The U.S. Empire?

[Gods_Mercenary]

True, but it's a hard line to draw.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary True, but it's a hard line to draw.

Not so much. Try treating your allies as allies and listening to them, and you'll get some surprisingly good advice. After all, some of us have been in the business of diplomacy for a good few hundred years longer than the US has been in existance. I'll admit, that's not to necessarily say we've been any good at it, but we're fairly good at recognising where things are going wrong, as we've made so many of those mistakes before. :)

[Gods_Mercenary]

As I recall, the British went along with us like a puppy that's been kicked a few too many times into Iraq, we could have used this sage advice then.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I found this article very intruiging. Please read it if you plan to post, because much of this won't make sense. Foreign Affairs - The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy - Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press I want to know what people think about this.

I followed that link and read that article.

Excerpt :

Since the Cold War's end, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has significantly improved. The United States has replaced the ballistic missiles on its submarines with the substantially more accurate Trident II D-5 missiles, many of which carry new, larger-yield warheads. The U.S. Navy has shifted a greater proportion of its SSBNs to the Pacific so that they can patrol near the Chinese coast or in the blind spot of Russia's early warning radar network. The U.S. Air Force has finished equipping its B-52 bombers with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which are probably invisible to Russian and Chinese air-defense radar. And the air force has also enhanced the avionics on its B-2 stealth bombers to permit them to fly at extremely low altitudes in order to avoid even the most sophisticated radar.

Does it mean those guys (read : authors of that article) want to see U.S. to start downgrading its military equipement ? :-)
Applying that "pattern" , U.S. ought to build up caverns, instead of homes for example.

Rregardless of their points, they can not blame U.S. for technologically advanced weaponary system(s) over other states.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As I recall, the British went along with us like a puppy that's been kicked a few too many times into Iraq, we could have used this sage advice then.

How about Sage advice that came from elsewhere, like France and Germany for example.
"The region needs a new peace, not a new war" sound familiar?
What about the Left in the US that warned against a war against Iraq? doesnt count?
You point to one of the few countries that jumped off the bridge with us and say, "Where were you!?' They were in mid air, falling to their deaths with you.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm not saying that we weren't warned, I'm just saying that matt's brits opinion didn't exactly help us see they were that the other allies were correct.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As I recall, the British went along with us like a puppy that's been kicked a few too many times into Iraq, we could have used this sage advice then.

That's Blair for you. If you'd bothered to look at the overwhelming public opinion throughout the UK & Europe, you might've gotten the hint that that it wasn't exactly a genuis decision.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I would say the nuking Hiroshima an Nagasaki was necessary. Saving over a million American lives and likely countless more Japanese is a worthy reason, no? The theory of MAD only works when both parties are assured destruction, in the article, it is not. And I agree that a large scale nuclear war, perhaps followed by a brief period of U.S. dominance would be the beginning of a series of wars to end all wars.

I am addressing the moralily of your use of the word neccessary. Forget the article.

Using your reasoning, that a nuke would save more lives in the long run, why didnt you just nuke Iraq, and employ this 'life-saving' method?

[ByaKya]

Quote by: pikatore why didnt you just nuke Iraq, and employ this 'life-saving' method?

ROFL. I like how you boil things down to very simple elements to make peoples opinions look rightfully foolish. Hopefully itll make "gods" mercenary rethink his position

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Matt W That's Blair for you. If you'd bothered to look at the overwhelming public opinion throughout the UK & Europe, you might've gotten the hint that that it wasn't exactly a genuis decision.

Well, I'm sorry you want us to take a poll of all our allies citizens, might take a while. Anyway, I would have assumed that your govt. knew a little more about foriegn policy than your people, we assumed wrong, and both our nations will treat our leaders with a lot more skepticism next time they want a war.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ByaKya ROFL. I like how you boil things down to very simple elements to make peoples opinions look rightfully foolish. Hopefully itll make "gods" mercenary rethink his position

I'm not suggesting again, that this is my opinion, just making sure the authors have someone to make sure it's not too easy to rip them apart, as it is, it's easy enough. Why Nuke Iraq? I'm guessing the authors are assuming we don't have an idiot at the helm who atarts a war against someone who isn't a threat.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, I'm sorry you want us to take a poll of all our allies citizens, might take a while. Anyway, I would have assumed that your govt. knew a little more about foriegn policy than your people, we assumed wrong, and both our nations will treat our leaders with a lot more skepticism next time they want a war.

Heh. Nice.

How about you actually listen to governments who aren't so pally-pally with your own? Blair isn't capable of rational thought when it comes to a 'suggestion' from Bush - and that's something that anyone could see. :rolleyes:

Other allies, as has been pointed out, were incredibly sceptical, yet were brushed aside with barely a comment. Forget about the British issue - and apply it to others.

[pahl]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I would say the nuking Hiroshima an Nagasaki was necessary. Saving over a million American lives and likely countless more Japanese is a worthy reason, no?

I strongly disagree, maybe this is worthy of its own thread?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm again not saying we weren't warned, just that our allies opinions don't always help. Plus calling the russians our allies is a fallacy, they still think we're in the cold war. The french still think they're a world power, so shows how much they know, the one opinion I would have respected among the (from what I remember of the opponents) was the German's.

Either way, the war was a mistake.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: pahl I strongly disagree, maybe this is worthy of its own thread?

I agree with your second statement, I'm wondering how two cities destruction is worse than that of an entire country and an inordinate amount of americans. Plus, the quick end to the war is probably why the Japanese are our allies today.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I agree with your second statement, I'm wondering how two cities destruction is worse than that of an entire country and an inordinate amount of americans. Plus, the quick end to the war is probably why the Japanese are our allies today.

Horoshima and Nagasaki was a political decision, aimed at Russia's expansionism over Europe, in that time.
The objective :
- prevent Russia's domination over Eastern part of Europe, by indicating and demonstrating nuclear power capabilities.
It did not work. Stalin did whatever he planned and accomplished that. The "Cold War Era" was the outcome.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Rainbow Horoshima and Nagasaki was a political decision, aimed at Russia's expansionism over Europe, in that time. The objective : - prevent Russia's domination over Eastern part of Europe, by indicating and demonstrating nuclear power capabilities. It did not work. Stalin did whatever he planned and accomplished that. The "Cold War Era" was the outcome.

Um no, that was only part of it. It was to demonstrate to russia that we were ready willing and able to nuke any country, including russia.
By the time the bomb was dropped, it was already decided that russia would get eastern europe. k thanks

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yah, It was also to make sure that the Soviets didn't invade Japan along with us. They would have demanded at least part of Japan, and that wouldn't be good for anyone

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Yah, It was also to make sure that the Soviets didn't invade Japan along with us. They would have demanded at least part of Japan, and that wouldn't be good for anyone

that more of the reason of why we dropped the bomb, than to save american lives

[Gods_Mercenary]

I doubt that, a million american lives is not something you play around with, especially when the end of the war seems in sight, not a very good morale booster.