Should all countries follow Japan's limited military?

[Nancy Allen``]

After the end of World War II treaties were put into place that prevented Japan from growing it's military to the point that it can strike from beyond it's boarders. With weapons of mass destruction, calls for rogue states to disarm and the invasion of other countries, should this be a model for us to follow?

[DarthSion101]

Absolutely......we have all been put here on this planet together, and instead of spending money on things like medical advancements, and helping eachother out, all we do is p--- away countless billions on making war and bringing death. The year is 2007, and man still is fighting tribal wars, only our tribes are now called countries.

[Achilles]

Nancy, those treaties were imposed by us to ensure that Japan wouldn't be able to militarize again. They currently are allowed a civil defense force, but their military is ours.

 

From that perspective, your question sounds like: "should all the world's nation's be forced to give up their militaries and accept the U.S. as the only militarized super-power?"

 

Most of the world would say no and many Americans feel that isn't our place, however it's been our foreign policy for about 75 years to do exactly that.

 

For those of you that haven't seen it, I highly recommend the documentary Why We Fight.

[Fish.Stapler]

First you'd need a body capable of enforcing this law. Until then, it's impractical since it'd be leaving yourself open to get quashed by a deviant nation. I'm all for it though.

[Emperor Devon]

Would it be nice? Yes. Will it happen? No.

[SilentScope001]

After the end of World War II treaties were put into place that prevented Japan from growing it's military to the point that it can strike from beyond it's boarders. With weapons of mass destruction, calls for rogue states to disarm and the invasion of other countries, should this be a model for us to follow?

 

Hey, let have everyone have only 500,000 troops!

 

All Countries, Including USA: Okay.

 

Every country disarms.

 

China: Hey, USA, while you're disarming, can you please evacuate from Taiwan, please? Thanks!

 

USA: No way, otherwise we would nuke you and destroy your nation!

 

China: Actually you won't. Since all of us have equal military, for every damage you do to me, I'll do an equal amount of damage to you. You're screwed. Give me Taiwan.

 

Pakistan: Hey, China. Give me the part of Kashmir that you stole from India!

 

China: We gave lives to go and steal that desert! We'll never let you have it!

 

World War ensures between all the nations...

 

Er...let not have that. There should at least be one nation who's the most powerful who can manitan order. Of course, it doesn't have to be the USA, it could be China. But we need a military superpower who can threaten people and get them to obey, without causing a big global conflict.

[Achilles]

First you'd need a body capable of enforcing this law. Until then, it's impractical since it'd be leaving yourself open to get quashed by a deviant nation. I'm all for it though.

Think of this in the context of the Nuclear Age. You either need a body capable of enforcing this law or you need to be the world's sole possessor of nuclear weapons.

 

The Non Proliferation Treaty basically states that all nuclear member countries will stop building weapons, disarm the ones that they have, and stick to energy creation only. Except the U.S. has (not so) secret clauses in the treaty that allow it to continue building and transporting weapons under the pretense of "just in case". Inherently evil? Not at all. But it certainly shows that if we are the sole country with nuclear weapons, then our grasp could exceed our reach as "the world's police".

 

btw, I'm not a New World Order conspiracy nut

[Nancy Allen``]

I'd be including America in not having forces capeable of striking other countries, in fact America would be the worst offender in this regard with nuclear subs armed with ICBMs capeable of what everyone feared Kin Jong of being capeable of. Do I think it should happen? War is mostly bringing troops to a country to either defend or invade it anyway. Almost never to my knowledge has any one aggressor striked against another from beyond it's boarders, certainly nothing like a missile being launched from say North Korea to a target in Europe or America. And in the event that such a threat did exist there have been countermeasures put into place such as the Patriot Missile Defense System.

 

For that matter, what are people's thoughts on the Star Wars defense proposal?

[SilentScope001]

For that matter, what are people's thoughts on the Star Wars defense proposal?

 

Judging from the fact that Russia threatened to nuke Poland over it, not highly.

[Achilles]

I'd be including America in not having forces capeable of striking other countries, in fact America would be the worst offender in this regard with nuclear subs armed with ICBMs capeable of what everyone feared Kin Jong of being capeable of.

Well, we are a signed member, however we have some special powers that other countries don't. Those other countries accurately point out that those special powers are violations of sections I and II, but we're the U.S. so we're going to play by our own rules anyway.

Almost never to my knowledge has any one aggressor striked against another from beyond it's boarders, certainly nothing like a missile being launched from say North Korea to a target in Europe or America.

Do you mean with a nuclear weapon? No, there has never been a nuclear weapon launched from one country into another. As far as conventional warfare, it happens all the time. Especially in the Middle East where the countries are so small and usually opposing nations are very close to each other.

 

And in the event that such a threat did exist there have been countermeasures put into place such as the Patriot Missile Defense System.

 

For that matter, what are people's thoughts on the Star Wars defense proposal?

I think Bush is about *this* close to reigniting the Cold War. Considering that he's alienated a great many of our former allies, I think that would be a bad idea.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'd agree with that, how Bush has alienated a great many people. We were working with Russia, Germany and Britain before Iraq. Now look. The question is how much of the incitement will remain when Bush is gone? Hopefully not a lot at all.

[Achilles]

Depends on whether or not we elect another Rapture Cowboy.

 

Maybe voting for Romney is the answer.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm worried less about the Rapture and more about the cowboy, but as I said I think Barack or Hilary is the way to go.

[Achilles]

I think electing a multi-racial citizen into our nation's top public service position would win us a lot of goodwill.

 

I think similar thoughts about Hillary, but it seems that she alienated her base by supporting the war in Iraq even after apologizing for her vote. I don't hold it against her, but I know a lot of others do.

[CountVerilucus]

Hell no we should not model this, the United States military is what keeps the world in check. Yes, the US uses it to coerce sometimes to their benefit. But I would rather that then any full scale wars.

[Ambrose]

There is absolutely no way the nations of the world would collectively agree to disarm. There's way too much trust involved, and that trust just isn't there (in many cases, rightfully so).

 

Japan disarmed while on its knees and at gunpoint.

 

The last time the world as a whole attempted to disarm was right after WWI, and we all know how well that worked...

[Darth InSidious]

Hell no we should not model this, the United States military is what keeps the world in check. Yes, the US uses it to coerce sometimes to their benefit. But I would rather that then any full scale wars.

I'd say that this attitude is about half the reason a lot of the world really, really dislikes the USA.

 

Ultimately, I think all nations should disarm. But I don't see it happening, since it would leave them vulnerable, and someone would take advantage.

 

So what's the answer? I'd like to think we could simply (though it would inevitably be prohibitively difficult) put together a much, much bigger (possibly global?) free trade agreement. Of the sort the EU started out as, but without the baggage of corruption, incompatible legislation and white elephant projects...

[Achilles]

I agree that free trade is the key.

 

To borrow from the old adage, "money makes the world go 'round".

 

Economic partnerships will eventually (hopefully) lead to political partnerships. Given enough time and pressure, I think we could evolve into a single government. Of course, we'll probably kill each other off first.

[Darth InSidious]

I think a single government is in the first place simply too big to be feasible, and secondly undesirable, as it would destroy, in my opinion, all cultural uniquenes that each country now has...which I think would be a travesty.

[Achilles]

I'm thinking thousands of years in the future.

 

Besides, I don't think one unified government precludes cultural diversity. Look at the U.S.

[Darth InSidious]

Quite.

[JediMaster12]

You are speaking of world disarmament and a unified govt. Anybody catch this? This is what is predicted throughout Revelation. The Antichrist arrives on a with horse wielding a bow meaning that he will wage war against those that oppose him. I am not jumping off the deep end and saying that the world is near the end but some of what you are saying keeps drawing this idea closer. A lot of things make you stop and think how close are we towards realizing that maybe Judgment Day is coming. That said and done I'll leave it at that. I am not seeking argument over this since this treads dangerously to the whole religion thing.

[The Sith'ari]

There should at least be one nation who's the most powerful who can manitan order. Of course, it doesn't have to be the USA, it could be China. But we need a military superpower who can threaten people and get them to obey, without causing a big global conflict.

 

I find this idea repulsive. So uncivilized for human beings to have to rely on "threats" to maintain peace and sanity. Why won't we learn from history, and stop indulging in our greed and start dealing with bigger problems, like global warming, energy shortage, etc? Yeah yeah, in the end someone wins, just in time when the Earth falls apart and human beings are destined for their demise.

 

I'd say that this attitude is about half the reason a lot of the world really, really dislikes the USA.

 

Ultimately, I think all nations should disarm. But I don't see it happening, since it would leave them vulnerable, and someone would take advantage.

 

I agree. It's pathetic how human beings never learn. And it's even more pathetic how someone could think that it's ok to exploit others and rage war against others because he's "maintaining peace by superior military force".

[SilentScope001]

JediMaster, The world will end only when the Sun decides to gobble up the Earth.

 

I'm actually more interested in having a last genocidcal war between all superpowers before the last remaining superpower (and the last suriviors) surive. If say, everyone but 100 people surivied this hypotethical "War to End All Wars", and those 100 people follow the same belief systems and are the same patriots...and they form a new nation...Congrats! We got world peace and a world government.

 

EDIT:

Do we really need a military superpower who can threaten people so as to maintain peace? I don't think so. I even find this idea repulsive. So uncivilized for human beings to have to rely on "threats" to maintain peace and sanity. Why won't we learn from history, and stop indulging in our greed and start dealing with bigger problems, like global warming, energy shortage, etc? Yeah yeah, in the end someone wins, just in time when the Earth falls apart and human beings are destined for their demise.

 

Hey, I'm being realistic. Energy shortages and global warming are part of politics too: Rich countries and poor countries want to both stop global warming, but want the other side to do it (becuase if they in fact do it, they lose money). Energy shortages are related to the idea of energy superpowers (OPEC, Russia), and well, the military superpower of the USA dislike them.

 

Listen, if we want selfless governments, if we don't want to induldge our greed, then we do need this military superpower, who can maintain order but can also not be greedy. A benevolenat dictatorship. But before you can start getting people to cooperate, you must first beat them to a bloddy pulp. Nobody really want to make the scarfices necessary to stop these problems, and for good reason, we'll suffer for the better of the whole. So, we just need more intelligent and alustirc superpowers.

[The Sith'ari]

Listen, if we want selfless governments, if we don't want to induldge our greed, then we do need this military superpower, who can maintain order but can also not be greedy. A benevolenat dictatorship. But before you can start getting people to cooperate, you must first beat them to a bloddy pulp. Nobody really want to make the scarfices necessary to stop these problems, and for good reason, we'll suffer for the better of the whole. So, we just need more intelligent and alustirc superpowers.

I knew what you meant, but I too, am trying to be realistic. Reality is, there's NO ONE who will be noble enough to perform this role the way you said it should- it's a downside of human nature that when one gets powerful, one become greedy and tries to exploit the weak. At least so far I don't think the US is what you would call "altrustic".

 

Should this "altrustic superpower" exist, it'd have to be an angel sent by God or something like that.