The US and nuclear development

Éomer of Rohan

I have seen the word deterrence fly about here with stunning regularity. I would just like to state that the nuclear weapons possessed by the USA are NOT deterrent. The USA has, to the best of my knowledge, threatened eight seperate countries with nuclear destruction (including pre-1949 Russia and some of these 8 more than once) so considering the US nuclear arsenal (and de facto British nuclear arsenal) these weapons are not deterrent and are not simply to deter nations from dealing with the US the same way as the US deals with those she percieves as a threat. As for the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent, we are seeing a decline in it's effectiveness. Imagine that the US had used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan in order to eliminate Al-Quaeda. The number of civilian casualties would have been inestimable. The real threat from nuclear weapons is from terrorists - and a nuclear warhead is powerless against an enemy that can simply put on different clothes and hide among a billion innocent people. Therefore, I think that the nuclear 'deterrent' though I do not believe it so, is outdated and should be scrapped - and all the money going to T.H.A.A.D. and the revised SDI program (not to mention the new nuclear components the US are building and the research the chinese, the Russians and the North Koreans are doing on improved ballistics (I think the Ne Dong III should suffice for the North Koreans - it can reach their mortal enemy) and increased yield should be spent on something more worthwhile than distorting the balance of geopolitical power and yet still leaving yourself open to a most devastating attack.

sam

kindof off-topic, but i think a lot of people are making a mistake in equating communism/socialism with authoritarianism, and democracy/capitalism with the opposite.. fat lot of good democracy is if all the candidates are crap, as for capitalism, thats possibly worse, what with the tendency for one big corp. to dominate all others in almost every case where capitalism has been allowed to take its course unfettered by the goverment.

its authoritarianism that kills inventiveness/research/long term growth, not communism.. and arguably, america won the cold war because its economy was boosted since the early 70's by the whole dollar-being-used-as-international-standard due to the oil producing countries thing..and the fact that america had far richer allies than russia (japan, most of western europe).
remember, america was losing the space and technology race till the early 70's, the moon landing was "an exception", not "the rule" at the time..

Éomer of Rohan

I am never one to pass up endorsing soviet socialism but come on, "kind of off topic" - that is taking the piss. Don't expect replies if you go off in an absolute tangent the socialist/capitalist debate hasn't even come up in this thread yet - and hopefully it won't.

Hobbes

Another thing that gets me (with a lot of the crazy stuff that is going on).

People keep going on about how 'Country' or 'President' will never use them for evil purposes. What at a later date?

It's a great argument killer for people who love Bush and blindly follow his policy. You just say "Well what happens is Clinton gets back in?".

sam

well actually i was responding to "Man"'s statements..

Yes as it's this deterrent that , has me living in capitalism and democracy, which is the way, I and most in the west like it... ...It's safe to say the west won the cold war thanks to it's deterrant

bonkey

OK lads...if anyone wants to take sam up on his post, then please do so in a seperate topic.

If you want....PM me and I'll split his post off into a new topic for you to reply to.

He was responding to a point made in passing, but - yes - it is going in a completely different direction, so lets not get sidetracked on it here.

Ta.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sam
kindof off-topic, but i think a lot of people are making a mistake in equating communism/socialism with authoritarianism, and democracy/capitalism with the opposite..

True, a common mistake.

as for capitalism, thats possibly worse, what with the tendency for one big corp. to dominate all others in almost every case where capitalism has been allowed to take its course unfettered by the goverment.

Actually, pure capitalism tends against this. Monopolies are the result of imperfect competition, in particular where there are barriers to entry into a market. The largest monopolies in history have in reality not been privately owned corporations, but State monopolies.

its authoritarianism that kills inventiveness/research/long term growth, not communism..

Depends on the type of authoritarianism. The Soviet Union (regardless of whether it was Communist or not) was very authoritarian as was Nazi Germany. Both turned out to be excellent hothouses for innovation, too.

and arguably, america won the cold war because its economy was boosted since the early 70's by the whole dollar-being-used-as-international-standard due to the oil producing countries thing..

Actually, the US dollar as an international standard pegging system was based upon gold rather than oil, and it was abandoned in the early 70’s. Western currencies have been free-floating ever since. That it was the currency of trade for oil was immaterial to the Communist block, who traded with the USSR for oil.

and the fact that america had far richer allies than russia (japan, most of western europe).

Countries that were in ruins at the close of World War II, yet recovered economically far better than those with State run economies. Go figure.

sam

continued on http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=97505