Quoting from the JOE 2008 Report, Strategic Estimates in the Twentieth Century
1900 - If you had been a strategic analyst for the world’s leading power, you would have been British, looking warily at Britain’s age old enemy: France.
1910 - You would now be allied with France, and the enemy would now be Germany
1920 - Britain and its allies had won World War I, but now the British found themselves engaged in a naval race with its former allies the United States and Japan.
1930 - For the British, naval limitation treaties were in place, the Great Depression had started and defense planning for the next five years assumed a “ten year” rule—no war in ten years. British planners posited the main threats to the Empire as the Soviet Union and Japan, while Germany and Italy were either friendly or no threat.
1936 - A British planner would now posit three great threats: Italy, Japan, and the worst, a resurgent Germany, while little help could be expected from the United States.
1940 - The collapse of France in June left Britain alone in a seemingly hopeless war with Germany and Italy with a Japanese threat looming in the Pacific. America had only recently begun to scramble to rearm its military forces.
1950 - The United States was now the world’s greatest power, the atomic age had dawned, and a “police action” began in June in Korea that was to kill over 36,500 Americans, 58,000 South Koreans, nearly 3,000 Allied soldiers, 215,000 North Koreans, 400,000 Chinese, and 2,000,000 Korean civilians before a cease-fire brought an end to the fighting in 1953. The main opponent in the conflict would be China, America’s ally in the war against Japan.
1960 - Politicians in the United States were focusing on a missile gap that did not exist; massive retaliation would soon give way to flexible response, while a small insurgency in South Vietnam hardly drew American attention.
1970 - The United States was beginning to withdraw from Vietnam, its military forces in shambles. The Soviet Union had just crushed incipient rebellion in the Warsaw Pact. Détente between the Soviets and Americans had begun, while the Chinese were waiting in the wing to create an informal alliance with the United States.
1980 - The Soviets had just invaded Afghanistan, while a theocratic revolution in Iran had overthrown the Shah’s regime. “Desert One”—an attempt to free American hostages in Iran—ended in a humiliating failure, another indication of what pundits were calling “the hollow force.” America was the greatest creditor nation the world had ever seen.
1990 - The Soviet Union collapses. The supposedly hollow force shreds the vaunted Iraqi Army in less than 100 hours. The United States had become the world’s greatest debtor nation. No one outside of the Department of Defense has heard of the internet.
2000 - Warsaw is the capital of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation. Terrorism is emerging as America’s greatest threat. Biotechnology, robotics, nanotechnology, HD energy, etc. are advancing so fast they are beyond forecasting
2010 – Take the above and plan accordingly! ComingAnarchy readers, in light of the past century, how would you summarize the strategic plan in 2010 and 2020?

Comments to this entry
Jim
January 21, 2010
8:09 pm
Chris Swanson
January 21, 2010
10:20 pm
Duck and cover? ;)
Windhorst
January 21, 2010
10:32 pm
Windhorst
January 21, 2010
10:37 pm
Dexter Trask
January 21, 2010
10:46 pm
Lexington Green
January 21, 2010
11:39 pm
Lexington Green
January 21, 2010
11:46 pm
And the pace of change now is massively faster.
Hold on to your hats, folks.
Fear God and dread nought.
elambend
January 22, 2010
2:32 am
I could go on, but my general point is that a lot of trends were foreseen. Of course this just amplifies one of Lex's points with which I whole heartily agree. Of all the ills of the last century, root of most of them was in that decade 1910-1920 the events of which no one saw coming.
: China continues to grow wealthier, subject to the business cycle (and the bursting of asset bubbles), population busts just works to consolidate gains of middle class and raise labor rates
: India, continues to grow wealthier, tries to keep east in shape and avoid spillover from Pakistan
: Paksitan, war goes here
: Mediteranean: Turkey will rise in influence and economic power and will become the most important county in the 'Middle East'; if Iran ever becomes a friend, it'd make a great counterweight
: Europe, the welfare state will falter, as will the Euro, but it will remain wealthy and the population decline will reverse (as it has already in France)
:Russia??
:Japan period of decline for awhile after currency default, wealthy decline, though
: If I'm in charge, invest in the navy (subs and light cruisers), oil exploration, nuke power and free trade. Maintain peace and trade with our Pacific trading partners, maintain Europe, keep an eye on Turkey and help Iran rebuild (assuming the regime finally falls), try and keep budget in balance
John
January 22, 2010
2:40 am
The basic conflict in the world today, in my opinion, is remarkably similar to the conflict in 1990. It is the divide between east and west. The basic conflict over the next ten years will be similar. The US/UK/Nato/Japan partnership is still the security basis for the West. A growing cooperation between Russia and China at the same time they court radical anti-Western regimes like Iran, Venezuela and Cuba is the growing threat in the East.
Obviously this East/West conflict has different aspects to it today than it did in 1990 or especially 1980. The predominance of terrorism, for instance, is a much bigger factor in the world than it was in 1990(although it was a growing factor) Technological developments have led to weapons systems, especially in nanotechnology and bio-warfare, that have made nuclear weapons just one of many weapons of mass death. The ubiquity of computer technology and the internet have made cyberspace a real battleground, as real as sea or air or land or space. (Witness the current cyberwar with China and Russia's attack on Estonia in 2007.) The economy of the world today, especially between that of China and the US is much more integrated than it was in 1990.
But in my opinion, even in light of these changes in detail, there is still a competition, if not a Cold War, between East and West. The main difference now is that few in the West are willing to acknowledge it for fear of "re-starting the Cold War." Well, it never ended.
The next ten years, I think, will bring a growing awareness in the West that the strategic problems we think are "new" like terrorism and cyberwar and economic cooperation/competition with China are really simply new details in the same East/West conflict that has divided the world since 1945 (or perhaps since Salamis or Thermopylae?) As the link between Iran's ties to terrorism and Russia and China's ties with Iran become ever more clear it will be clear that terrorism is simply a tactic of the East in the war against the West. As it becomes clear that Russia and China are a pernicious, destructive force in cyberspace and not a constructive one, the whole notion of "cyber-terrorism" will be seen as another tactic of the East against the West. As it becomes more and more clear that China is (at least among some elements of their more anti-American leadership) trying to destabilize the US economy using economic leverage it will be seen that this is another facet of the East's rising power and challenge to the West.
Over the next ten years this conflict that is somewhat hidden now by Western politicians trying to be polite and Eastern politicians trying to deceive will come more and more to the forefront of policy-making. That is if the conflict doesn't metastisize into something more overt and immediate in the coming few years, as I think is a slight possibility.
Jing
January 22, 2010
3:30 am
I for one am disappointed about how bourgeois and petty our future manichaean existential conflicts are shaping up to be.
Carl
January 22, 2010
6:33 am
China will implode from a combination of economic collapse and resulting internal strife.
Iraq will finally get around to having a, proper, civil war.
The current regime in Iran will fall, but will probably be replaced by something equally anti-Western, but less containable.
The EU won't integrate their militaries and thus will continue to fade in importance from the world stage.
Russia will invade one of the former USSR republics as a show of force towards China's increasing interest in Eastern Siberia.
Peak Oil (production) will no longer be deniable having already happened or within the first half of the decade and (mostly) the developing world will initially begin to suffer the consequences.
Water resources will begin to create large scale conflict in South and SE Asia.
The Chicago Cubs will not win a World Series/Minnesota Vikings will not win a Super Bowl.
spandrell
January 22, 2010
6:51 am
Carl
January 22, 2010
8:08 am
John
January 22, 2010
8:23 am
The being said, from a perspective of anecdotal evidence there is great tension in China. Protests and little rural revolts are on the rise. But, from a historical perspctive, these are relatively minor and, I don't believe" pose any threat to the regime. I once read that China is like the middle of a rope being pulled tightly at both ends. It appears calm only because the force being applied is tremendous. In China, however, this situation can last far longer than people suspect if history is any teacher.
Regarding any enmity between Russia and China. There is no doubt some, especially on a racial level. However, from the persceptive of the situation since 2001 and really since the Gorbachev visit to China in 1989, relations have been getting better and better especially in regard to a growing cooperation against the United States. Just as the great geopolitical fact of the 1960s and 1970s was the conflict between Russia and China, the overriding fact today is the growing cooperation between the two on all levels, especially military and economic.
Regarding a US "bankruptcy" it is probably coming but the Fed has proven unbelievably capable yet reckless in their ability to avert a collapse. Which off course only leaves us more vulnerable on the economic front and will make the collapse bigger when it comes.
Regarding Jing's comments, your criticism of my post is quite correct if viewed from a two week persceptive. So in that sense you have a point and it is noted.
John
January 22, 2010
10:04 am
That aside, if you mean by manicheanism a final conflict between "good" and "evil" I would not make the argument from that perspective at all. There is nothing inherently "good" about the West or "evil" about the East. The West is "good" when its actions and values are parallel with common human values. The east is "bad" when its actions and values are pernicious to common human values There is nothing even inherently West geographically about the West. If you noticed I included Japan as part of the "West."(and perhaps India as well) Different nations have different values and those with similar values tend to cooperate. Those who don't hold those values tend to form counter cooperations.
Is it your contention that nations do not compete with one another based upon differing values? If that is true you know a history I do not know. Or maybe your persceptive is ahistorical and you believe we have reached a golden age, "an end of history" in which the lessons of the past are no longer any guide to the future. If so, my view may still be Manichean however yours is quite Utopian and judging from the perspective of past Utopian ideas is, in my opinion, flawed.
From a further perspective, it is questionable to call my view Manichean as I do not postulate any kind of "final battle" between East and West. In history and the life of the world nothing is ever final. The conflict between East and West, or to put it more precisely Eastern and Western values, will probably never even reach an overt battle, much less a "final" one, although the possibility of war is always there. Even war is never final, it is simply a historical fact.
So my persceptive may be Manichean on a superficial level. But taken more broadly my view simply assumes a continuity in world affairs that many assumed was broken in 1989 or 1991. I never made that assumption and I always believed it was flawed.
But thanks for the comments, seriously, I enjoy debating.
spandrell
January 22, 2010
4:41 pm
Master Cook
January 22, 2010
5:59 pm
And actually, while I think early 20th century British strategic planning was better, it could have benefitted from the British elites being more forthright as to what their desired "end state" (to use modern US military jargon) was in regards to the empire/ commonwealth, Europe, and the United States. They actually didn't do a bad job, if you compare Britain with other fading imperial powers. But they clung to the status quo too long in regards to their empire, never had a consistent policy in regards to Europe, and wound up taking too subservient a role vis a vis the US.
What the "threat" is most come after what the end state is. Threat to what? Threat to the desired end state. Other countries don't run their entire foreign and defense policies just to damage you, you are really not that central.
Guest469
January 22, 2010
7:02 pm
Mexico annexes USA. Israelis and Palestinians agree on a single unified nation called Canaan. Belarus liberates Russia and restores the USSR by force. China turns into a Christian fundamentalist state. India suffers major economic collapse and transforms into a hindutva based war mongering fascist power. EU disintegrates. Germany starts another World War.
If I'm sure of anything, it's that my prediction record won't be immeasurably worse than any else here.
McKellar
January 22, 2010
11:20 pm
And my predictions:
Somewhat like Guest469 says, China will see a massive Christian movement over the next few decades, but instead of causing unrest or radicalizing China, it will result in a big nothing. The Chinese government will lose it's ability to mobilize public sentiment, and will be capable of little more than basic civil management; no foreign wars, no crackdowns in the Autonomous regions, and no big diplomatic initiatives.
The developing world, especially the new arrivals like India and China, will start to stagnate in the 20's as social and environment costs catch up with them. This will be associated with increased insularity and a new era of religious resurgence, with new religions that will look alike like a blend of Pentecostal Christianity and native traditions (China will be more Mormon, though).
Unemployment in the US will stay in the 12-18% range well through the rest of Obama's two terms, but that will change with the collapse of North Korea in 2016. The resultant 3-year war between North Korean holdouts and US/Korean peacekeepers will necessitate a limited draft and a restructuring of the National Guard, effectively reducing the unemployment rate. Reconstruction will see North Korea turn into the first US settler colony, as soldiers decide to stay in-country instead of returning to the US. During the late 20's, the US diaspora will expand to Europe and Africa, setting the stage for the Ghanaian Civil War in 2029.
Jeff
January 23, 2010
1:36 am
Max Kennerly
January 23, 2010
4:17 am
2020 - Nuclear proliferation fears finally comes to pass as a Western metropolis is destroyed. Military response is attempted but abandoned as largely futile given the small size of the non-state group that achieved the attack. Climate change causes severe disruptions throughout South America, Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, threatening overall stability. United States shifts substantial resources from military to counterintelligence with mixed but generally positive results. EU attempts to be as self-sufficient as possible. China begins real sustainable economic development after major stakeholders begin ruthlessly but quietly eliminating systematic corruption. Middle east remains in turmoil as oil reserves start falling at exponential rate, with middle class shouldering most of the burden of finding a new way.
John
January 23, 2010
2:10 pm
John
January 23, 2010
3:41 pm
Most of the other big powers in the world view US foreign policy as laughable precisely BECAUSE it is so undefined and unlimited. At the same time, they may view it as a threat because it is so unpredictable and unlimited
Another central fact in foreign policy in the next ten years will be precisely a function of the above comments: the diminishing capacity of the US to excercise power militarily and economically at the same time the desire to exercise such power and perhaps the need does not abate.
Such a state of affairs is highly unstable as there is no more vulnerable position to be in than to be wealthy with a diminishing capacity to defend that wealth. It is an invitation to adventurism for unscrupulous regimes. So, the next ten years will be a period of rising instability between nations (sorry for my verbosity)
T. Greer
January 25, 2010
2:55 am
Vejadu
January 25, 2010
3:47 pm
* Blinding laser weapons first used by non-state entity
* Undeniable bio-war attack on US kills under 5000 (non-weaponized)
* Third party surges 2012 but doesn't capture White House; does take 7 Senate / 22 Congressional seats
* China uses illegal immigration to Siberia to siphon off energy of male/female ratio and gain political power thru the back door
* India - Pakistan have another big war that doesn't go nuclear/resolves nothing
* Illegal immigrants get another amnesty in US; no major party succeeds in solidifying their vote; marginal Azteca party emerges in Southwest/Midwest
* After Scottish devolution, Labor permanently out of power in (former) UK
* France becomes first Muslim state in Europe
* Congo war continues . . .
* Major terror attack against West using maritime vessels as delivery device
* Official unemployment stabilizes in US vic 11%; unofficial (including those not looking for work/etc) hangs at 16%.
* US fails to successfully tax black economy (e-bay/craigslist/etc)
* One cyber attack manages to crash 9 of 13 core internet servers
* Japan becomes more nationalistic; officially admits possession of nukes; government falls but they keep the nukes
* Argentina/Chile move towards unification
* Quebec still a boat anchor on Canadian economic development
No es pot saber de cap manera com serà … « Només 5 línies
February 2, 2010
1:20 pm