The differences between America and Europe

[chequita guevara]

I have been led to believe that China's nuclear capability vis a vis the US is very poor. A nuclear first strike could remove that threat to the US, though I imagine that our local allies such as Korea, Taiwan, and Japan would pay the price.

[DanS]

"Korea, Taiwan, and Japan would pay the price"

Yes, that is a sufficient deterrent to US aggressions with conventional forces, IMO. They might also take out some cities on the West Coast.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by DanS
[T[hese [bombers] could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks.

Ehh, I can't really tell about such things but considering the time it took to take care of Iraq before the ground war and that I would think China has more forces and is a hell of a lot bigger that seems like a gross overstatement.

[Sandman]

GePap: We have about 100 bombers, each of which can carry about 10-15x precision-guided 2,000 pound bombs. With sufficient air cover and without a restraining force, these could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks, probably even without too many overflight rights from allies.

How many precision-guided 2000lb bombs does America have?

You would need between 14000 and 21000 of those things for your scenario, assuming one bombing run per day.

I doubt that even the U.S. has that number of bombs.

[DanS]

The only thing precision-guided that we had in Iraq was the Tomahawks, IIRC, which carry 500 lb. (?) payloads. They also cost about $500k per, whereas the new JDAMs cost something like $20k apiece.

[GePap]

1+3=/5

Siro:

Like so many people, you are totally confusing a major relegion, Islam, with a modern political movement, Islamic fundamentalism.

First of all, on Islamic treatment of Jews: Yes, Jews, like ALL minority groups before the idea of equal rights spread were mistreated. Please tell me of one minority group, especially one that did not share the relegion of the majority, who was not mistreated? To expect equal treatment in a time when none was given is ludicrous. The point is that Islamic treatment of Jews was far better than Christian reatment of Jews. (If there are more ashkenazis than Sephardim is because the population explosin hit Europe before the middle east. Poland had more people than Egypt back in 1900, check the numbers. MOre people in Europe, more European Jews. since the sephardim left before the demographic explosion in the middle east, why they are fewer is no surprise) The blood libel, while startting to get used in the middle east today was not invented by Muslims. When the crusaders were outside of Jerusalem, with which side did the local Jews side, the Christians or Muslims? The long record of expulsions (Spain, England), pogroms (Russia, Poland, Germany) Ghettoes (all of Europe), forced covesions, and so forth and so on has no equal in the MUslim world. Maimoides wrote under Muslim rulers, tell me one great Medeival Jewish thinker that wrote under Christian rule before the renaissance? Is there growing anti-semitism in Muslim states today? Yes, which is fostered by politicians, not because it is natural of islam, especialy when the Q'uran calls the Jews peoples of the books and expects them to be respected if not treated the same.

As for where islam is today: I chalenge you Siro to go to a local library an look up some older books, say, from the 60"s, and find in them how much Israeli writers, or american, or european, worried about radical Islam. My bet, you will find very little. Think of all the original Arab regimes, or those in Indonesia or Pakisan, how many of them were run by Mullahs or were deeply relegious? Short of the Saudis, they were all authotitarian, and almost always secualr, Nasser, Jinnah, Sukarno, Suharto, Assad, the Shah: Until Iran, no one worried about Islamists taking over but Communism (which, as you know, is inherently aetheistic).
The pattern is clear around the world, from the arab states to Indonesia to Nigeria: The first authoritarian regimes failed to improve the lives of their peoples and because of this left-wing regimes begun to take over. Now, two things joined forces, that many of these lef wing regimes begun to fail, and that anti-communist groups (US, Israel sometimes) begun to try to stir forces that would counter communism, and last time I looked, relegious nuts are anti-communist. It was in the late 70's and early eigthties tht funamentalits became an issue. Look at all the fundamenlist regimes or quasi groups out there, the only one that predates this time is the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the granddaddy of these groups, and a group the Egyptians have been trying to crush for decades. Also, notice how most Aab states as are have controlled or kept Islamist groups down internally if they did not suit their purposes: Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria all have either kept these groups down and out for ever or successfully cracked down.

Sowhats the point of this lesson?Tha all this anti-Islam propaganda is mindless crap that takes absolutely no account of the history as its written for all non-bigoted people to see! Radical islam is a POLITICAL movement that is absolutely MODERN and has as much to do with the fundmentals of the religion of Islam as Kahane Chai or Kach have to do with the fundamental of Judaism. The difference is that in many Muslim states the political forces that be have used radical islam to further their agendas while in Israel these radical Jewish group (or radical christian group in the US) have been ought because they udermine the politics of the state. If we must blame something for the rise of this fundamenalism is the authoriarian, corrupt regimes that rule accross the Muslim world, not Islam.

Now to Sadam:

First, Tyrannies do have to fear Radical islam: The Shah of Ian had the most feared secret police in the Middle East, where is he now? If Syria and Egypt and Iraq have not fallen is that they have done more than just cracked the whip. Do you think Syrian women want to be shrouded, or the average person have to do the crap the Mullah would ask? No. Besides craking the whip these regimes have also built secular middle classes that don't mind the whip being used. No tyranny is too strong to overcome the pressures of the population (remembe that it is this population that become the soldiers of the army needed to crack the whip).

Second, yes Saddam is a murderer, but he is not an idiot (you can't stay alive as long as him and be an idiot). What does he gain from using weapons of mass destruction against anyone who would care? He used them intenally (which doesn't matter since most states will overlook crimes within borders [the West bank and Gaza are not within borders!]if an Israeli government were to do something terrible to their own people (Jews), no one, not even the Arab regimes, would give a damn!) and against Iranians (those loathsome fundies!). Not until the gulf war did anyone ever bring this up, and that because by then he was our enemy.
So the idea that he would hand WMD to any group that might use them in a traceable way is idiotic. No matter the number of suicide bombers, Israel would never be able to use that as a justification of an attack agaisnt Iraq, but if Israel (or the US) could trace Iraqi involvement in a WMD attack aginst either state, then goodbye Saddam and no one would stand up to portect him. So what does he have to gain? Nothing.

Is Saddam Hitler? No, anymore than Iddi Amin, Suharto, pol Pot (who killed far more people than Saddam), Mobutu, or any of countless other regional crackpots. Saddam is not ou to conquer the Middle east even if he wants to be the main player ion the game. Not invading is not appeasing (thought i could write a very long post on why the legend of appeasment is utter idiocy), especially when the idiots back in pennsylvania avenue probably have no clue about the political program in Iraq after sadam. If they come out with a reasonable and intelligent plan for the aftermath, then perhaps I culd support military action, but until they do, all they would cuase is chaos and shooting themselves in the foot. Heck, what if saddam took refuge in Iran? No one has brought that one up!

[Az]

It can , however , produce them. (and I wouldn't be surprised if it had them , too ).

GePap: I hope you're right. But events all around the world are telling me otherwise , Many of which you've never heard of, like in the former SU. TIme will show. I really don't like your tone that "it's 1/6 of the world's population and it will continue to grow, and there's nothing you can do about it" . are you happy? do you want it to happen? even with most of the current world being capitalist , which is against my way of thinking , I'd rather have it , including all of it's ups and downs rather than an ideology so alien to my thinking that it disturbs me very much . I've read muslim texts, I've read things that are posted on websites. We'll see

Good discussion people. I'll just keep on lurking.

[chequita guevara]

The whole point, there is a deterent to doing everything. There was a deterent factor to taking on the Taleban to get bin Laden. Eventually, however, the cost of not getting bin Laden outweighed the cost of attacking and occupying Afganistan. We could take out China, but the cost to do so outweighs any potential benefits, at this time. If China attacked Taiwan, for example, the cost of not attacking China would increase greatly, perhaps to the point that attackin China becomes a viable option.

The existence of deterent costs doesn't mean that the US isn't a hegemon.

[DanS]

Sandman: According to the following article, the US has taken delivery of about 18,000 JDAMs of various sizes and have dropped about 6,000 in Afghanistan (where there was no infrastructure).

http://www.polkonline.com/stories/042902/sta_price.shtml

236,000 kits ordered through 2009. 95% expected to hit within a 30-feet radius of intended targets.

[chequita guevara]

Good post, GePap.

[Az]

Che , common. I condemn Judaism , Christianity and Islam alike . why can't you do the same ?

This alliance between muslim organizations and leftwingers drives me nuts.

[Kropotkin]

Hey, we have a right to a contra-conspiracy Zoggie

[Az]

This is a serious thread , have you noticed?

besides, two wrongs don't make a right.

[chequita guevara]

It has to do with the fact that Lefties support the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinians on the one hand, and the defeat of imperialism on the other. Lefties tend to see imperialism as the greater evil. Whether or not that's true is another argument.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Sandman
I doubt that even the U.S. has that number of bombs.

I think this comment is rather funny