Ashmo said:
Extortion? So blackmailing other countries into not attacking them is an action not worth being pointed out as questionable?
Well Ashmo- In the last 60 years there have been no more cases of "total war" in part because of the threat of nuclear weapons from the two states that had the most= a success of deterrence. The development of western europe owes quite a bit to the deterrence of the US nuclear umbrella.
All things being considered, deterrence is not a bad policy and has kept us out of another major war (war between major powers). Since world war 2 there have been more wars, sure. But those were minor compared to the possible.
Ok, so I am trying to prove the the non-occurrence of something is due to a cause- a difficult thing to prove. Yes, but considering that the Great Peace of the 19th Century lasted less than 50 years, that's not bad.
Oh and someone made a comment about the US demobilising it's nuclear weapons. The only time that has really been considered was during the 1950s when the Soviets paid Picasso to do that Peacedoves bit. This was at a time when the conventional power favored the Soviets and they were developing nuclear and missile technology to compete with the US.
IT would have been a coup had the Soviets been able to get the US to unilaterally demobilize based on a promise that they would too. Such a policy would have been insane.
If the US won't get rid of their nukes and even consider developing more advanced tactical nukes for field use, why should any other country then dispose of their nukes or cease further construction of nukes?
That is a good point. The US loses the moral high ground on this debate because it abides by the national imperative of maintaining security through deterrence.
With a fascistoid government that seems to threaten to invade every country that opposes it the US isn't exactly someone I'd negotiate with without having a good reason not to invade my country.
As much as I dislike Bush, I wouldn't call him a facist. And your use of facism here is perhaps a bit too stretched. Don't forget, democracies have been imperialists too.
I think you're perception is being limited to recent events while a longer term view might help. North Korea and South Korea never made peace, and over the past 50 years, the NOrth Koreans have committed acts that would be normally considered acts of war.
Furthermore the use of force as a coercive instrument to force the policies of other countries has a history that goes back to
Thucydides-
For we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice enters only where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must"
But also from Thucydides-
Wars spring from unseen and generally insignificant causes, the first outbreak being often but an explosion of anger.
Sad truth, but there you have it. The history of the world is of countries making demands form others.
The main threat the US is facing right now is radical terrorism and terrorists don't need nuclear missiles to lead a war and they don't have a nation that can be attacked or blackmailed into peace.
THe destruction of a major US city would, I think, hurt the US severely. WOuld it destroy the US as the major power in the world, probably not.
No, the threat to the US is the country that can destroy many of our cities, and thereby destroy the economic power of the country and the social structure that depends upon that economic vitality.
And that would be a very sad day.
National Security is threatened by that which can most undercut the things a country values most.
But I would also argue that those threats can come from domestic sources as well. If the price of fighting terrorism is the sacrifice of our democracy, than it is our own policies that we must fear.
I think that, apart from the fact that the US is once again leading its wars OUTSIDE its borders, those terrorists are doing pretty fine against the almighty superpower.
The US defense budget is, I believe, currently only about 5% of GNP (5% might be the entire budget, but I don't think so). That's huge in absolute terms, but still not so significant in relative terms.
IN the end, the war in Iraq, even with near 1,500 dead, is still little more than minor bushfire war in a little corner of the world.
A war in North Korea- that would be more serious.
I also think that in the long run, unless the US changes its policy towards terrorism from military assault to prevention, the US cannot win that war.
Not only that, but it's cheaper on the tax dollar, even if those payoffs to defense contractors are less significant.
Yes, I agree. THis war on terrorism is, I think-
(1) A knee jerk reaction to 9-11
(2) The completion of a family project
(3) directed towards the long-term economic interests of the US in energy
(4) Could probably have been avoided decades ago.
I think I worry too much. Maybe I should just ignore politics and be a productive member of society and lock up my brain in a fallout shelter. It'd sure make some things a lot easier.
ACtually you make some good points.
