2008-11-17, 19:41 | Link #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
US Foreign Policy, Nuclear Power, or Whether Most of Us Will Die in the Next 50 Years
this is to carry over a discussion from the other nuclear power thread where going into history and deeper related issues was deemed "unrelated" by some moderator...
anyhow, let me state a few points that I consider important. 1) the US is currently running a very aggressive and dangerous foreign policy. it has been doing more or less the same since WWII, but after the collapse of the USSR, that approach was even escalated - bombings of Serbia, wars in Iraq and Georgia, getting out of nuclear disarmament treaties are just some examples. all that is perceived very negatively in the world, the more negatively, the less US-influenced propaganda there is. 2) nuclear weapons are getting ever more widespread, and this process cannot really be stopped in the long term. 3) earlier or later, this will end with a (most probably single, low-yield) nuclear bomb being exploded in a large US coast city. 4) whether a large-scale nuclear war will occur or not, and whether a single nuclear explosion in a US city will lead to a change of US foreign policy, is open for discussion. Any even remotely related comments are welcome. I dont mind you going into history, talking about analogous conflicts and situations, and discussing anything having even a vague connection to the stated issues, as long as it's articulated. actually, the more historical and related sources you cite, the better. Last edited by Mumitroll; 2008-11-17 at 20:12. |
2008-11-17, 21:15 | Link #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Of the events, the ugliest diplomatic reactions have been the handling of the Russia-Georgia war ("We're all Georgians now"!?) and the encroachment of the ABM towards Russia's borders without paying any heed to Russia's interests. Both are very uncomfortable attitudes to hold. In a slightly different topic, American actions have also been running counter to their rhetoric when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The State Department has been saying that everyone would be better off if they did not pursue nuclear weapons, but the world isn't blind. Everyone can see that Iraq's non-pursuit didn't keep them from being invaded, while North Korea is patently uninvaded. A similar mixed signal can be seen in regards to India, Pakistan and Israel - they have nuclear weapons counter to the NPT, and their statures have generally grown despite (or maybe even because of) that. While the attitude of the U.S. is hardly the only factor at play, I don't think that there's going to be much progress towards a more stable nuclear regime until it's foreign policy undergoes a sea change when it comes to diplomacy. I don't foresee any such major change any time soon, so the world is going to be in for some very interesting times.
__________________
|
|
2008-11-17, 23:54 | Link #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
This was from the other thread but it has something to do with US foreign policy so I'll respond to it here:
Quote:
Nazi Germany was not the target of atomic bombs, but it suffered even more civilian deaths than Japan did. This is especially true when you consider the nature of total war, which involves drafts - near the end of the war, Nazi Germany was drafting 12-year olds into the army. The line between civilians and soldiers has become so blurred by that point that it isn't even clear what constitutes legitimate warfare anymore. Total war is when an entire society is mobilized to fight an enemy that is not just a government, but also the society that supports that government. Civilians are part of the war effort in total war, and therefore they become targets. That's not to say things like the Geneva Convention didn't matter, but it is to say that once some countries started hitting civilian populations in their war efforts, others followed. Warfare is frequently reciprocal - you can't expect one side to "play nice" when the other isn't, particularly when the two sides are evenly matched. The stakes were high during World War II. This wasn't just a limited offensive to achieve specific strategic goals, in which you're trying to minimize casualties in order to save face on the political front. World War II was about total victory versus total defeat. The defeated populations were at the complete mercy of the victorious ones, and they were frequently enslaved or slaughtered. In such a war, "human rights" means very little, and I'm not going to sugarcoat the Allies here by saying that they observed all the proper niceties. They didn't, and to tell you the truth, at the time such niceties have yet to really enter into the socio-political consciousness. World War II really changed a lot of things, and examining history before (and during) it is like looking into a different, much crueler world. That's what I mean by viewing history in context. I'm not justifying what the US did - I'm saying that what it did has to be evaluated relative to what other countries were doing at the time. Would it have been possible to avoid the atomic bombing of Japan? Yes, but it would've required moral and political restraint beyond what most of the countries involved in World War II were exercising, at the time. Think about it - would the Germans or the Japanese have hesitated to use atomic bombs on the Allies, had they developed them first? None of this makes it right to nuke civilians, but it does give you perspective on what the rules of engagement were like during World War II. Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-18 at 00:18. |
|
2008-11-18, 04:05 | Link #4 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Ever since 9/11, I've been wondering to myself when a nuke would be detonated in the harbors of San Franciso, or for that matter, in the middle of any major American city. Not that I want to see it, but the possibility of it no longer seemed absurd to me.
We need a US which is able to look inwards. I'm not saying that they should abandon all their objectives overseas. But, US infrastructure needs some serious fixing. There are some parts of the world that don't exactly welcome you. Take some hints and return home to do some over-due maintenance work? I think Thomas Friedman said it better than myself.
__________________
|
2008-11-18, 04:37 | Link #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
US can't afford another sideshow like the past 7 years. Its soldier needs rest. Outdated equipment needs to be replaced; invest in future weapons (UCAVs, JLTVs, etc). Refine the tactics learned in Afghanistan/Iraq, and come up with a REAL exit strategy just in case they have to do another police work in some godforsaken 4th-world twilight zone
|
2008-11-18, 07:14 | Link #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
The US is not the only countries making nuclear warheads. There is Russia, China, Israel, India, France, etc... Both Russia and China are more than willing to use it if they do end up in a war, not mentioning that Israel is in the same boat.
It is true that the United States has been engaging in wars since the end of WWII, but most of their wars are actually approved by the leaders of the United Nations, such as Russia and China with the exception of the Iraq War. However, which country supported the Republican camp during the American elections? China, China did meaning they are also very supportive of the Iraq War. If all the leaders of the United Nations are against the aggressive American foreign policy in the Middle East, it would not have occurred, yet it did. I wonder why. Generally, in the future.. There may be an outbreak of nuclear war and the invovled countries would most likely be US, China, and Israel. I am not sure whether Russia would do such a thing or not, I don't think they would, but I may be wrong. The chances of India using nukes on Pakistan isn't very likely, because their countries are geographically located next to each other, any country that invokes nukes will end up hit by the radiation due to wind blows. |
2008-11-18, 07:16 | Link #8 | ||||||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
Quote:
a similar picture exists in Ukraine. the so-called "Orange Revolution" there was also heavily US-sponsored (through shady NGOs). the current Ukrainian president Yuschenko's wife is a former US Dept of State employee. imagine a similar situation the other way round - if Russia sponsored fake "revolutions" in Mexico and Canada, installed KGB employees as their presidents, supplied them with weapons, and supported a war by say Mexico to reclaim its South Californian territories stolen from it by the US in the 1840s. how would you react to that? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think, rather, it was an amazing display of cruelty and coldbloodedness along with a complete contempt for the Japanese. a mentality along the lines of "better a 100,000 of those yellow-faced Japs die than a few of our boys". what is most amazing is that those people - I saw a recent report with an interview with the crew of the Enola Gay - still believe (or believed - pilot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets died last year) they were in the "right". that is.. i'm at a loss for words. a case for psychotherapy. how can you even go on living knowing that you have instantly killed a hundred thousand innocent people, women, children? i'd commit suicide in their place. Quote:
if the US abandoned at least some aspects of that ludicrous policy, the world would be much better off. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
the only one that I can think of which had UN approval was the '91 Gulf War because that was clearly started by Saddam attacking Kuwait, and the US was merely disciplining him to stay in line. the funny thing is of course that Saddam had been consistently supported by the US with weapons and aid prior to that. in Nicaragua as i've said the US was even judged guilty of aggression and ordered to pay billions of reparations by the World Court. on the other hand, with many conflicts where there are clear UN resolutions - such as Rwanda, Congo or Sudan - the US doesnt want to provide any troops because it's uninteresting geopolitically. Quote:
Quote:
http://nasir-khan.blogspot.com/2008/...t-embargo.html actually if you go and look up the history of UN voting, you will find that in the OVERWHELMING majority of cases where a meaningful and good resolution is voted against, it's the US and its 51st state who do it. that isnt really published in Western media, but you can look it all up on the UN site. its public information. want a few examples? lets look at nuclear disarmament which teh other thread was about. instead of empty babble as to why Iran is crazy and would launch nukes, and how the US should prevent nuclear proliferation, you should just take a look at the US voting record in the UN on nuclear disarmament. brace yourself. the US has the worst voting record of all other nations in history on nuclear disarmament. It was the only one to oppose ALL 15 UN resolutions on nuclear disarmament last year. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...rd.php?krieger its the same for votes to condemn terrorism - US has consistently voted "no" because its own actions can be interpreted as terrorism by the UN charter, reducing nuclear testing - the US has consistently voted "no" because it actively develops nuclear weapons, prohibiting chemical and biological weapons - the US has consistently voted "no" because it wants to go on developing them, and even completely ludicrous votes like "no" on the human right to food and work - because that might mean the US would have to allocate money for UN programs in the 3rd World giving people food and work. anyhow, just look at http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html or http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1132usun.html or something.. Quote:
whether that will be before or after a single nuclear bomb is exploded by terrorists in a US or Israeli city - dont know. regarding large-scale nuclear war - Russia vs US vs China - that is the least likely of the existing scenarios. still, with the way the US behaves recently towards Russia, it is becoming ever more realistic. Last edited by Mumitroll; 2008-11-18 at 08:31. |
||||||||||||||
2008-11-18, 09:36 | Link #9 | |
I've been Kawarolled
|
Quote:
and as for listening to the UN? because it is, if not MORE defunct than the league of nations, it is absolutely punchless and worthless |
|
2008-11-18, 10:13 | Link #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Hah! That's a good one! The organization that is most responsible for nonproliferation, and has done the best job of it so far has been the IAEA. Now, take a guess at what the relationship between the IAEA and the UN is...
__________________
|
2008-11-18, 10:33 | Link #11 |
I've been Kawarolled
|
but im not talking specifically about nuclear proliferation, but rather as a whole
look at the glorious job U.N. peace keeping has done in Africa or whatnot, or even the palestinian territories hello rwanda oh well the majority of the middle east is a massive catastrophe, the anglo-franco division of the region in the post WW1 period of time was about as bad as it could've been. Iraq....are you freaking joking 0_0, jesus freaking christ ...irrationality at its best, lets put nationalistic kurds alongside with shiites and sunnis, throw in some good holy sites and call it a country. the DMZ along the north/south korean border is like the only true success/non-botched effort i have seen them carry through. Its not that its a bad organization...in principle its good, but its so antiquarian in a globalized age, it is a relic of early 20th century positivism which of course...doesnt work period. if they truly had any balls, when these random belligerent countries kick their Nuke inspectors out, they should forcefully petition for re-entry, not take this laissez faire "hope for the best" attitude. Doesn't help that oil producing countries have them by the balls. |
2008-11-18, 10:53 | Link #12 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
Quote:
regarding Palestina its even easier. look at who the major military power there is, and who provides it with weapons and aid. do you think any independent peacekeeping mission against those has any chance? it's really sad that Western media popularize this idiotic image of the UN being a "powerless organization unable to do anything". what they forget to mention is WHY that is the case. the UN is in fact pretty much in agreement if you subtract the US+Israel. but those two, especially the US of course which as a SC member has veto power - they sabotage nearly everything the UN tries to do. just look at the voting records. |
||
2008-11-18, 12:11 | Link #13 |
I've been Kawarolled
|
and since when has Israel ever attacked a U.N. peace keeping force?!?!?!
as for your first response, i peg it upon no single source, but on the track record of the U.N. in the last 20-30 years. I'm not even going to get into the Israeli-palestinian conflict in depth as its just veering off course, and quite frankly, i'd probably offend you with my opinion based upon my life experiences. (hint. i dodged scud missiles once, and daily katuysha bombardments another time) as for these 2 screwing up every resolution, i beg to differ maybe you should look at some other countries voting records. Granted the US hasn't exactly been a saint, but pinning most of the blame on it solely isn't exactly truthful to the main issue at hand. Every country has its own personal agenda, and that in and on itself is the reason the UN is a antique of the past in this modern age. The two can't exist, the ideals the UN itself is based on have been exposed as a sham - consider it a victim of the most violent century in human history as the evidence. |
2008-11-18, 13:06 | Link #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
Israel's anti-ICBM missile net is not perfect. It is easier to fire thousands of missiles, while a few carrying nuclear warheads, while it is extremely difficult to actually intercept 50% of it. Although the government had been investing billions of dollars into such devices, but its actual usage is pretty questionable. |
|
2008-11-18, 13:42 | Link #15 | |
I've been Kawarolled
|
Quote:
last time i checked, and i quote "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," isn't the language and dialogue of peaceful solution, sounds more like a call for genocide. give me factual support stating that israel objectively is announcing its intentions to nuke Iran instigatively and as the aggressor, otherwise you lose all legitimacy in my eyes. Baseless jests are worthless. for the record, israel officially "doesn't have" nuclear weapons and has never made a statement saying it has them. So finding factual statements from a state that hasn't officially announced its possession of nuclear weapons is going to be impossible, Hence a=b, b=c, a=c your jest is based on whims and nonexisting evidence. |
|
2008-11-18, 14:50 | Link #17 |
I've been Kawarolled
|
im not disagreeing they are war monger, they are, its in there culture, look at the people who have led the country...almost unanimously war heroes / military figures of some sort. But if you had a history like that, wouldn't you? Especially with the compulsory military service etc.
|
2008-11-18, 15:25 | Link #18 | |||||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
http://www.moqavemat.com/?lang=en&st...s&row_id=33107 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017864.html http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...li_bomb_ki.php Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
in fact, were if not for the US, the UN would be much more effective and powerful even today. Quote:
Quote:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...ss_destruction |
|||||||
2008-11-18, 16:01 | Link #20 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|