Looks like Saddam is worried

[faded glory]

Are you kidding?


A hostile dictator or leader would have a hard time taking power here.....


his special police force would have to made of Robots....too many guns....


Plus our military has a responsibility to overthrow a leader who wasnt elected or refused to leave office.

[Jon Miller]

in certain circumstances a hitleresqe (or Longesqe) figure could gain power quite easily here

most of those with guns would be supporting him

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

But what makes an organization a state? Is it name only? Should the Mafia start calling itself a Republic?

Well, again we're gonna have problems discussing this because of our wildly different beliefs. But, I think it's reasonable to say that a nation is a nation if other nations recognize it as such.
Now, you ask, where did those other nations come from? Well, they've pretty much always been. Ever since people came together to form primitive governments - to get out of the state of nature - there have been nations. So, my best answer is nations just ARE.

orange,

2+2=4 The capital of France is Paris Helium is less dense than air.

That's common knowledge...I'm not going to simply believe what you said becuase you said it. What proof do you have?

I suppose you could check out Hazegray and look at the OrBat for the US Navy. Just do a simple search.

It is if they trade with those nations or have cultural and diplomatic ties to them.

I disagree, because they would not be the ones being attacked.

Humour aside, my hypothetical scenario was made to show the shortcomings of your hypothetical isolationist foreign policy.

That's fine, but I refuse to accept your hypothetical premise that a dictator bent on world domination through force of arms could rise to power and maintain his power in the US.

Nevermind if they could take over the world, they'd still be able to take over much of it as long as all nations minded their own business, and, at very least, hold them ransom through threat of war slavery.

And I'm telling you again, that eventually a country overextends and its military and infrastructure break down, and the whole thing tumbles like a house of cards.

So the US Constitution should be a measure for all people's rights, but not for international relations...

Wrong. The US Constitution is the source of rights for American citizens. Other people around the world have what are known as natural rights, whether or not they have a Constitution guaranteeing them, as we do. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with international relations, at least not to a great degree, it's a check on the federal government.

No, the United Nations does not exist for such a purpose and I'm damn sure you know it. The only 'domestic' thing the UN would act against would be something like legalized slavery or genocide, which it SHOULD aim to prevent.

I disagree. The UN has no right to interfere with domestic issues EVER, even if they are slavery or genocide. They have no more moral authority to do so than the United States does.

Mac,

Let's say, China decides to attack, and conquer all of Asia, excluding Russia, one by one. Let's say, 3 years in between conquests. Now, at the end of the line, they decide, they want more, and they take all of Oceania. Now remember, they've been fighting nations one-on-one all through this, and it's been quite awhile since the first conquest, and the people living in the Province of Mongolia are really becoming good Chinese citizens. So, they're able to loosen restrictions in the Province of Mongolia, and use those people to help the war. Now, they've taken Oceania, and, well, they want more. So, they head up into Russia, this time with a huge advantage because the Provinces of Pakistan and India are very Chinese. So, they take Russia, and the process repeats ad nauseum, because every nation only fights for itself.

Well, first off China has no capability to take Oceania. They have no navy. They can't even take Taiwan, not enough amphibious assets.
Further, it would take A LOT more than 3 years to make a conquered people "comfortable citizens" of your empire.
Next, there's no way for China to conquer Russia. That's just ridiculous. One little railroad connects European Russia with Siberia, where China would initially invade. All the Russians have to do is detonate a few nukes along the length of the railroad, and boom China can't really do much. Not to mention an army invading Siberia? Come on.
And China could invade and conquer India? How? India's population is nearly as big as China's. It would be a war of attrition, which granted China could probably win eventually - EVENTUALLY. It would take years, and millions of soldiers to hold down India once the conquest took place.

Oh, and just controlling all the oil in the mid-east would be as close to a monopoply on oil as possible. With that control a nation/person could effectlively control large parts of most modern economies. Oil price goes up, all other prices go up eventually, oil stops being shipped, you got a big mess.

Even if that's true, it isn't our oil anyway. We have no claim of ownership to it. We can't dictate prices or availability or anything of the sort.

orange,

Thanks Mac, that was a great example, especially considering how easy it would be for China to conquer many smaller asian countries like Vietnam Laos Cambodia Bhutan Mongolia and North Korea. Especially one by one, and especially with some time in between. Without coallitions, powerful China can't be easily stopped and their access

China's already tried invading Vietnam. They lost.
As for North Korea, North Korea has a 1.1 million man standing army and over 2 million reservists/militia. Not to mention when you move along to South Korea you face 650,000 active troops and over 4 million reservists/militia. Good luck conquering that


ravagon,

The mindset of a nation in wartime changes - Even more so in the 20th century with the art of war becoming ever more complex and dependent upon logistics moreso than tactics.

I agree. Logistics. That's why conquering the world is impossible

The US would/could have never developed nuclear devices before Germany if they hadn't entered into a state of war. They wouldn't have needed to beforehand and it would've been too late after the fact.

Except that Germany was never focusing on nuclear weapons. Jet bombers, sure. Rockets, sure. Massive-ass tanks, sure. The A-bomb? No.

These and a myriad of other, many minor and seemingly inconsequential, benefits that came directly from the US involvement would not have been - any/all of which could have left the US in a compromised position in a wartime situation.

Maybe true, maybe not. But that doesn't really matter. Even assuming that is a valid reason for entering a war, which it isn't, we never entered WW2 in order to achieve a better post-war situation vis-a-vis Russia. And think of the benefits to staying out of the war - 430,000 Americans would have been alive. That outweighs, in my mind, any sort of weapons development or whatever you get from sacrificing those people. And besides, the Soviets were just as afraid of NATO attacking as we were of the Soviets attacking. They weren't gonna first-strike any more than we were.

Jon,

deffinitely from Long and if we come to such times again we will be ripe again

But what happened to Long? Oh yeah, he was assassinated

[Jon Miller]

so we are to rely on an assasination?

(and yes, I do know that the Constitution is another big block to would be dictators)

The US is great, the best coutry arround, but it is not infallable.

Of course, I beleive that the greatest danger in the future will come from multi-nationals.

By the way, some of your other arguments are crap.

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

so we are to rely on an assasination?

Not entirely, obviously not. Sometimes assassins miss dictators, such as in the case of FDR

By the way, some of your other arguments are crap.

Most of my arguments are my political opinions. The rest involve military capabilities. If you disagree with my political opinions, fine, but I hope you aren't saying my "military capabilities" arguments are crap.

[Jon Miller]

I semi-agree with you with FDR

he was a great president, but too close to a dictator for comfort(reason we instituted the 2-term limit ruling) (he was actually very far vrom being a dictator, but even where he was it was too close)

I do think that a nation could take over the world

it could not be in the near future though

(I agree with your estimations that China would currently have serious problems)

I think that we needed to take on Germany in WW2

and so on

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

BTW

anyone play Republic of Rome?

it is kickass

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

I do think that a nation could take over the world

Could you back that up? I'm asking because I see no way for any single nation, no matter how big, to dominate the entire world, especially a world with nuclear weapons.

he was a great president, but too close to a dictator for comfort(reason we instituted the 2-term limit ruling) (he was actually very far vrom being a dictator, but even where he was it was too close)

As to that, he was a terrible president. He violated the Constitution when it suited him, he threatened to pack the Supreme Court so that he could destroy seperation of powers, he actively encouraged Congress to pass unconstitutional legislation, he knowingly implemented unconstitutional programs that would not solve the Great Depression, etc.

[lightblue]

Hmm, looks like my original thread title offended someone, and it got changed. Nice to see censorship is still working.

[David Floyd]

LOL I just noticed that.

[mactbone]

DF, the point flies over your head, but let me make clear a couple of points. China as it exists now, did not always exist. One part of what is now China, decided to take over all the parts around it. Guess what, they succeeded and now we have China. My three years? That was in between each and every country. So, by the time they want India, it's been 20 years since they started. Oh, and about military technology, there's this little island not too far from China that knows most of the West's secrets, it's called Japan. Not like China couldn't take it over, and 10 years from then be able to start using the technology.

Your nuke question brings up a point though. What if India and Pakistan nuked each other? Should the US intercede? Or just let them keep nuking?

[orange]

DF I don't have time to post now (ugh, first day of classes was today ) but you keep switching back and forth between your theory and the world as it is now.

You're saying your political theory, and when someone points out problems to it, you point to how they could be solved with the way things work TODAY. If countries did keep to themselves as you want them too, foreign policy would be entirely different, so you have to take that into account. I don't feel that you are, you're applying theory to this real world and not allowing for the changes that are sure to exist if that theory was reality.

[David Floyd]

DF, the point flies over your head, but let me make clear a couple of points. China as it exists now, did not always exist. One part of what is now China, decided to take over all the parts around it. Guess what, they succeeded and now we have China. My three years? That was in between each and every country. So, by the time they want India, it's been 20 years since they started. Oh, and about military technology, there's this little island not too far from China that knows most of the West's secrets, it's called Japan. Not like China couldn't take it over, and 10 years from then be able to start using the technology.

Mac, China can't invade Japan any more than it can invade Taiwan - that is, it can't
Further, the unification of China is all well and good, but how many hundreds, thousands even, of years did that take? And further that just doesn't work anymore - India, or whatever, isn't gonna let itself just be culturally molded into China

Your nuke question brings up a point though. What if India and Pakistan nuked each other? Should the US intercede? Or just let them keep nuking?

Obviously it's none of our business. If they wanna nuke each other, not my problem.

orange,

DF I don't have time to post now (ugh, first day of classes was today ) but you keep switching back and forth between your theory and the world as it is now.

You're saying your political theory, and when someone points out problems to it, you point to how they could be solved with the way things work TODAY. If countries did keep to themselves as you want them too, foreign policy would be entirely different, so you have to take that into account. I don't feel that you are, you're applying theory to this real world and not allowing for the changes that are sure to exist if that theory was reality.

The problem is that there is no way to adequately model what would have happened had my theories been applied from Day 1. There just isn't. If everyone kept to themselves, though, and didn't interfere - seems as though war would be a non-issue, eh?

[lightblue]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Obviously it's none of our business. If they wanna nuke each other, not my problem.

Umm...Hate to snap you out of your isolationist revelry, but any kind of nuclear exchange will have global repercussions. For a start the countries that border them (such as China) will get involved. Secondly, any kind of nuclear war will pull the carpet out from all stockmarkets in the world, dropping us all in a recession. Depending on the scale environmental effects will also be seen .

Hate to break it to you, but we're at a stage now where all nations are interconnected. Hardly any, if any, country is completely selfsufficient, and the actions of other nations, especially involving two countries that combined total more than 1.2 Billion people, will affect all others to a certain degree.

The other major powers (US, EU, Russia, China, UN) will all have to get involved to avert any nuclear war, or to limit it to the absolute minimum if and when it does happen, including using military power to "convince" the aggressor of their wrong.

[David Floyd]

lightblue, I agree in that we should work diplomatically to prevent a nuclear exchange.

However, once it happens, what would you suggest? Putting US troops on the ground in a war zone - a nuclear war zone - to get their asses shot off? Lemme think for a second......NOPE.