North Korea Admits to having Nukes

[Dante]

The causes of wars are mostly agreed upon. It's the blame that changes with the perspective.

For example, most scholars now blame the start of the Second World War on France's harsh treatment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, causing widespread resentment, fanatic nationalism in some, a depression (related in no small way to the crash of 1929), and a need for someone to blame. It also indirectly encouraged German expansionism by placing limits on the military and on foreign colonies.

Those were the causes, but the blame changes with the scholar. Some blame France for being too harsh. Some blame Germany for reacting so badly. Some blame Bismark, who started the whole German unity thing in the first place. Some blame the allies for letting Hitler get away with so much, others blame Hitler personally.

Therefore, to say that different history books will have different 'causes' for the start of the Korean war is mostly inaccurate. The details will be the same, but the emphasis will not. The only exception to this might come through heavy use of propaganda, but that's propaganda, not history...

Regarding US dominance... nothing lasts forever.

[ps501]

Naw, not offering my opinion as "fact".

[Edric O]

"For the United States to "fall" relative to the other majors, it would have to experience a disaster of the most catastrophic kind that affected only Americans and their economy-and no others. And, concomitantly, for the other majors to "rise" relative to the United States, one (or more) of them would have to undergo a massive transformation of capacity while the United States remained at current levels."

Not necessarily. The United States is far ahead of anyone else in terms of military power (due to its entirely overkill spending on the military), but the European Union already has surpassed the US as the largest economy in the world, and China is closing in fast. If Bush keeps up his absurd right-wing economic agenda, the US might lose its hyperpower status in the next 10-20 years. Of course, it will still be able to bash any small country with its overwhelmingly powerful armed forces, but that won't count for much (since all its major rivals have nuclear weapons and are therefore unassailable).

[Wolf]

US government expenditures on the military comprise no more than 5% of the budget. By no means is this "overkill" when compared to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which comprise over 75% of the budget. To foreigners, this 5% spending on the military seems like a lot because that 5% is probably as big as their budgets.

[VigilVirus]

Everything is relative, Wolfwiz. North Korea is the most militaristic nation with over 23% of their income going towards military, but when you look at how small its income really is - well, you get the point. US is one of the top military spenders based on the /percent/ of their income they spend on it. Read some statistics about it if you want.

[nemafakei]

Britain also runs at a little under 5% budget going to military spending, by my count (or will be after the most recent sets of increases come into force, which probably means about 3-4% once you account for inflation). But that's not really helpful, as Britain's economy is often more like the US' than the rest of Europe.

North Korea functions primarily by reducing its nonruling class to the minimum required for them to stay alive (even if sometimes only due to charity) and keep the economy vaguely productive, so that the wealth produced can be spent on the military establishment, thus fulfilling two goals: keeping the populace down, and keeping the ruling elite comfortably well off. Consequently, their defence budget is excessively large, especially given they don't really have many other fields in which to perform this trick.

Oh - it's just occurred to me, are US subsidies to defence orientated businesses paid from the defence account or another account?

[GUNWOUNDS]

The united states must develop a missile defense system or some other anti-ballistic nuclear missile technology in order to preserve its hyperpower status.

Once the United States can effectively shield itself from ballistic nukes it will have risen to a new plane of military might.

[Edric O]

US government expenditures on the military comprise no more than 5% of the budget. By no means is this "overkill" when compared to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which comprise over 75% of the budget. To foreigners, this 5% spending on the military seems like a lot because that 5% is probably as big as their budgets.

The difference between the US budget and the budgets of other rich countries isn't that big. As I already pointed out, the GDP of the European Union is greater than that of the US.

Also, the numbers just don't seem to add up: One the one hand, the US government claims to spend only 5% of its budget on the military. On the other hand, its total military spending is three to four times larger than the spending of other governments with similar budgets and similar percentages of military spending:

Relative Military Spending by the nations of the world, ca. 2003:

And while we're on the subject, the spending on Medicare and Medicaid also seems to defy the laws of logic: The US government spends more money per capita on health care than any other western country, but gives its citizens far less health care coverage than any other western country (indeed, the USA is the only western country without universal health coverage). But this could be partially explained by inflated health prices in the US due to its free market policies (a free market in health care does not and cannot work: the hugely unequal knowledge between seller and buyer prevents the buyer from being able to make an informed choice - simply put, you don't know enough to be able to choose between different treatments prescribed by different doctors).

[Edric O]

The united states must develop a missile defense system or some other anti-ballistic nuclear missile technology in order to preserve its hyperpower status.

Once the United States can effectively shield itself from ballistic nukes it will have risen to a new plane of military might.

[danielsh]

An anti-ballistic shield would be utterly useless, since those enemies of the US who have ballistic missiles will never attack the US, and those enemies who might attack the US do not have ballistic missiles.

What about Iraq?  Not only did the country have weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam was planning to use them on us.  Far from being a waste of taxpayer money to feed the bloated military-industrial complex, spending on a missile shield is the only reasonable way to protect ourselves from dictators like Hussein.

I wonder if I've been watching too much FOX News recently...

[GUNWOUNDS]

My point Edrico was that with a missile shield we could actually attack a rogue country who has ballistic nukes and not have to worry about retaliation.

[Edric O]

The only country with missiles capable of reaching the American mainland is Russia (and possibly Britain and France, but I'm not sure). Invading Russia would be insane, even if you had some actual reason for doing it (which is doubtful).

[nemafakei]

"My point is that with a missile shield the US can be even more aggressive and more of a bully than it is now as rogue contries with nukes will lose their deterrence."

Gunwounds, have I missed something, like that being a quote from Edric, or is this what you intended to say?

[Dunenewt]

Ok, lets get somethings straight.  Yes Britain and France are both capable of nuking the US, and in Britain's case (not sure about France), without the US even knowing about it.  But that's theoretical, as is Edric's statement about about nuclear powers being untouchable by another country.

Btw, has anyone seen the Google ads at the bottom of the page? Cheap flights to North Korea?!? What's happening to the world? lol.

Anyway, the biggest threat to the US, aside from Terrorism, is currently China, both economically and militarily.  They have the potential to have an economy greater than that of the US due the their population and vast amounts of coal reserves, although their goverment is probably more wasteful than ours (there are over 60 million members of the Chinese Communist Party, making it the biggest political party in the world).  Also, in the military sense, the situation regarding Taiwan is possibly more worrying than the threat of Al-Quaeda, due to the numbers involved.  The US and Japan have promised to take every available action to protect Taiwan, and in Japan's case this involves developing ballistic missiles capable of hitting China, and creating their own ballistic missile shields.  In the event of an actual war, my own country, and Australia, as well as others would join in on the side of America.

And on a final note, a ballistic missile shield is well and good, but countries don't just use missiles to deliver nuclear weapons, consider the B-52's for example (not the group!).

[Megashrap]

And on a final note, a ballistic missile shield is well and good, but countries don't just use missiles to deliver nuclear weapons, consider the B-52's for example (not the group!).

Well, the chances of a plane similar to a B-52 sneaking under radar undetected, especially during an alert status, or even time of war would be certain suicide for it entering U.S. air space.

At the moment I tend to think that the Dirty-Bomb,or a nuclear suitcase bomb is the most likely foriegn nuclear threat.

[Dante]

Gunwounds, wouldn't it just be easier to not invade people? Removes all the risks, and is cheaper.

[Khan]

At the moment I tend to think that the Dirty-Bomb,or a nuclear suitcase bomb is the most likely foriegn nuclear threat.

Apparently, beyond the initial explosion, dirty bombs can't kill people. The radiation is scattered too far to be of any threat, according to scientists.

[Edric O]

Anyway, the biggest threat to the US, aside from Terrorism, is currently China, both economically and militarily.

Ha ha ha, I'm afraid that's far from being the case. America is China's biggest trading partner, and China will soon become America's biggest trading partner as well. Despite all their harsh words on the surface, the governments of China and the US love each other in secret. The Chinese economy depends on the US. Even if the Chinese could afford a war with the US in military terms, they could never afford it economically.

[Kiyouta]

Hahahaa, sorry I couldn't help notice the google ads providing 'Flights to North Korea' in this thread.

Provided by 'The People's Airline' no doubt (omg and ebookers :-). I'll take the wing! ;D

[Khan]

Well I'm sure its lovely once you get there ;)

[Kiyouta]

Yeh, I don't know if they do return tickets tho...

[Khan]

Well when you get there you probably won't 'want' to leave.

[GUNWOUNDS]

@ Nema

[Wolf]

So, Edric, what you are saying is that the United States government is lying to its people about where its budget is being spent?

[Dante]

It is possible to develop defence without need for offence. Japan is very proud of their pledge to only ever fight defencibly ever again. Besides... 'rouge nation taking over the world' ? Sounds like something from a James Bond movie...