"Keep a sharp eye, ... We ain't done with this war yet." - Page 2

I think the problem is that some countries do seem suicidal and would risk a nuclear war, just look at India and Pakistan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have changed the way people view wars. Those truly awful events should have stopped almost all war but instead War seems to have blossomed and the nuclear weapons hang over us like the sword of damacles.

The analyst is in the second episode of the The Power Of Nightmares trilogy if that helps. I think he's in the first third.

I think at this juncture I have made as much of an argument I can without retreading old ground. And as such I graciously forfeit this debate before it turns into a flurry of character assassination posts. Thank you Agent Orange you have provided some very interesting insights and have really made me think.

You can argue that no country would dare to enter United States territory for risk of nuclear attack. I am not entirely sure it is a sound argument, but it's one I'm prepared to listen to. The question of whether the same nuclear deterrant would protect troops based abroad (even if the US does manage to pare down its forces to a minimum, it's likely that some will be needed abroad in places such as S. Korea.) is less easy to answer.

Yes, well unlike France - the United States does not possess a generous social security system that is prepared and willing to protect people from the harsh realities of unemployment. Make no mistake, the overnight axing of massive amounts of defense funding would probably result in recessions that would make those of the early 20th century seem like the Gold Rush heydays. If defense expenditure must be cut then it must be cut slowly and gradually.

Yes, well I think we can all agree that several nations have adopted a less than mature approach to nuclear technology. Thankfully I do think that the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction still guards us against total nuclear oblivion, even if Bush is attempting to undermine it with his hair-brained "Star Wars" shenanigans.

It's never a good idea to start firing flames when stimulating and interesting topics are up for debate, so if you thought I was likely to start pulling the trigger I can only apologise. At times this forum appears less concerned with discussion than open warfare, with the person who hurls the most insults being declared the winner. But then I suppose I am no angel either. <grin>

Speak to you again.

Actually I think India and Pakistan are never going to have a full-blown war precisely because they both possess the Bomb.

And what's this about character assassinations Raiftel? Agent Orange is in my short experience one of the more polite and open to discussion posters in the politics forum, whether you agree with him or not.


Agent: I think that the nuclear detterent would be enough to keep, say North Korea from invading the South no matter how many soldiers are based there, yes. And that if as is probable North Korea already has the Bomb itself, then like India and Pakistan neither the US nor NK would attack each other - and that eventually the market forces and basic yearn for democracy would topple this hideous regime from the inside (instead of trying to force change from the outside and resulting in a bloody mess like Irak).

Of course the US system would have to be transformed gradually and not overnight, and of course I'm being idealistic for even contemplating such an idea. But on the other hand it's hard to look at the next few decades realistically without seeing a lot more blood around the world if the US continues to use military force around the world to further its political and economic interests.



**Edit** I've also got to get going Orange, it's well past 5 here - the magic hour! Thanks for arguing reasonably on these forums.

Ironically, I have a suspicion that it will be gold ol' fashioned American Capitalism and the "Free Market" that will jump to our aid on this matter.

No matter how hard Bush and friends try to dress things up, the economics - the massive cost - of running god knows how many trillion-dollar battle fleets monotonously up and down the world's oceans is simply not sustainable, even in today's climate of fear.

The money can be spent better elsewhere, and I suspect the pressure to do exactly that will come not only from the public (when they ultimately see through this "network of terror" smoke screen) but big “please, please subsidize me in the face of South East Asian pressure!” business too.

Of course this will all take time, and it is on the proviso that another military superpower won't arrive on the scene and start antagonising the US in the very near future. With this in mind I suppose China presents the biggest threat to US spending reforms, but I think they are smart enough not to get involved in a quest for world dominance by force when they can achieve it economically without much effort at all.

I do hope you're right even if I'm more pessimistic on how sustainable the "terror" circus will be (allow an attack every now and then, keep control of the mass media and it could go on for decades).