Should all countries follow Japan's limited military?

[GarfieldJL]

Oh so you're saying Israel should have just sat by and let Hezbollah fire rockets into their country. Seriously, Israel was attacked and they responded, which by the way the media showed their true colors during that conflict by reporting doctored photos as the gospel truth.

[Nancy Allen``]

No I'm not saying that either. If you stop putting words in people's mouths for a minute what happened with Hezbollah is exactly the reason why countries shouldn't be able to strike beyond their boarders. Of course people such as Hezbollah are not going to play by the rules. Rather than retalliate the way they had (and I'm not sure if Israel did target civillians like the media have said they did) then they should have broken the idea of not striking beyond their boarders, in a sense, and brought their forces to Hezbollah. Not attack from their country into another. I don't think this is unreasonable, Mossad and Shin Bet have the intelligence to counter the terrorists acts they faced and with the American backing and forces that Israel have, if the Isayeret were allowed to kick ass and take names rather than resort to Hezbollah's tactics then Israel would not have become the object of international scorn.

[GarfieldJL]

Nice theory cept the Lebanese Government couldn't do squat. Hundreds of rockets were being fired into Israel daily. They had to strike back.

[SilentScope001]

I think it's just a classic case of the so-called Prisoner's Delimma, with no real solutions.

 

Two nations would both benieft if they both disarm. But, well, if one nation disarm, and the other nations "arms", then that second nation grows more powerful than the First Nation. Therefore, both nations are forced to arm, because they fear that if they do not spend money on troops, then the other side can. It's a never-ending arms race.

[GarfieldJL]

So Israel should trust countries that have tried to wipe their people off the face of the earth repeatedly...

[Jae Onasi]

Oh so you're saying....

 

If you word this as a question "Are you saying x?" to ask for a clarification instead of 'oh, so you're saying....', I think it'll work better and not come across as sarcastic.

 

Nancy, give us more than 5 minutes to do our job before you jump in. We try to get to problems quickly, but we've got lives outside LFN.

 

Note for everyone--discussing controversial issues on a forum is more difficult than in person because we don't have any facial/body language cues that tell us how someone means something when there are multiple meanings. Furthermore, there are different standards of what's considered 'polite' across the US and the world, and so tone can get misinterpreted by someone who's not from your region/country.

 

I've misinterpreted posts and had mine misinterpreted. It happens to all of us. Most people aren't trying to be intentionally nasty in their posts, so if something comes across as aggressive or rude, it's entirely possible that they didn't mean it as rude, they just wrote it in an unclear way or didn't realize how they were saying something was coming across in an aggressive manner. Before jumping to a wrong conclusion, ask them 'when you say x, this is what it means to me. Is that what you're trying to say?' It'll solve a lot of misunderstandings.

[SilentScope001]

So Israel should trust countries that have tried to wipe their people off the face of the earth repeatedly...

 

Of course not. No, instead the other countries who have tried to wipe Israel off the face of the earth repeatedly should disarm and trust Israel's intentions.

 

Neither side will willingly disarm, due to paranoia and fear the other side will just prepare his weapons. So, basically, both sides are rationally choosing to build weapons. I was basically backing up both Nancy's and your's points at the same time...

[Windu Chi]

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?

I don't think this will be a wise choice, I mean a lot of skirmishes have to be maintain to ensure peace on this planet and to ensure we don't let that damn nightmare happen again; Holocaust.

Also I think toward other unknown threats out there above the sky in the great unknown, a limited military all over the world will make our species easy pickings, Nancy for any potential foes out there.

[Nancy Allen``]

Nancy, give us more than 5 minutes to do our job before you jump in. We try to get to problems quickly, but we've got lives outside LFN.

 

Ah yes, going out all night, chasing any man half decent, those were the days.

 

QUOTE=windu6]I don't think this will be a wise choice, I mean a lot of skirmishes have to be maintain to ensure peace on this planet and to ensure we don't let that damn nightmare happen again; Holocaust.

 

I'm not sure if having great stockpiles of what would be deemed weapons of mass destruction would have prevented the Holocaust. In fact I think if Europe was not being taken over I think this would have recieved much less attention than it has. I'm glad it does though, but the sad fact is atrocities like this occur all the time, such as rape being used as a weapon of war and genocide (I think the rape destroys the reproductive organs) in Africa and for the most part we turn a blind eye.

 

Would limiting the military capeabilities of the world's military be a good thing? We live in a world where the basic premise is 'you can't have weapons of mass destruction. We can, but you can't' and for this alone the Iraq war is so wrong. But aside from that we have seen them used as weapons of threat for the most part. Perhaps the biggest act involving these weapons actually being deployed was Saddam using SCUD launchers. But weapons of mass destruction have been threatened all the time: Kim Jong Ill used them to recieve aid and the Cold War centred on the threat of using nuclear weapons to wipe each other out. Going back to such turbulant time would be a nightmare. Could this be averted without the threat of such weapons? America is the only superpower in the world, few can stand up to it in a fight and of those that would perhaps only China would. But regional conflicts such as Israel and Palestine, I'll pose something to you. Would it be right for one side to have what would be to them superweapons to keep the other in check or for both sides to have superweapons to keep each other in check?

 

QUOTE=windu6]I think toward other unknown threats out there above the sky in the great unknown, a limited military all over the world will make our species easy pickings, Nancy for any potential foes out there.

 

With our current military technology, and for perhaps a millennia afterwards, if an alien race developed the same technology for space exploration beyond what we possibly know as it has to go to war, then we're toast no matter what we do. And there is something else. Part of the reason America is hated is because it is seen as a big bully, it has all these weapons and all this aggression. For those weaker it both presents resentment and a target, particularly by those who want to take it down a notch or maybe like the Mandalorians a foe to test themselves against. Now consider this on a galactic scale, some alien race sees Earth as warlike and considers it a threat, or a powerful race fit for conquest and to add to it's power. That's not to say not to build defenses against such a threat, if there was no defence there'd be nothing to stop it from happening anyway. It's a very fine line to walk.

[Windu Chi]

I'm not sure if having great stockpiles of what would be deemed weapons of mass destruction would have prevented the Holocaust. In fact I think if Europe was not being taken over I think this would have recieved much less attention than it has.

Yes, it wouldn't have recieved any notice the victims would have died in vain and the Holocaust would have been a rumor.

 

I'm glad it does though, but the sad fact is atrocities like this occur all the time, such as rape being used as a weapon of war and genocide (I think the rape destroys the reproductive organs) in Africa and for the most part we turn a blind eye.

Racism and greed is the cause for the lack of care for Africa, with our current officials in office.

They don't give a damn, the parts of Africa they do care about is the parts that is fill with diamonds and oil.

 

Would limiting the military capeabilities of the world's military be a good thing? We live in a world where the basic premise is 'you can't have weapons of mass destruction. We can, but you can't' and for this alone the Iraq war is so wrong. But aside from that we have seen them used as weapons of threat for the most part.

That is that crazy nut, Bush who ponder using tactical nukes, that is not only insane but is very stupid, using fission bombs will destroy the biosphere, by intense radiation damage, that will last a long time that in the long run will destroy all of us if those tactical nukes are used a couple times, also if those nukes get into the wrong hands, of course there will be hell to pay.

Some advances in ionizing radiation physics will have sought before we can safely use nuke's as ground attack weapons.

 

Would limiting the military capeabilities of the world's military be a good thing? We live in a world where the basic premise is 'you can't have weapons of mass destruction. We can, but you can't' and for this alone the Iraq war is so wrong. But aside from that we have seen them used as weapons of threat for the most part. Perhaps the biggest act involving these weapons actually being deployed was Saddam using SCUD launchers. But weapons of mass destruction have been threatened all the time: Kim Jong Ill used them to recieve aid and the Cold War centred on the threat of using nuclear weapons to wipe each other out. Going back to such turbulant time would be a nightmare.

Could this be averted without the threat of such weapons? America is the only superpower in the world, few can stand up to it in a fight and of those that would perhaps only China would. But regional conflicts such as Israel and Palestine, I'll pose something to you.

A difficult question, fear is the agent here, as we all know here fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.

For example:

The fear of destruction for Kim Jong Ill with Bush axis of evil statements.

The anger for America's power and prestige, if we still have any left.

And of course the hate for all Americans.

Well, we manage to delay the suffering on us for the time being; Kim's regime has not wipe us out yet, Nancy.

Tick, tot, tick...

 

 

Would it be right for one side to have what would be to them superweapons to keep the other in check or for both sides to have superweapons to keep each other in check?

A difficult question to answer, but I would say both sides, I mean because we

are all still here to have this discussion, because Russia and the United States both have fission and fusion bombs, to ensure that our species won't vanish in the night, we are living on and we are surviving in the Milky Way galaxy.

 

If you are talking about nukes then yes to a degree, we should decrease them, but only to a degree.

Those unknown threats I've talked about, but I forgot to mention asteroids and comets, it will be foolish to get rid of every single fission and fusion bomb we have.

Now for military forces, I am like a warrior so I'm not very comfortable with getting rid of my weapons.

So, limited military forces is very dangerous in my opinion.

 

 

With our current military technology, and for perhaps a millennia afterwards, if an alien race developed the same technology for space exploration beyond what we possibly know as it has to go to war, then we're toast no matter what we do.

I don't give up that easy, Nancy.

 

And there is something else. Part of the reason America is hated is because it is seen as a big bully, it has all these weapons and all this aggression. For those weaker it both presents resentment and a target, particularly by those who want to take it down a notch or maybe like the Mandalorians a foe to test themselves against.

 

With that nutcase still in office we are increasing that stance of being a bully.

 

Now consider this on a galactic scale, some alien race sees Earth as warlike and considers it a threat, or a powerful race fit for conquest and to add to it's power. That's not to say not to build defenses against such a threat, if there was no defence there'd be nothing to stop it from happening anyway. It's a very fine line to walk.

Yes, the unknowns Nancy.

[MTV2]

thats pretty much the same in Germany, the German army can't attack other countries, but they can defend theres.