The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Q Cubed
the harsher line in this case, as far as i understood it, was that he would refuse to continue the sunshine policy
As far as I understand the situation from my research, Lee wasn't planning on ending the Sunshine Policy but changing it to include an element of reciprocity.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
As far as I understand the situation from my research, Lee wasn't planning on ending the Sunshine Policy but changing it to include an element of reciprocity.
Lee Hoi-chang, presidential nominee of the conservative Grand National Party, who returned to Seoul yesterday after a four-day trip to China, seems to be showing signs of loosening up his hard-line views on North Korea, but with seemingly little fundamental shift from his original stance.
After heeding Lee’s remarks in a series of talks with Chinese leaders, some political watchers made the observation that Lee, a vocal critic of President Kim Dae-jung’s ``Sunshine Policy’’ of engaging the reclusive North, is trying, outwardly at least, an about-face of his outlook on North Korean affairs...In fact, Lee’s and his party’s approval ratings has largely relied on attacks of President Kim’s Sunshine Policy, a major point for mounting political offensives along with the attacks on a slew of corruption scandals involving Kim’s sons.
With the enormous power of his majority party, Lee has consistently condemned President Kim’s peace initiatives, which he accused of giving too much to the North in return for too little. Lee and his party have also objected the government’s subsidy for the ailing inter-Korean tourism project in the North’s Mt. Kumgang, and criticized the government for being unable to demand a sincere apology from the North for the June 29 inter-Korean naval clash.
in the end, it's more that he favors continuing engagment, but desires, as i said,
ask for far more accountability with such things as the nuclear materials.
Mr Lee has been a critic of the government's “sunshine policy” of engagement with North Korea. He wants to stop financial aid to the North while it continues its nuclear-weapons programme.
He has also pledged a tough policy on North Korea, criticising outgoing President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of trying to engage with the Communist state...Mr Lee has called for financial aid to North Korea to be cut off until its alleged nuclear weapon programme is dismantled.
First of all, I want to distinguish between the sunshine and engagement policy. President Kim's is just the sunshine policy. There are only carrots, no sticks. The policies are not practical, and this is making the general public nervous. North Korea has so far shown and used force by test-firing ICBM missiles and sending [submarines]. North Korea has no intention to change. They regard our efforts as a means to topple their regime. The sunshine policy is based on government illusions that North Korea will change. These policies will make North Korea militarily strong, giving the U.S. the balance of power in the Korean peninsula.
(this one is a bit dated, but i don't think his stance has changed all that much.)
Roh Moo-hyun, the candidate of the pro-government Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) defeated Lee Hoi-chang, the candidate of the GNP in the close race by gaining 12,014,277 votes or 48.9 percent to 11,443,279 votes or 46.6 percent of the ballots.
-->like i'd said, the election was hotly contested.
The bedrock of any policy dealing with the North should be maintaining a credible deterrence and close cooperation with the United States. If an armed clash occurs on the Peninsula again, the Republic of Korea and the United States could counter the North’s attack and emerge victorious in the end -- but the cost would be dear. The South Korea-U.S. deterrent builtup during the Cold War still remains vital today.
In my mind the choice is clear. With the right leadership, we have an excellent chance to create a brighter, more secure future for our people. In this effort, I consider close relations with the United States to be the cornerstone of Korea's security and prosperity. Our two countries are committed to the fundamental values of peace, freedom, and democracy. Together, we fought--and died--for these values. I am here today to reconfirm our friendship and stress the need for strengthened trust and cooperation for the next 50 years.
-->all this from the man who lost the election by less than 1 million votes.
both candidates, however, like i said, would seek would rather see a
rebalancing the alliance, which they see as condescending towards korea.
But both Mr Roh and Mr Lee have called for the revision of an accord that allows the United States legal jurisdiction over its 37,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea. Critics of the accord say the soldiers involved in the accident that killed the schoolgirls should have been tried in a South Korean court.
-->so before you go and claim that the skoreans want you out, try to look at the whole picture rather than what gets photographed.
indeed, a few months ago, there was a pro-america demonstration photo from korea printed in the nytimes. if i'd known it would have been helpful in these debates, i wouldn't've recycled it.
incidentally, the second speech i've posted gives a good rundown about his idea of what the engagement policy should be.
in the end, it's more that he favors continuing engagment, but desires, as i said,
ask for far more accountability with such things as the nuclear materials.
How are those quotes contradicting anything I've said? I never stated that he wanted to end engagement with the North only that he wanted to ammend the policy under which it was conducted.
Hell aside from the fact that he could stand to push for a more equitable power sharing arrangement in the US/SK military arrangement, I fail to see anything particularly wrong with his stands on the major issues.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
dd:
i'm not quite contradicting you. the point here is that it's more an argument over terms. read the part in that post where i write that he'd rather not call it the "sunshine policy"--and honestly, that's more along the lines of what we both said, just in different words.
i don't really think many of his stands on major issues are wrong either. i don't know how you associated that opinion with me...
the things u linked note that japan might be warming up to getting nukes BUT I WAS PROPOSING GIVING IT TO THEM.
that s. korea has a covert nuclear weapons program, but I'm not worried about large stable democracies having nukes. and that taiwan might get them. well if I was taiwan I'd get some right now. cuz fraknly if nething ever happens to the US u can consider ur ass officially toast.
then we have north korea who we already know wants them and is trying its best. but is a spent and starving nation. and china. who has lotsa nukes. and while it will not like other countries getting thme(just like the US doesn't). the US hardly renewed its arms race when India got some.
I've also noticed that u categorically abhore nukes, which is a very good thing. but perhaps it makes u less than practical.
Originally posted by Sava
NK is a very close Ally of China. Whether China makes it official or not, NK is like a little brother to them. Bush might be able to bully smaller, less powerful countries. But NK and China won't put up with his "axis of evil" type bullsh1t. I just hope that dealing with this situation holds off until after Bush is voted out in 2004. He'd mess it up more than he already has.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
the things u linked note that japan might be warming up to getting nukes BUT I WAS PROPOSING GIVING IT TO THEM.
why give it to them when they can build them on their own?
why would the united states, already a champion of non-proliferation, choose to proliferate nuclear weapons by giving it to another nation -- or even give them tacit support?
why would the united states, already in a rather difficult position in east asia, seek to add more fuel to the fire by rearming a country that neither china nor south korea would like to see re-armed -- with nuclear weapons, no less?
the things i linked to also strongly suggested that the reason why japan hasn't is because japan itself thinks it might touch off an arms race.
that s. korea has a covert nuclear weapons program, but I'm not worried about large stable democracies having nukes. and that taiwan might get them. well if I was taiwan I'd get some right now. cuz fraknly if nething ever happens to the US u can consider ur ass officially toast.
both taiwan and skorea have programs which were halted due to strong american pressure. were america to give the nuclear weapons to japan, both skorea and taiwan would see that as an extremely dangerous action, and would protest strongly against it to america, and seek their own nuclear armaments, now that it would evident that america didn't really follow its own non-proliferation doctrine.
then we have north korea who we already know wants them and is trying its best. but is a spent and starving nation. and china. who has lotsa nukes. and while it will not like other countries getting thme(just like the US doesn't). the US hardly renewed its arms race when India got some.
i wonder why the united states didn't build more nukes when india got the bomb. let's count some of the reasons:
1. india is not a yet strategic competitor, and is on friendly terms with the us.
2. india has no missile capable of delivering a nuclear payload to the united states.
3. the united states could vaporize india several times over, while india would be unable to mount either a first or second strike capability against the us.
4. india obtained the bomb to deter pakistan, not the united states.
5. indeed, when india got the bomb, china redistributed many of its forces to the china-india border to enforce the notion that neither india nor pakistan would be able to successfully take on china
6. a large reason for the chinese push towards modernization of its military is in part due to the increasing technical sophistication of the indian, skorea, taiwanese and japanese militaries, as well as a means of dealing with perceived american strength.
on the other hand, if japan got the bomb:
1. china would feel obliged to put up a larger show of force -- up to and including the acquisition of more nuclear weapons to mount a credible first and second strike capability that could annihialate japan.
2. south korea would feel obliged to put up a larger show of force as well to balance between china and japan -- again, up to and including nuclear weapons to mount a credible first and second strike capability that could annihialate japan and severely cripple china.
3. south korea, taiwan, and japan are all competitors with each other.
4. the united states, by providing the bomb to japan (according to your proposal) would lose all credibility in its attempts to prevent nkorea from getting the bomb, and stopping both china, skorea, and taiwan from getting nuclear weapons.
5. a precarious situation would evolve, in which japan, skorea, nkorea, and taiwan would all have nuclear weapons alongside china; unlike europe, where most of the countries have a closer and less antipathic history, none of the nations involved would be willing to flinch first and disarm.
======
i ask again:
how would giving the bomb to japan NOT touch off an arms race?
also: before you decide that i'm categorically against nukes, do a search in the forums about what i said about hiroshima and nagasaki. i got a lot of flak for that.
I have said this before, but I still do not see that we can do anything to stop NK from obtaining nukes without the cooperation of the Chinese. If China does not get on board, North Korea will certainly obtain its nukes. But by doing so, I hope at least that they lose the benefit of aid both from the United States from South Korea. Let the Chinese supply 100% of North Korea's needs for food and power.
I suspect we could solve the problem and North Korea by making a trade. We give China Taiwan; they give us North Korea.
If we don't solve the problem though and North Korea does obtain nuclear weapons, I think we will see Japan rearm. This may be our main argument for convincing the Chinese to cooperate.
well that was a quote u used the word abhore in reference to nukes, so I'm not off there.
and ur talking about an taiwan and s. korea neither of which scares me! yes I know america is hands on which was in my original post. therefore they are against all countries having nukes and them being the sole protector.
but this isnt just from american perspective. if I was in taiwan I'd want nukes, cuz right now my fate is tied to the united states.
and again in my original post u'd give japan nukes as a more hands off approach to controlling east asia. the reason east asia isnt blown up by everyone is cuz america sits there w/ its military and doesn't let china/north korea do nething. I know its ugly but if someone across ur border wants to invade u, u need a military capable of stopping them. and right now the vast majority of that capability is provided by the united states.
well that was a quote u used the word abhore in reference to nukes, so I'm not off there.
just because i abhor nuclear arms does not mean that i feel they have no utility. indeed, the opposite is the case. it is precisely because they are so destructive and terrifying that they have any utility.
and ur talking about an taiwan and s. korea neither of which scares me!
it doesn't matter if it scares you or not. you are not the majority of either nation, nor are you the majority of japan or china. neither does it seem as if you speak for either them or their governments. the decision to spend money on weaponry is outside of your capacity to decide, meaning, for all intents and purposes, your fear (or lack of fear) of either skorea or taiwan is absolutely irrelelvant in terms of the political calculus that japan and china will do.
what matters, and what i've been trying to say, is that to japan and china, a nuclear-armed korea, whether it is in the north or the south, is a bad thing. to both koreas and china, a nuclear-armed japan, whether it is still a pacifist nation or not, is a bad thing. to counter that bad thing, they're going to want to defend themselves in the exact same manner.
one nuke in japan is going to make south korea want two. two nukes in south korea is going to make north korea want four. four nukes in north korea is going to make china want to build eight more to add to their current armory.
one aircraft carrier in japan is going to make china want another, and korea invest in one.
it's the way politics work-- no nation survived by failing to match their neighbors in relative power.
how's this example? poland failed to match germany and russia in terms of technological and military strength at numerous times during its history; perhaps the most painful was its defeat in ww2, where the polish sent cavalry against german tanks.
one of the crucial reasons why britain was able to fend off the germans in ww1 and ww2 was precisely because it matched german military strength as best it could.
korea and china will match any nuke japan builds. japan will match any nuke that korea builds. the only reason they themselves are not nuclear now is because of the us guarantee that they will be protected by the us umbrella.
yes I know america is hands on which was in my original post. therefore they are against all countries having nukes and them being the sole protector.
wrong. america's best interests lie not with a nuclear armed japan or korea, but with them both toothless with respect to nuclear weapons. that way, not only will the us be able to ensure that there is no arms race in east asia, but that they will be able to have bases extremely close to china in exchange for guaranteeing their nuclear and conventional security.
but this isnt just from american perspective. if I was in taiwan I'd want nukes, cuz right now my fate is tied to the united states.
taiwan WANTS nukes. the only reason it hasn't built them yet is precisely because the US has pressured them not to.
and again in my original post u'd give japan nukes as a more hands off approach to controlling east asia.
you wouldn't BE controlling east asia then. you aren't controlling east asia NOW.
the reason east asia isnt blown up by everyone is cuz america sits there w/ its military and doesn't let china/north korea do nething. I know its ugly but if someone across ur border wants to invade u, u need a military capable of stopping them. and right now the vast majority of that capability is provided by the united states.
not quite. the south korean military is more than capable of fending of a north korean conventional attack. the united states is there to ensure that a) no nuclear attack will be considered, and b) any attack on the south will also bring forth an armed american response.
think of it this way. a north korean attack can be matched by the south korean military. but the south has a trump card in that not only will they be able to repel a north korean invasion, they'll be able to do it relatively easily because they'll have their own 600k-strong army with numerous american divisions added in. america is more an insurance policy these days than the actual defense.
I am talking about removing some of that.
removing some of the american military presence by allowing one country in the region to rearm and buy more materiel.
i fail to see how exactly allowing one nation in the region to rearm will NOT touch of an arms race.
we're repeating ourselves now. u say everyone will go into a flurry and I say no. first of all the non democratic nations could care less. china has ****loads already and north korea is gna get them neway. so why u even bring these countries up is beyond me.
taiwan SHOULD want nukes cuz they damn well are threataned enuff. u say south korea/japan will enter a geometric arms race. I say they wont, meh. wut do u wnt? they wlil both want nukes, they will both arm themselves. then at some pt down the line they will likely try to form a new asiam arms treaty based on this. all of which is good.
u mention allowing one nation to re arm like no1 has nukes and we are gna open the box. but china has a ton, the box is already opened it sonly kept counterbalanced by the united states. I"m suggesting we give othe rppl the poewr to counter balance for themselves.
we're repeating ourselves now. u say everyone will go into a flurry and I say no. first of all the non democratic nations could care less. china has ****loads already and north korea is gna get them neway. so why u even bring these countries up is beyond me.
i bring them up because they, along with skorea and japan, are members of the east asian political sphere. any action that japan takes, both koreas and china watch. any action china takes, both koreas and japan watch. and action either koreas take, both china and japan watch. that's why i bring them up. you cannot excise two nations from your nuclear arms-building calculus simply because they already have nuclear weapons.
taiwan SHOULD want nukes cuz they damn well are threataned enuff. u say south korea/japan will enter a geometric arms race. I say they wont, meh. wut do u wnt? they wlil both want nukes, they will both arm themselves. then at some pt down the line they will likely try to form a new asiam arms treaty based on this. all of which is good.
yes, a new asian arms treaty would be good. but that same asian arms treaty would probably be in regards to DISARMING. meaning, why bother arming them now if they're only going to disarm later? let's cut out that entire middle step, shall we?
u mention allowing one nation to re arm like no1 has nukes and we are gna open the box. but china has a ton, the box is already opened it sonly kept counterbalanced by the united states. I"m suggesting we give othe rppl the poewr to counter balance for themselves.
i'm not arguing that we'll be opening a pandora's box. i'm well aware the nuclear cat is out of the bag. what i'm saying is that the situation in east asia is precarious enough that we don't need to add in anything that will cause it to be more unstable--that means, no giving japan nukes, no allowing japan to rearm, no allowing taiwan and skorea to build nukes, and trying our damndest to stop nkorea from having them as well. when something is a tinderbox, you don't throw gasoline on it and expect a treaty in the future to stop it from burning.
right now, only china has nukes. they're not going to use them because the us is there; allowing japan and skorea to have them will only cause china to build more--so they can take care of japan, skorea AND the us--while before, they only needed to worry about the us.
all i'm asking is for some hard evidence and solid logic why allowing japan to arm will not cause an arms race in east asia.
going by a realist outlook, if any one country raises the stakes by arming themselves, they will naturally cause all the other countries around them to arm themselves as well.
do you have any sort of logic other than your bald-faced assertions to explain why exactly china and the koreas will NOT react in the way i have prescribed?
i've pointed you towards several links which all corroborate with what i say: that japan rearming itself will cause all of its east asian neighbors quite a bit of discomfort, and will likely trigger an arms race. i've explained my position by using logic, citations, and a realist outlook.
i am asking you, simply, to back up your own arguments with something other than your assertions that my scenario just "won't happen".
right now the only countries who have nukes in asia are the countries we'd really rather not have nukes. and lots of nuclear negotiations are kinda like a boys club, if u dont have nukes ur say is greatly diminished.
arming the countries that we like a lot more in asia would give THEM negotiating power. and allow them to help forge a more peaceful and stable region.
and also cutting out the middle step is not an option really cuz the middle step has already been started (china has nukes). and if u think china is gna disarm cuz of america well HAH. so the only way to bring the typical precarious stability that nuclear weapons lend is to let the countries that I would call large stable democracies have them. then they have negotiating power to weild on nuclear issues.
ur links proved that s. korea and taiwan want nukes, BUT I DONT MIND THEM HAVING NUKES. and in taiwans case I would personally(if I was taiwanese) demand nukes. u really didnt link me to nething alarming or all that devastatin, u think entirely too much of ur links.
and stop adding ad hominem attacks at the end of ur posts. if I dont refute ne of ur arguments stop responding, cuz indeed thats wut a smart person would do.
Tweet
for Ned.
Comment