So now I will explain you something, [censored]

[lastchance]

Explain to me why people still fear and give credit to ordinary military power in this world when nuclear weapons exist? If you have 15 ICBM's attached with nukes, you can put the fear of god into the US militarily. That would do more damage than thousands of tanks against that particular opponent, and pretty much any country in the world. Rumsfeld was right, standard military right now is useless considering your opponent can destroy your 10 biggest cities in a flash.

What I think is feared even more, because it is more applicable, and because military power doesn't trump it, as long as you have the aforementioned 15 ICBM's is resource and economic power. Saudi Arabia is a country that fills their citizens with radical Islam, but we still don't bully them around due to economic power. Should Europe find itself in a position they disagree strongly with the US on, pulling out that economic card would hurt a lot, as long as you are ready to deal with the consequences.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why people still fear and give credit to ordinary military power in this world when nuclear weapons exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a good question because clearly they do. I think the answer lies somewhere with the concept of mutually assured destruction thus lack of desire to use them. Hence, people believe being subject to say the power of the US is better than being destroyed.

This doesn't always hold true as it is clear that North Korea for example developed their weapons to discourage the US from using its military power against them. So I think it follows that the further apart countries are in their political ideaologies the more likely they are to turn to nuclear weapons. the cold war is good example of this.

It would follow then that in a world of one super power, the most just the US acts the fewer countries will want to have nuclear, except for those countries which act in a greatly unjust manner.

so when n. korea wants nuclear weapons I think a fair question would are they doing so because they fear the US acting in a unjuct manner or is their government unjust enough to fear the just superpower.

this is all based on judgement of course but a good bit of evidence would be to look at other nations we judge as being just to see if they are suddenly wanting to build a nuclear aresenal.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004

[coffeecrazy1]

Well...to say nothing of the other things he might be, one thing Kim Jong-Il is not is stupid. He knows that the last guy the United States starting talking to in the manner he's being talked to is now being photographed in his underwear, complaining that he doesn't like Froot Loops.

I'm not saying that we are so great for this, or that he's evil, or anything...I'm just saying that Kim Jong-Il is not backing down from international pressure...in fact, he seems to have no problems with ramping up the concern around the world.

And one thing more about nuclear weapons: the nukes that everyone has now are much stronger than those of WWII, obviously. The problem with nuclear warfare is that now, it quickly becomes a war of attrition. Once the first one is dropped, we have passed the point of no return. That's why using them is such a deadly game.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
And one thing more about nuclear weapons: the nukes that everyone has now are much stronger than those of WWII, obviously. The problem with nuclear warfare is that now, it quickly becomes a war of attrition. Once the first one is dropped, we have passed the point of no return. That's why using them is such a deadly game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which sounds like a good reason to have the lot of them dismantled, as no good can come from having them, unless you percieve 'mutually assured destruction' as a possible benefit.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004


[/ QUOTE ]

If you like sick according to the same source, the USA spends 17.6 times the GDP of North Korea on the military each year, and leaves small countries like this no other option but to try to design the weapons which will be capable of killing people in their millions and will be fired one day with 100% certainty. The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true.

Mack

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for posting this list as well, because after I read your earlier post I was going to go look for it. The US may spend the most when it comes to pure dollar amount on our military, but it is ranked 22nd in % of GDP. Keep in mind that these figures are also probably inflated somewhat because of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The US would still be ranked above the rest of Europe, but a significant statistic none-the-less.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]

If you like sick according to the same source, the USA spends 17.6 times the GDP of North Korea on the military each year

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand this thinking. The population of the United States (295 million) is at least 13x the population of North Korea (22 million). I really don't see what the problem is if your population is that much larger to spend more on your military to make sure that your citizens can be defended should it come to that.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand this thinking. The population of the United States (295 million) is at least 13x the population of North Korea (22 million). I really don't see what the problem is if your population is that much larger to spend more on your military to make sure that your citizens can be defended should it come to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its for attacking not defending, the US hasn't been attacked in 60 years has it?

Mack

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]


Its for attacking not defending, the US hasn't been attacked in 60 years has it?

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Try 3.5 Years.