www.ditl.org

Teaos wrote:The idea of it being a deterant is pointless, you have nukes, end of story. Any other super weapon as a deterant is just getting someone rich somewhere. I'm all for R&D but at a moderated pace.

Not really. Nukes are only a deterrent to other nukes, maybe also large scale chemical warfare, maybe. No one can get away with using nukes in combat today, every other nuclear power would obliterate the nation stupid enough to launch a nuke someone.

The raingun represents a whole different kind of deterrent, one that the US has been using for a while now. Namely that by having a military that is SO much more powerful than the vast majority of the world's other militaries that no one is going to dare pick a fight with us.

Teaos wrote:The idea of it being a deterant is pointless, you have nukes, end of story. Any other super weapon as a deterant is just getting someone rich somewhere. I'm all for R&D but at a moderated pace.

I don't buy it. The rail gun can be a deterrent both strategically and tactically. In addition, it has the other advantage over nukes of being a more present threat to a would-be aggressor; everyone knows that nukes are only a deterrent in a MAD situation, when responding to nukes; the rail gun would have no such restrictions, as its potential for catastrophic collateral damage is virtually nil - especially compared to a nuke.

Mikey wrote:

Teaos wrote:The idea of it being a deterant is pointless, you have nukes, end of story. Any other super weapon as a deterant is just getting someone rich somewhere. I'm all for R&D but at a moderated pace.

I don't buy it. The rail gun can be a deterrent both strategically and tactically. In addition, it has the other advantage over nukes of being a more present threat to a would-be aggressor; everyone knows that nukes are only a deterrent in a MAD situation, when responding to nukes; the rail gun would have no such restrictions, as its potential for catastrophic collateral damage is virtually nil - especially compared to a nuke.

(regarding highlighted)
Actually, that isn't entirely true when it comes to the U.S.. The US never claimed to "no first strike" policy the USSR did, and thus always considered the possibility of using nukes in a situation when they are losing a conventional battle, in order to avoid a military defeat.

So nukes aren't solely purposed for MAD deterrent.

Yeah, fine - however, Atomic Annie happens to be in a museum right now rather than in service. Be that as it may, it is completely tangential and irrelevant to the point I made.

Apparently the idea of having a large power military for deterence isnt really working for you now is it. More of the world hates you than ever before. They have just switched from military aggression to other means.

Teaos wrote:Apparently the idea of having a large power military for deterence isnt really working for you now is it. More of the world hates you than ever before. They have just switched from military aggression to other means.

No, they haven't. *sigh* I'll reiterate - terrorism is not an alternative to military action. Nobody "switches" to terrorism because military action is unfeasible. You're comparing apples to stop signs.

BTW, "More of the word hating us" probably stems from the fact that in any world situation, the U.S. has to be the primary entity to step in - whether that intervention ends up being for good or ill, we're the ones who have to do it. How much did New Zealand commit to stemming the problems in Dharfur?

Ain't that a circular argument?

You need more weaponry because people despise you more
People despise you more because you put your nose/finger in most of the world's problem
You put you finger/nose in most of the world's problem because you are the better equipped faction on the planet

I mean, there is probably a flaw somewhere up-there, but the principle is still there. People expect you to intervene, and they resent you for intervening while being happily on the sidelines criticizing you for your action/inaction, because you happen to have the fancier toys.

It's a bit circular, but then so are the reasons that this argument explains. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. The U.S. got an awful lot of shit when the decided to keep their nose out of things in the few years prior to 1941. Now, we deign to get involved, and we get shit on for it. Of course, if we didn't get involved, we'd have all of Europe asking how we can just sit back and not get involved...

Mikey wrote:It's a bit circular, but then so are the reasons that this argument explains. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. The U.S. got an awful lot of s**t when the decided to keep their nose out of things in the few years prior to 1941. Now, we deign to get involved, and we get s**t on for it. Of course, if we didn't get involved, we'd have all of Europe asking how we can just sit back and not get involved...

Well, during the Cold War, it was part of your containment doctrine to get involved in these conflicts here and there, in order to stop the USSR's and China's influence (at least, China's until Nixon's genius stroke) throughout the world.

And even before 1941, it was commong for the US to get involved in conflicts in South America to prevent the emergence of any consequent power in the Western Hemisphere..

I guess you meddling/interloping (hope not to have too much of a negative tone) kind of labelled you as the people who go to places in order to change regimes and/or stabilise situation. The lack of any aggressive colonial history makes it easier for the US (initially) to do it in the eye of the Third World's countries.

Oh well, damned it you do, damned if you don't.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The lack of any aggressive colonial history...

You mean aside from enslaving and/or killing millions of my people? Yeah, other than that, I see what you're saying.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The lack of any aggressive colonial history...

You mean aside from enslaving and/or killing millions of my people? Yeah, other than that, I see what you're saying.

Nobody's denying what the Europeans did to the First Nations - rather, what he's saying is that the U.S. doesn't have the same type of history of creating it's own overseas colonial empire as the major European powers did (the subdivision of Africa, the spheres of influence in 19th-c. China, etc.)

So... colonial expansion is defined by crossing oceans? I'm saying that the US's Manifest Destiny policies are pretty much the same thing as the British expansions overseas.

Tsukiyumi wrote:So... colonial expansion is defined by crossing oceans? I'm saying that the US's Manifest Destiny policies are pretty much the same thing as the British expansions overseas.

The colonial empires were about gaining wealth for their nation. They didn't really want the land for their own, just whatever goods and riches they could take from the places they conquered. The US treatment of the native americans was about taking the land itself for them to live on. Not by any means saying one is any more ethical than the other, merely the goal is different.

The mind set is the exact same though. "These people have stuff we want and we have the power to take it, so it should be ours!"

Lighthawk wrote:The mind set is the exact same though. "These people have stuff we want and we have the power to take it, so it should be ours!"

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across. "Aggressive colonial expansion" is pretty much the same thing as "aggressive territorial expansion".

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Lighthawk wrote:The mind set is the exact same though. "These people have stuff we want and we have the power to take it, so it should be ours!"

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across. "Aggressive colonial expansion" is pretty much the same thing as "aggressive territorial expansion".

Yes.. and no. Sorry to say, but there is little people of any influence that resent US's action against the native americans, as they have pretty much exterminated your people.

As opposed to, let's say, Morroco, Algeria, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Congo, Vietnam, China, Birmany, etc... all of these have natives which survived the colonial time and remember the European's hold on their country.

this is not meant to minimise what happened to your people, Tsu, but just to point out that coutries around the world just don't care about your people when they evaluate wether or not the US had colonial ambitions.