Is the US the biggest threat to world peace?

[Lancer]

Re: Re: Is the US the biggest threat to world peace?

Originally posted by realpolitic


That is an interesting scenario, wonder what that occupation would look like, given that occupying Iraq only has been such a fiasco.

That occupation would be brutal, the occupation of a conquerer. If one of your own get killed in a city you go in and kill a hundred, or a thousand. Nazi stuff, you know, the way they controled europe. The kind of thing the US is at the opposite pole of.

Opps, I see Geronimo beat me to it.

[Lancer]

I don't know if we could have hit Moscow, but we could have nuked a path, occupied as we went, gained control of an airport close enough and nuked Moscow from there. Actually I doubt such an action would be needed. Once nukes started dropping on Russian troops their army would disolve. No army can take it forever without being able to hit back. They might be able to survive awhile in Germany if their frontline troops closed with ours, but not for long.

Stalin, if he had the bomb first, would have nuked and spared not by the way, you realize that don't you?

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is the US the biggest threat to world peace?

Originally posted by atawa


To my knowledge they didnt have anything flying at that time capable of reaching Moskou or did they?

Distance from New York city to Moscow: 7533 km

Distance from London to Moscow: 2508 km

Ferry range of world war 2 B-29 Superfortress : 9000 km

[GePap]

For a status Quo power, the United States is surprisingly revisionist, which does sort of inbalance the whole thing.

Oh, and minor powers by definition aren;t serious threats to world peace, because they don't even have the possibility of developing a global reach, and therefore their "danger" is limited, contained, and simply local.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Lancer
I don't know if we could have hit Moscow, but we could have nuked a path, occupied as we went, gained control of an airport close enough and nuked Moscow from there. Actually I doubt such an action would be needed. Once nukes started dropping on Russian troops their army would disolve. No army can take it forever without being able to hit back. They might be able to survive awhile in Germany if their frontline troops closed with ours, but not for long.

I see a couple of problems:

1, You would have to massproduce them witch at that time was not possible.

2, Your troops would have to operate in highly contamiated land, leading to massive casulties and birth defects in later generations.

3, Distances in what was then the USSR are so huge it would take a very long time and you would have partizans attacking your supply routes pinning down a lot of US troops.

Stalin, if he had the bomb first, would have nuked and spared not by the way, you realize that don't you?

I'm sure the sick **** would have nuked either the Baltics or Ukraine just to make a point

[atawa]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and minor powers by definition aren;t serious threats to world peace, because they don't even have the possibility of developing a global reach, and therefore their "danger" is limited, contained, and simply local.

WWI?

[Proteus_MST]

War is the biggest threat to world peace. Nuff said

[GePap]

Originally posted by atawa


WWI?

Last time I checked, Austria Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Britian were the GREAT POWERS in 1914.

[Darius871]

The internal problems of Serbia at the time weren't a threat to world peace?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871
The internal problems of Serbia at the time weren't a threat to world peace?

BY themselves, no. They had the ability to be an issue solely because they had some affect on the aspirations and goals of Austro-Hungary and Russia. So in effect, it is the competing aims and goals of Russia and Austor-Hungary that were the threat to world piece. Internal Serbian politics were only an excuse.

[Darius871]

Fair enough, but one could argue merely providing the excuse made it a threat. It all boils down to the semantic problem Whoha mentioned.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871
Fair enough, but one could argue merely providing the excuse made it a threat. It all boils down to the semantic problem Whoha mentioned.

Of course there is a semantic issue. There is always fighting somewhere in the world. I see "world peace" as being a relatively new term, and signifying only that the Great Powers aren't at war with each other. After all, there has been war going on in Central Africa now for almost 10 years, but no one counts that as undermining "world peace".

[chequita guevara]

In the last two decades, which country has attacked the most other nations?

Which country is preparing the propaganda groundwork to invade Iran?

[Zkribbler]

I can see why some would point to the US as the greatest threat to world peace. I heard on some news broadcast that our military budget surpasses the sum of all other nations combined. Even if that were an exaggeration, we still have the capacity to project more power worldwide than does any other nation.

However, I'd give my vote to India-Pakistan. Nuclear powers having constant border disputes scares the piss out of me. If they ever report to using their nukes, the ramifications will be felt worldwide.

Iran might be able to start a worldside problem. As it rushes to get nuclear weapons and entagles itself ever more into the affairs of Iraq, the Gulf region, the Holy Land, and into U.S. bashing, it could trigger something really bad...probably an Everybody-Get-Iran War, but that would be really nasty.

North Korea is probably the biggest threat to peace, but any conflict started by it would be regional. Y'know something minor, like nuking Seoul, Tokyo, Vladivostok and/or Bejing.

[chequita guevara]

Iran is not trying to get nuclear weapons. Don't fall for the Bushie lies.