US Navy to deal with NRO's screwup by destroying it.

[Stuart]

[eally? Why is that? In 1985, the common view was that the USSR will remain in it's stable stagnative expansion phase. People didn't see shit like the new U.S. wars coming either. Please understand - if the US can nuke Iran, so can it do the same to Russia. To ]any country. Just a hint of threat or desperation, and things can easily take this turn.

FYI we haven't nuked Iran nor are we likely to. The problem you face with the "if you can you will" argument is the cold hard fact that when we could we didn't. So this is not a new situation, its one where we can look back and see precedent and work from that. In fact, precedent here is very strong because in the 1950s, the attitude to tossing nuclear weapons around was very casual indeed and if we didn't take you out then (when we could have done with no risk to ourselves - modified B-29s up against F-101s, F-102s and F-106s is not a contest) why should we now when the inhibitions against tossing nukes are much, much stronger? Sorry, but this ""if you can you will" argument just doesn't fly.

Besides, are you saying the 1945-1960s balance was not a very dangerous balance?

No, it wasn't, It was very safe one for us. You couldn't hit us and we couldn't be bothered to hit you.

No, it doesn't miss the point - this is a dangerous new realty, where one country can kill everyone else fearing nothing.

This is the basic fallacy, it is not a new situation. Even if the situation where the US was safe from attack and nobody else was is new - and as we have seen it is not - then it isn't the environment we're moving into. The proliferation of ABM means that ICBMs are being taken off the table so everybody, not just the US, is a lot safer. That's a good thing.

However, we need to stick as many needles into the US as we can, at every point. Why not? The US has already developed all the required elements. However, preventing their spread only takes words and political scheming, so why not do it? It costs nothing after all.

Oh, but it does have a cost, a very heavy one. You're annoying the most powerful nation in history and when we hit back we do so very hard. We destroyed your economy once, we can do it again. We can do political scheming as well and we have the economic muscle to back it up. Remember how the Cold War ended? Simple example. Your oil industry is the wellspring from which Russia's current economic prosperity grows. It depends on American expertise, equipment and technology. We can pull those out and within five years, you'll be back to Soviet-era technology with most of the wells closed down. You think the 1990s were bad?

Judging by your comments, it was clear to all in the field since 1960s that the missiles could be made useless easily. The current government clearly cannot be oblivious to that. As I said, it's then a huge lapse of judgement which has been going on for dozens of years. Especially as we have stockpiles of interceptors and the hardware to use them right there.

I'd say that the magnitude of the strategic misjudgement became apparent in the mid-1970s. Basically it was the result of two misperceptions.

1 - Missiles could not be shot down

2 - SAMs were going to develop at a rate that made manned aircraft obsolete.

Both misconceptions were made explicitly in the 1958 British Duncan Sandys defense review. By the early 1970s, both were being disproved. BMD was proving to be workable and effective; SAMs had hita eprformance barrier at much lower levels than previously assumed and were not anywhere close to the levels predicted. So, the people who had made the wrong decisions were left witha choice. Do they admit their mistakes and change course or try to patch up the problems? Being human they didn't want to admit they were wrong and decided to try and patch up the system. Hence the ABM and SALT treaties.

Uh... shooting China's space based shit is simpler than yours?

Sorry, I'm not quite certain what you;re getting at here.

After all, nuking the shit out of China is a task far more simple than out of you. The weaker nations need a lead time to hinder every US progress but at the same time improve their own ABMs, ASATs and attack weapons.

Well, it is and it isn't. It's a targeteering problem but that isn't the point. The point is that if you think the US sitting behind an invulnerable ABM screen is a problem, what will China be when its sits behind a similar screen? (And they are also developing their own ABM/ASAT systems). I'll give you a hint, they want Siberia and they have the world's largest army.

Sorry, but that means the entire world is in U.S. servitude and does everything not to anger the spoiled, resource-hungry brat with a huge nuclear stick (which is what the US is). I doubt that sits well with the concept of, uh... sovereignlity. Independence. All that international politics stuff.

I;d disagree with your characterization. We happen to have the largest and most successful economy in the world and that means we have an interest in keeping the world peaceful. Our objective as Top Dog is to keep the world as peaceful as we can. The US primary national interest is to get rich. Wars are nota good way of doing that.

I didn't say we should count on the non-reliable fundies from the "Muslim world". I said "terrorism". Want examples? US-based GRU sleeper cell which is ordered to wipe out your nation with handheld nukes. No Muslims. Our guys being terrorists.

Do you realize what would happen WHEN (not if) we catch up with one of those sleeper cells with a Russian nuclear warhead in their possession? I'll give you a hint.

N54.57.30 E73.19.20 350KT
N55.04.04 E73.15.28 350KT
N54.59.49 E73.28.45 350KT

(NOTE - That data is obsolete and refers to an obsolete weapon.)

A sleeper cell with nukes and attack plan would be considered a direct attack on the United States and treated accordingly. If we get hold of a nuke we could tell people within 24 hours exactly where it came from, where and when it was made etc etc. Then, we shoot.

Ah. Then we need a thousand production run.

I agree. So does every country in the world.

It does. I'm sure that's pretty much important, that's why there was a capital refurbishing and increase battle readiness done for the A-135 in 2002. However, we still need the ability to kill anyone who dares.

Which isn't really the point. Its not whether, its how. ICBMs are too dangerous to be allowed to exist in the modern world, there are too many imbeciles out there who want to throw them around. Unfortunately your leaders made a bad mistake. They assumed because ICBMs were the great tool of the USSR in gaining world-power status, they would be the means of regaining world power status. Unfortunately, they didn't recognize times have changed, they backed the wrong horse and now got caught wrong-footed. They have to admit their mistake, scrap the ICBM programs and write off the money invested in them. Then, they have to start thinking about a realistic (sleeper cells with nukes are not a realistic solution and - thank God - your leadership knows it) solution to gaining an attack capability. SLBMs are a short-term solution - hence the sudden surge of investment in the SLBM fleet. A longer-term solution? Probably hypersonic long-range bombers. That's the way our thoughts are running. Also, Solution X (the thing that technology will make possible in ten or twenty years time).

What you can't do is expect the rest of the world to pay for your leadership's blunder. Why should, for example, India leave itself vulnerable because Putin was an idiot?

You make the same assumption as Stuart, a false one - that terrorists=Muslims. That's wrong. A terrorist is just a tool of assymetrical warfare. A special service can engage in assymmetrical warfare and terror. As I said, Russian GRU sleepers with small nuclear devices would be a good enough device to wipe out a nuclear-supremacy capable nation in case of a strike.

No, I've never made that assumption. The fact that today's crop of terrorists are largely Moslem is simply an artefact of our time. By the way, terrorism long predates the term "assymetric warfare" which is just verbiage. Its like the long-discredited "Fourth Generation Warfare". There's lots of terrorist groups out there who aren;t Moslem it just that by comparison with the Moslem groups they aren't that important.

I'll say this again, if you are seriously proposing a nuclear strategy based around nuclear-armed sleeper cells, you have just signed Russia's death warrant. Our security people are good, we will get one of them and when they do it will be interpreted as an actual - not a potential - attack. And then we will respond with all national means at our disposal.

[Broomstick]

Besides, are you saying the 1945-1960s balance was not a very dangerous balance?

As someone else pointed out - no, this wasn't dangerous for the US since we held the trump cards. And, I will also note (as others have) that we didn't use them.

In 1945 the US economy was one of the few such that hadn't been wrecked by WWII, and certainly the largest. We had troops stationed pretty much everywhere. We certainly had the atomic bomb. We could have made a go at taking over the world... but we didn't. Why didn't we? We weren't exhausted, we weren't out of resources... we just weren't fucking interested. I realize that Russia, and most of the former soviets, are a bit paranoid and with some reason since historically just about everyone and their cousin rampage through your territory on their way to somewhere else but the US doesn't want to own you, rule you, or dominate you. Really, we don't. We DO want to buy stuff from other people, and sell stuff back and certainly given our economic power through most of the 20th Century we're going to have an effect on others but that's an accidental side effect for the most part. We have no interest in expanding our territory. Really. Expanding our influence, yes, but we'd just as soon not be bothered with ruling colonies (Iraq being an aberration most of us would like to undo at this point, and quite a few of us never wanted to be involved in at all).

Except this misses the point completely. It might be true if the US was the only country developing an ABM system but it isn't.

No, it doesn't miss the point - this is a dangerous new realty, where one country can kill everyone else fearing nothing.

We've been there before. The big US bogeyman didn't drop the bomb during the 1950's. We aren't inclined to do it now, either. I'm not going to say we'd never atom bomb a country since obviously we've done it twice - but we haven't done it since. It would have to be one fucking hell of a provocation - which means if you don't keep poking the sleeping tiger with a sharp pointy stick it's not going to lash out at you. People bitch about how self-centered the US is, but our isolationist tendencies actually work to the advantage of others because we tend to ignore what's outside our borders. That's not good on some things but it does mean we aren't looking over to your territory with envious eyes, plotting to steal your stuff.

And it's not like we wouldn't suffer some repercussions - I highly doubt we could launch such an offensive without something get through from somewhere else.

However, we need to stick as many needles into the US as we can, at every point. Why not?

Ask the Imperial Japanese about provoking the US, or the Taliban. The US sometimes puts up with quite a bit of jabbing but when it finally wakes up and lashes out it does tend to be ruthless and very, very nasty (which is not to say we're the only ones ever to be like that, but combined with our weaponry it's not pretty). One of the reasons I'd rather the US pull back from all these damn military commitments we have abroad is that I am concerned that one of them is going to blow up into another war. I don't like it when my nation goes to war, and generally no one else does either. We keep coming up with new and innovative ways to kill people and war only accelerates that process.

Sorry, but that means the entire world is in U.S. servitude and does everything not to anger the spoiled, resource-hungry brat with a huge nuclear stick (which is what the US is). I doubt that sits well with the concept of, uh... sovereignlity. Independence. All that international politics stuff.

Or you could take the Japanese route and become an economic powerhouse (it's not like Japan has abundant natural resources - they did this at a disadvantage) then start buying up chunks of the US in order to gain influence. As a side benefit, you might even earn a profit. China likewise has an economic stake in the US and that does influence the US.

If Russia could snatch up nuclear supremacy it would do so at the first opportunity.

Russia never had a nuclear supermacy. Quite likely never will. What do you fear? That the US won't have it?

I don't fear that "the US won't have it" as much as I fear who might have it. If, for example, the Canadians or Australians had nuclear superiority I wouldn't be happy about it, but I think we could all live with it. If, say, Iran had such I think things could get very ugly, particularly in close proximity to the Middle East.

US as Top Dog has a lot of flaws but it's not the worst of all possible worlds. I'm not going to argue it's the best of all possible worlds, but we aren't the worst alternative.

In any case, if we don't get our shit together soon we'll be like the former Soviet Union - a wrecked economy with some VERY dangerous military assets. I'm not sure that would be a better scenario, but it might nudge us off Top Dog status. The question is - after that, would various parties jocky for Top Dog and if so, who is likely to win?

The world's better off with nuclear supremacy resting in the hands of a relatively liberal and progressive democracy

The world is better with nuclear supermacy not existing.

I can actually agree with that, but it's not in keeping with current reality.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Tsentralny Airport and two nuclear power plants.

[darthbob88]

Tsentralny Airport and two nuclear power plants.

I assume you refer to the coordinates Stuart mentioned?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Tsentralny Airport and two nuclear power plants.

I assume you refer to the coordinates Stuart mentioned?

Yeah. That would be quite a wake-up call, but I think one of those plants has been offline for a few years.

[Kane Starkiller]

It depends on American expertise, equipment and technology. We can pull those out and within five years, you'll be back to Soviet-era technology with most of the wells closed down. You think the 1990s were bad?

I thought most of Russian oil companies are national owned. How are Americans involved? And their departure could really have such devastating consequences?

[K. A. Pital]

FYI we haven't nuked Iran nor are we likely to.

That is supposed to prove what? Who will say that you won't nuke the shit out of Iran once you have completed your ABM shield?

The problem you face with the "if you can you will" argument is the cold hard fact that when we could we didn't.

The possibility is important in itself, since intent can change at the whim of the rulers. You know, we could've destroyed almost the entire nuclear arsenals after the end of the Cold War, but we didn't really there's too much uncertainty. Citing historical precedent here is irrelevant - the principal capability is a threat.

That's like saying you can freely hand out murder warrants to a Special Service just because it didn't use them at some chokepoint in history.

The US was the only nation which used nukes for a military purpose at all. It was also the one which developed the most extensive destruction plans for all it's opponents, isn't it?

The proliferation of ABM means that ICBMs are being taken off the table so everybody, not just the US, is a lot safer.

That means US is safe from everybody, but everybody is not safe from the US.

Your oil industry is the wellspring from which Russia's current economic prosperity grows. It depends on American expertise, equipment and technology. We can pull those out and within five years, you'll be back to Soviet-era technology with most of the wells closed down. You think the 1990s were bad?

That's totally wrong. Russia made more oil during the Soviet period - it just cost less - and it's largest refineries have been outfitted with Western technology since the 1970s, and that technology was European. The first wave was also made by taking U.S. technologies, but building them at home. The US doesn't produce, or in any way control Russia's oil producing equipment, which is mostly Soviet-era technopark.

In the late 1980s and 1990s - the crisis times - oil was super-cheap. Oil can only become super-cheap again if the US crashed and burned it's own economy! Way to go to make a new crisis...

The point is that if you think the US sitting behind an invulnerable ABM screen is a problem, what will China be when its sits behind a similar screen?

The point is: China doesn't have enough means of aerial delivery to decimate the enemy despite ICBMs obsolete. It sucks. It loses to Russia on that front. It's own aerial defenses are also pathetic, which means Russia will have easier time killing China than the US. ICBMs are already out of the equation, and we see that China is still vulnerable to Russia ICBMs off-table.

We happen to have the largest and most successful economy in the world and that means we have an interest in keeping the world peaceful.

The latter XX and XXI century shows otherwise. And there was a study which had shown that intervention in civil wars (which is the most common US modus operandi) only prolongs them in most cases (statistically, intervention prolongs 3 out of 4 civil wars!).

Do you realize what would happen WHEN (not if) we catch up with one of those sleeper cells with a Russian nuclear warhead in their possession?

No, you don't. Why would the warheads be in their posession, as opposed to being stacked somewhere ready for covert delivery to the United States in case of war? During sleep, the cell won't have the nukes, but it will have the mission.

Why should, for example, India leave itself vulnerable because Putin was an idiot?

Why should we hinder a weak nations' development? India's, for example? No, you don't get it. The idea is to hinder the US, and the US only, since the US is the only nation capable of getting primacy. All will gain ABMs, but only the US would have a large enough aerial delivery means to wipe out it's opponents. India, China and Russia would not. India and China, more than that, would remain vulnerable even to a Russian aerial attack.

Our security people are good, we will get one of them

You'll get? The person? Without the fissile material, he's just meat.

[Broomstick]

The problem you face with the "if you can you will" argument is the cold hard fact that when we could we didn't.

The possibility is important in itself, since intent can change at the whim of the rulers. You know, we could've destroyed almost the entire nuclear arsenals after the end of the Cold War, but we didn't really there's too much uncertainty. Citing historical precedent here is irrelevant - the principal capability is a threat.

I disagree that it's irrelevant - historical precedent is an important component in approaching the problem of a potential enemy. You are correct that rulers change and so do whims but some cultures are more likely to launch an expansionist campaign, and how enemies are treated by an entity also varies.

The US certainly did go through an expansionist phase, but post WWII it has not. While there is no guarantee this will continue it at least allows the possibility of the situation remaining stable. Contrast this with some other nations that have shown a tendency to either attempt expansion or to engage in mass slaughter in the past few decades. While many accuse the US of being imperialistic I think that is more their fear speaking, or a misunderstanding of the difference between an economic superpower's influence versus and actual conquering empire. You only have to go back to 19th Century Britain to see that actual empire can be far worse that today's situation, and the British Empire wasn't even near the worst as far as treatment of possessions.

In addition to maintaining adequate military resources, a prudent government would also seek to maintain status quo in a "sleeping giant". Unfortunately, the folks responsible for 9/11 stirred up the hornet's nest - prior to that it was quite unlikely the US was going to go to war in this decade. Even so, the focus of military adventuring on the part of the US is still focused on the region that gave rise to the 9/11 attackers, not on the world at large. Bad luck for the people of Iraq - but that's the problem with poking and prodding at a nation, sometimes their reactions misfire. Deliberate destabilization or other forms of negative meddling can have unintended negative reactions. It is entirely understandable that nations would seek to build up a real defense against other nations and not rely simply on goodwill to keep themselves safe... on the other hand, the two closest neighbors of the US have not seen a need to militarize the borders even if we did invade one of them in the 19th Century and take a sizable chunk of land away permanently. Japan - which has some good reason to hate us - nonetheless does not seek a military build up or defense against the US. In part, that is due to the terms of their surrender. On the other hand, even though their surrender was unconditional and we pretty much owned the place lock, stock, and barrel we didn't keep it - today Japan is Japan, not a part of the US. We never sought to abolish their language, culture (well, not outside the military crap that contributed to WWII), identity... hell, we helped rebuild their infrastructure after we had blown it all to hell and there was no reason for us to do that other than goodwill. If we had walked away and left them in the ashes in 1945 not only was there jackshit anyone could have done, a lot of folks might have been in favor of it. At least give the US credit for that much - we can display surprising generosity and good will even to those we consider enemies. No doubt this drives a lot of people crazy, but I don't think the Japanese would have fared as well if the Soviets had taken their surrender instead of the US.

So no, don't trust the goodwill of the US too far - it can change. On the other hand, don't pretend it doesn't exist. It leaves open the possibility that even if the US is a juggernaut the situation can be manipulated towards non-military activities and it doesn't require another nation having an equal military to do so.

[Ma Deuce]

No, you don't. Why would the warheads be in their posession, as opposed to being stacked somewhere ready for covert delivery to the United States in case of war? During sleep, the cell won't have the nukes, but it will have the mission.

Irrelevant, since if the nukes are caught (and some of them quite certainly would be), they would be caught on their way into the country. I think you are grossly underestimating the challenge of smuggling radiological materials into the US. Unless you're planning on them actually building crude nukes from within the US, but I'm pretty sure all transfers of the necessary materials are closely monitored.

You'll get? The person? Without the fissile material, he's just meat.

Exactly, because your person will most likely never receive their fissile material, without which they're just that: Meat.

[K. A. Pital]

It is entirely understandable that nations would seek to build up a real defense against other nations and not rely simply on goodwill to keep themselves safe...

Of course. Speaking of war and the XXI century peacefulness, which state has Russia attacked in the last 15 years? People speak about the "expansionist" Russia but which nations has Russia occupied? Attacked? Even as a joint military operations? The US has NATO actions in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Japan - which has some good reason to hate us - nonetheless does not seek a military build up

Is that the same nation which tests ABM and plans a 5th generation airfighter? And also brazenly denies all the shit it did in China? I admit Japan is militarily pathetic compared to the US, but it's one of the top military spenders (all of them are pathetic next down to the US, which spends 500-600 fucking billion on war related stuff). Japan and some European nations are in the same basket, spending-wise.

At least give the US credit for that much - we can display surprising generosity and good will even to those we consider enemies.

Only if there's a bigger enemy currently prodding you. Sorry, but that's the truth. The US invested in Japan with the onset of Korean conflict (using it as a reassembly factory and a huge base point, thereby giving the Japanese some tech to reverse engineer).

Before there was a fear of Germany becoming totally communist due to public hatred of US occupation, which was acting in accordance with "Plan Morgenthau" (turn Germany into an agrarian nation - means most of the populace is unimaginably fucked, and that's a plan drafted by a victorious Western nation in 45).

The US easily pardoned thousands of Nazi criminals when the newly-starting Cold War started to become more of an issue than bringing them to justice.

But did the US help Russia after it's "Cold War victory" which it's so proud of (which was all done by the CPSU leadership, so unless the US willingly admits that it engaged in economic terror to destroy the COMECON economy - meaning it didn't just "fail" on it's own - and bribed that leadership, it can't take ANY credit for that victory, which is the doing of those states ALONE). Not really. Moreover as Stuart said it fucked our economy ten times over - quite presumably deliberately, we were competitors after all. I'm going to take that as an insiders word.

Hell, the US made pacts with Suharto, Pinochet, it supported Osama and the Mujahedes against the USSR, it supported Maoist China and Pol Pot against the USSR, did everything to make one point clear:

US is only interested in helping nations which can be useful against a new powerful enemy.

End of story. There's no "US goodwill", there's US brutality towards those they count as enemies and generosity to those which could be found useful. As soon as a place outlives it's usefulness, it becomes no longer needed. Sure, there may be life improvement due to the temporary alliance with the US, but from the moment their ways part, that nation which formerly enjoyed US benevolent "help" can find itself not protected from US by anything and suddenly the US can do anything to it - if it thinks that's a competitor it can ruin it's economy, if it thinks that's an adversary, it can beat the shit out of that "former friend" nation.

I remember U.S. "goodwill" towards Saddam Hussein! All was well when he was necessary against another enemy - the US likes when other nations do the fighting FOR Uncle Sam's purpose, after all. As soon as he became obsolete as a tool, he became a threat and eventually was disposed of.

Yeah, I don't want to see such "goodwill" as you say, which takes a 180* reversal somewhere in the future to EVER bless my country.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Is that the same nation which tests ABM and plans a 5th generation airfighter?

In case you weren't aware, Japan did not sign any treaties forbidding it from developing an ABM system. Nor did it sign any treaties that forbid it from developing a technology demonstrator. But if you want to bring up building 5th Gen fighters, let's talk about PAK FA.

(all of them are pathetic next down to the US, which spends 500-600 fucking billion on war related stuff).

Oh boo fucking hoo, let's look at this relative to GDP: The US spent 439.3 billion dollars last year, our GDP was 13.453 trillion, so 439.3/13,453 comes out to 3.2% of our GDP spent on weapons. Now I can't find Russia's spending for 07 so I'll just use 05's from the CIA.gov which has Russia at 3.9% of GDP. Just to make sure you don't cry foul four using the budget of 05 I'll give you the US's budget, which was 4.06%. Wow, 4/25 of a percentile more.

[Tanasinn]

That is supposed to prove what? Who will say that you won't nuke the shit out of Iran once you have completed your ABM shield?

Who says "we" will?

(all of them are pathetic next down to the US, which spends 500-600 fucking billion on war related stuff).

You act as if military primacy is a bad thing.

[Broomstick]

It is entirely understandable that nations would seek to build up a real defense against other nations and not rely simply on goodwill to keep themselves safe...

Of course. Speaking of war and the XXI century peacefulness, which state has Russia attacked in the last 15 years? People speak about the "expansionist" Russia but which nations has Russia occupied? Attacked? Even as a joint military operations? The US has NATO actions in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Russia has had enough internal problems, hasn't it? Like Chechnya. I do see that Russia's dominance has been waning. Of course, you could also say the same about the dismantlement of the British Empire - in that case, Britain did continue to have military adventures both with the US and on its own (the Falklands). Prior to that time, however, Russia/USSR occupied other nations for decades and was involved in situations like Afghanistan as well as supporting Fidel Castro in Cuba, which has been a thorn in the side of the US for 50 years now. We did not appreciate missiles being shipped so close to our border back in the 1960's - and yes, I am well aware of the missiles in Europe pointed at the USSR, which I know your side detested just as much.

Nowhere have I claimed that the US is a nation of saints.

Japan - which has some good reason to hate us - nonetheless does not seek a military build up

Is that the same nation which tests ABM and plans a 5th generation airfighter?

At no time has Japan ever been denied the right to defend itself - and I can't fault them for seeking and developing advanced systems with which to do just that. Even so, the US, by treaty, has obligations to help with that defense. At the time that agreement was hashed out it seemed like a good course to take as allowing Japan to be vulnerable, particularly given the animosity the rest of Asia had towards them, would be cruel to a nation that was already on the ropes. Would you prefer that we not honor our agreement in that regard? With North Korean and it's missile capability in close proximity an ABM system makes a hell of a lot of sense in that part of the world.

And also brazenly denies all the shit it did in China?

Please see the revisionist history thread - they're hardly alone in that although yes, Japan's white washing of their WWII history is particularly egregious, especially in contrast to, say, Germany which admits the Nazis were a really bad thing for a lot of people. I fail to see how that makes a difference in regards to their national defense.

I admit Japan is militarily pathetic compared to the US

Which is deliberate - the terms handed out post WWII were intended to cripple Japan's war making capability permanently, which is why the US is now obligated to come to Japan's aid should they be attacked. The idea was to prevent a repeat of the Japanese Empire.

but it's one of the top military spenders (all of them are pathetic next down to the US, which spends 500-600 fucking billion on war related stuff). Japan and some European nations are in the same basket, spending-wise.

Actually, no - Europe chooses not to spend on the military to the same extent as the US and are free to change that decision at any time. Japan's constitution forbids anything other than a strictly defensive force. Granted, that could change, too, but it's less likely to happen.

A lot of US military spending is on hardware advances, and things like GPS which, by the way, the use of is free to the rest of the world (you have to buy a receiver, but there's nothing preventing foreign companies from designing and building their own). But no, we're not going to sell our very best systems to anyone, even our closest allies, and neither would anyone else. One of the reasons for maintaining military spending is employment of citizens as well as the trickle-down benefits to the civilian area. These technologies range from navigation (there has been a strong overlap between civilian and military systems in the US since WWII) to medicine (particularly emergency medicine) to food storage and preparation (the same tech bringing food to US troops in the field is available as self-heating meals on civilian store shelves - the local truck stops are full of that stuff) and so on. Few seem upset when the US drops MRE's from our military helicopters to Indonesians post-tsunami (and yes, I'm also aware the US was far from the only nation rendering aid during that disaster).

At least give the US credit for that much - we can display surprising generosity and good will even to those we consider enemies.

Only if there's a bigger enemy currently prodding you. Sorry, but that's the truth. The US invested in Japan with the onset of Korean conflict (using it as a reassembly factory and a huge base point, thereby giving the Japanese some tech to reverse engineer).

We started rebuilding Japan in 1946, we didn't wait for the Korean War (which certainly gave us an incentive do more). But it wasn't a fear of Korea that was prodding us, it was a fear of the USSR which had been showing a very strong expansionist tendency from the 1940's. Would you have preferred us to stand aside? What would have been the result? Probably a united Korea, but it would have been more like the current North Korea than the South. Would that be a preferable outcome?

Before there was a fear of Germany becoming totally communist due to public hatred of US occupation

What, the British and French weren't involved in that? Are you sure it wasn't "hatred" of the Allied occupation? And if it was so terrible why didn't more Berliners jump to the Russian side? How come it was everyone trying to sneak from east to west inside of vice versa across the Berlin wall? I don't imagine the Germans were happy about losing the war, and I'm sure you can still find people bitter about it, but it wasn't the US (or the Allies) who felt a need to build a physical wall through Berlin to keep people on our side of the line.

which was acting in accordance with "Plan Morgenthau" (turn Germany into an agrarian nation - means most of the populace is unimaginably fucked, and that's a plan drafted by a victorious Western nation in 45).

Nitpick - it was drafted in 1944, before Allied victory in Europe. And not implemented in its original form - although let's be real, there were food shortages all across Europe at the time, somebody had to grow food. But beyond that, while Roosevelt signed onto the idea it was opposed by other people in the US government, including in his cabinet. In the US the president does not always get his way. What happened post WWII to West Germany was less draconian than what the Europeans cooked up a generation earlier.

The US easily pardoned thousands of Nazi criminals when the newly-starting Cold War started to become more of an issue than bringing them to justice.

So did everyone else. Your point? What Nazi scientists we didn't steal your side did - both the US and USSR space programs were really German at heart. It wasn't like we let them rampage freely, former Nazis were restricted in movement for a long time. Should we have hung more people at Nuremburg, or find a way to use their expertise?

But did the US help Russia after it's "Cold War victory" which it's so proud of (which was all done by the CPSU leadership, so unless the US willingly admits that it engaged in economic terror to destroy the COMECON economy - meaning it didn't just "fail" on it's own

Well, yeah - given the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine confronting the USSR on the battlefield wasn't really an option. It was economic warfare. We outspent you. Would you have preferred nuclear war?

Not really. Moreover as Stuart said it fucked our economy ten times over - quite presumably deliberately, we were competitors after all.

And can you tell me with a straight face that the USSR wouldn't have done the same? I seem to recall a shoe-pounding speech by Krushchev at the UN where he declared "we will bury you all" - we didn't think he was kidding at the time. Was he? The USSR was quite open about bringing the benefits of their system to the rest of the world, whether or not the rest of the world wanted it. We didn't want it.

Hell, the US made pacts with Suharto, Pinochet, it supported Osama and the Mujahedes against the USSR, it supported Maoist China and Pol Pot against the USSR, did everything to make one point clear:

US is only interested in helping nations which can be useful against a new powerful enemy.

And the USSR was that powerful enemy. Of course we were in opposition. Unfortunately for you, you were on the USSR side of the border. Meanwhile, the USSR supported North Korea (yes, that turned out nicely!) and the north Vietminese and Cuba...

Meanwhile, we weren't turning former enemies and neighbors into vassal states. I mean, c'mon - how is Mexico helpful to us against our enemies? But we didn't march in and colonize south of the Rio Grande. In fact, we've been more tolerant than we should have of Mexicans crossing our borders uninvited. Being on good terms with New Zealand benefits us.. how? We get kiwi fruit at a good price? How about Belgium? Seriously - Greenland is more useful to us as an ally (convenient stop over on transatlantic flights).

We're not going to be nice to nations that are either allied with our enemies (a lot of the crap during the Cold War is explained by that) or working against us (we stopped supporting Osama when he started advocating bombing us) or playing expansionist by invading other countries (Hussein invading Kuwait). The fact that the USSR said they wanted to forcibly change us to one of their vassels (which is how we took the idea of world-wide communism, which, by the way, started BEFORE the US was a military or economic superpower), worked against us and our allies, and most certainly was expansionist/invading has a lot to with US animosity towards the USSR. Just as we were willing to ally with Stalin (and don't think we liked that) to oppose the Nazis, we were willing to ally with former Nazis to oppose the USSR once the Nazi's were no longer a threat to us.

End of story. There's no "US goodwill", there's US brutality towards those they count as enemies and generosity to those which could be found useful.

And this is different from other nations... how?

On the upside, we don't enslave our conquered enemies and we don't systematically wipe them out.

As soon as a place outlives it's usefulness, it becomes no longer needed. Sure, there may be life improvement due to the temporary alliance with the US

Or, as the Japanese prime minister stated prior to the first Gulf War, it is better to be an ally of the US than an enemy. As Japan should know. Japan and West Germany were utterly defeated in WWII but rebuilt and did quite well over the ensuing decades - East Germany not so much. Would you have preferred us to rape those nations after their defeat? We didn't have to help rebuild Western Europe. We did anyway, and the only people who repaid us were the Finns.

Are those the actions of a completely self-serving nation that kicks allies to the curb at the earliest convenience?

but from the moment their ways part, that nation which formerly enjoyed US benevolent "help" can find itself not protected from US by anything and suddenly the US can do anything to it - if it thinks that's a competitor it can ruin it's economy, if it thinks that's an adversary, it can beat the shit out of that "former friend" nation.

The USSR declared itself opposed to any economic system other than communism and advocate violent means to achieve that end - did you expect the US to simply put up with that? If communism had really been so superior as a system why didn't the USSR mess up the US economy instead?

Osama started advocating violent opposition to the US and started killing Americans long before 9/11 - are you saying that we shouldn't go after someone who attacks our mainland? Our former "friend" turned on us, plain and simple, and the US does not tolerate attacks on its soil.

Meanwhile, we have certainly disagreed with others of allies but not gone to war with them, or fucked up their economies. Despite your characterization, we do not attack at the least slight or insult.

I remember U.S. "goodwill" towards Saddam Hussein! All was well when he was necessary against another enemy - the US likes when other nations do the fighting FOR Uncle Sam's purpose, after all.

Right. And the USSR never did that...? Never supported US enemies?

As soon as he became obsolete as a tool, he became a threat and eventually was disposed of.

Actually, it was his invasion of Kuwait and a massing of his army on the Saudi border that prompted the first invasion - one supported by a LOT of other nations, unlike the current debacle. (The Saudis, in particular, were begging for help) Prior to that, we looked the other way when he gassed his own people and went to war with Iran, which had declared itself our enemy. That's hardly the action of a controlling puppeteer state such as you imagine the US to be.

Yeah, I don't want to see such "goodwill" as you say, which takes a 180* reversal somewhere in the future to EVER bless my country.

Well, don't attack us, don't give our enemies the means to attack us or our allies, don't fund people who plan to attack us on our own soil, don't stand up and declare "we will bury you!" in a public forum and you probably won't need to worry. Oh, wait - the USSR did all of that, didn't it? We still didn't bomb you.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh boo fucking hoo, let's look at this relative to GDP

No, let's not: there's no nation which could militarily pose any threat to the US whatsoever. Yet the US continues spending as if there still is.

You act as if military primacy is a bad thing.

War is an extension of politics. Primacy means there's a nation which can cower anyone into submission, which no one should ever oppose, and which can technically do anything it wants, the only thing stopping it would be it's own moral inhibitors (yeah, that worked real well with the advanced, industrial and educated nation of Germany). Fuck that and fuck the Top Dogs.

A lot of US military spending is on hardware advances, and things like GPS which, by the way, the use of is free to the rest of the world

That's not the only such system - many other militaries have or plan to have dual-use systems (COMPASS, GALILEO, GLONASS).

Meanwhile, we weren't turning former enemies and neighbors into vassal states.

Looks at Latin America *cough* Yeah. You didn't. You just held your share of sock nations.

On the upside, we don't enslave our conquered enemies and we don't systematically wipe them out.

You mean you're better than the Nazis? Thanks, that's a real advancement. Not to mention that you let others do that "wipe them out" thing for you - you're too advanced now to get your hands in something dirty, isn't it.

That's hardly the action of a controlling puppeteer state such as you imagine the US to be.

The key point is that if a former ally decides to oppose you (and he can do so with good reasons of his own) he's fucked ten times over. So what you're advocating is a world where the US can in fact attack anyone and do anything. But no one should have the ability, and no one can attack the US. No one can oppose it. No one can do anything beyond toying the US party line.

The Pax America is just the same bullcrap as the Roman and British Empires, only in a new, softer paperfold. I'll be the first to laugh when that idiotic order of things falls apart.

There shouldn't be a nation which you can't oppose and confront.

[Adrian Laguna]

And how ridiculously overpowered that makes the Moscow ABM system!

It single-handedly reduced the threat of Britain's nuclear arsenal by two orders of magnitude. Originally the Brits had their atomics pointed at over a 100 targets in the Soviet Union, as the ABM system around Moscow got bigger and bigger, this was slowly reduced. Eventually, the British found themselves forced to point all their weapons at Moscow.

[Medic]

You mean you're better than the Nazis? Thanks, that's a real advancement. Not to mention that you let others do that "wipe them out" thing for you - you're too advanced now to get your hands in something dirty, isn't it.

It has to be pointed out, cause everything else has (Schatten AND Stuart already pointed out that our nuclear primacy as a result of 21st century ABM developments is no worse than the 1950's) that you invoked Godwin's Law 1st. QED.

[K. A. Pital]

All I'm seeing here is a bunch of people saying: "Well, US supremacy is not the worst of outcomes". I never said it is.

However, I can't believe someone is seriously telling me that I should place my trust in U.S. moral inhibitors (because legal inhibitors stop working in a supremacy situation, and the US does't pay much attention to international law anyway (cue 2003-2007)).

Would you place your trust in the moral inhibitors of another nation - say, Australia gets total military and nuclear supremacy right this day, and the whole world can't do anything about it. If you say "no" and that you're "uncomfortable", then fuck you and your nation all the way down to Tipperary. You can't seriously tell someone to place his trust that morals of an industrial nation will stop it from abusing it's power.

That's like saying a citizen should trust the moral inhibitors of his government/secret service and allow it to do anything it wants. Because it's obviously full of moral, educated people who don't do random shit. Is that enough to believe the former construct? If no, then don't expect me to ever take the position that military supremacy is okay.

[K. A. Pital]

SPC Brungardt
Oh please. That was a valid argument. Broomstick said that the US doesn't totally genocide all of it's it's enemies as if that's some sort of great achievement which sets it apart from other nations - as opposed to just being normal for nation-states, you know.

Godwin's law, yeah.

[Medic]

Godwin's law, yeah.

Not the most valid of arguments, but 7 beer's and a cracked up metabolism (I'm sorta skin and bones and not by choice ) lowers inhibition. Somewhat.

But seriously, we had something like 700 B-52's at our max, probably some just-phasing out B-36's, hundred's of B-47's, some just coming online nuke-subs and missile silo's... the strategic balance back then was utterly lopsided and if anything hostility towards the U.S.S.R. was far-obviously-greater then than hostility towards Russia, be it in the mind of the U.S. populace, it's political OR military leaders. We fret more about China now than Russia.

How, seriously, do you discard this?

[Sea Skimmer]

All I'm seeing here is a bunch of people saying: "Well, US supremacy is not the worst of outcomes". I never said it is.

However, I can't believe someone is seriously telling me that I should place my trust in U.S. moral inhibitors (because legal inhibitors stop working in a supremacy situation, and the US does't pay much attention to international law anyway (cue 2003-2007)).

So what? Just build your own nation wide ABM system and everything is back to the way it is. In case you forgot, Russia is currently fielding new ICBMs, new SLBMs, new SSBNs, new bombers and new cruise missiles all intended for nuclear strikes. The US meanwhile recently scrapped its best ICBM and the last of its nuclear air launched cruise missiles because it simply didn’t feel like paying for them. Even having perfect ABM doesn't equal a perfect defense.

Stop wasting all that money on offensive arms and build defensive ones. If you don’t then you’ve got no damn right to complain.

The claim that the US will have a free hand to nuke the world is absurd anyway, at least when it comes to Russia. The US would never know for certain that its going to stop every last nuclear torpedo or nuclear SUBROC equivalent launched by Russian subs, and even a few US coastal cities being hit could kill tens of millions of people and destroy trillions upon trillions in property.

I have a VERY hard time envisioning any remotely rational scenario in which the US would nuke Russia when it had ABM, and yet wouldn’t nuke if it didn’t. If you want to get into irrational scenarios, then that’s just more reason for both nations to have working defenses, since right now all we have is the assumption that both sides are rational to hold our insane balance of nuclear terror in check.

[K. A. Pital]

How, seriously, do you discard this?

Why should I discard this? Another enemy of yours, Japan, wasn't so lucky even when you had only several nuclear devices.

And that period you, Shatten and Stuart bring up as that super-stable shit included the Carribean fucking Crisis, right?

So thanks, but no. I don't want a repeat of that, was too close.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So no, don't trust the goodwill of the US too far - it can change. On the other hand, don't pretend it doesn't exist. It leaves open the possibility that even if the US is a juggernaut the situation can be manipulated towards non-military activities and it doesn't require another nation having an equal military to do so.

You know, there are plenty of Pakistanis right now who'd prefer the US's so-called "good will" does not include backing a tyrant...

[Medic]

So thanks, but no. I don't want a repeat of that, was too close.

I still don't see much reason to presume we would have initiated anything ourselves.

IIRC, the Soviet decision to base intermediate-range ballistic-missiles was as a stop-gap measure to address the then-lopsided nuclear balance; you lacked then a strong, viable Russian-based deterrent to the U.S. and so wanted to base closely to us (as we did to you in Europe I believe) IRBM's, at least until you had enough missiles or bombers to deter any sort of war. (as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I believe we pulled American IRBM's out of Europe)

Putting 'fairness' to the side, the simple fact remains that then, as now, the U.S. was clearly the presumptive 'hegemon' if you will and any challenge to this would have been met with fierce resistance. It may make sense from a self-respect / sovereignty point of view but then the obvious consequence of rolling the dice in this manner is you JUST MIGHT roll a fucking-nuclear-war; why make the decision EVER to risk that?

Decisions between one or more nuclear powers have to be made with the knowledge that when things get out of control, it's catastrophic, not just, you know, bad, like mere invasions or carpet-bombings, which, while shitty, didn't prevent (West) Germany from becoming a strong N.A.T.O. country by the 1960's. You didn't HAVE to base the missiles so close to a country that could wipe you out and as history showed. As it is to, the Soviet's blinked (the missiles left Cuba, even if ours left Europe) I can't interpret this as a mistake by us, but by you. To drag out another American phrase, if you can't take the heat, don't stand in the kitchen.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

SPC Brungardt
You are mistaken. The missiles in question were the ones in Turkey right at Russia's doorstep. The agreement to remove Cuban missiles was in exchange for the removal of the missiles in Turkey which the Americans put first and the Russians furious at it.

[K. A. Pital]

You didn't HAVE to base the missiles so close to a country that could wipe you out and as history showed. ... As it is to, the Soviet's blinked

Yeah, that's the exact sort of tripe I was thinking I'd hear.

Don't like someone's hegemony? Hate it? Loathe it?

Don't do anything against it, and everything will be OKAY!!! See how simple - kowtow to the United States, allow them do whatever they want to do, and there will be no conflict!!

Gee, thanks. You've exactly proven my point.