RedHanrahan wrote:
Well obviously to some extent, but when does that preparedness merely intensify the problem by making your neighbour paranoid and extend their 'defensive' capability, which in turn makes you more paranoid and extend your own capability etc... At what point does sanity prevail, at what point is in not better to give the surplus energy you have for militarism to your neighbour to satisfy their very real or perceived needs in relation to yourself?
Sanity prevails every moment that one has a weapon at their disposal and yet does not use it wrongly. Mexico and Canada also have weapons and armed forces that they've built up, and not for aggression upon the United States. They do not used their weapons upon us and we don't use ours on them even though such ability exists. There is no reason to do so, and thus sanity prevails there at the least.
What point though at which somebody has armed themselves too much? Possibly when they are carrying around rocket propelled grenades and fire them at people they racially or religiously hate. In such circumstances they have demonstrated a lack of sanity and have thereby necessitated the removal of their "defenses" from them.
RedHanrahan wrote:
Remember the cold war? well maybe not as you are too young, notice how sabre rattling makes people develop offensive potential in the way that Iran feels compelled to do with it's intensified sense of insecurity, or China, India and Pakistan? To what extent is this 'preparedness' actually rational.
Your own country has between 1/5 and 1/3 of it's ecconomy tied up in/dependent on, the military industrial complex [estimates vary], as your nation consumes about 1/4 of the global ecconomys resources [again estimates vary] this means you have tied up somewhere between 1/20 and 1/12 of the planets productivity in destruction, what if this effort went into development, likewise imagine the improvements in quality of life for Indians, Pakistani's, Iranians, Russians... if their own governments did the same? and the lessening of domestic paranoia and possibly even improvements in civil rights? It is no coincidence that governments who fear their neighbours also fear their own citizens, how is this more extreme end of the militarist spectrum sensible?
Get real numbers if you want to make a quantitative argument, please[1]. Yes, I do remember the Cold War, and the Space Race between us and the Russians. I wasn't alive at the time of the events but I have every bit of access and exposure to the information that anyone then had, also I was alive for the last few years of the Cold War as well which you would have known if you had bothered to calculate out that detail. My memories only began to be fully consecutive when I was 4, but even still I remember the news towards the end of the Cold War as well as about Mikael Gorbachev.
As for being prepared for war now, Iran is a very real threat[2] - whether they attempt to deliver their nuclear weapons as cargo or in missile form - and the entire world needs to be ready to rapidly assess the situation and respond cautiously when Iran attacks (or sells nuclear weapons to private whackos to attack for them) so as to not allow them to trigger a doomsday scenario. Thankfully Russia is an ally and China is amicable also, even after the Cold War, possibly because they're actually rational.
RedHanrahan wrote:
Most people don't want war, most people do not seek violence as their first option even under duress, so how much longer will the minority get to dictate the terms and initiate wars and hatred for their own personal agendas?
peace j
Probably for as long as there are those who behave irrationally and seek the extermination of others based upon their religious affiliation or heredity.
!/ I have supplied information based on estimates, the very nature of estimating something is that one is interpreting dats sets, I have trusted various commentators and observer groups who have as stated varying estimates dependent on qualifiers and interpretation that is why I have kept it loose and covered the full range of opinion.
2/ On what grounds do you make that claim? modern Iran has no track record of aggressive military activity. There is no more proof for Irans 'nuclear capability' than there was for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Your own nation however has weapons of mass destruction and your last president threatened to use them on seven different nations immediatly post 9/11, given your imperialist stance and demonstrably aggressive military tradition, who should fear whom?
And yes I am totally dissapointed that this inevitably has to revolve around the USA, I intentionally included several nations in my argument and had hoped that could be noticed but as the US is demonstrably the most militaristic nation and so many of it's advocates visit this forum I guess this was inevitable, sad but inevitable.
I am only glad that I live where I live with a history that I am associated and I feel ok about, I observe the world from out to the side with a somewhat more objective view.
13 Jul 2011, 8:10 am
