Depends. Considering USians can spend that much on healthcare and education, there's not really much difference. They take it away from you one way or another.
No, they don't. In one case it is voluntary, and in another, it's forced. That IS the difference, and it's a huge one.
Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago.
You really think Germany would have stopped without being forced to? Or the USSR? Come on.
One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys would be speaking Japanese.
Not really, no. Not at all.
You need to get out of the US and see the world. Or even get out of your white middle class lifestyle and look at the US.
You need to stop engaging in argumentum ad hominem.
Whilst you guys are developing superweapons your literacy rates are 3rd world poor in many areas.
I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything. Are you one of those people who believes we should spend money on education instead of weapons? Despite the fact that there is no significant link between increased funding, and increased performance, in schools? (Washington DC has the worst schools and spends more than any other area on education.) It's nonsense: our schools suck solely because of cultural reasons, not financial reasons.
Your healthcare system is the worst in the western world.
No, it's not. In fact, it's among the best. The stats you are looking at do not measure the quality of the health care system, but the relative health of the people. Those are not the same thing, for two big reasons: the free choices of the people that lead to bad health even within a good health care system, and the poor health of people NOT IN the system.
It's self-evidently true that the health care system sucks for people who aren't in it, but for people who are, it's among the best in the world.
You economy belongs to China.
No, it doesn't. I know it's a cute tagline for people to spew, but there's no serious truth to it.
Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine
Nothing I said denied that.
... but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.
Yeah, only because AFTER the war Russia oppressed half of Europe for decades. It's hard to say "you should thank us for saving you from Germany in WWII" after the atrocities inflicted across Eastern Europe in the wake of WWII.
The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.
60% tax uncivilised Torture civilised
Can you see what is wrong here?
Yep, a lot. First, you seem to be inviting a war. That's bad. Second, you implicitly accuse me of supporting torture, or believing it is civilized. That's false. Third, you give no reason to think a 60 percent tax is NOT uncivilized, and you just throw it out there as if anyone should believe it. (Granted, I didn't go into detail either, but you asked what's wrong and I am trying to be thorough.)
I could go on, I think. But that's the bulk of what's wrong there.
The USSR and UK bore the brunt of WWII. Esp. the USSR. They are the ones who actually went out and fought the Germans en-masse, developed much of the technology, and did most of the manufacturing.
Yes.
it's debatable if Germany would have been victorious over the UK and the USSR even if the USA didn't step in
We will never know, but it is very unlikely the UK would have survived it, along with most of the rest of Europe. What good is naval superiority when your island nation is completely overrun?
Granted, the USSR likely would have held Germany off. And then probably would have "liberated" Europe without our help in the end, of course, making the Warsaw Pact much bigger: taking all of Germany, certainly, and Italy and maybe Switzerland and some others. So I take it back: Sweden would be speaking Russian today, not German. Thanks for the correction!
The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
No, I am not.
First, I noted in another comment that in Central America we have done that sort of thing. But more importantly, this is nothing like the mongols, where they invaded peaceful countries and just took them over to take their resources, their people, their property, their liberty. We've NEVER done that. In every case we've either invaded an aggressor, or we've picked sides in an internal conflict in order to expand our political influence, but not to steal from the countries, and not to ever attack peaceful countries. That doesn't justify everything we did, but to compare it to mongols is just nonsense.
Or better yet, pick up a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.
Well, no, that's not serious. Barbarians in fact did that, although their counting method was imprecise. They walked through and took what they wanted, for whatever reason they decided... just as today's socialists do.
I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective.
Yawn.
Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world
* Engaged in more wars, invaded more countries: most of those coming to the aid of people who were being invaded or attacked, so you're mixing apples and oranges. Most people think what we did in WWI and WWII and the Gulf War and other wars were GOOD things.
And even Iraq was intended to be for the benefit of Iraq and the Middle East. Our greatest stains of imperialism are in Vietnam and Central America, and I won't defend those; and to some degree, we did the same nonsense in the Middle East, which lead to where we were in 2002. But while those were root causes for where we were in 2002, they were not reasons why we did what we did in 2003.
* Dropped more nuclear bombs: and in doing so, saved countless lives.
* Has more military bases in foreign countries: always at the request of those countries (unless there's still some bases I am forgetting about as the result of postwar treaties)
* Undermined international order and stability: says you. I think we're much more stable in the long run. Less order, perhaps, but when that order is represented by the United Nations telling Iraq "if you violate Resolution 687 we'll force you to comply" for 12 years, and in the end refuses to act... that is an order we can do without.
But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!?
Shrug. We are not taking over nations to expand our influence (though we did try this in the Cold War and in Central America, it's really not happening today). Today there's a sort of "new imperialism" where we try to control more of the world through politics and economics (and, to a lesser degree, culture)... though this is hardly new, since it was practiced by France and Britain for centuries. But it's not the sort of thing you appear to be referring to.
Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them?
I have no idea which military you speak of -- obviously not the U.S., since it's the most powerful in the world, yes, greater than China's -- so I cannot evaluate what your military could do. But any armed conflict with DPRK -- which would be brought on by their imminent threats, not by our arbitrary choice -- would result in a massive loss of life, so yes, that is something to fear.
Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?
Again, no clue what your country is, but my country has these things called "allies" that are well in range of DPRK's delivery range, and we would protect our allies. Not to mention if left unchecked, DPRK will likely get significantly increased range to hit my country, and yours.
Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.
DPRK would be able to someday, and very well might. The U.S. can, and almost surely never would.
Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations, what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?
Let's fast-forward form 2004, shall we? Iraq today has a stable, sovereign, and democractically elected government. There is no puppet regime there.
And it seems to me that what this has to do with peace is entirely self-evident: under Hussein, Iraqis were slaughtered and Iraq's neighbors were being constantly threatened with violence. Now all of that is gone. It's not perfect, of course, but life never is.
You can say that you don't think it was worth the cost, and that's fine. But to deny the point of creating a more peaceful, free, and prosperous Iraq -- which HAS HAPPENED -- is silly.
Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. With mostly conventional weapons, but also with support of terrorism (esp. in Israel's case, including direct support of terrorist bombers, and harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal).
You do realize, for example, we had troops for 12 years in Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Saudi government, for only one reason: to protect them from Iraq. This was one of the reasons Osama gave for attacking us on 9/11, BTW. And as soon as we overthrew Hussein, we left Saudi Arabia, because the threat was gone.
And Kuwait gave us a massive new military base in Kuwait in order to protect them from Iraq.
Look, I'm going to type this reeeeally slowly to make it easy for you to understand: outside of kiddie cartoons...
Yawn. You don't even understand what actually happened, and you're lecturing me?
I don't remember who said it (someone will be able to fill in here), but the grade of civilisation of a nation can be deducted from how it treats its lowest members. Treating the poor well requires money in the pockets of the nation, so it can spend.
But not in the pockets of GOVERNMENT. I honestly feel sorry for you that you believe that the poor can only be helped by stealing money from other people to give to them.
Oh, blah. Japan was already blockaded, utterly defeated, and teetering on the brink of the stone age when it was nuked. The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.
They were NOT GOING to surrender. We would have had to firebomb them or invade if we didn't use the nukes. The entire historical record, including statements from Japanese generals, show this.
Question: to demonstrate this overwhelming new weapon, did the USA have to actually drop it on two Japanese cities?
Yes. They were not going to surrender after the first one, by their own statements.
Wouldn't dropping one in the entrance to Tokyo Bay have done the same job?
Nope. Not only did we need to show the power, but show that we were willing to drop it on civilians, and do it more than once.
Well, that's ancient history. How many sovereign nations has North Korea invaded recently?
If we let them, they very well might invade ROK, and they actively threaten Japan regularly. And I only advocate attacking DPRK if they demonstrate they are likely to attack (either Japan or ROK, most likely).
It's like Iran. Almost NO ONE in government, of either party, is in favor of attacking Iran, UNLESS and UNTIL they are directly threatening us or our allies. Same thing with DPRK.
If your counter is "Only because they're being forcibly prevented", then that only serves to highlight that North Korea can be forcibly prevented from empire building.
We've only slowed them down: we have not stopped them, obviously, since they've made progress on their nukes and rockets and have engaged in illicit nuclear arms trading.
What's stopping the USA?
Our principles. We have had many chances to engage in empire building, from WWII through Korea and Central America and the Middle East, and we've not done so, because we don't want to.
Theft is uncivilized. The greater the theft, the more uncivilized.
So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?
Because it's not violent and uncivilized.
Peaceful it sure isn't
Yes, it is. As I already proved with "dead horse" references to WWI and especially WWII, being involved in violent acts does not make you violent or un-peaceful. Simply citing "police actions" is not an argument.
Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system.
Our electoral system is not flawed.
Our judicial system, while flawed, is less so than any other.
Our social welfare system is flawed primarily in that it is unconstitutional and anti-liberty: it should be much smaller and legal.
Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
You know, MAKING arguments and MAKING UP arguments are not the same thing. None of that is true.
Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians
What are you, 12?
... buying all the mom and pop's all over the country
Not in any way uncivilized.
Blatant disregard for international treaties...
I defy you to name one.
... and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.
I defy you to give an example.
So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.
Uh... what exactly did Bush II do "right", except get them to dig their nuclear facilities deeper underground?
Forced them to the table, brought Russia and China to our side, got them much closer to real concessions than ever before.
The China thing is probably the biggest one. We cannot act against DPRK without China saying it's OK, and we got China's foreign minister on the lawn of the White House shaking Bush's hand and agreeing that we must have a nuclear free peninsula. That was *huge* and will pay dividends in the future.
Multilateral talks are the ONLY way forward, and Bush got that done, and got major progress with them, and hopefully Obama doesn't blow it.
I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that.
You don't understand the history then.
Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).
Wrong on both counts. Please read and understand the history (as some people have informed you in the replies).
Even Japanese generals have said that Japan would not have surrendered if not for both bombs, being on civilian targets. Only that show of force, and our willingness to use it against civilians, would have been sufficient to stop Japan and save lives.
Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature?
It wasn't funny. It's a normal name for this type of munition, and the jokes have all been done decades ago. But whatever, to each his own.
As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad.:(
Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?
If the U.S. had killed Osama when we had the chance, long before 9/11/2001, I think that would've been a very good thing.
Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary. That's not to say everything the Pentagon does is good and right, of course. But killing is not all bad.
You apparently don't understand how we know where their nukes are. Good thing you're not in charge, eh?
Further, your statement is wrong on its face anyway: if we did depend exclusively on satellites, and we could see them all through this method (which you imply), then we would still know where all their nukes were: we just wouldn't know which ones were the nukes and which ones weren't. So we'd bomb both. For a large country like Iraq this can be useful; for a small one like DPRK it's just asking for more of your country to be blown up.
You may be hubristic enough to risk a first strike against a nuclear power, but thank God the US President appears to have a few more clues.
/me shakes head
First, there's no risk to us. DPRK can't touch us.
Second, there's no hubris involved. At all.
Third, Obama would launch in a second if a. DPRK posed a direct threat to us or its neighbors and b. China would let us.
There wasn't much left after their counterparts handed massive portions of the country over to government in the name of domestic security that is no more secure than it ever was.
There's the TSA, which sucks, but is mostly harmless. And what else? If anything the Democrats and left get angry because they didn't hand over MORE of the country to the government: more of first responders, more of shipping, and so on.
Good point, except for one thing: they only LOOK like Vince Lombardi because they were up against Carter and Clinton, who gave them those victories. They only have a few offenses and defenses, and so a decent American "coach" would not let them score off it, or would at least limit their scoring.
Not that I was ever a big fan of Bush, but North Korea is something he got right. Hopefully Obama doesn't screw up the progress we've made over the last few years.
The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way... which probably angers the DPRK to no end).
Slashdot Mirror
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Depends. Considering USians can spend that much on healthcare and education, there's not really much difference. They take it away from you one way or another.
No, they don't. In one case it is voluntary, and in another, it's forced. That IS the difference, and it's a huge one.
Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago.
You really think Germany would have stopped without being forced to? Or the USSR? Come on.
One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys would be speaking Japanese.
Not really, no. Not at all.
You need to get out of the US and see the world. Or even get out of your white middle class lifestyle and look at the US.
You need to stop engaging in argumentum ad hominem.
Whilst you guys are developing superweapons your literacy rates are 3rd world poor in many areas.
I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything. Are you one of those people who believes we should spend money on education instead of weapons? Despite the fact that there is no significant link between increased funding, and increased performance, in schools? (Washington DC has the worst schools and spends more than any other area on education.) It's nonsense: our schools suck solely because of cultural reasons, not financial reasons.
Your healthcare system is the worst in the western world.
No, it's not. In fact, it's among the best. The stats you are looking at do not measure the quality of the health care system, but the relative health of the people. Those are not the same thing, for two big reasons: the free choices of the people that lead to bad health even within a good health care system, and the poor health of people NOT IN the system.
It's self-evidently true that the health care system sucks for people who aren't in it, but for people who are, it's among the best in the world.
You economy belongs to China.
No, it doesn't. I know it's a cute tagline for people to spew, but there's no serious truth to it.
Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine
Nothing I said denied that.
... but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.
Yeah, only because AFTER the war Russia oppressed half of Europe for decades. It's hard to say "you should thank us for saving you from Germany in WWII" after the atrocities inflicted across Eastern Europe in the wake of WWII.
The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.
60% tax uncivilised
Torture civilised
Can you see what is wrong here?
Yep, a lot. First, you seem to be inviting a war. That's bad. Second, you implicitly accuse me of supporting torture, or believing it is civilized. That's false. Third, you give no reason to think a 60 percent tax is NOT uncivilized, and you just throw it out there as if anyone should believe it. (Granted, I didn't go into detail either, but you asked what's wrong and I am trying to be thorough.)
I could go on, I think. But that's the bulk of what's wrong there.
You contradict yourself.
No, I do not.
The U.S. had a top income tax rate of between 63% and 94% all the way from 1932 to 1981
And it was uncivilized. And including state and local taxes, many places -- mostly CA and NY -- are up around 60 percent now. And it is uncivilized.
So by your ridiculous argument, you just proved the U.S. "greatest generation" to be inherently uncivilized.
I never said -- and never would have said, or implied, or meant -- that Sweden was uncivilized. I said its 60 percent tax rate is uncivilized.
The USSR and UK bore the brunt of WWII. Esp. the USSR. They are the ones who actually went out and fought the Germans en-masse, developed much of the technology, and did most of the manufacturing.
Yes.
it's debatable if Germany would have been victorious over the UK and the USSR even if the USA didn't step in
We will never know, but it is very unlikely the UK would have survived it, along with most of the rest of Europe. What good is naval superiority when your island nation is completely overrun?
Granted, the USSR likely would have held Germany off. And then probably would have "liberated" Europe without our help in the end, of course, making the Warsaw Pact much bigger: taking all of Germany, certainly, and Italy and maybe Switzerland and some others. So I take it back: Sweden would be speaking Russian today, not German. Thanks for the correction!
The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
No, I am not.
First, I noted in another comment that in Central America we have done that sort of thing. But more importantly, this is nothing like the mongols, where they invaded peaceful countries and just took them over to take their resources, their people, their property, their liberty. We've NEVER done that. In every case we've either invaded an aggressor, or we've picked sides in an internal conflict in order to expand our political influence, but not to steal from the countries, and not to ever attack peaceful countries. That doesn't justify everything we did, but to compare it to mongols is just nonsense.
Or better yet, pick up a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
/me throws up in his own mouth
Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.
Well, no, that's not serious. Barbarians in fact did that, although their counting method was imprecise. They walked through and took what they wanted, for whatever reason they decided ... just as today's socialists do.
Who still wants to believe such propaganda?
It is not about what I want to believe. I never believe anything because I want to. I only believe what I am convinced of, and the facts show it.
All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait.
False.
I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective.
Yawn.
Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world
* Engaged in more wars, invaded more countries: most of those coming to the aid of people who were being invaded or attacked, so you're mixing apples and oranges. Most people think what we did in WWI and WWII and the Gulf War and other wars were GOOD things.
And even Iraq was intended to be for the benefit of Iraq and the Middle East. Our greatest stains of imperialism are in Vietnam and Central America, and I won't defend those; and to some degree, we did the same nonsense in the Middle East, which lead to where we were in 2002. But while those were root causes for where we were in 2002, they were not reasons why we did what we did in 2003.
* Dropped more nuclear bombs: and in doing so, saved countless lives.
* Has more military bases in foreign countries: always at the request of those countries (unless there's still some bases I am forgetting about as the result of postwar treaties)
* Undermined international order and stability: says you. I think we're much more stable in the long run. Less order, perhaps, but when that order is represented by the United Nations telling Iraq "if you violate Resolution 687 we'll force you to comply" for 12 years, and in the end refuses to act ... that is an order we can do without.
But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!?
Shrug. We are not taking over nations to expand our influence (though we did try this in the Cold War and in Central America, it's really not happening today). Today there's a sort of "new imperialism" where we try to control more of the world through politics and economics (and, to a lesser degree, culture) ... though this is hardly new, since it was practiced by France and Britain for centuries. But it's not the sort of thing you appear to be referring to.
"Proportion" a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb
Yes, that's the idea. Do you have a problem with the math? That size bomb is needed for this sort of application. It is proportional.
"Perspective" American
Nope. Historical. The Mongols overran peaceful countries and took them over. The U.S. has NEVER done that. Ever.
If you think about it carefully, I think you will find that you missed hnangelo's point.
If you re-read what I wrote, and understand it, then you will find I did not.
what on earth have people allegedly stealing from your offspring to do with blasting or not of ICBMs in NK?
I will answer that, when you or the parent can answer what Americans fleeing to other countries has to do with it.
You should maybe calm down.
Impossible. I'd have to be worked up. I'm not.
try reading this before ou continue this line of argument.
Um. That fallacy is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Think on.
Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them?
I have no idea which military you speak of -- obviously not the U.S., since it's the most powerful in the world, yes, greater than China's -- so I cannot evaluate what your military could do. But any armed conflict with DPRK -- which would be brought on by their imminent threats, not by our arbitrary choice -- would result in a massive loss of life, so yes, that is something to fear.
Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?
Again, no clue what your country is, but my country has these things called "allies" that are well in range of DPRK's delivery range, and we would protect our allies. Not to mention if left unchecked, DPRK will likely get significantly increased range to hit my country, and yours.
Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.
DPRK would be able to someday, and very well might. The U.S. can, and almost surely never would.
Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations, what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?
Let's fast-forward form 2004, shall we? Iraq today has a stable, sovereign, and democractically elected government. There is no puppet regime there.
And it seems to me that what this has to do with peace is entirely self-evident: under Hussein, Iraqis were slaughtered and Iraq's neighbors were being constantly threatened with violence. Now all of that is gone. It's not perfect, of course, but life never is.
You can say that you don't think it was worth the cost, and that's fine. But to deny the point of creating a more peaceful, free, and prosperous Iraq -- which HAS HAPPENED -- is silly.
Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. With mostly conventional weapons, but also with support of terrorism (esp. in Israel's case, including direct support of terrorist bombers, and harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal).
You do realize, for example, we had troops for 12 years in Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Saudi government, for only one reason: to protect them from Iraq. This was one of the reasons Osama gave for attacking us on 9/11, BTW. And as soon as we overthrew Hussein, we left Saudi Arabia, because the threat was gone.
And Kuwait gave us a massive new military base in Kuwait in order to protect them from Iraq.
Look, I'm going to type this reeeeally slowly to make it easy for you to understand: outside of kiddie cartoons ...
Yawn. You don't even understand what actually happened, and you're lecturing me?
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Actually, a 6% taxation rate would be.
Sure. A 60 percent rate just moreso.
I don't remember who said it (someone will be able to fill in here), but the grade of civilisation of a nation can be deducted from how it treats its lowest members. Treating the poor well requires money in the pockets of the nation, so it can spend.
But not in the pockets of GOVERNMENT. I honestly feel sorry for you that you believe that the poor can only be helped by stealing money from other people to give to them.
Oh, blah. Japan was already blockaded, utterly defeated, and teetering on the brink of the stone age when it was nuked. The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.
They were NOT GOING to surrender. We would have had to firebomb them or invade if we didn't use the nukes. The entire historical record, including statements from Japanese generals, show this.
Question: to demonstrate this overwhelming new weapon, did the USA have to actually drop it on two Japanese cities?
Yes. They were not going to surrender after the first one, by their own statements.
Wouldn't dropping one in the entrance to Tokyo Bay have done the same job?
Nope. Not only did we need to show the power, but show that we were willing to drop it on civilians, and do it more than once.
Well, that's ancient history. How many sovereign nations has North Korea invaded recently?
If we let them, they very well might invade ROK, and they actively threaten Japan regularly. And I only advocate attacking DPRK if they demonstrate they are likely to attack (either Japan or ROK, most likely).
It's like Iran. Almost NO ONE in government, of either party, is in favor of attacking Iran, UNLESS and UNTIL they are directly threatening us or our allies. Same thing with DPRK.
If your counter is "Only because they're being forcibly prevented", then that only serves to highlight that North Korea can be forcibly prevented from empire building.
We've only slowed them down: we have not stopped them, obviously, since they've made progress on their nukes and rockets and have engaged in illicit nuclear arms trading.
What's stopping the USA?
Our principles. We have had many chances to engage in empire building, from WWII through Korea and Central America and the Middle East, and we've not done so, because we don't want to.
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Is it? How do you figure?
Theft is uncivilized. The greater the theft, the more uncivilized.
So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?
Because it's not violent and uncivilized.
Peaceful it sure isn't
Yes, it is. As I already proved with "dead horse" references to WWI and especially WWII, being involved in violent acts does not make you violent or un-peaceful. Simply citing "police actions" is not an argument.
Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system.
Our electoral system is not flawed.
Our judicial system, while flawed, is less so than any other.
Our social welfare system is flawed primarily in that it is unconstitutional and anti-liberty: it should be much smaller and legal.
Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
You know, MAKING arguments and MAKING UP arguments are not the same thing. None of that is true.
Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians
What are you, 12?
... buying all the mom and pop's all over the country
Not in any way uncivilized.
Blatant disregard for international treaties ...
I defy you to name one.
... and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.
I defy you to give an example.
So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.
You've given no reason to think otherwise.
Uh... what exactly did Bush II do "right", except get them to dig their nuclear facilities deeper underground?
Forced them to the table, brought Russia and China to our side, got them much closer to real concessions than ever before.
The China thing is probably the biggest one. We cannot act against DPRK without China saying it's OK, and we got China's foreign minister on the lawn of the White House shaking Bush's hand and agreeing that we must have a nuclear free peninsula. That was *huge* and will pay dividends in the future.
Multilateral talks are the ONLY way forward, and Bush got that done, and got major progress with them, and hopefully Obama doesn't blow it.
Oh, not that tired old justification again.
Historical fact. Shrug.
What is it with the American psyche that feels the need to justifify such barbarity?
I attempt to justify nothing. I simply read and understand history and report what history says.
The reason the bomb was dropped was because it cost a fortune to build and congress would ask serious questions if it wasn't used.
Unlike my argument -- which is backed by the historical record -- yours is just made-up.
The "saving lives" argument only appeared later on.
Not remotely. That was the whole point. It is why Japan surrendered. It was the WHOLE POINT at the time.
You need to go back and read the history again.
You need to read it a first time.
I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that.
You don't understand the history then.
Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).
Wrong on both counts. Please read and understand the history (as some people have informed you in the replies).
Even Japanese generals have said that Japan would not have surrendered if not for both bombs, being on civilian targets. Only that show of force, and our willingness to use it against civilians, would have been sufficient to stop Japan and save lives.
Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature?
It wasn't funny. It's a normal name for this type of munition, and the jokes have all been done decades ago. But whatever, to each his own.
As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad. :(
Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?
If the U.S. had killed Osama when we had the chance, long before 9/11/2001, I think that would've been a very good thing.
Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary. That's not to say everything the Pentagon does is good and right, of course. But killing is not all bad.
Sure you will!
Yes.
Alternatively, for a very small investment, your enemies can make it impossible to detect all their nukes.
You apparently don't understand how we know where their nukes are. Good thing you're not in charge, eh?
Further, your statement is wrong on its face anyway: if we did depend exclusively on satellites, and we could see them all through this method (which you imply), then we would still know where all their nukes were: we just wouldn't know which ones were the nukes and which ones weren't. So we'd bomb both. For a large country like Iraq this can be useful; for a small one like DPRK it's just asking for more of your country to be blown up.
You may be hubristic enough to risk a first strike against a nuclear power, but thank God the US President appears to have a few more clues.
/me shakes head
First, there's no risk to us. DPRK can't touch us.
Second, there's no hubris involved. At all.
Third, Obama would launch in a second if a. DPRK posed a direct threat to us or its neighbors and b. China would let us.
There wasn't much left after their counterparts handed massive portions of the country over to government in the name of domestic security that is no more secure than it ever was.
There's the TSA, which sucks, but is mostly harmless. And what else? If anything the Democrats and left get angry because they didn't hand over MORE of the country to the government: more of first responders, more of shipping, and so on.
Good point, except for one thing: they only LOOK like Vince Lombardi because they were up against Carter and Clinton, who gave them those victories. They only have a few offenses and defenses, and so a decent American "coach" would not let them score off it, or would at least limit their scoring.
Not that I was ever a big fan of Bush, but North Korea is something he got right. Hopefully Obama doesn't screw up the progress we've made over the last few years.
Which one's actually used a nuke?
The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way ... which probably angers the DPRK to no end).
Unfortunately, the US scares me a lot more than North Korea does.
Then you're a looney.
Exactly.
Thank you for so succinctly pointing out why this is a good idea for the U.S.
(I think you meant it to be an argument AGAINST the bomb, but ... it's not.)