Moab
Gazaar
Join Date: 2002-03-31 Member: 366Banned
Join Date: 2002-03-31 Member: 366Banned
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">aka Mother of All Bombs</div> Guess what kiddies. The US pulls it off again by creating another incredibly destructive force. The MOAB, technical name is Massive Ordinance Air Blast. It's a giant 21,000lb non-nuclear bomb. It is the most powerful non-nuclear device that is known to man. It's big, red, and can be felt, and heard from 30 miles away. Yeah. 30 miles away. Isn't it fun how the US goes 'OMG SADDAM LOSE YOUR WEAPONS' /me goes and creates one of the most destructive forces known to man. Give your thoughts.
Comments
Japan is still feeling the effects of the 2 nukes over 50 years ago
Not so with NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) weapons. The effects of those can be difficult to assess, and can last a lot longer. Chemical is the least nasty of the three, but with bio you can have a cascading epidemic of disease that lasts indefinitely, and of course with nuclear the effects last for the length of half-life.
The U.S. and many others have long had NBC capabilities, but do not have a history of using them lightly. Saddam is the only guy since WWI I think to use chemical attacks as a military tactic.
It is healthy and normal to distrust the United States, as I think the world is best seen in shades of gray. But by that same token, the bomb in question is not a significant military development, and should really be viewed as a highly inefficient method of overkill designed to avert combat through fear. (If that fails, they still have the option of following up with DEATH.) I suppose there are some underground targets for which this would be the weapon of choice, but in that case I'd hardly say this method was better or worse than others that have been used in the past. Hell, the Soviets saved a little cash by flooding caves with kerosene and lighting it off. Is that any better just because they saved money?
This weapon is not going to kill more people than other weapons, nor hurt more in doing so. Smashing a bug with a sledge hammer instead of a swatter doesn't hurt any more or less. But if it scares some other bugs away, it could be argued that it benefits them, if the silent swatter didn't convince them to flee.
(I'm not suggesting human beings are bugs, but I think the analogy works.)
Well, it depends. Is Agent Orange a weapon or a destructive utility?
On the MOAB, well, so the Pentagon got itself another kind of bomb. It's a little contradicting to the usual 'precision warfare' one hears from them nowadays, but aside from that, it's another thing making boom. End of story.
It's a defoliant. They used it to kill all the plants in an area of jungle to deny the "enemy" the use of it as cover. The jungle is a lot less dense without leaves. It was a very hazardous material and a lot of people got sick, but it was not intended as a weapon.
Regarding precision- of course this particular bomb is not a precision weapon. If it is anything like its predecessor, the 15k lb Daisy Cutter, it is manually pushed out of the back of a C-130 still strapped to a palette.
But they're not going to drop one of these on a city. Regardless of what you think of their ethics, their highest ethic is for their own interest, and it's not in their interest to kill civilians. These kinds of bombs are really only useful for destroying underground bunkers (if not by direct hit, by removing enough earth around the structure to cause collapse.) I think the idea is to take out a military target and make a lot of noise while doing so, to hopefully cause more of the Iraqi military to throw in the towel. If you're at an anti-aircraft emplacement, one in a chain of defenses five miles apart, and you see and hear the blast from one of your comrades getting blown up 30 miles away, it might lead to your decision to surrender, and not only save your life, but most importantly from the attacker's standpoint, mean less work.
Big bombs like these are not any better at killing civilians, because civilians are not hardened targets. The best way to kill a lot of civilians is to have a huge radius of effect, even if at any one point you're not doing much damage. That's because civilians are spread out over a large area, and aren't hard to kill. A big bomb like what we're talking about does an enormous amount of damage in one area, but most of that damage is redundant, because anyone there eating lunch on their patio would have been dead even from a smaller bomb. Meanwhile, all the people living five miles away are untouched.
Killing lots of civilians doesn't require new technology, so don't assume that every time the U.S. builds something new that that is the goal. Even without nuclear weapons, any country with an air force is capable of killing very high numbers of civilians with low-tech bombs, without ever attacking by land. On one night alone in WWII, B-29s dropped napalm on Tokyo, which was largely made out of wooden buildings at the time. They destroyed about 250,000 buildings, killed over 80,000 people, and wounded 40,000. Doesn't take much.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL. That just creates funny pictures in my head. Like a Red Alert 2 airship with a captain on the deck, at his huge wooden wheel, yelling to the bosun: bombs ahoy. And marines struggles to push this humongous "black iron ball" bomb out of the back while a big white fuse is slowly hissing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But they're not going to drop one of these on a city. Regardless of what you think of their ethics, their highest ethic is for their own interest, and it's not in their interest to kill civilians. These kinds of bombs are really only useful for destroying underground bunkers (if not by direct hit, by removing enough earth around the structure to cause collapse.) I think the idea is to take out a military target and make a lot of noise while doing so, to hopefully cause more of the Iraqi military to throw in the towel. If you're at an anti-aircraft emplacement, one in a chain of defenses five miles apart, and you see and hear the blast from one of your comrades getting blown up 30 miles away, it might lead to your decision to surrender, and not only save your life, but most importantly from the attacker's standpoint, mean less work.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So it's a weapon of terror of some kind. Like the german Big Bertha rail gun (you know, from the times when a rail gun meant it traveled on railroads.....). huge, evil, useless really.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killing lots of civilians doesn't require new technology, so don't assume that every time the U.S. builds something new that that is the goal. Even without nuclear weapons, any country with an air force is capable of killing very high numbers of civilians with low-tech bombs, without ever attacking by land. On one night alone in WWII, B-29s dropped napalm on Tokyo, which was largely made out of wooden buildings at the time. They destroyed about 250,000 buildings, killed over 80,000 people, and wounded 40,000. Doesn't take much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed not. The british did a similiar stunt on Dresden. It is going beyond terrorism. So if a BMFB (Big mofo bomb) can make 20.000 iraqi soldiers flee in terror, so much the better!
LOL. That just creates funny pictures in my head. Like a Red Alert 2 airship with a captain on the deck, at his huge wooden wheel, yelling to the bosun: bombs ahoy. And marines struggles to push this humongous "black iron ball" bomb out of the back while a big white fuse is slowly hissing.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's actually what it looks like. A big fat bomb pushed out the back in a rather unsophisticated manner.
<a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So it's a weapon of terror of some kind. Like the german Big Bertha rail gun (you know, from the times when a rail gun meant it traveled on railroads.....). huge, evil, useless really.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly- but not useless. The goal of any war is to achieve political aims- killing people is only one of the technicalities of doing so. There are people who enjoy killing, and even more who don't mind getting shot at, but not enough of either to organize the massive amounts of people necessary to carry on a war. In order to have the full gravy train of a war machine going, you have to have a situation where most people involved think they stand a good chance of coming out ahead. That means all the taxpayers, factory workers, etc, who think by staying at home and helping a little, will be better off when the war is won (with some other soldier taking on the risk.) And if the war is lost- oh well, play dumb.
Terror weapons attempt to change the balance in terms of people's confidence. Even if your side doesn't have the military capability to kill all the other civilians, (or for political reasons doesn't want to), it can be helpful to make the enemy civilians believe you are capable and willing to do that, to try to get them stop aiding the war effort. Not everybody in times of war falls into the category of being either a peaceful civilian who wants to garden, vs a bayonet-wielding soldier. There are a lot of slimy people on the sidelines who expect to profit, and these people by far outnumber the actual combatants. Terror weapons attempt to change the attitudes of these people.
You said it.
Bubble:
In Vietnam people just didn't become "sick". It was a huge enviromental catastophe and has various effects on borning children even nowadays. It was stupid and ignorant to drop something you haven't tested properly even on enemy soil. People in USA are getting bonifications for the damage that was caused to the US soldiers because of the Agent Orange and Vietnamese get nothing.
But on the other hand, enemies don't deserve any mercy, right?
Ontopic:
About the bomb, whatever. Im not even intrested about what USA does anymore, as long as they stay away from Europe <-- like they would
In Vietnam people just didn't become "sick". It was a huge enviromental catastophe and has various effects on borning children even nowadays. It was stupid and ignorant to drop something you haven't tested properly even on enemy soil. People in USA are getting bonifications for the damage that was caused to the US soldiers because of the Agent Orange and Vietnamese get nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
All true. My point was in clarifying what the use of Agent Orange was in terms of intent. There are all kinds of devastating indirect results of war- one of them being the fact that because of all the centuries of infighting and bickering I don't have my own space station and instead am expected to go to work. There isn't much about war that ISN'T stupid and ignorant, in the broad view. I'm just trying to explain what the intended uses of these things are through the eyes of military people. I'm not in the military, and have no intention of being in one. I'm an artist, usually about one straw from abandoning society completely and living alone in the woods.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But on the other hand, enemies don't deserve any mercy, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From a military standpoint, the highest ethic is victory, everything else follows. If they felt that NOT defoliating the jungles would lead to their defeat, then the resulting answer would equate to "tough sh|t" regarding the side-effects of Agent Orange. That's not my personal opinion- I personally would not go into combat just on the word and trust of other people, to engage people I'd never met. I think the confidence and inexperience of young people is abused by cynical older people who exploit their idealism to channel them into expendable cannon fodder to help execute their own private aims. That doesn't mean there are no benefits from fighting wars, or that none should ever be fought. But in order to assess wars accurately you have to get all references to "right", "wrong", "haters of peace", "infidels" out of your head. I think the best way to look at it is in sheer mechanical terms, to try and figure out what will lead to the best quality of life for the survivors. It's usually going to amount to choosing who is going to die, not if.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ontopic:
About the bomb, whatever. Im not even intrested about what USA does anymore, as long as they stay away from Europe <-- like they would <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if Europe would be self-sufficient without America, either in an economic, or a military sense. Don't waste too much energy hating Americans. I've been to Europe- people are more or less the same. We all just want the bullsh|t to go away. Governments are by nature callous and self-serving, and America is only in the spotlight because it happens to be in a position of power. Europe was running the show before the world wars bankrupted them, and they were being much worse. Countries seem to take whatever they are able. Europe isn't taking much right now simply because they aren't able. It has nothing to do with the opinions of average citizens. If the opportunity arose, the European governments would resume raping and pillaging and their citizens would be none the wiser.
Agent Orange was a defoliant, not a weapon. The point of war is to win, plain and simple. The US doctrine has always been 'The fewer who die, the better.' but it does not let a fear of inflicting or receiving casualties dictate its policy.
The MOAB is a psychological weapon, plain and simple. The pentagon has said that. It could be used for busting open bunkers, but more likely that job will be left to rpecesion guided munitions.
The point being, these guys in the 1960's had no idea what the effects of the chemical were, and that pilot (if he survived the AAA fire) probably had a nice case of mouth cancer within a couple years, and some kids with flippers. There was never any intent to have use the agent as chemical warfare, and it's not like the Geneva Convention wouldn't have have made some mention of it to the UN.
As for the application of a weapon like this MOAB (now speaking as a veteran), one of its main uses is often to clear paths through minefields. Setting off a few thousand bouncing betties is certainly preferrable to having troops (or a wandering nomad shepard boy) lose a leg...
and to stray off topic for a second...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure if Europe would be self-sufficient without America, either in an economic, or a military sense. Don't waste too much energy hating Americans. I've been to Europe- people are more or less the same. We all just want the bullsh|t to go away. Governments are by nature callous and self-serving, and America is only in the spotlight because it happens to be in a position of power. Europe was running the show before the world wars bankrupted them, and they were being much worse. Countries seem to take whatever they are able. Europe isn't taking much right now simply because they aren't able. It has nothing to do with the opinions of average citizens. If the opportunity arose, the European governments would resume raping and pillaging and their citizens would be none the wiser. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... bingo.
PS: Nemesis and others - The Japanese used mustard gas and anthrax in WW2 against the Chinese on several documented occasions. The Italians used mustard in their attacks on Abbysinia (Ethiopia). Th Egyptians used VX nerve agents in their Yemenese invasion in 1960's. And of course, the Iraqi's used it in the widely reported Kurdish suppressions, but also much more in the less-reported Iran-Iraqi war where it decisively lead to Iraqi victory in 1988.
Now that's a pretty condescending view of the european democracy we have today. It is not <i>my</i> country that is ruled by the oil industry's sock puppet appointed by comitee and not the voters (low jab I know, but that one smarted - so smart back!).
Germany was busted, and rebuild from scratch. They're an even newer democracy than America, they're probably the WISER for it having been through many wars since the formation of the modern German union (2 centuries ago). Holland is perhaps europe's most progressive democracy, not afraid to try out new ideas. The problem lies with countries who are having "old" democracies. Britiain and France, both were "early adopters" of democracy and at a stage where the old medieval methods of ruling were still dominant and what we were all used to. That's why they're still having problems with Real Democracy. British are struggling with conventions that has solidified since the magna carta, and the french are on their 5th iteration of a republic and still seems to suffer from illusions of grandeur.
To claim that Europe would go atavistic without America is exactly the kind of cockyness that sets my urine boiling. Democracy is as solid here as it is in America. What happened in Europe after the fall of USSR? Yugoslavia disintegrated and they went at each other's throats. But they had been forced together in an uneasy nation under Tito's iron fist. Once he dropped the reigns, it was payback time. In Western Europe, where democracies have been nurtured for 50 years - spain and portugal and greece were late comers though, like 30 years? - there is much less built up tension among the people. We believe in democracy, we hail democracy but we dont worship it like Americans do because we have so much else to worship that defines our nations and identities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure if Europe would be self-sufficient without America, either in an economic, or a military sense. Don't waste too much energy hating Americans. I've been to Europe- people are more or less the same. We all just want the bullsh|t to go away. Governments are by nature callous and self-serving, and America is only in the spotlight because it happens to be in a position of power. Europe was running the show before the world wars bankrupted them, and they were being much worse. Countries seem to take whatever they are able. Europe isn't taking much right now simply because they aren't able. It has nothing to do with the opinions of average citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is natural to view the biggest bully in the schoolyard with caution. Even if he's kind you're always worrying. 100 years ago, it was USA who were quite worried about what UK might be up to - and I believe partially responsible for the isolationism that dominated US policy. Afraid to make too much attention to one self because one perhaps didnt have the strength to fight a war again. Or just because UK dominated the world so getting them cross would mean a world of trouble for foreign trade.
Besides that, you are right. Modern europe is created because of what America did in WW2 and after. Marshall aid to germany, a NATO pact to keep the countries together. I believe the US saw on the French/German steel union (prot-EU) with encouragement because it could help stabilize a fragile hurt impoverished Europe. And that turned out to be a bulwark against a certain worrying neighbour...
Ok, we get it, <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm' target='_blank'>you're not from France</a>. Oh wait, I got confused there. Which bought government are we talking about? There are so many to choose from. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I know I'm being kind of sarcastic here, but it just goes to the point that europeans governments still look out for number one, before anything else. I'll make a $10 dollar wager right now that as soon as it becomes apparent that France cannot prevent a US-backed Iraqi invasion, they will suddenly cozy up to the coalition in order to get some scraps.
On the plus side, using your case about new democracies, after Iraq is invaded and its government is dismantled, we have a good case for the first democratic arab republic in history. Rock on.
(I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but it sure is a fun discussion).
"So there's a big bomb out now."
"NO-one cares."
"So how about those European Democracies, eh? Always being hippocrites."
"SUYF, USA = t3h suck."
"Alright, we're all wrong. But democracy= t3h win!"
__________________
Now, time to throw some gasoline on the fire.
Assuming that Iraq gets invaded and totally utterly dismantled. A new government is established there, with democratic standards, and backing from the west. Who is going to be the main country to set up this government?
Surely, with all the anti- US sentiments in the cesspool we know as the middle-east, who knows what kind of hatred could be aimed at that government? So, then, the best choice of action in the long run may be to allow the UN to set up a government there. The third option, of course, is to drop off farm equipment and schoolbooks in their native language and pull the hell out of there, and see who takes power.
Now, none of these options are really good ones. If the US sets up a Government in the area, then we'll have a grand total of what, three nations there that don't want to see the heads of every american citizen on every silver platter? That can't be good, not good at all. Expect heavy terrorist attacks agaisnt that new government, leaving the people there to question if their brothers being killed by terrorists, while being free, is really better then life under Saddam.
Option 2, of course, is to allow the UN to set up a government. We can rebuild their economy, which would probably bolster some pro-US voting, but the Government cannot be officially sanctioned by the US if we are to avoid a scenario 1 setup. So, we build the economy back up, step back, and let the UN deal with it. Ok, fine, sounds all well and good from a governmental standpoint, but we've just opened up an oil rich country to the world, and tell a large group of nations, who never wanted the war in the first place, to set up a government as they see fit. Certainly, the UN is capable of doing something good with that area, but will they?
And, option 3. Let anyone who can take power there do so. I think we learned our lession in WWII about this one.
SO, what do you guys think?
You are wrong. You have been working so hard making Danishes over there in happy little Denmark that you are happy, fat, and deluded.
(Is the quality of my reasoning degrading the longer I stay awake?)
My condescending view does not limit itself to Europeans. It applies to humanity in general. My 25 years of life experience tells me that actual nice people are a rare item, and the rest pretty much grab what they can whenever they can. If a country doesn't have as many companies quietly trying to find ways to screw new customers in new places, that suggests to me that that reasons lie somewhere other than in the goodness of people's hearts. Over here in America I'm surrounded by all kinds of nice, educated, well-meaning people who all think they're doing their part to save the world, and they drop a couple bucks in a jar as they buy a latte at Starbucks and drive off to work at Microsoft, Nike, or AT&T. What I'm getting at is that the closer you get to the top of the power chain, the nastier it gets, and the only thing that determines anything at that level is power. Most people everywhere work in some fashion at the roots of these sources of power, and no matter how nice their private thoughts are, it doesn't weigh in very much against the eight hours of drone labor they contribute to these giants without giving it much thought. They CAN'T give it much thought because there isn't a whole hell of a lot else you can do for money.
It doesn't matter whether Europeans pleasantly sit outside on breaks and discuss matters with good intentions and an educated perspective. People do that here to. But then everyone goes back to doing what they need to do for money, and for most people that money can be traced pretty far up the ladder of power. Over here in Seattle, for most people that is Microsoft. Most people's lives are directly affected by Microsoft without them even realizing it. My dad works in sheet metal. He's fortunately a supervisor, but he's always hiring and laying off sheet metal workers. Why? Because of the ebb and flow of construction demands for sheet metal ductwork for heating and air conditioning. And what determines the vast bulk of new offices? Whichever way Microsoft or Boeing farted this week, that's what. So like it or not, know it or not, most people are living most of their waking hours responding to (and thus reinforcing) the whims of large corporations. (Think about all the Terriyaki joints that open next to places like my dad's sheet metal shop to feed the workers at lunch time. Or the retail stores that desperately hope to get 200 bucks from that worker around Christmas time.)
And what determines the ultimate scope of the whims of corporations? The government. The government sets the ultimate boundaries for corporations, and being self-serving, only sets limits on things that would hurt the country itself. It is not in the government's short-term interest to tell Nike they can't pay foreigners five cents a year to make shoes, because a lot of the profit Nike makes gets put into the country's economy. What good does it do the government if 90% of that wealth now stays over in Vietnam? It just creates more problems for them locally.
So governments of democracies where people are allowed to run their own businesses are a ripe opportunity for people who obey all the laws of their country and shamelessly rape and pillage in other countries. Their government isn't going to ask questions, and for that matter, has no authority to enforce laws in other countries anyway. If the government of Vietnam allows outside companies to employ people for five cents a year, who's to say it is illegal?
The point I'm getting at with this tirade is that if you live in a free society, then business is also free to a large degree. And if that is true, the biggest ones at the top exert enormous influence over all of the others, whether directly or indirectly, which translates down to damn near everyone who goes to work ANYWHERE. And these businesses at the top are free to do whatever they want internationally as far as their own government is concerned, because it has no enforcement outside of its borders, and needs every damn dollar it can keep in the country. And pretty much every business with more than five employees is in it purely for profit, above ALL ELSE.
I don't believe that governments in Europe are more actively trying to curb whatever bad behavior their companies are up to overseas, nor are they purposely making military decisions based purely on "what's best for the third world" rather than "what's best for my companies that bring in most of the money that keeps me alive."
The only difference is in terms of capability.
And as far as our oil industry sock puppet goes, everyone knows he's an idiot. What we didn't forsee was how urgent the problem was in the election of 2000. Around the election, people were griping more than usual about the dismal choice in candidates, and a larger portion than normal cast a protest vote for Nader or some other 3rd party. But everyone was concentrating on domestic issues, and never dreamed that this doofus was going to be in power calling the shots in times as serious as these following 9-11. I didn't vote for the ****, but even I was taken by surprise in terms of how much damage the guy could do in such a short time. He was basically voted in over really intangible, philosophical differences, the kind that only exist outside of pressing practical needs. The diehard Christians really liked him for his religious slant, and the gun owners rightly feared Gore would take away their rights. Nobody thought this arrogant **** was going to bring on WWIII through sheer arrogance and ignorance. At the time he was elected, the most pressing item in the news was whether some congressman was fu<king his aide.
I'm not sure if Europe would be self-sufficient without America, either in an economic, or a military sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to the new, globalistic, world. I am pretty sure that if cut off from the rest of the world, America would not be self-sufficient as well. We import a great amount of our rescources daily, from all over the world.
Geography 100 did wonders for my world outlook.
(Is the quality of my reasoning degrading the longer I stay awake?)
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
(cut the tirade)
No it is acceptable now. (We're not nearly as fat as the americans - yet - we're working on it!). The reason for what I saw as an outburst is clear, I just wish I'd seen this long tirade connected to it. Quite a pessimistic view on the world, but that doesn't mean I can't see it as valid. You wouldn't by any chance be a proponent of historical materialism?
So the question is really on how much power do you allow any entity to acquire? The more power, the more wicked it gets. That delicate balance of needing someone to be strong enough to resist other strong entities - but not so strong that it gets full of itself.
Thankee.
Oh well.
One word of caution, though. Don't forget China, my American friends. They will be the next superpower, they are not particularly friendly towards the US, and pretty soon the Bush crew or their successors will not be able to do whatever they want to other countries.
Personally, I think China is gonna be the next Hawaii.
One word of caution, though. Don't forget China, my American friends. They will be the next superpower, they are not particularly friendly towards the US, and pretty soon the Bush crew or their successors will not be able to do whatever they want to other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL. That's not true at all. There are several books that I have with inteligence reports from several nations (even China) analizing the current and future Chinese military as well as world presence. And they all agree that China will be important but will never become the dominant power. Hell, if China and the Russian Federation went to war Russia would 'win,' there we would have to repel their infantry, their armor would be easily destroyed, their air force and navy destroyed, and millions starved to death after bombing of their agriculture and food storage facilities, and we would suffer moderate-heavy casualties, but we would win. How can a country that spend 40-60 billion dollars, has to buy 60's era Soviet technology to 'upgrade' their military, overcome a nation that spends over 300 billion dollars a year and has a 40 year tech led? I will look for the books and articles and try to post them shortly. In the end China's huge population is what will destroy them.
And like I pointed out, these types of muntions are more often used against things like minefields than they are against people. Especially considering that they are:
1) Horribly inaccurate (pushed out of the back of a plane)
2) Only dropped from slow-moving c-130 prop-driven aircraft that would murdered flying low over troop concentrations
3) Inefficient and expensive against a small point target, but very useful against someing spread out like a motor depot or a minefield (again).
As for china - they are about as threatening of becoming a superpower as I am of becoming a dorrito chip. There people have a hard enough time getting running water or electricity and that's in the cities. And they are of course incredibly in bed with the US, as we are about 80% of their trade. Honestly, this is just silly. China is just now as a whole coming into the industrial age, and are spending most of their efforts trying to fight massive starvation rates from overpopulation. They have a long road ahead of them before they are bossing around anyone except tibet.
I bet the same was said for Germany in the 30s.
I bet the same was said for Germany in the 30s. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. I would not let say there are any other similarities, but it is true that Germany sommersaulted out of an economical quagmire like an acrobat. Then they went and blew it all on guns...
These were all simply countries that devoted every last single penny they had to warfare. That's not being a superpower. They almost literally did nothing else except take all their cash and pour it into their armies. Before you make some sort of comparison with the US, do your homework and look up the US annual GDP. Then look at the annual military budget. It's ~3%, and that's extremely high for our history. Being a superpower means having the power to be militarily, economically, and socially dominant over the entire globe even though you are only having to use a tiny part of your resources to do so. Not dominating, just dominant in the dictionary sense, where you have no equals among typical nations.
There has not really been a superpower before America since... I'd have to say Britain or France in the 1700's. You might argue that Britain was up until the 1940's, but it was stretched pretty thin, and WW2 certainly ended that. You could argue it though. The soviets were a superpower only in the sense that they could end the world with nuclear weapons, but that's not a very super power to have, as you can't use it in moderation. They could barely project their power beyond their own borders, and had no economy really of any kind. They existed as long as the world sent them food, and when their people started craving Levi's and the right to vote, it all came crumbling down.
The soviets were a superpower only in the sense that they could end the world with nuclear weapons, but that's not a very super power to have, as you can't use it in moderation. They could barely project their power beyond their own borders, and had no economy really of any kind. They existed as long as the world sent them food, and when their people started craving Levi's and the right to vote, it all came crumbling down. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've chosen a very narrow definition of a super power. Your definition seems chosen so that you can declare that America is the only "proper" superpower that has ever existed. Since the phrase developed during the coldwar to describe America and the USSR though, it seems ridiculous to chose a definition that excludes the USSR.
Yes, America is by far the most powerful nation in the world today. Does it have a more dominant position than any other nation has had in the past? I don't think so. Rome comes to mind, as does Spain and the British Empire. So somehow making America a superpower and these nations not (at the time of their strength), seems a conceit.
And saying the USSR didn't have any influence outside its own borders is just plain wrong. The USSR was doing exactly the same as America was during the cold war - sponsoring rebel forces who supported them, and sponsoring governments who supported them, with the odd direct military intervention when it suited them.