The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

America has the most efficient, well trained, well protected, and well armed military in the history of the world -without- nukes. Even with conventional weapons they could reduce many, if not most nations to rubble. you -already- have the "big stick".

I'm aware of this; about 10 years go I read some report that stated that just one of our carrier groups is the military superior to all but 4 countries on earth. That doesn't mean it would be wise to divest ourselves of our nuclear weapons in a world where other nations have them, and more are likely to gain them in the future.

Neighbours?
You expecting Mexico or Canada to invade, or don't you understand what a neighbour is?
European nations have neighbours, America is a collective -mass-.

Oh, hang on, Mexico is already invading you

In the modern world, with aircraft and missiles, neighbors can include nations on other continents.

And this brings me to a pet peeve. We are "The United States of America", but colloquially, we are often referred to as "America", which is not accurate. America is the short version of "North America", which is a continent, not a nation.

[Skydiver]

Because they can? How many communist / facist / authoritarian type nations have attacked their apparently weaker neighbors in the past?

The human race is a predator species. It's in our nature. It's part of what allowed us to rise to the top of the food chain on this planet.

In that situation, I think it's best to have the biggest stick.

IMHO, the people that would be the most likely to attack us unprovoked are the ones that will do it already. Countries in the name of jihad that believe they have a divine right to wage war on all us infidels.

In other words, they're already going to heaven to collect their virgins so would attack us even if we had nukes to fire back.

[mad_gater]

IMHO, the people that would be the most likely to attack us unprovoked are the ones that will do it already. Countries in the name of jihad that believe they have a divine right to wage war on all us infidels.

In other words, they're already going to heaven to collect their virgins so would attack us even if we had nukes to fire back.

yeah...they think they're gonna collect 70 - 80 virgins....turns out it's one 70 - 80 year-old virgin

[garhkal]

Guaranty, Schmaranty, How could we know if everyone stuck to their word? What are the odd that everyone will? And is it worth taking a chance with the survival of the nation at stake?

Hence why all these 'deals' the left wants us to yet again negotiate with iran/china/north korea are pointless as they never seem to adhere to them and don't get punished when they break them.

Why? Why would they attack us?

'Oh look, they're unarmed, let's go get em!!!!' for no reason?

How many countries have had massive rhetoric about 'death to america'? Quite a few in the mid/far east.. And you don't think a single one of them would be more than willing to strike america if we disarmed??

[Skydiver]

Like I said, they'd do it whether we have nukes or not.

They attack us and our allies attack them

[Gatefan1976]

Allies?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonard...Q4A#.xiwmgElWr

[Womble]

Like I said, they'd do it whether we have nukes or not.

Only once they have the nukes.

They attack us and our allies attack them

But will they? Or will they choose to stay out of a costly fight?

Here's a simple litmus test of whether or not you believe that. Suppose tomorrow China occupies Taiwan. Would you support an all-out war against China to defend an ally? What about China vs. the Philippines? China vs. Japan? Basically, name an ally whom you would not advise the USA to abandon to their fate had they been attacked by a nuclear power - not necessarily nuked but attacked under the cover of nuclear weapons as deterrent from resistance.

Test 2: suppose it's not possible to completely disarm North Korean nuclear arsenal by way of conventional military strike; their underground missile silos are too well protected to be taken out. What would you suggest in response to North Korean nuclear bomb dropped on Seoul? On Guam? On LA?

[Annoyed]

Like I said, they'd do it whether we have nukes or not.

They attack us and our allies attack them

Do you really think we could count on our allies to take up arms for the United States?
And this is assuming that they even have the capability to take on NK, or most of our other potential enemies, which many do not.

[Skydiver]

Do you really think we could count on our allies to take up arms for the United States?
And this is assuming that they even have the capability to take on NK, or most of our other potential enemies, which many do not.

Being afraid that they will be next, they will be motivated.

Will they go full fledged to support us? Nah. But the fear of unifiied repriasal will deter

Which could be how th world eventually disarms.....its' less 'how many nukes the US has' but 'how many nukes the alliance has' with an. agreement that is one of them is attacked, they all are attacked.

We'll probably never get rid of them all because the insecure and the afraid will not give up their big stick. But get down to each country havei get 1 or 2, with the agreement that one supports the rest so it's a gang mentality kinda thing....but also control in that all or a majority of the gang needs to agree to fire before we go dooming the world to armageddon over a disagreement.

[Falcon Horus]

If you're referring to the "Like the world has never seen" aspect, he's right. Nuclear weapons today are hundreds of times more powerful than those used on Japan in WWII.

The world has seen the devastating affects and can perfectly imagine the likes of MOAB what a 15 kiloton nuclear warhead would be like.

It has been done before -- we know what it looks like and that it will be worse. No imagination required.

That's cause with unions, if the UNION Doesn't get their demand met, they go on strike.

Did you know that everyone benefits from these terms -- every employee no matter whether they are part of a union or not. We're all equal in these matters so when something upsets the workforce, it's the entire workforce that has to take the setback and occasionally that can cause some upheavel.

We are in agreement over the use of nukes to end WWII. In addition to casualties among U.S./Allied servicemen, there would have been far more Japanese casualties if the Allies had been forced to invade Japan and fight our way to Hirohito's castle and pry him out of it. As you note, they fought with what I call religious fervor, I believe they thought their leaders were gods. The final outcome was never in question; by that time Japan could not have stood against the U.S. alone, let alone the allies and the US together.

People are still dying today thanks to those nukes.

Ignoring hindsight for a bit, the nukes were overkill. Japan is a bloody island -- plenty of ways to cut it off from the world, if you ask me.

I suggest you watch the documentary I saw two weeks ago about both bombs. It was truly horrifying.
I wish I knew the title but unfortunately we didn't see the beginning.

And I really don't think the U.S. will strike first, nuclear or otherwise.
But if Kim strikes first, we should respond with overwhelming power, without using nukes if the goal can be achieved without them.

If the US strikes first, China will side with North-Korea. If NK strikes first, China will be neutral.
It's a loose-loose for NK in that case, but is the US willing to go up against China -- again?

Chemical weapons are fairly easy to protect against and weren't terribly effective even in World War I when protective gear was uncommon...

Several thousands of men buried in the fields of Flanders and the north of France seem to have a different opinion on that.

WE ARE not all one united world.. So we shouldn't act like it.

But we are all living on the same planet so you're gonna have to find a way to act like it.

The human race is a predator species. It's in our nature. It's part of what allowed us to rise to the top of the food chain on this planet.

And humanity will also be our downfall.

America is the short version of "North America", which is a continent, not a nation.

And yet, when trying to explain the European Union it seems hard to understand that we're all different countries with our own goverments -- many Americans really don't get that either.

Do you really think we could count on our allies to take up arms for the United States?
And this is assuming that they even have the capability to take on NK, or most of our other potential enemies, which many do not.

I have a feeling Trumpiewumpie can deal with it himself.

If he can't be bothered with NATO-allies, I suggest NATO should flip him the finger altogether.
And we're keeping your nukes too.

[Annoyed]

If the US strikes first, China will side with North-Korea. If NK strikes first, China will be neutral.
It's a loose-loose for NK in that case, but is the US willing to go up against China -- again?
----
If he can't be bothered with NATO-allies, I suggest NATO should flip him the finger altogether.
And we're keeping your nukes too.

1: That's what they SAY. Is that what they will do? I have my doubts.

2: Anyone in NATO strong enough to keep them? Sorry, you don't want us, you don't get to keep our nukes.

[Skydiver]

But we are all living on the same planet so you're gonna have to find a way to act like it.

That's the key right there. ONE PLANET. One nation's disaster affects the rest of the world. Even if it's just an outpouring of assistance, one crisis ripples around the globe. Be it a huge earth quake, tsunami or war, it still generates refugees, needs for help and destabilization that hits everyone.

BUt as long as we cling to this 'mine is bigger, stay off my lawn' attitude, nothing will change. As long as we pillage the future for short term profit, nothing will change. As long as we cling to this 'i can win a nuclear war' fantasy, nothing will change. The ONLY thing that wins in a nuclear war is the next species that rises to dominance.

But the fear mongering continues because some would rather cling to their big stick as they cower in the corner, afraid of what's out there, rather than step out and join the rest and learn how to live as a single planet, not a grouping of petty bickering children.

[Gatefan1976]

It's not a big stick they are clinging to Sky

[Gatefan1976]

Do you really think we could count on our allies to take up arms for the United States?
And this is assuming that they even have the capability to take on NK, or most of our other potential enemies, which many do not.

Our PM has already said he will, and I'm sure other nations will follow suit, not because trump -demands- it, but because your allies respect the US, even with the moron currently behind the desk.
That's how allies work.

[jelgate]

I bet Australia is playing the long game for when a child isn't in charge. That seems to be the nature of diplomacy