Should the U.S. disarm itself and no longer maintain a military?

Machjo · Mar 10, 2006

LogicChristian said:
We are leading the way in nuclear disarmament.

And many are leading the way in never having had them! Canada, for instance, even has a law banning nuclear weapons on its territory, thus prohibiting US ships, etc. from entering Canadian waters, even if just for joint exercises, if they are armed with nukes.

Fallschirmjägergewehr · Mar 10, 2006

ScottishJohn said:
By maintaining the largest stockpile of useable nuclear weapons in the world?

Well, we could sell them and MRBM's without the range to hit CONUS to the Iranians if you like.

LogicChristian · Mar 10, 2006

ScottishJohn said:
By maintaining the largest stockpile of useable nuclear weapons in the world?

'

By not building new delivery systems, and by taking nuclear weapons out of service at a faster pace than any other nation.

Russia, China, India, Pakistan are all still building new bombs and new delivery systems. The US is doing neither. Furthermore, we have taken many of our most deadly nuclear weapons out of service, have de-MIRVed all of our land-based ICBMs, and are going to do so with our SLBMs.

The US hasn't built a new nuclear warhead or delivery system in about 15 years, can you say that for China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, or North Korea?

LogicChristian · Mar 10, 2006

Machjo said:
As for hearts and minds campaings, some US Korean War veterans who had been Chinese POWs and who were given the choice to go back to the US, remained in China. The Chinese were well-known during that time for their exemplary treatment of both US and Japanese POWs; maybe the US can learn from that.

Yeah, what proportion remained in China?

Oh yeah, and which side in the Korean war wouldn't sign the truce because their troops that had been captured wanted to stay on the other side? Oh yeah, THE COMMUNISTS.

Methinks you need to do a little research on the Panmunjom talks.

Machjo said:
You see, many are so far back in the dark ages, that everything must be interpreted in terms of megakills. When we say "absorb", no we don't mean militarily! The Chinese, though militarily conquered by the Manchu and Mongolians, eventually absorbed them into their own culture (another way to win a war; they win the war, and you assimilate them culturally)

The US is closer to absorbing China culturally than vice-versa if you haven't taken a look lately.

Yusuf Evans · Mar 10, 2006

Machjo said:
The Chinese were well-known during that time for their exemplary treatment of both US and Japanese POWs; maybe the US can learn from that?

I'm sorry, what? The U.S. military is the most compassionate and respectful in regards to treat of POWS in the western world. What? Abu Ghraib? That's the exception, not the norm. Gitmo? Sorry, again, very few soldiers were involved with both, yet you, yes you, want to state that the military is all the same. Before you start preaching about how great China is, maybe they need to start doing something about educating all of their people first. Half the people in that country can't read, and that's on the government right there.

Machjo · Mar 10, 2006

LogicChristian said:
'

By not building new delivery systems, and by taking nuclear weapons out of service at a faster pace than any other nation.

Russia, China, India, Pakistan are all still building new bombs and new delivery systems. The US is doing neither. Furthermore, we have taken many of our most deadly nuclear weapons out of service, have de-MIRVed all of our land-based ICBMs, and are going to do so with our SLBMs.

The US hasn't built a new nuclear warhead or delivery system in about 15 years, can you say that for China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, or North Korea?

Have you noticed the nations to which you're comparing the US?

Machjo · Mar 10, 2006

"Yeah, what proportion remained in China?"

Small. Point is, some did.

"Oh yeah, and which side in the Korean war wouldn't sign the truce because their troops that had been captured wanted to stay on the other side? Oh yeah, THE COMMUNISTS."

Did I say it never happenned the other way around?

"The US is closer to absorbing China culturally than vice-versa if you haven't taken a look lately."

I'll agree that's the case at the moment, especially through the English-language boom. but respect for China and its culture is rising due to its non-interference in foreign affairs. Respect for the US is falling.

Why did the world repect the US before? Because of its ideals, not its guns. Now the US is losing its ideals, and guns are all that remain.

China has much to learn, but if nothing else, it has learnt to keep its nose out of foreign politics as much as possible, and that will take China much further than any number of guns ever will (Viet-nam? The USSR in Afghan? Now Iraq? Guns can take a nation only so fqar, but hearts and minds are what will win a war in the end).

The US has the guns, but not the hearts and minds... not any more... but it did.

Machjo · Mar 10, 2006

As for China building nukes, true that's not winning China lots of brownie points worldwide, and hopefully China will learn that as well. But it's the non-interference which are propelling it forward right now.

LogicChristian · Mar 10, 2006

Machjo said:
"Yeah, what proportion remained in China?"

Small. Point is, some did.

"Oh yeah, and which side in the Korean war wouldn't sign the truce because their troops that had been captured wanted to stay on the other side? Oh yeah, THE COMMUNISTS."

Did I say it never happenned the other way around?

So, empirical facts would lend themselves to demonstrate that the US is far closer to absorbing China than vice versa if you take that into account.

Machjo said:
I'll agree that's the case at the moment, especially through the English-language boom. but respect for China and its culture is rising due to its non-interference in foreign affairs. Respect for the US is falling.

Non-interference, you mean like giving nuclear weapons to Pakistan and training North Korea military officials while threatening Taiwan and Los Angeles?

Machjo said:
Why did the world repect the US before? Because of its ideals, not its guns. Now the US is losing its ideals, and guns are all that remain.

China has much to learn, but if nothing else, it has learnt to keep its nose out of foreign politics as much as possible, and that will take China much further than any number of guns ever will (Viet-nam? The USSR in Afghan? Now Iraq? Guns can take a nation only so fqar, but hearts and minds are what will win a war in the end).

China has hardly kept its nose out of foreign politics, they themselves invaded Vietnam in 1979 and again in 1984.

LogicChristian · Mar 10, 2006

Machjo said:
Have you noticed the nations to which you're comparing the US?

The point still holds. The US has quit building bombs, and has started getting rid of them. That's something you can't say for any other nuclera power except South Africa (hardly a shining moral example.)

Yusuf Evans · Mar 11, 2006

Machjo said:
The US has the guns, but not the hearts and minds... not any more... but it did.

You seriously underestimate the heart and souls of U.S. citizens. If China were to invade us, I'm pretty damn sure that the majority of Americans would fight to the death, rather than have their freedoms submitted to authority of the state as is the case in China.

Gracchus · Mar 11, 2006

"Si pacem vis, para bellum." -- motto of a Roman legion, variously attributed

"If you want peace, prepare for war." Of course if you actually go to war, you have failed.

ScottishJohn · Mar 11, 2006

LogicChristian said:
'

By not building new delivery systems, and by taking nuclear weapons out of service at a faster pace than any other nation.

Russia, China, India, Pakistan are all still building new bombs and new delivery systems. The US is doing neither. Furthermore, we have taken many of our most deadly nuclear weapons out of service, have de-MIRVed all of our land-based ICBMs, and are going to do so with our SLBMs.

The US hasn't built a new nuclear warhead or delivery system in about 15 years, can you say that for China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, or North Korea?

How is this sending the message that the US is in favour of non proliferation?

Hassle Iran, but turn a blind eye to India, and doing nothing to try and get them to sign up. Actually, it is not even turning a blind eye - this is positive encouragement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4764826.stm

Vastavus · Mar 11, 2006

US currency says, "In God We Trust"

NO! IT CAN'T! The US is not a Theocracy!

See the problem?

"'In God We Trust' in trust is on our money, right where Jesus would want it."

LogicChristian · Mar 11, 2006

ScottishJohn said:
How is this sending the message that the US is in favour of non proliferation?

Non-proliferation wasn't the issue being discussed, it was disarmament.

The NPT has been dead for some time, but the US was hardly the nation that killed it. Heck, as far back as the 70s China was helping Pakistan obtain a nuclear bomb. Once Pakistan had a working arsenal, eventually North Korea got one, and Libya and Iran started.

The US didn't proliferate to India, India made its own weapons over 30 years ago.

JustOneWay · Mar 11, 2006

KalEl76 said:
You seriously underestimate the heart and souls of U.S. citizens. If China were to invade us, I'm pretty damn sure that the majority of Americans would fight to the death, rather than have their freedoms submitted to authority of the state as is the case in China.

Ann Coulter would disagree with you.

Yusuf Evans · Mar 11, 2006

JustOneWay said:
Ann Coulter would disagree with you.

Ann Coulter. She's a pretty lady and says some funny things. Then again, she can be just as whacko as O'Reilly. On this she is wrong.

ScottishJohn · Mar 11, 2006

LogicChristian said:
Non-proliferation wasn't the issue being discussed, it was disarmament.

The NPT has been dead for some time, but the US was hardly the nation that killed it. Heck, as far back as the 70s China was helping Pakistan obtain a nuclear bomb. Once Pakistan had a working arsenal, eventually North Korea got one, and Libya and Iran started.

The US didn't proliferate to India, India made its own weapons over 30 years ago.

Ah well, if disarmament is the issue then the US is in a much worse situation. After all, non proliferation is about not creating more. Disarmamament is about getting rid of them all. Since the US has the largest stockpile they have a lot of work to do before they can lead anyone on disarmament.

US is supporting Indian proliferation. I predict they will support Pakistani proliferation in the same way. As for China, China owns the USA already.

LogicChristian · Mar 11, 2006

ScottishJohn said:
Ah well, if disarmament is the issue then the US is in a much worse situation. After all, non proliferation is about not creating more. Disarmamament is about getting rid of them all. Since the US has the largest stockpile they have a lot of work to do before they can lead anyone on disarmament.

It's actually not terribly clear who has the largest stockpile. It's either the US or Russia depending on what day of the week it is. The US will de-commission or de-MIRV a system, the Russians will go *** for tat, and vice versa.

And not only have we been getting rid of our nukes faster than any other nation, we've been helping the Russians to get rid of theirs.

Anyway, there's about a third as many nuclear weapons today as there were in the 70s, going by total combined yield of all arsenals.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/wrjp205b.html

ScottishJohn said:
US is supporting Indian proliferation. I predict they will support Pakistani proliferation in the same way. As for China, China owns the USA already.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. How/when did the US support Pakistani proliferation? Ever heard of the Abdul Qadeer Khan network? It was the US that exposed it.

How are we supporting Indian proliferation? India has had a nuclear capability for 30 years independent of the United States and has not transferred nuclear technology to any third party. The US recognizing that is simply engaging reality, not encouraging proliferation. Why does China get to point nuclear weapons into India but India doesn't get to defend itself?

China owns the US? What happens when the US freezes all of China's assets over here and China can't get its dollars out? Sorry, but the Russians won't sell them fighter aircraft for yuan, nor will the Arabs sell oil for them. Because of the trade deficit China is even more dependent on the US. They need our dollars more than we need the goods we buy from them.

Heck, if you want a reason the US should disarm somewhat, it should be the overinflation of the China threat. The US military acts like we're going to war with them in Taiwan tomorrow, and if we don't have a 4 carrier and 4 gater deployed Navy, we're going to lose for sure. China's nuclear arsenal, army, and much of their Navy is ancient, but the US Navy and Air Force act like they're a monolithic threat to keep funding high.

morningstar2651 · Mar 11, 2006

I believe that the National Guard belongs on US soil and I beleive that we shouldn't be sticking our nose in other nations' business - that's the UN's job.

Disarming is quixotic.

Should the U.S. disarm itself and no longer maintain a military?

Should the U.S. Disarm

Yes. The U.S. is the greates human rights oppressor

Yes. The U.S. has too much power and needs to be placed under international governance

No. The U.S. needs to remain the sole military superpower

Other

Veteran

Fallschirmjägergewehr

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be

Well-Known Member

:)

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency