australopithecus
Active Member
I have split the topic seeing as it moved away from North Korea.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
australopithecus said:I have split the topic seeing as it moved away from North Korea.
Sparhafoc said:Speaking as a representative of North Korea's government: we're taking names.
I think you are overly optimistic. Even if all the nuclear powers decided tomorrow to dismantle all their nukes, there would be some country ten or twenty years from now, if not at this moment, that would try and build one. The nuclear kitten can't be put back in the box, as much as we'd like to think it would be a very good idea. There is something soothing in having the biggest stick in the neighborhood after all, specially if you are doing things other people don't like.Laurens said:The problem is that allowing anyone to have nukes is going to make other people want them. The world is an uneven playing field so far as nuclear weapons go, some countries have them, some don't. So long as that scenario exists you'll always run the risk of a rogue country coming along and trying to gain some negotiating power on the world stage by developing nuclear weapons. Its also understandable that North Korea might feel threatened having seen what the US had done in Iraq. It would go a long way to solving the issue if the superpowers in the world took meaningful steps towards disarmament. How can someone quite hostile come along and tell you that you can't have any nukes while themselves sitting on a stockpile? The argument for North Korea abandoning their nuclear programme would be bolstered if other major powers were also committed to disarmament. It might seem like pie in the sky, but I think its far more sensible than playing power games with weapons that could kill everyone on the planet.
I agree that it is very optimistic. I do not see another solution though, other than North Korea has nukes and we have to accept that and whatever it might bring.Visaki said:I think you are overly optimistic. Even if all the nuclear powers decided tomorrow to dismantle all their nukes, there would be some country ten or twenty years from now, if not at this moment, that would try and build one. The nuclear kitten can't be put back in the box, as much as we'd like to think it would be a very good idea. There is something soothing in having the biggest stick in the neighborhood after all, specially if you are doing things other people don't like.Laurens said:The problem is that allowing anyone to have nukes is going to make other people want them. The world is an uneven playing field so far as nuclear weapons go, some countries have them, some don't. So long as that scenario exists you'll always run the risk of a rogue country coming along and trying to gain some negotiating power on the world stage by developing nuclear weapons. Its also understandable that North Korea might feel threatened having seen what the US had done in Iraq. It would go a long way to solving the issue if the superpowers in the world took meaningful steps towards disarmament. How can someone quite hostile come along and tell you that you can't have any nukes while themselves sitting on a stockpile? The argument for North Korea abandoning their nuclear programme would be bolstered if other major powers were also committed to disarmament. It might seem like pie in the sky, but I think its far more sensible than playing power games with weapons that could kill everyone on the planet.
Only other option I can think of is that China gives NK, and more importantly Kim in person, security guarantee and a defensive alliance for giving up the nukes. But I'm not that sure it really is an option as I don't know Kim that well.Laurens said:I agree that it is very optimistic. I do not see another solution though, other than North Korea has nukes and we have to accept that and whatever it might bring.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Visaki said:Only other option I can think of is that China gives NK, and more importantly Kim in person, security guarantee and a defensive alliance for giving up the nukes. But I'm not that sure it really is an option as I don't know Kim that well.Laurens said:I agree that it is very optimistic. I do not see another solution though, other than North Korea has nukes and we have to accept that and whatever it might bring.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Sparhafoc said:You must have missed the propaganda bulletin, Tree. China's now our enemy and we're reconfiguring our military capacity to challenge them rather than focus on terrorism.
Mr Mattis has unveiled a broad new strategy for the Defence Department, warning that all aspects of the military's competitive warfighting edge have eroded.
He said building a force that can deter war with established and emerging military powers in Moscow and Beijing, and US enemies such as North Korea and Iran, would require increased investment to make the military more lethal, agile and ready to fight.
Tree said:Yeah you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Tree said:The reconfiguration is done purely as a deterrent and to keep a competitive edge, not because we're going to war.
Tree said:When you're a world power and you want to remain that way, you have to have the capacity to match or surpass the military capacity of other world powers.
Tree said:China pumps a lot of money into its military, why shouldn't the US?
Tree said:Mr Mattis has unveiled a broad new strategy for the Defence Department, warning that all aspects of the military's competitive warfighting edge have eroded.
He said building a force that can deter war with established and emerging military powers in Moscow and Beijing, and US enemies such as North Korea and Iran, would require increased investment to make the military more lethal, agile and ready to fight.
China pumps $161,700,000,000 into its budget while the US pumps $587,800,000,000 into its military budget. But hey, if you're up for having your taxes spent on unnecessarily beating your chest, Go America, I guess!
Tree said:China pumps $161,700,000,000 into its budget while the US pumps $587,800,000,000 into its military budget. But hey, if you're up for having your taxes spent on unnecessarily beating your chest, Go America, I guess!
China is not the only world power and not the only country in general that the US wants to have a competitive edge over.
Maybe your point would be valid if China was the only other country on Earth.
Fail. Try again.
Tree said:Yup, and as I said, that's to keep a competitive edge...
Tree said:... (remember, nobody has successfully invaded US soil),...
Tree said:.... not just against one particular country but even coalitions of other countries...
Tree said:...and also to defend slacking allies that don't pay enough for their own military unfortunately,...
Tree said:but it keeps the world more secure so you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds.
Tree said:Especially those in South Korea, be careful what you wish for because a cut in US military could be done for example by pulling out the 30k soldiers stationed in SK.
Tree said:When the US spent less and cared less about foreign intervention, you got two major wars in Europe and an expanding communist threat.
Tree said:The US also subsidizes the defense of Europe, South Korea, Japan and a few other places it has military bases in, without which the world would be far more chaotic than it already is. If you discount US contributions for example, NATO is far less a potent force.
Tree said:If you think 611 billion is too much, then please state what an "acceptable" number would be in the Gospel of Sparhafoc.
Tree said:Okay, you don't get to make recommendations on how much the US military should spent when you don't even have a fucking clue what an acceptable budget should be and where exactly you would make those cuts if you were in charge.
Tree said:You think too much is spent but you can't even give a number on how much should be spent.
Tree said:Exactly why I need to listen to you?
Tree said:You clearly don't know wtf you're talking about.
Tree said:I think I'll trust the generals more than I will some random leftist with a demonstrable bias against the US.
Tree said:Just point out, competitive doesn't mean equal or slightly above. It's more like overwhelming force so everyone is too afraid to fuck with you.
Tree said:Those bases in foreign countries by the way are only there cause you slack on your own defenses or aren't good enough to defend yourselves.
Tree said:You should be thankful for that, not resent it.
Handling would be a good place to start. There’s definitely a point where speed alone will do more harm than good; worthless and, moreso, absolutely dangerous if the driver can’t even control the car properly, unless the track is a straightaway.Sparhafoc said:As I know you like your off-the-wall analogies, perhaps I can extend one to see if I can permeate the knee-jerk denialism.
Let's imagine we're in an auto racing contest.
Our car's top speed is 4 times higher than the next fastest competitor.
In fact, our car's top speed is faster than the next 8 fastest competitors combined.
Would it be logical, when divining our strategy for the contest to say: what we need is to make our car go faster?
I submit that would not be logical in the slightest. Speed isn't the issue.
Rather, it might be a more practical solution to say: how can we do this more economically?
If we're going to be putting a development budget into future contests, I would say that the budget's portion going towards increasing speed seems rather wasteful. Rather, we might want to look at ways in which our money spent would have more impact.