I have been to many countries but unfortunately not to Australia (though I have a fascination with Australia and recently considered moving there, but my age and my wife's health caused me to decide otherwise).

I have stated this in another post, but I will repeat it. I have served with Australian soldiers (we have fought in combat side by side) and they were top notch and a riot. I wish that I would have stayed in contact with some of them.

np :) I found it interesting you said "same 'criminal cast-off' English stock we come from" not many people know that america was used to harbour convicts when the prisons in england overflowed.. they used america for convicts BEFORE australia was even 'discovered' :).. yet somehow we retain the convict "heritage" even though we're a nation of immigrants.. (the second most multi cultural country in the world after israel (which is aided by the religious imperative of jews to move to the holyland)) and maybe 1 or 2% are related to the convicts.. I guess it was just a lot more recent in our history.. and probably we were used for that reason to a greater extent..

I recall that.. you were looking for a ranch.. s'pity more the merrier over here :)

maybe we'll just concentrate on taking over hollywood :)

bhutocracy, if Australia has anymore beauties like Nicole Kidman, please don't hesitate to send them over and make some movies.

I love Nicole Kidman.....and she loves me too, she just doesn't know it yet. :winkwink:

:)
oh, I think you can catch Elle McPherson's tits in "Sirens"

Bhutocracy....excellant answer :thumbsup

The question was interesting. I also think you will find that in the next 50 years, the US will turn to Australia for more trade, more military help, and more business. This will obviously help us grow alot, and you will find that Australia becomes a much larger player in the world.

The US helped fight the Japanese out of our country in WW2, and about then we cut our ties with England and made new ties with the US. :)

about hiroshima...

Just to keep the story straight... those bombs droppped on Japan were NOT nuclear devices. They were hydrogen bombs... fore runners of todays nuclear devices. :winkwink: They had less power than even one of the smallest nuclear weapons of today. :glugglug

After that, you american wonder how come events like Oklahoma City and september 11th happen. It's by thinking like that, that things happen.

When I hear people thinking that way, it make me puke.:throwup

Yes the USA have a big economic influence on the rest of the world, but is it a reason for wanting to take over the world???

BTW, I didn't read all the reply, but I think that it sound close to a genocide.

i dont think there will be war for at least another 50 yrs+

'Cos they spend to much time playing with their digeridoo's...

Just to set the record straight. The bombs dropped on Japan were not hydrogen bombs, they were the fore runners of the Hydrogen bomb and yes they were nuclear devices.

You are correct about the power of the bombs. The devices used on Japan were between 10-20 Kiloton bombs. The average size devices in our arsenal are now between 1-5 Megaton bombs. We have much larger devices but 1-5 Megatons is the average. The old USSR once claimed to have either a 50 Megaton Bomb or a 100 Megaton Bomb but this may have been BS. A 1 Megaton Bomb will kill virtually everyone in a city the size of New York city, with initial blast, radiation sickness and/or cancer.

I like to think that America will not follow the same path. The Roman Empire did not fall because of other countries, they collapsed from within:

-Decline of civilian senatorial power
-Increasing inefficience of the Senate in governing the growing empire
-The consuls had a very short mandate and therefore could not make any political programmes beyond their yearly terms = lack of visionary politics. They were making either very "brutal", quick reforms or they were not doing anything - which reflects INSTABILITY.
-Vacuum of power which led to the accession of the dictators and Caesars
-Lack of confidence in corrupt officials.

Plus, just like after Napolean died, Military Generals are quick to jump into any political vaccuum.

If America, as a nation, can keep focus on a solid path which is beneficial for humanity as a whole, there is a good chance that we will not befall the same fate as the Romans.

Most countries are not conquered on the battlefield. Direct conflict is the last resort in any confrontation. Most nations are felled by inside espionage and political coupe.


my :2 cents:

:drinkup

The effects of even 50 nuclear bombs landing on American soil would cripple America greatly but not destroy us. People over estimate the power of nuclear weapons. Yes, they are much more powerful than any weapon designed to date, but they cannot obliterate a million square miles of country. Plus, no nation on Earth has that much fire power. Our infrastructure is spread out all over this nation. Even if you destroyed DC, our government could continue to operate (hell, probably better. It would remove some of the fat :1orglaugh) Our nuclear subs alone have more fire power than most nations.

Even in a crippled state, America would still be a force to be dealt with.


:drinkup

50 nukes takes out our 50 largest cities if targeted to do so, which is probably close to half of our population, it would destroy our economy, for all practical puposes, for probably twenty years or more, but you are correct in saying the nation would survive.

You also are correct that our retalitory capability is a force to be delt with. We have the retalitory capability to destroy, for all practical purposes, at least a quarter of the countries on this earth simutaneously.

You are incorrect when you say no nation has that kind of fire power. The Ukraine (spelling) and Russia have in the thousands of nukes, and several other countries have in the hundreds of nukes.

Well I hope the day will never come...

Still, if Washington and New York were destroyed by Nuclear bombs your financial and government centre would be eliminated.

And what do you need to wage war and retaliate?

Money and structure.

Our retalitory forces already exist and do not require money, within twenty minutes the attacking nation/nations will have been destroyed for all practical purposes and would be in worse condition than the USA would be in.

Like I said in my previous post, I hope the day will never come that these procedures have to be activated.

However, you make it sound rather simple?

Are you forgetting the chaos and panic after such devastating attacks?

Our military that controls our retalitory forces are highly trained and so they will not suffer any chaos or panic, but more importantly our retalitory forces will be launched before a single nuke hits the USA. We have a triad defense and they are prepared 24/7, we have global radar stations to warn us and eyes in space to warn us of incoming, so I repeat, our retalitory forces will be launched before a single nuke hits us. We also have several levels of redundancy, for our systems, our polititians, and our Generals.

Further more we have land forces and Naval forces that are foward positioned virtually around the world, as well as logistics that are forward positioned, so we would also have the ability to wage conventional land, air and sea warfare, for a limited period of time, longer than an opponent could do the same.

The US has a little country called Israel in the ME which could do the job :)

Not really religious freedom, Justice more or less for all. I think The pilgrims would be happy

the roman's also did't have the global media, britney spears, pepsi, and the position to have a hegemonic culture even in territories it doesn't occupy.