BlueOak

This is a very real possibility as a country grows in size. The America population could easily double over time, maybe reach 500 - 900 million, I just checked plausble populations with Chat GPT. Often countries break down as they grow and reform or split. It all depends how flexible the government structure and instutitons are. At present its becoming very inflexible, so collapse is plausible. Chat GPT Analysis of my Apex Thinker GPT 5.2, when weighing population growth resources etc; Me: Given all of this information, can you objectively define how likely in percentage terms America might collapse or split (and possibly reform) over say 100-200 years. The recent trouble there has led to a discussion on a forum. Definitions (to avoid ambiguity) Collapse = loss of central authority + sustained disorder (Roman/USSR-style). Split = formal secession into multiple sovereign states. Reform = constitutional or structural reset that preserves continuity (e.g. Reconstruction, New Deal, post–Civil War US). Status quo continuity = the US remains one state, despite crises, polarization, or decline. Probability breakdown (100–200 years) 🟥 Full collapse (hard state failure) ≈ 5–10% Why low Enormous food, energy, and water buffers Continental geography with no peer invaders Dollar & capital markets provide shock absorption Strong state capacity relative to most historical empires What would be required Prolonged economic depression plus Severe climate or resource shock plus Elite fragmentation with loss of military loyalty ➡️ Historically rare for states with this profile. 🟧 Formal territorial split / secession ≈ 10–20% Why non-trivial Federal structure already legitimizes regional power Cultural–political divergence is increasing Precedent exists (Civil War), unlike most modern states Why still limited Economies are deeply interwoven Military, currency, and infrastructure are unified No clean ethnic or geographic fault lines (unlike Yugoslavia) Most plausible form: Peaceful legal fragmentation after a constitutional crisis More likely 150+ years out than 50 years 🟨 Severe crisis → authoritarian or illiberal phase → reform ≈ 35–45% This is the most likely disruption path. Pattern seen in: Roman Republic → Empire Weimar Germany → Federal Republic Britain (17th–19th century reforms) Forms this could take: Emergency powers Curtailment of federal autonomy or civil liberties Eventual institutional reset (new amendments, new balance of power) ➡️ The US has already gone through milder versions of this cycle. 🟩 Messy continuity (no collapse, no split) ≈ 30–40% Polarization continues Relative global decline Governance becomes slower and less effective Still one country This is the default outcome for large, wealthy democracies.

They are, and intentionally so. I ran the numbers awhile back: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-training-requirements-by-country Quoting my old post: Ice apparently gets 47 days of training; if we charitably say they get 8 hours each day, that's 376 hours, which is 11 times less than the best-trained forces around the globe and half as long as regular American police, who are woefully undertrained, Regular police get almost 7 times less hours than India for example. Someone can argue American training is more effective, but I doubt by a factor of ten.~ There is almost no downside to undertraining ICE. 1, They can blame it all on poor training if things work out badly. 2, This lack of training creates fear. 3, The fascists in power want civil unrest, disrupted elections, greater police powers. 4, Whether you conclude this is all for internal gain: requiring a war or an emergency great enough to keep Trump in power, to establish more of an authoritarian hold over America. or 5, Until they have completed their plans to divide the world up into new authoritarian geopolitical power blocs. The strategy is the same. *A war with Iran, China or Europe may also keep Trump in power a few more years. For example. So would a civil war or large civil unrest.

Authoritarian and fascist states blame everyone else for their own problems.

No. Quite often change happens in an explosive form when its resisted or suppressed for long enough. This is true on the individual micro level and the national macro level.

I don't think addressing what people use to manage their symptoms is the most effective way to assist people who have given up. Addressing the symptoms, depression, loneliness, hopelessness etc is one thing, but hitting the cause is even more effective. Cultural and family breakdown, communities being fragmented, extremism pulling them apart further, war causing divides, politics and media fuelled by division as it draws eyeballs—meaning addressing people's 6 second attention spans and desire to have their own set of values continually affirmed in those around them by a TV screen (instead of the community and/or family they exist in sharing those values). People complain about too much tiktok or youtube, games, tv etc, but they are just poor replacements of people looking for: community, belonging, affirmation, shared experience, pattern breaks, excitement, novelty etc. Media and governments want compliant people, and overloading people with dopamine is an easy way to achieve this, so you are in an uphill battle there also.

This was the EU.

Yes. However this is a European problem, Russia and Ukraine now have the war on top of that. Its also a chinese problem. Its fixed either by AI in the workforce, a greater focus on space colonization, and/or climate stabalisation (and improvement). All of which people are resisting. Alternatively by peace, family values and what sadly people see as converse to them: putting sex into a core part of society again (not hiding it behind social or cultural convention). Fertility and sex should be front and center in family values, and children need to again become prioritized, along with the environment, to preserve it to allow for more people. If the environment goes the other way, countries disappear, people can't pay their bills (water/food/energy), health deteriorates faster, and children become a possibility rather than a priority. Below is my objective 5.2 GPT's analysis: European Demographics Context (Pre-Ukraine War vs Post-War) A recurring claim is that Ukraine’s demographics were already “bad” before the war. That is true, but it is also not unique. Low fertility and population aging were—and remain—structural problems across Europe, including Russia, and even major non-European countries like China. The correct analytical distinction is between pre-existing demographic trends and war-specific shocks. 1. Fertility Rates (Key Structural Indicator) Total Fertility Rate (TFR) = average lifetime births per woman Replacement level ≈ 2.1 Most of Europe has been below replacement for decades. Pre-War Baseline (2021) vs After 2022 Country - TFR 2021 (pre-war) - TFR 2022 - TFR 2023 Ukraine 1.15 - 0.90 - 0.98 Russia: 1.51 - 1.42 - 1.41 Germany 1.58 - 1.46 - 1.39 Italy 1.25 - 1.24 - 1.20 Poland 1.33 - 1.29 - 1.16 Spain 1.18 - 1.16 - 1.12 France 1.84 - 1.79 - 1.66 United Kingdom 1.58 - 1.56 - 1.56 Bulgaria 1.80 - 1.78 - 1.81 China 1.12 - 1.03 - 1.00 Key point: Ukraine’s fertility was low before the war, but so was most of Europe’s. Spain, Italy, Poland, Germany, and China were all at similar or only slightly better levels. 2. Europe-Wide Aging (Not a Ukraine-Specific Issue) As of 2024: The EU median age ≈ 44.7 years 21.6% of the EU population is 65+ This reflects a continent-wide aging trend, driven by decades of sub-replacement fertility—not conflict. 3. What Actually Changed After 2022 (Ukraine-Specific) The real demographic distinction is not pre-war weakness, but post-war shock. After February 2022, Ukraine experienced: Large-scale displacement (millions temporarily or permanently abroad) Excess mortality from war Suppressed births during conflict A population decline estimated at ~10 million since the invasion These are war effects layered on top of an already weak European demographic baseline. 4. Russia’s Demographics Are Also Weak Russia entered the war with: Sub-replacement fertility An aging population Declining fertility even after 2022 Russia’s demographic trajectory is not structurally strong, despite not facing the same displacement shock as Ukraine.

Everyone is doing this the world over. Its an easy way to manipulate America. The other is to pay off Trump, he loves that. This is just another way to polish his ego to tell people that others are telling him nice things. Its all very sad..

Or we can just look at this as a way to divide the EU from America and NATO. Which suits the authoritarian powers, which includes America now and follows how BRICS want to reshape the world into new Blocs. China / Russia / America.

Authoritarians need the name. Its like Russia and Ukrainian cities. Rather than just focusing on land gain, because they desperately need to pat themselves on the head and take ruined lumps of concrete with names, they throw hundreds of thousands into urban centers, and every time a competent Russian general comes along to bypass them and go around, eventually he's killed off for just saying why are we doing this? Trump is cut from the same cloth. He needs his name on things. If he can say, look, I took greenland and we now own it, he understands that, he likes owning things. If he just focused instead on buying all of it up and putting whatever assets on there he liked, it'd be a fortress that America owned all the rights to. But he wouldn't have the name, the prize, the self congratulating pat on the head that his inner child desperately needs to feel like a man. The need to be in control is one of the biggest behaviors we as a species need to adjust, not lose, but adjust.

He's contradicting himself here. But Russia does wish to limit itself to just fighting one European country at once; that's certainly true. It'd rather go Ukraine - Moldova - Georgia - The Baltics - Romania - Poland. Sadly for Russia the pattern has been obvious for decades, rebuild the USSR, they've just reached countries that can fight back. Despite what Ritter seems to think, no camel would survive this nuclear stupidity. But then nukes on cities wouldn't be fired if Europe and Russia go to war, the war would be in a border country and conventional. If Russia and BRICS keep pushing it, then tactical nukes yes.

27 to 1 kill ratio in Kupiansk. It was estimated at 15, but even at 15 its insane. 27 to 1—it's been a bad few months for Russia. This is where the 1.2 million casulties growing to 2 million casualties in the next two years comes from, but at this ratio, it'll be 3 million casualties from the urban centers, because we are not even into February yet. And for anyone who thinks, well that's what it'll be then, what will change? The aftereffects on Russia for the next decades. It will just grow to be worse. And make it less likely anyone attempts (or can attempt) this insanity in the future. Part of this is the demented political need to say we've taken the city, rather than do it tactically or sensibly, its just send people on bikes or walking in straight lines into drones, mines and gunfire.

Why just one? Wouldn't two make us extra powerful? I could be the super ultra peace maker.

That's how you interpret power. For me it's a sad man begging someone to give him their own trophy because he can't get it himself. To me it makes him look weak. It may look like strength to you, but it sure doesn't to me. Its like a kid who didn't win the race, going over to another kids house and telling him to give him the award.

Yeah there are a lot of fanatic hunters out in the rural areas or linked to old money in the UK. Its a cultural problem, rather than anything else. The UK has very little connecting culture, so removing or legislating out what little remains is not easy either. That's why it took so much effort to reduce the drinking culture, while at the same time not replacing it, left a hole. I know you won't want to hear this but its a two step approach required. Removing the aspects of the culture that are barbaric such as this, and at the same time fostering a culture that reflects modernity and not values that are quite honestly stuck several hundred years ago.

Socialists are useful against rightwing authoritarians, and the Democratic Party is authoritarian-leaning. Of course trump is far more. But there are no socialists on the right for the Dems to use in response, just lunatics who fall off the rightwing party line now and again. When its time for the political class or rather their donars to crush Mamdani they will. For now he's a much needed pressure release for all the centralisation and oppression that America has been undergoing.

Its largely selective. If you are aligned with BRICS people will say they disagree with what you are doing when you massarce people in the streets. If you are not aligned with brics you are the devil.

Yeah cheap knock off. He's got a second hand award. I could probably buy one if I had enough money.

Of course. However, that world when fully accepted, is not going to be what the far right of the world believes it will be. Imagine a world wherever everyone or the majority coveted power for its own ends. That's not a safe place to live that's for sure.

It does a better job than I do. While I understand infastructure realignments of this scale take a great effort and a great amount of time and investment, and I also understand everyone is in bed with one another when it comes to oil and gas, making it near impossible to completely bypass either Russia and/or the US. The GPT does a good job of surmising it in a bulletpoint format. The headline links you offer are simply insufficient to supply a continent's industry. @Elliott Nobody is buying Russian gas because they like it or like Putin. They are using it or the US because of a variety of factors, and what can be replaced quickly has been.

Here is another factual correction: GPT 5.2 - Objective Analyst GPT. Why Europe still imports LNG (including Russian LNG): an objective explanation This discussion often collapses into moral accusation or cherry-picked headlines. The reality is more constrained and technical. Europe’s LNG imports are not evidence of indifference to Ukraine, nor proof that alternatives are readily available. They reflect physical, contractual, and systemic limits in global energy markets. I’ll address the main claims directly. 1. “Europe has had 4 years — it should be independent by now” This misunderstands how energy systems work. Large-scale energy transitions take decades, not election cycles. Europe has already done the fast part: Cut Russian pipeline gas from ~40% of supply to under 10% Absorbed record energy prices Rebuilt LNG import capacity at historic speed Rewired gas flows across the continent Funded Ukraine militarily and financially at unprecedented levels What remains is the slow part: New production New pipelines New LNG trains New power systems New industrial processes None of these can be completed in 4 years without causing shortages or economic collapse. 2. The France “hydrogen jackpot” is not relevant to LNG The cited discovery concerns natural (geologic) hydrogen, not natural gas. Key facts: Hydrogen is not interchangeable with LNG (methane) It requires entirely different infrastructure There is no commercial-scale extraction or distribution It cannot fuel existing gas power plants or heating systems Even optimistic projections place material impact well into the 2030s–2040s This is a future technology. It does nothing to replace LNG imports today. Citing it in a discussion about current LNG flows is a category error. 3. Norway’s record gas production helps — but does not replace LNG Norway is Europe’s most important gas supplier and is already producing near technical limits. Critical distinctions: Norwegian gas is pipeline gas, not LNG Pipeline capacity is finite Norway cannot “surge” output indefinitely Much of Europe cannot physically receive more pipeline gas without new infrastructure Even at record production, Norway cannot replace: Russian LNG US LNG Global spot cargoes used to balance seasonal demand Norway stabilizes Europe. It does not eliminate LNG dependence. 4. “Europe can just buy from Africa / Middle East / Europe” This is the most common misconception. You don’t buy LNG from regions — you buy it from companies. Those companies are: National oil companies Western multinationals Joint ventures with shared ownership Africa: Limited LNG capacity Infrastructure bottlenecks Heavy involvement of European and US firms No ability to rapidly scale volume. Middle East (primarily Qatar): Most supply locked into long-term Asian contracts Limited flexible volumes Oil-indexed pricing Europe dislikes Europe: Does not produce enough LNG Relies primarily on pipeline gas and imports There is no large pool of unused, politically neutral LNG waiting to replace US or Russian supply. 5. Why LNG still flows from Russia specifically This is uncomfortable but factual: Russian LNG is often price-competitive It is not fully sanctioned under current EU law Much is tied to pre-existing contracts France and Spain are LNG hubs, not just consumers Significant volumes are re-exported, not burned domestically Higher imports ≠ higher dependence They often reflect transit and market arbitrage, not political alignment. 6. Does this mean Europe “doesn’t care about Ukrainians”? No. By any measurable metric: Financial aid Military assistance Refugee intake Sanctions Economic self-harm absorbed Europe has paid real costs for supporting Ukraine. What this situation shows is not indifference — it shows the limits of how fast complex energy systems can change under crisis. The core reality (stripped of politics) Europe’s LNG imports exist because: Pipeline gas alone is insufficient Alternatives are not yet scalable Storage is seasonal and finite Contracts and infrastructure constrain choice LNG is the balancing mechanism of last resort You can criticize this reality morally or politically — but denying it does not make it disappear. Bottom line Europe’s continued LNG imports are driven by physical and economic constraints, not nationalism, hypocrisy, or lack of concern for Ukraine. Energy systems obey engineering, contracts, and timelines — not rhetoric.

Not near as simple as that, discounting shipping, which we really shouldn't but i'll start with the basics: GPT 5.2 Me: Please list the major companies that supply LNG and their nationality. Someone is arguing Europe can just avoid american or russian companies and go direct to africa, europe and the middle east. Below is a fact-based map of the global LNG supply structure, listing the major LNG-supplying companies, their nationality, and where the gas actually comes from. This directly addresses the claim that Europe can simply avoid American or Russian companies and buy “directly” from Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. Key point up front (important) Europe cannot buy LNG “from regions” — it buys LNG from companies. Those companies are usually national champions or Western multinationals, often with cross-ownership, joint ventures, long-term contracts, and dollar-denominated trade. Avoiding US or Russian molecules is not the same as avoiding US or Russian companies, and avoiding both simultaneously is structurally very difficult. 🇺🇸 United States (largest LNG exporter globally) Major suppliers: Cheniere Energy — United States ExxonMobil — United States Chevron — United States Reality US LNG dominates the spot market Europe relies on. Even “non-US” cargoes often trade through US-based financial and shipping systems. 🇷🇺 Russia Major suppliers: Novatek — Russia Gazprom — Russia Reality Russian LNG (especially Yamal) remains competitive and legally distinct from pipeline gas in many sanctions regimes. 🇶🇦 Qatar (Middle East’s LNG superpower) Major supplier: QatarEnergy — Qatar Reality Supplies are mostly locked into long-term Asian contracts. Expansion helps Europe, but volumes are not fully flexible. Pricing often indexed to oil, not ideal for Europe’s spot-market preference. 🇳🇴 Norway (Europe’s main gas producer — but not LNG-dominant) Major supplier: Equinor — Norway Reality Mostly pipeline gas, not LNG. LNG volumes are limited and already heavily utilized. 🇫🇷 / 🇬🇧 / 🇮🇹 Europe-based multinationals (Important: these are European companies, but gas is global) Major suppliers: TotalEnergies — France Shell — United Kingdom Eni — Italy Reality These firms produce LNG in: Qatar Nigeria Mozambique US Buying from them does not mean avoiding US or Russian gas molecules. 🌍 Africa (often misunderstood) Major suppliers: Nigeria LNG — Nigeria Sonatrach — Algeria Ownership reality Nigeria LNG includes Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni. Algeria’s LNG is constrained by aging infrastructure and domestic demand. Africa cannot: Rapidly scale volumes Replace US LNG Avoid Western corporate involvement 🇦🇺 Australia (major exporter — limited relevance to Europe) Major suppliers: Woodside Energy — Australia Santos — Australia Reality Most volumes are contractually tied to Asia. Freight distance makes Europe uneconomic except in crises. The structural constraint (this is decisive) ❌ “Just buy from Africa / Middle East / Europe” — why this fails Claim and Objective reality Buy from Africa - African LNG is small, constrained, and Western-operated Buy from Middle East - Qatar LNG is contract-locked and oil-indexed Buy from Europe- Europe does not produce enough LNG Avoid US companies - Spot LNG markets are US-anchored Avoid Russian gas - Requires paying higher prices or signing long contracts Bottom line (objective, no ideology) Europe cannot selectively bypass US and Russian LNG while maintaining price stability, supply security, and flexibility. What Europe can do is: Reduce exposure gradually Diversify marginal volumes Accept higher costs and longer contracts Trade flexibility for political insulation That is a trade-off, not a free choice.

Some words are less conscious or appropriate than violence.

@Elliott This is beneath you. Perhaps someone needs to point out people need energy to you. So they have to buy it from somewhere, either the US or Russia are the easiest sellers. In 2027 LNG is scheduled to be phased out from Russia to the EU, so I don't doubt they are stocking up as they make other arrangements. Chat GPT also reminds me that buying now is a cheap price whereas later when the bans come in it will not be cheap, and as these countries are transit hubs (i.e not buying for themselves), many countries are putting orders through them.

@Elliott Where do we get our energy from then, thin air? Industry runs on things like gas or oil, yours too. There is the devil in the east or the devil in the west. The devil in the east keeps threatening to nuke us and is actively trying to destabalise our countries, the devil in the west is mostly all talk on foreign policy, until relatively recently anyway.