Random Shoutbox Salvage

[The Beatles]

Let me put it to you differently.

A major war usually happens when both sides place their economies on a war footing. No Western country has done that after 9/11. Yes, Bush boosted defense spending by 15%, but that's not even close to a war footing. (Korea was not a major war by this standard, btw, take that as you wish.)

Now, for a world war, you want at least a major war, not, say, the Olympic Games Selection, which are a ferocious nationalistic press war with factions and alliances.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well we can prevent that by randomly attacking countries without nukes while at the same time kissing any nuke-weilding countries ass. That should provide plenty of disincentive for getting nukes. rolleyes.gif

Hey, you never know, maybe the Bush Admin. really did think there were going to be WMD's in Iraq. Or maybe they lied. That's a rather popular thing to say right now, but maybe it's true, anyway, we aren't exactly kissing N. Korea's or Iran's ass.

Volkov: If your talking about the Afghanistan manhunts yes there were shootouts

No, I was talking about the US manhunts. I know there were shootouts in Afghanistan, but that's in the Mideast, which I have already identified as part of the singular theater of combat in this particular war.

(Korea was not a major war by this standard, btw, take that as you wish.)

Well, our economy wasn't on a war footing, but having just fought WW2, it wasn't exactly like we needed to be to have the equipment to fight the war. Korea was a big regional war. It could probably be classified as a major war, given the troop numbers involved, and the involvement of China, the Soviet bloc countries and the various countries of the UN coalition. If everyone hadn't had so much left over from WW2, it probably would have required a bit larger economic commitment than it did.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Well we can prevent that by randomly attacking countries without nukes while at the same time kissing any nuke-weilding countries ass. That should provide plenty of disincentive for getting nukes. rolleyes.gif

Hey, you never know, maybe the Bush Admin. really did think there were going to be WMD's in Iraq. Or maybe they lied. That's a rather popular thing to say right now, but maybe it's true, anyway, we aren't exactly kissing N. Korea's or Iran's ass.

Iran does not have nukes, so no we won't be kissing their ass. As far as Iraq is concerned I'll only mention it as pertaining to NK. In the build up of political support prior to the invasion of Iraq what was our main arguments for Iraq? Think of every single one and apply that criteria to Iraq and NK and you'll find, or at least I did, that NK fit the bill moreso than Iraq.

We suspected Iraq had WMD
We knew NK did

We suspected Iraq would use them on us
NK told us they would

Iraq was led by a dictator
So was NK

Iraq had civil rights issues
So did NK

Iraq murdered political enemies
So had NK

Iraq was expected to have a huge political vacuum
NK had the SK government to help

We suspected Iraq could eventually gain long range missiles capable of hitting us
but only at least a decade after NK did

I'm sure one could name a multitude of reasons as to why we went for Iraq instead of NK, which was a bigger threat even by 2003 intel. But regardless of how we try to spin it, other nations will see it as this-the US has attacked a crapload of countries in the last 50 years and never once have we attacked a nuclear armed country, even if they were our biggest security threat.

[Kraken]

*yawn*

did everyone know that i like to play the flute?

[Nuclear Raunch]

Skin flute? Yeah, we know

[Ruddertail]

Nuke - The only difference I can see is that Iraq did not, to our knowledge, have nuclear weapons ready to launch. NK does, and they have S. Korea and Japan (?) within range. Further, they have some Chinese backing. Going into NK is far riskier, as it could end up getting SK or Japan nuked, or getting the Chinese really ticked off... perhaps to the point they threaten to nuke us.

As far as Iran, I'm the last person to say we should appease them. If they won't stop trying to make nukes, then, the sooner we stop them, the better.

[The Beatles]

The reason the U.S. doesn't attack NK is simply because NK is stronger -- it's forced the U.S. to a standstill, much like Vietnam (where it even became a total loss). Obviously that was due to USSR/China support, but the fact remains, that war would be militarily very, very, very difficult and politically impossible to win.

[Nuclear Raunch]

That's exactly my point. We won't attack a country if they have nukes for fear of retal, but we will readily invade any country without nukes. Is it just me or would that be a huge incentive for any country, particularly one that most Americans don't like, to get nukes?

[Gen. Volkov]

It was an offhand comment Nuke. I didn't really want to debate it. Just one point, we aren't kissing North Korea's ass. We aren't attacking them no, but that is not the same as kissing their ass. Attacking North Korea and winning is probably militarily possible, though it would be a tough fight, but politically impossible. No one would support us, the risk of large numbers of troops disappearing in a nuclear fireball is just too great. And the first use of nuclear weapons in war since WW2 will probably also be the last use of them ever. Even a limited nuclear exchange could quickly escalate into WW3.

Beatles, Vietnam was a total loss because of the politicians, not the military. It was never impossible to win in Vietnam. The politicians hamstringing the military made it that way.

[The Beatles]

The oppressive regime with nukes whose arse America is kissing is not North Korea, but China.

North Korea's deterrent isn't nukes, btw, or America could have done anything about the situation in the last few decades. Their nuke could at most blow up a suburban villa in Seoul. However, their conventional artillery, trained on Seoul, could reduce the city to burnt rubble in a matter of hours. I believe I learnt that from Volkov, to give credit where it is due.

You can't separate a military power from the political power wielding it. America is a liberal democracy, which is a Lvl -5 offensive bonus.

[Kraken]

*yawn*

blah blah blah

its funny how peoples opinions and theories are as backwater as cavemen staring at the moon...

ug ug ugggg..........


anyways! i am sad to announce that i fell down a hill yesterday and managed to bruise my little toe on my right foot.
it was quite the fall and many did laugh however.........

[The Beatles]

Presumably when a military person says "bruise", they mean massive damage, perhaps severance?

[Kraken]

i would even go as far to say that it means "classified"

[Gen. Volkov]

The oppressive regime with nukes whose arse America is kissing is not North Korea, but China.

North Korea's deterrent isn't nukes, btw, or America could have done anything about the situation in the last few decades. Their nuke could at most blow up a suburban villa in Seoul. However, their conventional artillery, trained on Seoul, could reduce the city to burnt rubble in a matter of hours. I believe I learnt that from Volkov, to give credit where it is due.

You can't separate a military power from the political power wielding it. America is a liberal democracy, which is a Lvl -5 offensive bonus.

China? Ah, I see.

You can too separate them. Intellectually anyway. In practical matters though, you are right, the political and military power of a country like ours is pretty much inseparable.

Yeah, I probably mentioned that tidbit about the artillery. Of course, that would require the North Koreans keeping their artillery intact for a few hours. The 20 minutes of firing they'd get, max, before American air power took it all out would not be enough to level the city. Damage it greatly yes, but not level it. That artillery is part of the deterrent though. Of course, South Korea has it's own deterrents, (mostly the presence of US military forces, but there are other parts to it) otherwise there would already be a reunified Korea.