I don´t think there will be a South American Union. I think the countries there have either started allies between 1-2-3 nations, are under the influence of one of the four super powers or are totally independent like Brazil will be. How ever, that part of the world is not that interesting for the rest of the world. There may be some border clashes as there has always been , but nothing serious. The only thing that might cause concern is “Falkland-like” clashes. For instance, Venezuela against Netherlands Antilles or French Guyana and such…
Brazil may be a regional superpower against its neighbors, but nothing else. No other super power would like to mess with them, there would be nothing to earn. And Brazil could never have a power projection. So they will play on the home field.

The reunited Korea and Japan will still be allied to USA. So will Taiwan, and China will not attack any of those countries. There is just much more they risk to loose then to gain. And by 2030 Japan/Korea and Taiwan will still be formidable military powers. China would never hazard their business suffering by going into war with such countries they risk loosing 100.000 lives…

Ukraine will be in EU.

Iran and Syria will be in a very shaky “mid-east allied treaty” (along with other mideast countries ) where everybody distrust and hates each other but is kept together by Israel and the fact that USA still has “control” over Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait. Iraq will either be divided between a small northern sunni and a major shiite or totally annexed with Iran (Perhaps Turkey, Syria and Saudi has taken there small parts). Iraq may be a Poland in the 30´s between Hitler and Stalin but with a few more players involved.
North Africa I think is going to somehow incorporated with that “mid-east allied treaty”. Only because they are muslims, have oil and cause of internal stress. They will need an outside enemy to blame, everyone who is not into islam that is….

Russia… As I said, like it is today. Today it is aggressive and trying to incorporate the former Soviet states into the republic. This will continue, and they will probably have some allies in Africa and a couple in South America. India will not be one of them tough. India will try to be independent but will essentially be in the same position as today, but more of an ally to USA (I know the Indians on this board would hate that thought)

Africa will still be the black sheep. In the next 20 years they will not evolve, they will devolve. They will go back to 17th century age (or today almost) where companies really had the power of the countries but let the strongest tribes believe they were. By offering small payments in form of alcohol, drugs and weapons so they can serve their masters. The rest of the world will suck this continents resources dry and they will keep killing each other in tribal wars, just like it have been done in the last 400 years or so.

Australia and New Zealand… They will be exactly as they are today.

The first major conflict I think will be between China and Vietnam. Ok, tough odds, but they are still neighboring countries and the death toll could climb well over 10.000.

The other one I think is between Israel and Jordan. Such a conflict would off course also spark Syria and Iran to join. And probably the whole of northern Africa and the remains of Iraq. This could very well be the 2nd nuclear war in the world depending on how successful the Arab league are in the initial days. The rest of world would not intervene in fear of nuclear attacks. This could very well mean the end of the Zionist nation, but probably not by looking at previous wars. But it would certainly be more bloody.. This war will go to the history books as “The most idiotic reason to start a war”, Israel stole Jordans water supply…

I agree with you in some points but not in all.

By economic growth and GDP, Mexico and Brazil will be large enough to surpase several european national economies, even Canada is becoming smaller.

The Importance of Canada for the US is decreasing and Mexico increasing even militarily, mexico is building more US weaponry for US companies.

You expect the world to be the same, no change, but the reality is different.

While China and India can growth they lack resources and they are unwilling to change economic growth by enviromental growth.

China and India are the most likely nations to be involved in military actions for resources.

The US still has Canada to be anexed and be exploited, it can with Mexico and Central america to get cheaper labour, but as the dollar decline they will become a lesser of a global power and more of a regional one .

Brazil has plenty of resources and will be successful joining south america because they want to do it, Argentina wants to do it, venezuela wants to do it and bolivia too, most of south america wants an economic union ala EU, so by 2020 you can bet it will happen.

the US needs Mexico to merge central america into mexico and therefore to increase the GDP and growth of the North American Union. however it will have a price the price to compromise with Mexico and since mexico is getting more tech transfers so it will demand more share in wealth.

I can assure the US will remain the second largest economy by 2020 and 2040 simply by Changing the name of the dollar to Amero and anexing Mexico, central america and Canada to the US economy.

Asia will remain the most likely area of conflict for two reasons, weaponry available and overpopulation.

China has J-10s, JH-7 and so on and has neighbours with needs like Iran and Pakistan, China needs oil too, so China will pretend to play the game of the big boys by middling in the middle east invited by allies like Syria or Iran.

India too might have a part in that.

So basicly oil can create war and very likely air war.

Not going into details of all your claims. Chile and Argentina were in a hostile conflict. Both sides were intrested to get control of economic zones for future exploration of oil for example. Maybe you missed that. The USA and the UK were/are true partners, when Latin America is just seen as a region of intrest by the USA. Business at first and secondary to deny the SU to get any other foothold than Cuba. Taking the Falklands by force was a political mistage by Argentina and it lost all possible support that way. It took several weeks, before the British appeared in force, which gave Argentina ample time to correct that mistake and to seek a more promising political solution about their wishes, as long as the rest of the world had some intrest in that. The British SSNs were enough to keep the Argentina navy in its ports and were able to deny any resupply of Argentine troops by ship.
At a given date that troops on the Falklands were hostages. The British were limiting their war efforts to the Falklands and did not attack Argentina itself, which could be done without question. The British had the capability to deny any shipping to and from Argentina for a long period, in a time, when Argentina had severe economic problems at all. The British did resist to take the side of Chile to pressure Argentina. But you did come to a similar solution yourself.
Before a British task force had come into the range, such Tu-22 had been whipped out before by a less restrictive behavior of the British.

If you have read the reports of the falkland war by the british you will know they had weaknessess too, and Argentina failed to use them in their favour first, the British aircraft carrier was sinkable, it had no AEW aircraft; second the Harrier was not an F-14 but an AIM-9 armed aircraft so it was a dogfighter not an interceptor.

Would argentina had a Tu-22M they would had sunk the carrier and you know it is true since a Tu-22M was even able to sink a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier at the time.

The A-4 as an attacker was more of a ground attack aircraft and even by 1982 was obsolete, Israel knew it and they did not use A-4s without the top cover of F-15s and F-16s.

Argentina in 1982 could had purchased a couple of Tu-16s or Tu-22s and some air refuelling tankers prior to the invasion and that would had asure the conventional victory to Argentina, the peace i doubt they would had win it since Englad had nukes

Nonsense! This assertion is based on prejudice, untainted by facts.

Fewer of them, & mostly arrived much more recently. At the outbreak of WW2 the non-white population of the UK was about 0.1%, vs over 10% in the USA.

There were hundreds of non-white (mostly Caribbean, some Indian) aircrew, including fighter pilots, in the RAF in WW2 – but in the same units as white aircrew, not in separate units. Also thousands of Caribbean RAF ground crew, also in mixed units. Tell me, do you see the creation of an all-black unit as less racist than integrating black troops (including officers) into mainly white units? If so, can you explain your reasoning?

BTW, the press were encouraged to report on them, both for domestic & colonial reporting. And from a modern (2000) press release – ‘An Air Ministry Confidential Order issued to commanding officers in June 1944 stated: “All ranks should clearly understand that there is no colour bar in the Royal Air Force. Colonial personnel who come to this country are volunteers. They feel a close tie with the Mother Country and the mainspring of their desire to serve is a strong sense of loyalty…. Any instance of discrimination on grounds of colour by white officers or airmen or any attitude of hostility towards personnel of non-European descent should be immediately and severely checked.”’

There were Indian aircrew in the RAF in WW1. The (British) Indian Air Force, when it was formed in 1932, immediately started training Indian aircrew. Tens of thousands of Indians served in the IAF during WW2, a far larger organisation than the 332nd fighter wing. No P-51s, but it did have Spitfires, as well as other combat aircraft, & seconded some of its pilots to the RAF in WW2. Also, there were pilots recruited from the very small (at the time) Indian population of the UK, & individual volunteers.

The USA was 25 years behind the British armed forces in recruiting non-white pilots. The first non-white British Empire ace was Lieutenant Indra Lal Roy, who died in action 22nd July 1918. Credited with ten German aircraft, awarded the DFC.

Britain in the 1940s was racist, but far less so than the USA. There has never been a law in the UK which forbade interracial marriage, or denied anyone the vote because of their race, or required different races to use separate public facilities – unlike the USA, where the last such laws were only formally abolished in the last 10 years, & were enforced until the 1960s.

Your attitudes appear to be based on ignorance & naivety, rather than malice, but that is a weak excuse. You should make some attempt to inform yourself.

Swerve

It will be a very difficult topic, but i can say this to you, your points up to a point are true, but up to a point are totally ignoring and avoiding several points.

The US, like Latin america in general, have evolved from very racist socities into less racist, however our experience as globalized and cosmopolitan societies have given us a good quality, people with time get used to other nationalities, people with time get used to differences and at the end people start seeing our common humanity.
With these do not misunderstand me, all nations have good people and tolerant people, the British empire was tolerant because as the Spanish or Portuguese empire was a cosmopolitan empire, however the European colonies in America are more cosmopolitan in nature and at the end have evolved in some aspects faster towards a globalized society.

The fact the US is going to allow a son of an immigrant and a person of a minority which was oppressed shows the US has evolved into a really more just and cosmopolitan society, and you know perfectly in that sense they are ahead to Europe, China, Russia and Japan.
Brazil also has evolved in some aspects into a more just society, and Mauricio Botelho shows that cosmopolitan aspect is starting to work out there too, since he was the president of Embraer and he is a Mulatto like Barack Obama, in fact some of the test pilots of Embraer are Japanese Brazilians

Sounds like a lot of USAians & Canadians. Or take me – I’m English. In my family there are white English, Bengali (Hindu & Moslem), Punjabi, Danish & Japanese. I personally have English, Welsh, Danish & German ancestry. So what? Galtieri had Italian ancestry, Fujimori Japanese, Pinochet French, Stroessner German. Again, so what? There were Argentinean officers with British relatives in 1982. Didn’t stop ’em. Consider the Argentinean naval captain (later admiral) Barry Melbourne Hussey, who served on the Falklands – related to British actress Olivia Hussey. Or Commodoro Carlos Bloomer-Reeve – of British descent, also served on the Falklands. The Argentinean navy had a very high proportion of British-descended officers (not so much among the ordinary sailors).

Where do you think General Eisenhowers ancestors came from? Didn’t stop him commanding armies fighting his ancestral homeland. IT NEVER DOES! People identify with a country, or an ideology, or a religion – and that’s it. Unless their ideology is a racially-based one, ancestry is irrelevant. Japanese-Americans volunteered to fight in WW2, & there is no evidence of German-Americans or Italian-Americans being unwilling to fight. Neither does language matter. Croats, Serbs & Bosniaks all speak the same language, & they fought each other pretty savagely. Arab states have often gone to war with each other.

You live in a dream world, mate.

What you say is correct, but what i meant societies that have less contacts with other societies tend to be more ethnocentric.

If you are born in a society where more races, languages, religions and ethnicities are interacting sometimes you get more tolerant people.

See this fact the US was the first modern mainly white society to acknowledge a black person can be a better athlete than a white athlete, so it meant equality race was not important anymore but results and in 1936 it was shown in Berlin, also the US was the first nation to have an Squadron of P-51s with only black aviatiors, so definitively cosmopolitan societies tend to be more tolerant than monoethnic societies, see this fact the first society in the modern western world to nominate an african american as candidate for president is the USA and i can assure that England Germany or France have also african heritage and citizens

Egypt did claim to shot down many.
Egypt was in control of the limited airspace of the canal-zone only for the first ten days.
All that was related to a full scale war and not to peace-time demands.
What you have at hand is related to a true opponent at a given time.
The A-4 and the Bf-109 are two different kind of aircraft, when the Harrier was more similar to the Bf-109 in range considerations.
The problem of the A-4 was not the range at first, but to overcome a sophisticated multi-layer defense in 1982, what did restricted its tactical use.

Argentina was not very smart to defeat the british they would had destroyed the carrier in the first place having air superiority would had granted the victory, they tried to attack the carrier without results, would had they have a Tu-22M they would have been very likely successful in that task and the victory would had been theirs

NO! Wrong! Air superiority only means that you control the airspace! You do not even have to have airplanes to do that! It simply means that you control the airspace, via SAMs, aircraft, other means.

No that is not true, Egypt shot down many Israeli aircraft with SAMs but still lost the wars.

In the case of Argentina, they miscalculated the British capabilities and the US-Argentina alliance.

The A-4s again like the ME-109 lacked range to hit the british fleet, the aircraft carrier 25 de mayo was even in worst conditions since it could not operated near an ocean area where british submarines ruled.

the result are fiascos that costed the political lives to Leopoldo Galtieri and Alberto Fujimori.

If the argetinians would have been really serious about defeating the british they would had needed Tu-22Ms or Tu-16s and they would had allied with the former Soviet Union like Chavez is doing with Russia now, these aircraft with the Kitchen AS-6 ASM would had simply destroyed the british carrier at long distances and far from any Harrier and with some aircraft in the falklands the victory would had been for Argentina.

Peru was even worst since England is a first rate air power but Ecuador is not and the peruvian did not achieve a real Victory.

The venezuelan strategy is much smarter since the Russian Tu-160s can kill an aircraft carrier via a modern cruise missile and threat the US sending a signal to Washington very clear, we are with Russia, however it is unlikely the Russians will attack unless their aircraft are attacked but since they are forging military alliances is a good way of threating NATO about Poland and the ABM batteries deployed there

What air force did Tanzania have when it invaded & occupied Uganda in 1979? What air force did Rwanda have when it invaded Congo, & occupied many times its own area? What air force did the Taliban have when they conquered Afghanistan?

What weapons & numbers you need depends on what your adversaries have. It’s relative, not absolute.

But to have an air war you need a sophisticated machinery, specially since you need to have air superiority, current latin american needs are more for anti-drug operations and patrol aircraft.

See in mexico we are so backward in aircraft technology that we can barely make light utility airplanes
see an aeromarmi stela made and designed in mexico

Do you think with this Mexico can get air superiorty in an aerea of highly advanced SAMs that sometimes are purchased by drug runners