<p>Speak softly and carry a big stick!</p>
<p>
[quote]
We saved the world. Twice. Iran and North Korea haven't. We have proven that we can be responsible, while many of the other nations have not.
[/quote]
We did not save the world.
1. "World War" is a misnomer since the majority of the fighting in both wars occured in Europe
2. So if the Central Powers/Axis had won, they would have destroyed the world?
The Central Powers in WWI had little desire to take over anything. The war was caused by a politically-motivated assassination and not a desire for additional imperialistic possessions. If we had never entered the war then, at worst, France, Britain, and Russia would have suffered a little economically instead of Germany and Austria-Hungary. So we transferred the economic problems of some countries onto different countries. So much for saving the world.
Even if the Germans and Japanese had taken over the world in WWII, they would not have destroyed it. All dictators are deposed eventually. There were multiple attempts on Hitler's life during the relatively short six years of WWII--imagine how many more there would have been had he become ruler of an enlarged German empire. Sure, he would've killed off all the Jews and homosexuals and gypsys and socialists. In that case, we saved the Jews and homosexuals and gypsys and socialists, not the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We may not be perfect, but we are closer to that state than our enemies.
[/quote]
They are not our "enemies" until we say so. Guess who gave Iraq any WMDs that they may have had? Us, back in their war with Iran in the 80s. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not everyone is entitled to nukes, just like not everyone is entitled to own an assault rifle of handgun. You have to earn the right to get these weapons...
[/quote]
And who decides who gets to own nukes? America? Shall we be the little kid who hogs all the candy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Britain and France wanted to appease Hitler. They signed treaties, hoped for peace, and didn't want to start the war against someone who is probably not intending to do harm to anyone. Besides, they did not have any right to attack a sovereign country.</p>
<p>Think about that my liberal friends.
[/quote]
Hitler had the capability to harm Britain and France. If you think that Iraq remotely had any capacity to do significant damage, then please reconsider.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hitler had the capability to harm Britain and France. If you think that Iraq remotely had any capacity to do significant damage to us here in America, then get off the computer and go see a psychiatrist.
[/quote]
We'll never know. But would you rather be careful and keep your people safe or trust the dictator and face the consequences?</p>
<p>gzhang are you an American?</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. "World War" is a misnomer since the majority of the fighting in both wars occured in Europe
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is arguable. Much of Italy's fighting was in Africa, as was Germany's (think Rommel.) And Japan was definitely not fighting in Europe, and was definitely a significant player along with China and Korea.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The war was caused by a politically-motivated assassination and not a desire for additional imperialistic possessions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Arguable as well. This served as a catalyst, but it was likely caused by the arms race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And who decides who gets to own nukes? America? Shall we be the little kid who hogs all the candy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must"
~Thucydides</p>
<p>I realize this is a bit contrite, but I think it sums up a realist IR theoretical foundation pretty well. Why shouldn't the stronger established powers seek to limit the number of nuclear powers? For one, do we really want a world where everyone has nukes...especially countries that do not have stable regimes? I mean, is it a good thing that the former USSR cannot account for many nukes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hitler had the capability to harm Britain and France. If you think that Iraq remotely had any capacity to do significant damage to us here in America, then get off the computer and go see a psychiatrist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it didn't. But it was, back in the 90s and early naughts, seen as a potentially destabilizing power in a region that was already unstable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
They are not our "enemies" until we say so. Guess who gave Iraq any WMDs that they may have had? Us, back in their war with Iran in the 80s.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Enemy is, by nature, a subjective term anyway. Besides, should we have just continued to support Hussein because we did in the past?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We saved the world. Twice.
[/quote]
That made my day. Can I post you to bash.org please?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not everyone is entitled to nukes, just like not everyone is entitled to own an assault rifle of handgun. You have to earn the right to get these weapons...
[/quote]
Again, the question is: who is deciding who is right and who is wrong? If you would understand reality, you would see that there IS NO absolute evil or absolute kindness.
War is not a Hollywood movie; there are no bad guys and good guys.</p>
<p>To address the original question, all of them. The military power of the United States of America is so spectacular that it is frightening. Its resources are endless. It can be easy to forget, what with the half-hearted piddling going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if the U.S. really wanted to it could literally wipe humanity off the face of the earth.</p>
<p>Believe it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its resources are endless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Err...this is why we're severely overextended militarily? :confused:</p>
<p>I'm talking about America's WMDs.</p>
<p>Yes, but WMD are pretty much useless outside of their role as a deterrent. I mean, we can't exactly use the darn things, and they don't really help us to sniff out insurgents. They're just big fat resource drains that you need to have in order to tell the other countries that you can drain resources more than they can.</p>
<p>Tell that to the ghosts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wasn't that long ago.</p>
<p>You're missing a key difference here: there were no other states with nukes then. There was no such thing as MAD. The US had, for the first and last time in history, a monopoly on the use of nuclear weaponry.</p>
<p>Today, that's not the case. Using nukes today would be a strategic mistake, considering how many other states possess them and can actually deliver them. This means that the weapons, at least from a strategic perspective, no longer are feasible for use in standard warfare. After all, we can nuke a country, but we'll be nuked in the process as well, making the costs of use too high to bear.</p>
<p>This means that nukes are no longer anything but a deterrent, just like I said.</p>
<p>That doesn't rule out the possibility of some dictator from some rogue nation in the Middle East or Asia going mad and launching nukes at the U.S. And if that ever happened, you can bet that the U.S. would strike back a hundred fold.</p>
<p>Nukes are there for deterence, but they are also there for a very practical reason: the worst-case scenario. That is, kill them before they can kill us.</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio,</p>
<p>I hope you realize that none but the most technologically advanced nations really possess the ability to use nukes in a strategic fashion like you describe. The US, China, France, UK, and to a lesser extent the DPRK are the only countries that can even hope of using ICBMs. Heck, I think that France's deterrence is largely limited to SRMs or LRMs. </p>
<p>You're also ignoring the fact that the "rogue nation going mad" scenario is extremely unlikely. Dictators are cruel, but they're usually not stupid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We'll never know. But would you rather be careful and keep your people safe or trust the dictator and face the consequences?
[/quote]
By your logic we should nuke the rest of the world just to be safe. After all, any of them could attack us at any time!</p>
<p>
[quote]
gzhang are you an American?
[/quote]
Yes, I am a proud American. That is why I am debating with you right now. If I didn't care I wouldn't bother trying to make my country better by expressing my opinions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is arguable. Much of Italy's fighting was in Africa, as was Germany's (think Rommel.) And Japan was definitely not fighting in Europe, and was definitely a significant player along with China and Korea.
[/quote]
Northern Africa can practically be considered a part of Europe historically because of the navigability of the Mediterranean.
Korea was a conquered Japanese province and provided minimal resistance. China was prostrated by its own civil war and was really doing little to halt the advance of the Japanese at the time. I'm not saying that the Pacific War wasn't significant, but it was only between the United States, Japan, and China to a much lesser extent. The European theater involved the US, Britain, Germany, the USSR, and the resistances of all the German-occupied nations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arguable as well. This served as a catalyst, but it was likely caused by the arms race.
[/quote]
My point is that a victory in WWI for the Central Powers would not have signalled the end of the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must"
~Thucydides</p>
<p>I realize this is a bit contrite, but I think it sums up a realist IR theoretical foundation pretty well. Why shouldn't the stronger established powers seek to limit the number of nuclear powers? For one, do we really want a world where everyone has nukes...especially countries that do not have stable regimes? I mean, is it a good thing that the former USSR cannot account for many nukes?
[/quote]
OK, I should have explained myself better. I don't think that unstable nations should have nukes and if I ever said or implied that, I'm sorry. I was only attempting to expose the foolishness of the quoted poster's ethnocentric viewpoint. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, it didn't. But it was, back in the 90s and early naughts, seen as a potentially destabilizing power in a region that was already unstable.
[/quote]
Back in the 90s we fought a justified war against Iraq. I had no problems with that.
Simply being a destabilizing force does not justfiy military intervention, especially by the US. If Israel has a problem with Iraq then let them deal with it themselves. Besides, I don't think you can claim that Iraq is any more stable today than it was during Saddam's rule. In fact, I think you can imply the opposite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Enemy is, by nature, a subjective term anyway. Besides, should we have just continued to support Hussein because we did in the past?
[/quote]
No. I just think it's kind of hypocritical invading a country to get rid of WMDs that we put there in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope you realize that none but the most technologically advanced nations really possess the ability to use nukes in a strategic fashion like you describe. The US, China, France, UK, and to a lesser extent the DPRK are the only countries that can even hope of using ICBMs. Heck, I think that France's deterrence is largely limited to SRMs or LRMs.
[/quote]
You forgot Russia, the heavy hitter. Plus India, Pakistan, and Israel.
The DPRK really has little potential to do any significant harm to the United States. Their missiles don't reach anywhere close to inter-continental range and the "nuke" that they tested was only a fraction of the strength of Hiroshima.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're also ignoring the fact that the "rogue nation going mad" scenario is extremely unlikely. Dictators are cruel, but they're usually not stupid.
[/quote]
I completely agree with this statement. Good call.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northern Africa can practically be considered a part of Europe historically because of the navigability of the Mediterranean.
Korea was a conquered Japanese province and provided minimal resistance. China was prostrated by its own civil war and was really doing little to halt the advance of the Japanese at the time. I'm not saying that the Pacific War wasn't significant, but it was only between the United States, Japan, and China to a much lesser extent. The European theater involved the US, Britain, Germany, the USSR, and the resistances of all the German-occupied nations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it wasn't. It also took place in many of the Pacific islands, as well as Australia to a minor extent. Plus, you're discounting the fact that the Japanese killed almost as many in China as the Germans did in Europe. Number of countries does not mean that a war is more important. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Back in the 90s we fought a justified war against Iraq. I had no problems with that.
Simply being a destabilizing force does not justfiy military intervention, especially by the US. If Israel has a problem with Iraq then let them deal with it themselves. Besides, I don't think you can claim that Iraq is any more stable today than it was during Saddam's rule. In fact, I think you can imply the opposite.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. But keep in mind that a lot of people, including many other nations, felt that Iraq had reason to be contained, even violently. Hindsight is 20/20, as always. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No. I just think it's kind of hypocritical invading a country to get rid of WMDs that we put there in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it depends. What if the nature of the regime turned out far worse than we expected in the first place?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You forgot Russia, the heavy hitter. Plus India, Pakistan, and Israel.
The DPRK really has little potential to do any significant harm to the United States. Their missiles don't reach anywhere close to inter-continental range and the "nuke" that they tested was only a fraction of the strength of Hiroshima.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Russia is the only one on your list that counts. India and Pakistan do not possess ICBMs with the requisite range. Israel's nukes are mostly MRBMs and SRBMs. </p>
<p>The DPRK's Taepo Dong II, under very specific circumstances, could reach the West Coast. But the cost of fighting with them is more the fact that they'd level Seoul and Tokyo if they were attacked.</p>
<p>"The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must"
~Thucydides</p>
<p>Jackpot!!! Bingo!!!</p>
<p>I suspected that-as usual- the discussion will go on for few more pages before someone figures it out.</p>
<p>But tell me UCLAri: isn't much easier for us to present this fact, call reality (which it is), and expect others to 'suck it up' and 'get used to it'? Isn't it?</p>
<p>We are so fortunate being who we are at this short, but significant stage of history.</p>
<p>melbusefi,</p>
<p>The one thing that is different today is the presence of international institutions that serve to perhaps realize a liberalist (in the IR sense) world of interdependence-based peace.</p>
<p>I'm not a total realist (in the IR sense.)</p>
<p>BTW UCLAri, others (non-americans) would have more respect for us if our politicians get up and be as frank as you are (and others on this thread). But I don't think respect is an important element in the game.</p>
<p>Big part of our strength is being able to manipulate others. The recent events (last 5-8 years) weakened this front of ours. We should get back on track and find trickier ways than war to stay on top. It's all about staying on the top of others.</p>
<p>"The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must"
~Thucydides</p>
<p>Im sure you're saying with different gestures, but this should be my signature on the forum.</p>
<p>"I'm not a total realist (in the IR sense.)"</p>
<p>How so? Do disagree with Thucydides' quote?</p>