off in Israel, how likely would it be that the bomb was supplied by Tehran? The only reason a War in Iran is somewhat unlikely is because of the base of passive support the US has from Iran's youth. If that dissolves, then there's not much protecting them.
If a nuclear bomb goes of in Israel, and it's likely that it was supplied by Iran, Ithen the US won't even have to do anything about Iran. I think we both know how Israel would react to a nuclear attack.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top