Our future forcast.

[ND66]

Can be found HERE:


Disturbing.

.

[Brian Ellis]

This is not relevant to Science and Military.

It is political fiction, pure and simple. It is not a forecast, it is a series of gratuitous hypotheses, none of which are likely to be confirmed. There MAY be some elements of truth here and there, but nobody is capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

It reminds me of the words in Macbeth:
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[ND66]

...It is political fiction, pure and simple....

Of course it's fiction, like I would believe this:

2009 - New US president vows to make tackling climate change a top priority.

What I had in mind saying “disturbing” wasn’t really 100% about this publication.

The worldwide financial crisis. Crisis like this laid down a WWII fundaments by giving power to Hitler, he promised a better tomorrow to the people.
Plus, world already feels the drought and drinkable water shortage.
Also, the world orders will change since US will not be able to “police” the rest of the world, it has plenty of problems on its own. But how it’s going to be? Let see, China proved it can feed us illusion and call it real, just like the latest spaceship launch. And in Russia, they can legally throw the richest businessman in a nuthouse and take away everything he had.

You know what may happen by the year 2030? That’s if the world still exists by then…

That’s what I call disturbing, my own thoughts, not the article itself…


.

[Evildead666]

China and Russia now hoave plenty of military might, and money to go with it.

The US has less military might, and no money, neither has Europe, even tho its doing a tad better for now.

also : www.paleofuture.com

[Dr Mordrid]

China and Russia now hoave plenty of military might, and money to go with it.

The US has less military might, and no money....

United States: Budget - $583 billion (not counting black ops)

Active troops - 1,380,000
Reserve troops - 1,463,000
Total - 2,843,000

Carriers - 12 (the new Gerald R. Ford class starts production in 2009 w/electric catapults, power for directed energy weapons and mods for UCAV's)
Nuclear subs - 74 (18 Ohio class [missile]; 4 Virginia class [6 more coming], 3 Seawolf class and 49 Los Angeles class - all fast attack subs.) Four of the Ohio class missile subs are being converted from carrying 24 SLBM's to SSGN's carrying 154 cruise missiles each - the Ohio, the Michigan, the Florida and the Georgia.
Conventional subs - 6
Cruisers - 25
Destroyers - 56
Fighters - 2,604 (F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II just entering service and JUCAV's in the works)

Russia: Budget - $40 billion

Active troops - 1,245,000
Reserve troops - 1,690,000
Total - 2,935,000 (few divisions having up to date equipment - OK for fighting Georgians, but otherwise...)

Carriers - 1 (the Admiral Kuznetsov, formerly the Riga - a ski-jump carrier, not like a US supercarrier, whose keel was laid down in 1983)
Nuclear subs - 35 (some evidence only 10 are operational. In 2006 there were only 6 patrols - 6 boats out simultaneously. 2002 had no patrols at all)
Conventional subs - 49
Cruisers - 7
Destroyers - 20
Fighters - 2,118

China: Budget - $80 billion

Active troops - 2,255,000
Reserve troops - 800,000
Total - 3,055,000

Carriers - 0
Nuclear subs - 10 (typically only one of their boomers is on patrol at any given time)
Conventional subs - 46
Cruisers - 0
Destroyers - 28
Fighters - 2,643

[Mehen]

Wow. Suddenly I feel a whole lot more confident in our brothers to the south. (No sarcasm).
I did some quick checking, $ per troop wise, we spend quite close to that here, (US= ~200k/troop, whereas we are closer to 180k USD /troop). The British spend around 140k/troop.

[Brian Ellis]

All this military claptrap has nothing to do with the thread. Please return to the topic.

[Dr Mordrid]

This is not relevant to Science and Military.

It is political fiction, pure and simple. It is not a forecast, it is a series of gratuitous hypotheses, none of which are likely to be confirmed. There MAY be some elements of truth here and there, but nobody is capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Still - it's an environmental working group and that falls under "Science" as much as the IPCC reports do. Up to the reader to determine wheat from chaff, as usual around here.

As for the "Military" diversion - this is the "Science and Military" forum after all, and very often the dividing line is very dim, but that tack was taken by EvilDead666 so take it up with him. All I did was respond with pertinent facts contrary to his supposition.

On the report: interesting but pessimistic. One more in a long line of environmental reports that IMO discounts far too much the huge advances in energy producing/consuming technology coming in the next few years.

[rylan]

In either case, it still comes down to the point that the entire thing is fiction... and some group got paid big bucks to sit around and dream crap up.

[Brian Ellis]

In either case, it still comes down to the point that the entire thing is fiction... and some group got paid big bucks to sit around and dream crap up.

Agreed! And it is not based on science, contrary to the IPCC, which took real-life observations and measurements from around the world as their starting point. Most of the contributors to this "work" do not appear to have appropriate scientific qualifications.