State of the Union Address

soph · 2003-02-05 21:06:22

Where do we draw the line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Are they not allowed to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power? Your comments follow the same anti-nuclear viewpoint that nuclear power=nuclear weapons.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:08:28

Nuclear power is fine as long as it is monitored VERY closely by the IAEA and UN inspectors to insure that all nuclear waste is accounted for and that fuel is not being refined into weapons-grade material.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:10:54

And why cant we follow these same rules? Or France? Or anyone else besides North Korea?

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:29:55

Don't be an ass. The US and France developed the technology (actually come to think of it, we gave it to those rifle-droppers) and as a result we obviously have more say in its use than anyone else.

Besides, big countries like the US, France, Brittain, Russia, China, etc., can play by MAD and have used their weapons as deterrents to war for the last 50 years. Using your power to twist the US into meeting your demands isn't exactly responsible use. North Korea has proved that it is going to be irresponsible with its nuclear power after kicking out inspectors.

I mean, think about it. If North Korea just wanted to use the power, they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. They would have negotiated instead of trying to go toe-to-toe with a superpower. No, rather this is about getting the ammunition (literally) to be able to defy the US and the world.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:31:40

I completely agree about North Korea kicking out the inspectors. But its time for you to stop being an ass and realize that we are one nation among many.

You are being the stereotypical arrogrant, ignorant Rambo American. Please realize that we are not the only country in the world. Just because you are stronger, does that mean you have to tell everyone else what to do?

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:36:53

Just because you are stronger, does that mean you have to tell everyone else what to do?

Yeah, it does. I think winning a world war and developing the greatest weapon and energy source of the 20th century (and possibly history) comes with that title. It's all about protecting our interests, and I don't like having nuclear weapons in the wrong hands that close to the US.

And we are not the only country in the world, but we are far and away one of the most responsible, along with our European "allies". If we want to ensure that nuclear power is used only as a deterrent, then we must take all actions necessary to ensure that it stays out of the wrong hands.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:38:40

So as long as we practice democracy here, despotism and tyranny are ok over there. Ah, I see, now.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:42:57

I think we have a right and a duty to protect our interests by deciding who has and who doesn't have nuclear weapons. Just think about what would happen if North Korea started mass-producing nuclear weapons and then put them on long-range missiles? If we don't stop them now, they will grow and fester and permanently imbed themselves into Asia. South Korea and Japan will always be on alert, and we will have to deal with yet another power in the eastern hemisphere. I don't want to have a foreign policy that needs to accomidate a nuclear-mobile Korean penninsula.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:46:41

I dont want to have a foreign policy that costs us tens of billions to be the only country to have dozens of international bases. Security is one thing, we dont have to be everywhere at once.

That breeds resentment.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:52:57

What other option do we have? We could become extremely isolationist and stop all contact altogether, but that's no fun. If we want to maintain a sphere of influence anywhere, we need to maintain our facilities and influences overseas.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:57:56

Er, no. Our economic influence is enough. Not being militarily everywhere is not isolationism. France, England, Russia, and China are all influential, without international bases.

What you are suggesting is that we are an empire, with only the privileged few getting a democracy. This is contradictory to our founding principles, and our constitution. Our military presence is not needed. With a global economy, dominance is not needed. In fact, dominant countries have fared worse in the past than ones who maintain a balance of power.

Read Machiavelli.

Two nations will team up on a third one in order to maintain the balance, preventing one from being too dominant. Look around the world, this is manifesting itself, from the political qualms of france and germany to the military actions of iraq and north korea. This is not to say they are justified, but it is a trend shown throughout history, and we cannot let it repeat itself.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-15 21:37:04

All of the countries you named have nuclear weapons. When was the last time any of those countries had to fight in a country they were not immediately next to?

The US has its Germany base because #1, we won WWII and had a great presence in Germany during its reconstruction and #2, because it is (was) a great logistic center for our operations in protecting Europe during the cold war, and in providing a stop for normal units operating in the farther eastern hemisphere. The same with our naval bases in Japan and the Philipines, and our base in Spain.

And all of the countries above are not isolationist. Russia invaded Afghanistan, China and Taiwan and Tibet, England helped us in the Gulf War, and France is the nerdy kid with the overprotective mom that never lets them go play baseball with the neighborhood kids.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but the United States has reached an unsurpassed level in the all-time ranking of empires. We are unsurpassed economically, politically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally. The whole world is going American... Jakarta has a McDonalds, and George of the Jungle is dubbed in Thai. Case closed.

And no nation can jeopardize our position by attacking us. We have over 7000 nuclear warheads (a full 1000 more than Russia, 6700 more than France, 6980 more than China, and 7000 more than Germany), and we can annhilate most countries, no matter their location.

Americans don't watch Indian or German or French movies; we watch Hollywood movies. It's the other countries that watch ours. It's funny, but America is the one thing that most nations have in common.

Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, we have been unopposed. We played games with Russia in Korea and Vietnam, and thank God we neither of us had the guts to play out our game in the heart of Europe. What have we done with our monopoly on the world? We've bailed out Kuwait and Yugoslavia, and remained a might base for the rest of the world to cling to.

soph · 2003-02-15 21:46:28

I hope we don't continue in your ignorant bliss. Look over the Pacific. China will catch up within 50 years.

Competition is good. Hegemony is bad.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-15 21:51:08

It is our manifest destiny to encircle the globe in the benevolent grip of American guidance!

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-20 12:18:26

Sure. History has shown that communism has always supassed the might of capitalist societies.

soph · 2003-02-20 12:24:40

Caltech, China is capitalist. Just like America. They are not communist. Their economy has become increasingly capitalist, which is why they have become so successful, and have experienced such economic growth.

Repeat: They are not communist!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 18:05:20

China is totalitarian. I think we can hand it to the breakdown on corruption in China which has led to her latest growth, and her embracement of insustrialism. Utilities are still state owned, and so on, so this does still make China socialist (in an economic sense- I would still not consider the nation fully democratic). But sure, China's economic reforms have gone quite a way. Just realize that trade, and basic economics aren't abolished by a socialist system.

soph · 2003-02-22 18:26:13

Josh, China is, for all intents and purposes, capitalist. They continue to move towards privitization. This, not the "breakdown of corruption" is the cause for their growth. Corruption crackdown might have helped, yes, but capitalization has been their main driver.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 18:31:43

Don't mistake decentralization for privatization. Privatization would imply that private individuals profit. This is not generally the case, as things are still quite regulated, especially in the utility sector. The part that I was specifically talking about.

And I obviously wasn't saying that the crackdown (s/breakdown/crackdown) on corruption was the leading factor, but the 80s reforms did have a lot to do with ridding China of corruption. And they go further than most people give them credit for. The primary factor is undoubtedly the move to embrace industrialism.

soph · 2003-02-22 18:46:36

Fine, with the exception of the utility sector, individuals do profit. Greatly. The market is becoming more and more private, as the state turns over ownership of facilities to private individuals.

In fact, I saw a program about the shift a few weeks ago, forgot the channel, National Geographic, perhaps. It was quite interersting how free the Chinese market has become and how badly the state-run industries are faring.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 18:52:25

Right, that's what I'm saying, dude. We have a variety of socialism here in the states, when it comes to utilities / natural monopolies.

The state run industries were too centeralized. I know what you're talking about, I think. The power company split up into two power companies, and certain parts of the power companies are being siphoned out to the private sector. But price and so on is still regulated, so you can't really say it's privatized in a capitalistic sense. The state run industries are becoming much better with this decentralization- that's what socialism has always called for in the first place.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-05 21:06:22

Re: State of the Union Address

#27 2003-02-05 21:08:28

Re: State of the Union Address

#28 2003-02-05 21:10:54

Re: State of the Union Address

#29 2003-02-05 21:29:55

Re: State of the Union Address

#30 2003-02-05 21:31:40

Re: State of the Union Address

#31 2003-02-05 21:36:53

Re: State of the Union Address

#32 2003-02-05 21:38:40

Re: State of the Union Address

#33 2003-02-05 21:42:57

Re: State of the Union Address

#34 2003-02-05 21:46:41

Re: State of the Union Address

#35 2003-02-05 21:52:57

Re: State of the Union Address

#36 2003-02-05 21:57:56

Re: State of the Union Address

#37 2003-02-15 21:37:04

Re: State of the Union Address

#38 2003-02-15 21:46:28

Re: State of the Union Address

#39 2003-02-15 21:51:08

Re: State of the Union Address

#40 2003-02-20 12:18:26

Re: State of the Union Address

#41 2003-02-20 12:24:40

Re: State of the Union Address

#42 2003-02-22 18:05:20

Re: State of the Union Address

#43 2003-02-22 18:26:13

Re: State of the Union Address

#44 2003-02-22 18:31:43

Re: State of the Union Address

#45 2003-02-22 18:46:36

Re: State of the Union Address

#46 2003-02-22 18:52:25

Re: State of the Union Address

Board footer