NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/international/asia/0http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/international/asia/04korea.html4
This is certainly a fear that should be keeping diplomats up at night. South Korea is under suspicion that it may be trying to develope nukes. Whether this is an experiment by rogue scientists or a government action is beyond the point. North Korea can now destroy Seoul and the Korean army with the few nukes it has. This will certainly intimidate the South Koreans to try to gain them, and more importantly, the Japanese. After all, many Western observers say that Japan has the technology and the know-how to have a decent nuclear arsenal built in a matter of months if it really wants to. Even if North Korea is defeated down the road, this can serve to later antagonize China unless the arsenals are destroyed immediately.
That's not all, I fear. As Japan, the US, and South Korea are economically and militarily tied to the hip with one another, the US's enemies are their enemies. Our enemies aren't the prettiest leaders around, or the most stable countries. It's possible that the action in NE Asia can spur an arms race in the Middle East, as more nations scramble to find detterance. It may even lead to an arms race in Central Asia, especially if Mussharaf is overthrown. While they increase their arsenal to try and war off a US strike, other Central Asian countries may arm themselves. It is important to say that South Korea has a significant presence in Central Asia, even maintaining a large garrisson at Manas International airport outside Bishkek. A destabilized Pakistan would inherently work in their disfavor. It'd also, btw, lead the other "stans" to try and seek nukes, especially if a destabilized Pakistan antagonizes US garrisons in the North.
I'm not suggesting something far-fetched. It is almost a given that Pakistan will destabilize within the next thirty years. Should that happen, and South Korea is a close military partner by then, then it is almost assured that a bunch of mini arms races will occur. Thanks, North Korea.

Okay, I know this sounds like an incohereant rant, but it isn't. This is what I read in a book that described a Pentagon brief. It is 2015. Our army has withdrawn from Korea, and the South Koreans let their military weaken. North Korea successfully invades the entire peninsula. Now, our entire Army, Air Force, and Marines are fighting foreign wars, with absolutly no reserve force at home. Even our aircraft carriers are gone. Plus, we have absolutly no allies in defeating the North Koreans. The only thing we have our surface vessels from Japan. He used this brief as a justification to buy more surface vessels, even when he used so many unlikely variables.

AAAAHHHHH We re all gonna die *Runs around screaming* :eek:



Thanks for not trying to scare us by the way.

I agree that North Korea's nuclear ambitions should be curbed. I don't know how though. I think it would be a mistake for Japan to start building a nuclear arsenal. What we need is less nuclear powers, not more.

I'm not suggesting something far-fetched. It is almost a given that Pakistan will destabilize within the next thirty years.
It's guaranteed. No democratically elected government in Pakistan has ever served its full term before being overthrown by a military coup. You should read Pakistan by Owen Bennett Jones. It's a book that gives an interesting overview of Pakistan, its history, and the major political and economic issues faced by the country.

Pakistan has built its nuclear arsenal with knowledge stolen from Belgium and assistance from China and probably North Korea too. The arms race between Pakistan and India should not be ignored.

Silly Euclid.

Don't you know that despotic countries with active nuke programs, weapons, and ICBMs are simpy "regional problems" that only require diplomatic efforts?

Nothing will come of it. GW says so.

Not like really dangerous countries that have zero long-range missile technology who maybe might be thinking of perhaps reconstituting a chemical weapons program. MAybe.


Now THOSE are the ones that need attention! Those are the ones that need dealing with!

Oh No, Oh No, Korea has nuclear weapons!!!

Too bad they suck.

I agree that North Korea's nuclear ambitions should be curbed. I don't know how though. I think it would be a mistake for Japan to start building a nuclear arsenal. What we need is less nuclear powers, not more.



The problem is that the world had developed the impression that owning a nuke gives leverage to avoid being targetted by the US military.

It has become an insurance policy.

I agree that North Korea's nuclear ambitions should be curbed. I don't know how though. I think it would be a mistake for Japan to start building a nuclear arsenal. What we need is less nuclear powers, not more.
In 1994, the White House had bombers in Korea on alert to bomb North Korean nuclear facilities. That window of oppritunity should've been pursued way back in 2002. It was policy to make sure the Germans didn't get nukes by bombing their labs, and back in the sixties, Chinese nuclear facilities would be bombed, but the Chinese tested their nukes before the US had the chance.
In the mean time, if we want to maintain the status quo, the best we can do is to pretend North Korea doesn't have nukes, and not to give into their blackmail, much like we have been doing. I, of course, am not in favor of the status quo. In fact, I can gurantee a war on the peninsula by 2015, when it is estimated that North Korea can hit the West Coast of the United States.

It's guaranteed. No democratically elected government in Pakistan has ever served its full term before being overthrown by a military coup. You should read Pakistan by Owen Bennett Jones. It's a book that gives an interesting overview of Pakistan, its history, and the major political and economic issues faced by the country.

Pakistan has built its nuclear arsenal with knowledge stolen from Belgium and assistance from China and probably North Korea too. The arms race between Pakistan and India should not be ignored.
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually somewhat in favor of nuclear armament. This creates MAD between the two states, and will gurantee that India and Pakistan will never attack eachother. The problem, however, is when nukes get into the hands of those that don't know how to use them. A destabilized Pakistan will leave its nukes in jeopardy. They'll either go on the black market, in the hands of terrorists, or perhaps even on an attack on India. Is this likely with other nuclear states, like the US, China, Israel, or France?
Plus, the thing about rogue nations is that their leaders often are so far disconnected with reality, that they regard their countries and militaries as their personal playthings. Kim Jong-Il would be happy to lob a few nukes around because he could care less about the response. We dump foreign aid on North Korea, yet people are still starving. Does he care that a few million of his people are incinerated by nuclear blasts?

Silly Euclid.

Don't you know that despotic countries with active nuke programs, weapons, and ICBMs are simpy "regional problems" that only require diplomatic efforts?

Nothing will come of it. GW says so.
You have a double standard, don't you. Leave the world alone, except for when big bad regimes get nukes. I agree that it is a regional problem, but if no US interests were at stake, we'd forfeit the meetings straightaway. And btw, I have a feeling you believe that Kim Jong-Il wants nukes because of US agression. I believe, however, that it is because of a blackmail policy by him. If he's afraid of agression, he should be afraid of the Chinese. They are already disgusted with the North Koreans, and will not tolerate a mad dictator making China look bad. Why do you think the North Koreans have bases on the Yalu?

bump

Personally, I feel that we all have no choice but to attack North Korea. Kim Jong-Il is not only a maniac, but one with nukes. Besides, a war with him is incredibally easy, and would barely even qualify as a war. The nukes, btw, would never leave the ground, because US bombers would strike at the silos and artillery pieces in the first half hour of any war.
Afterwards, it wouldn't be hard, either. North Korea is comatose, sure, but I see it as an oppritunity. 22 million people who have either no jobs, or low paying jobs. I'm sure you anti-globalizationists know what I'm thinking, but you can't dispute the fact that foreign investment is good. In Kenya, a foreign owned factory pays twice as much as a locally owned one. This will put insormountable sums of cash into the pockets of North Koreans, and combined with the South's liberal economic policies, the Northern economy will soar in a few years, much like the South's did in the eighties.
Occupation, btw, won't be hard. Resistance should be fierce for about a year or so, as the North Koreans practically worship Kim Jong-Il. But the occupiers will be mostly Koreans, just like the occupied. And once they see what lies to the South, Northerners will realize that resistence is futile.

As for the GWOT, it has severe ramifications. North Korea is not just a terrorist state, or even a WMD possessor. It is just like al-Qaeda hope to achieve one day: that the Middle East has no contact with the outside world. It'll show that the forces of connectivity and modernization cannot be stopped, and the terrorists are playing a game that, sooner or later, US or not, they will loose.

bump

There are also tactical reasons to invade North Korea. At present, the US is unable to field a large army on Asia. While a division is currently in South Korea, it is sort of an island, as the DMZ prevents any overland travel from South Korea to the rest of Asia. Should North Korea fall, I think it'd be slightly optimistic to say that US presence won't be needed there. It'll simply move north to the Yalu.
Why is it important for US forces to be there? China. Do we intend to go to war with them? God, I hope not. But war is just one thing the military does. We'll need an army in Asia for a few reasons. One of them is so that, should the Chinese attack Taiwan for any reason, the US has more diplomatic leverage. If we have to get involved, the Chinese army will squash our ground forces like a bug, but not before we control half of Manchuria. Besides, the Chinese don't have much in the way of air support, while we do.
Another reason is for any future problems that may arise in the future. There is little question that China will emerge as a great power, and no doubt it'll cooperate with the rest of the world. But hey, shit happens. We need a safety blanket just to make sure that they don't threaten our interests.

I'm not for invading and liberating N. Korea, a la Iraq, for one, it would be a lot bloodier, and we don't even have enough troops to defend the South, let alone invade the North. We do need to pursue a more belligerent stance towards N. Korea though, and I am against pulling any troops out of the South, IIRC, we only have about 37,000 troops there.

I disagree about a US Military presence in mainland Asia at the Yalu would be a fait accompli, I think it is more likely if the North falls, the US Military presence in Asia will vanish after the North is incorporated into a stable singular Korea, since those 37,000 are there to defend the South from the North, not China. Once the North is gone, I don't think the Koreans will support having US military assetts on the peninsula anymore, a lot of South Koreans don't even support them in the South at the moment.

Is it just me, or is Kim Jong-il the ugliest creature that ever walked the earth? (Sorry to change the subject)

There are also tactical reasons to invade North Korea. At present, the US is unable to field a large army on Asia. While a division is currently in South Korea, it is sort of an island, as the DMZ prevents any overland travel from South Korea to the rest of Asia. Should North Korea fall, I think it'd be slightly optimistic to say that US presence won't be needed there. It'll simply move north to the Yalu.
Why is it important for US forces to be there? China. Do we intend to go to war with them? God, I hope not.
I hope not either. But quite frankly spoken China is potentially the biggest thread to the US (I stress the word POTENTIALLY).
The terrorists can only destroy things. They can not challenge or destroy the US position as leading power of the world. Anybody who says otherwise is really exagerating things. That doesn´t mean that they are not very dangerous and destructive. However: everything needs to be looked at in a realistic way. And for that it is important to cut out emotions and to look to the facts. Terrorism is a problem which is not new, which won´t go away in a few years or even decades and we also have - to a certain degree - life with it - while at the same time using all appropiate means to battle terrorism and their infrastructure- diplomaticaly, with police and secret services, through international cooperation and of course - with the use of force.
But that doesn´t make the thread to go away suddenly. It is a fight for decades to come.
China has from its population and its potential the ability to become the number 2 in the world. It is an historic experience that mostly two big powers begin to rival in some way. Especially the fact that there are some expansionist tendencies in China makes that likely. China used to be the hegemonic power in East Asia up until the 19 th century. It certainly has ambitions which go in the same direction today. That is against the American interests. So some form of confrontation is inevitable (I just remember you on the spy plane affair at the begining of 2001- a thing which is easily forgoten because of the events of 9/11). The US shouldn´t forget that there is a world outside the war on terror and developments outside of this specific topic. The rise of China is one of those developments which is very likely going to be one of the dominant conflicts (if not the dominant conflict) in the 21rst century.

I'm not for invading and liberating N. Korea, a la Iraq, for one, it would be a lot bloodier, and we don't even have enough troops to defend the South, let alone invade the North. We do need to pursue a more belligerent stance towards N. Korea though, and I am against pulling any troops out of the South, IIRC, we only have about 37,000 troops there.
Why? The North Korean army has equipment from WWII. They are poorly trained and poorly fed. The South Korean army, on the other hand, is well trained and equipped. Not only could they defend themselves, they could probably take the peninsula themselves. Size hardly matters here. Remember, the US could defeat the Iraqi army of 450,000 with a grand total of 250,000. It's significant, but it breaks the rule of thumb that three attackers are needed for every defender. The North Korean army is in far worse shape than Hussein's.
I disagree about a US Military presence in mainland Asia at the Yalu would be a fait accompli, I think it is more likely if the North falls, the US Military presence in Asia will vanish after the North is incorporated into a stable singular Korea, since those 37,000 are there to defend the South from the North, not China. Once the North is gone, I don't think the Koreans will support having US military assetts on the peninsula anymore, a lot of South Koreans don't even support them in the South at the moment.
A lot don't like us in Japan or Europe either, but we're there. I'm not suggesting 37,000 troops stay on the peninsula, however. I am suggesting that we build a few air fields, tank depots, and naval facilities further north. Just have enough troops there to maintain those facilities, and keep army assets elsewhere until needed. The tanks and planes will be there, but guarded, of course. All we need to do is move the troops themselves, and how long does that take? A week at the very most.
Of course, if the Koreans change their minds about us, keep large numbers of troops there. And while we're at it, abandon Japan as a large base. In fact, currently, we don't need to be stationed in Japan. I find it redundant that troops are in both countries, and the only reason they are is because neither country would tolerate such a large presence of US troops.

I hope not either. But quite frankly spoken China is potentially the biggest thread to the US (I stress the word POTENTIALLY).
The terrorists can only destroy things. They can not challenge or destroy the US position as leading power of the world. Anybody who says otherwise is really exagerating things. That doesn´t mean that they are not very dangerous and destructive. However: everything needs to be looked at in a realistic way. And for that it is important to cut out emotions and to look to the facts. Terrorism is a problem which is not new, which won´t go away in a few years or even decades and we also have - to a certain degree - life with it - while at the same time using all appropiate means to battle terrorism and their infrastructure- diplomaticaly, with police and secret services, through international cooperation and of course - with the use of force.
But that doesn´t make the thread to go away suddenly. It is a fight for decades to come.
China has from its population and its potential the ability to become the number 2 in the world. It is an historic experience that mostly two big powers begin to rival in some way. Especially the fact that there are some expansionist tendencies in China makes that likely. China used to be the hegemonic power in East Asia up until the 19 th century. It certainly has ambitions which go in the same direction today. That is against the American interests. So some form of confrontation is inevitable (I just remember you on the spy plane affair at the begining of 2001- a thing which is easily forgoten because of the events of 9/11). The US shouldn´t forget that there is a world outside the war on terror and developments outside of this specific topic. The rise of China is one of those developments which is very likely going to be one of the dominant conflicts (if not the dominant conflict) in the 21rst century.
I think you're underestimating the terrorist threat. I'm reading a book right now, The Pentagon's New Map by naval analyst Thomas Barnett. He describes the world as being in two groups: the core and the gap. The core consists of the US, Europe, Russia, China, NE Asia (except North Korea), Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Canada, and the Bahamas. It's very peaceful in the core, as well as very rich, orderly, and it tends to be democratic. The Gap is the exact oposite. It's violent, brutish, and overall bad. Quite a few of our problems come here.This is, btw, the Carribean, Latin America, all of Africa, Yugoslavia, the Middle East, Central Asia, and most of SE Asia. Not only are security threats coming from here, but the global economy will benefit from shrinking the gap. It's done mostly through the private sector, but the security part can be done only by the US. Because of this, it should be our primary goal. After all, we're the undisputed military power of the planet. Did you know that our navy is the only one that can sustain blue water operations? I never knew that.

Anyhow, he says the Pentagon is falling into the China trap. I think that's too optimistic of an assumption. Sure, China and the rest of the world get along fine, but they already have the second most powerful military on the planet, and may soon equal us. It's good for China's sake, but hey, shit happens. The US needs to make sure that China doesn't threaten our interests. But it probably won't happen. In this global economy, everyone stands to loose from a new great power war, especially with nukes. There's a reason why one hasn't happened since 1945.

Anyhow, he says the Pentagon is falling into the China trap. I think that's too optimistic of an assumption. Sure, China and the rest of the world get along fine, but they already have the second most powerful military on the planet, and may soon equal us. It's good for China's sake, but hey, shit happens. The US needs to make sure that China doesn't threaten our interests. But it probably won't happen. In this global economy, everyone stands to loose from a new great power war, especially with nukes. There's a reason why one hasn't happened since 1945.
Well: I hope that is true: However there could be proxy wars as well. And I wouldn´t take everything into the economy. There was the believe in the begining of the 20 th century that a British-German war was impossible because of the (actually) pretty high trade volumes at that time. It wasn´t the case though. The so-called July crisis of 1914 and the different alliance systems lead at the end to a big European war.
OK: Probably if there were nukes at that time the leaders would have acted more responsible. But quite frankly spoken: Austria was outraged: they wanted to revenge the assassination of their crown prince. And they wanted to punish Serbia. So any rejection of their ultimatum - which happened in a diplomatic form, but it still was a rejection - was for them a reason to go for revenge for this and other actions (like the panslavic ideology).
The world was actually pretty close to a nuclear confrontation in 1962. It was the responsible action of Kennedy and - in that respect also Chrustshev who made open concessions why Kennedy made secret concessions - to end this dangerous situation which led the world at the brink of a third world war. I only hope that future leaders are as responsible as well.
But it was close, too close. One reason why a multipolar world of rivaling powers is a dangerous idea just as the bipolar world was dangerous - especially at the peak of the cold war it was very close.
So probably an unipolar world is better - or a multi-polar world based on cooperation. But that would require reforms. A liberal and more democratic China would be a gain for global security, just as a more liberal Russia is (or a democratic Germany was and is and the democratic Japan was and is).
But that can only be a long-term conception. For the time being and for many decades to come I would refer to a statement of Blair: "America must lead."

Well: I hope that is true: However there could be proxy wars as well. And I wouldn´t take everything into the economy. There was the believe in the begining of the 20 th century that a British-German war was impossible because of the (actually) pretty high trade volumes at that time. It wasn´t the case though. The so-called July crisis of 1914 and the different alliance systems lead at the end to a big European war.
OK: Probably if there were nukes at that time the leaders would have acted more responsible. But quite frankly spoken: Austria was outraged: they wanted to revenge the assassination of their crown prince. And they wanted to punish Serbia. So any rejection of their ultimatum - which happened in a diplomatic form, but it still was a rejection - was for them a reason to go for revenge for this and other actions (like the panslavic ideology).
The world was actually pretty close to a nuclear confrontation in 1962. It was the responsible action of Kennedy and - in that respect also Chrustshev who made open concessions why Kennedy made secret concessions - to end this dangerous situation which led the world at the brink of a third world war. I only hope that future leaders are as responsible as well.
But it was close, too close. One reason why a multipolar world of rivaling powers is a dangerous idea just as the bipolar world was dangerous - especially at the peak of the cold war it was very close.
So probably an unipolar world is better - or a multi-polar world based on cooperation. But that would require reforms. A liberal and more democratic China would be a gain for global security, just as a more liberal Russia is (or a democratic Germany was and is and the democratic Japan was and is).
But that can only be a long-term conception. For the time I quote Blair: "America must lead."
Still, from what little I know about Kaiser Wilhelm, he seemed like a guy with problems. I'm not saying that China won't ever attack, but it is less likely because they are so economically dependent on us, as you would probably agree with me on. It's possible that some kook could take control of China and do whatever the hell he wanted. Already, there is a fight between China's third and fourth generation leaders, with the fourth generation ones, led by Hu Jintao, a bit more hardline than the third geneation, led by Jiang Zemin. It's not just internal political struggles. A whole set of variables could insue from this, although war is still extremely unlikely. A sour relationship, however, isn't.

Why? The North Korean army has equipment from WWII. They are poorly trained and poorly fed. The South Korean army, on the other hand, is well trained and equipped. Not only could they defend themselves, they could probably take the peninsula themselves. Size hardly matters here. Remember, the US could defeat the Iraqi army of 450,000 with a grand total of 250,000. It's significant, but it breaks the rule of thumb that three attackers are needed for every defender. The North Korean army is in far worse shape than Hussein's.

The major difference between Iraq and North Korea isn't in either's military power, but the terrain, the Korean Peninsula simply does not support large scale offensive operations the way Iraq does, it's mountainous and the weather is horrid. The terrain heavily favors the defender against a mechanized force, it will take significantly longer to secure N. Korea than it did to secure Iraq.

A lot don't like us in Japan or Europe either, but we're there. I'm not suggesting 37,000 troops stay on the peninsula, however. I am suggesting that we build a few air fields, tank depots, and naval facilities further north. Just have enough troops there to maintain those facilities, and keep army assets elsewhere until needed. The tanks and planes will be there, but guarded, of course. All we need to do is move the troops themselves, and how long does that take? A week at the very most.

The problem being those bases they don't like are there and have existed since when they were wanted, so to get rid of them they would have to cuase a massive ripple in US relations, whereas creating new bases on the Peninsula does not require such a break in relations to stop. We are only allowed bases on these territories becuase those governments allow us to (some do have leases), I can't see the Korean government allowing US bases in the North, save for the huge bulk of the offensive being an American endeavor (I expect the ROK to commit a lot of forces to this).

Of course, if the Koreans change their minds about us, keep large numbers of troops there. And while we're at it, abandon Japan as a large base. In fact, currently, we don't need to be stationed in Japan. I find it redundant that troops are in both countries, and the only reason they are is because neither country would tolerate such a large presence of US troops.

Japan is an effective base becuase it is hard to reach by any enemy, South Korea has been over run before, and most of our bases that can support our forces are located near the DMZ, so it stands if those bases were over run, the bases on Japan would provide adequate marshaling yards. And as mentioned before, none of these governments are too keen on allowing us new bases, so to support our forces there, Japan is needed.

i think north korea has as much right to a nuclear - or any other kind - of arsenal as any other country around. what makes them worse than the united states?

Who cares?

We already know they're trying to develop nukes, and all Bush cares about is getting oil from Iraq and the like instead of going after the real threats.

The USA only cares about money, and Korea doesn't have anything we want, therefore, we let the rest of the world figure it out.

Still, from what little I know about Kaiser Wilhelm, he seemed like a guy with problems. I'm not saying that China won't ever attack, but it is less likely because they are so economically dependent on us, as you would probably agree with me on. It's possible that some kook could take control of China and do whatever the hell he wanted. Already, there is a fight between China's third and fourth generation leaders, with the fourth generation ones, led by Hu Jintao, a bit more hardline than the third geneation, led by Jiang Zemin. It's not just internal political struggles. A whole set of variables could insue from this, although war is still extremely unlikely. A sour relationship, however, isn't.

The Economic argument is perhaps the one that holds the most sense of false security. On the eve of the Great War, a book entitled The Great Illusion (I own a copy, it does make a strong case) was published, and proved that war between the Great Powers was impossible becuase of the economic interaction that had increased during the Industrial Revolution. It was widely heralded as the definitive proof that war was no longer a policy any European Power could utilize, and lent strength to every country's military plans for a swift war (save some in France and GB, who foresaw the horrible carnage to come), and calmed the populaces fears of a brewing war that only needed a spark.

Obviously, this argument was flawed from it's very beginning, the Great Powers managed to fight a 4-year long war unprecedented in scope and size in history, and then do it again two decades later.

The major difference between Iraq and North Korea isn't in either's military power, but the terrain, the Korean Peninsula simply does not support large scale offensive operations the way Iraq does, it's mountainous and the weather is horrid. The terrain heavily favors the defender against a mechanized force, it will take significantly longer to secure N. Korea than it did to secure Iraq.
However, South Korea, while it may be attacked, they won't get that far into the country, and they will lose the ability to launch a large artillery attack very quickly.
As for terrain, you forget that 70% of the North Korean army is based along the DMZ. These guys don't know the difference between attacking and retreating, and are probably not that disciplined. Half the army is knocked out in the first couple of days. Besides, I suspect that they'll surrender en masses. They will have most of their own artillery capabilities wiped out, and will shiver at ours. I don't expect a second Korean War to be hard. Besides, the benefits of winning far surpass the problems of war and occupation.


The problem being those bases they don't like are there and have existed since when they were wanted, so to get rid of them they would have to cuase a massive ripple in US relations, whereas creating new bases on the Peninsula does not require such a break in relations to stop. We are only allowed bases on these territories becuase those governments allow us to (some do have leases), I can't see the Korean government allowing US bases in the North, save for the huge bulk of the offensive being an American endeavor (I expect the ROK to commit a lot of forces to this).
I think they can tolerate it. For one, the Korean government and the Chinese never really had cozy relations. For another, part of the reason the US bases aren't wanted in South Korea is because they take up prime land. In North Korea, land shouldn't be that much of a problem there.


Japan is an effective base becuase it is hard to reach by any enemy, South Korea has been over run before, and most of our bases that can support our forces are located near the DMZ, so it stands if those bases were over run, the bases on Japan would provide adequate marshaling yards. And as mentioned before, none of these governments are too keen on allowing us new bases, so to support our forces there, Japan is needed.
I was just saying that having both is silly. In any case, however, I find a peninsula to be even more effective militarily than an island, at least in terms of a land enemy. Have army bases where a peninsula meets the mainland, and naval forces and airfields below that. If an enemy tries to overrun a peninsula, army forces form a chokepoint, with our more valuable assets below that. If the army is overrun, it is very easy to leave. In Korea's case, it's probably best to have bases waiting in Japan. But they don't have to be operational all the time.

The Economic argument is perhaps the one that holds the most sense of false security. On the eve of the Great War, a book entitled The Great Illusion (I own a copy, it does make a strong case) was published, and proved that war between the Great Powers was impossible becuase of the economic interaction that had increased during the Industrial Revolution. It was widely heralded as the definitive proof that war was no longer a policy any European Power could utilize, and lent strength to every country's military plans for a swift war (save some in France and GB, who foresaw the horrible carnage to come), and calmed the populaces fears of a brewing war that only needed a spark.

Obviously, this argument was flawed from it's very beginning, the Great Powers managed to fight a 4-year long war unprecedented in scope and size in history, and then do it again two decades later.
So, why am I arguing for bases in North Korea?
Anyhow, I'm not saying war is impossible. But I am saying that war is more unlikely. Kaiser Wilhelm was the epitome of a control freak, and if anyone like that gains power in China, war is very likely. But otherwise, we have a few assets near China, and just wait for that to happen. Until then, we have other things to worry about, like terrorism, broadening globalization's frontiers, and the Pentagon's favorite job, babysitting :).

Ah, a thread after my own heart. Purly Euclid, you rock.

The nature of an invasion of N. Korea would require a dramatic shift in the focus of our S. Korean bases. In addition, significant measures would need to be taken to ensure the China does not intervene militarily. The problems with taking N. Korea are really two fold;

1) China: Just like Russia and the US, China has client states that it favors and probably wouldn't hesitate to defend actively if aggression is taken against them, no matter how justified.

2) Proximity to Allies: While nobody is suggesting that S. Korea is weak militarily; the damage that N. Korea could cause through conventional means alone has created a mini MAD scenerio. Sure, we could defeat N. Korea, but they are poised to flatten S. Korea's major cities with altillery alone.

In order to bring the situation to more acceptable terms, the US would have to effectively neutralize the vast majority of N. Korea forces within a few hours. Anything short of that would leave enitre cities in flames in the South; far more damaging to the US's efforts than a couple of Scuds and a few flaming oil fields.

Acomplishing this objective would mean a tremendous allocation of pin-point weaponry to bring the hundereds of induvidual altillery sites down quickly. While this is possible, it would take months to build up that kind of firepower in the area; the troops we have there would take weeks to mop up the North Koreas as is.

But therin lies the problem; a military buildup on that scale in the region would alarm the Chinese, who would fully expect a field trip to Taiwan afterwards. The loss of an ally, even one so utterly useless as N. Korea, would be irratating to the Chinese authority right now, so political efforts to isolate N. Korea from its protector would be paramount.

North Korean military preparedness is in question, best estimates however would rank them on par or a bit better than the Iraqi army; who while decently trained, were unmotivated, hungry and tired after so many major wars. The North Koreans are hungry to be sure, but the military is likely less so than the people, given how much political pull the military has.

Fanatacism in loyalists would likely be the gavest threat to destabilizing any occupation attempts; though the direction post-war Iraqi fanatcism took was a bit easier to predict, its still proving difficult to suppress.

Given a lot of conditions, its possible to isolate and occupy N. Korea successfully. However, many of those challanges lie in percision application of obscene amounts of firepower, and successful negotiations with particularly irratable and irksome nations. It'd be very hard to make it work.

However, South Korea, while it may be attacked, they won't get that far into the country, and they will lose the ability to launch a large artillery attack very quickly.
As for terrain, you forget that 70% of the North Korean army is based along the DMZ. These guys don't know the difference between attacking and retreating, and are probably not that disciplined. Half the army is knocked out in the first couple of days. Besides, I suspect that they'll surrender en masses. They will have most of their own artillery capabilities wiped out, and will shiver at ours. I don't expect a second Korean War to be hard. Besides, the benefits of winning far surpass the problems of war and occupation.

Well, for the sake of my entire immediate family, save my youngest sister, I sincerely hope you are right. But when you study ideas like Plan XVIII, or Plan G or A, you tend to fear the worst out of plans that call for surrender en masse, of resistance crumbling in the face of our own forces.

The Economic argument is perhaps the one that holds the most sense of false security. On the eve of the Great War, a book entitled The Great Illusion (I own a copy, it does make a strong case) was published, and proved that war between the Great Powers was impossible becuase of the economic interaction that had increased during the Industrial Revolution. It was widely heralded as the definitive proof that war was no longer a policy any European Power could utilize, and lent strength to every country's military plans for a swift war (save some in France and GB, who foresaw the horrible carnage to come), and calmed the populaces fears of a brewing war that only needed a spark.
Obviously, this argument was flawed from it's very beginning, the Great Powers managed to fight a 4-year long war unprecedented in scope and size in history, and then do it again two decades later.
Absolutely right: that is the risk of a world of rivaling powers. And that is why it would be probably better to have an unipolar world with one big power leading (the US) rather than that. The idealistic for the long-term is a multi-polar world based on cooperation. You could actually argue that the EU is such a kind of thing: Every member is bound into it and binds the other one. And certain sovereignities are communised: countries controll each other.
One problem of a multi-polar world of rivaling powers is that any country just doesn´t trust the other: I could poínt out the imperialistic plans of Russia which it had in the Balcans and towards the Ottoman Empire (taking controll over the Balcans and taking over Konstantinopel) which were a thread to Austria (Balcans) and to the mere existence of the state of the Ottoman Empire. I could point to French revisionism which was looking for any opportunity for a revenge for the loss of Alsace-Lorraine in 1870/71 to Germany. I could point out that France, Britain and Russia strategly surounded the German-Austrian alliance with their alliance which led to thoughts about a "preventive strike" to break this strategic surrounding.
I could also point out that it was the Serbian govenment with the backing of Russia which supported Panslavism, an ideology which was designed to unify the Slaves under Russian leadership. And in that respect the terrorist attack of 1914 happened which killed the Austrian crown prince. Which in return lead to the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia and to the outbreak of the world war.
Kaiser Wilhelm II can be criticized for many things before. But in this situation he can only be criticized for one thing: declaring unlimmited an unconditional support for its ally Austria for any of its actions. This blind loyality encouraged Austria to go for the invasion of Serbia (as resoponse to their support of terrorism).
One thing which is partly influencing the debate in Germany: The conclusion to that is: no more blanko-cheques. Also not for the US. The chancellor was criticised when he declared "unlimmited solidarity" to the US (in a simular manner than Kaiser Wilhelm did towards Austria. He later repeated that statement but added: "not to adventures". Well, the dispute is of course whether Iraq was an adventure.
There is one good thing about todays world: It just has one super power. Because of that such issues like Iraq can´t lead to World Wars or big wars between the major powers. In a mulit-polar world that could be different actually. And that makes it a dangerous idea, especially if it based on rivaling powers.

Ah, a thread after my own heart. Purly Euclid, you rock.

The nature of an invasion of N. Korea would require a dramatic shift in the focus of our S. Korean bases. In addition, significant measures would need to be taken to ensure the China does not intervene militarily. The problems with taking N. Korea are really two fold;

1) China: Just like Russia and the US, China has client states that it favors and probably wouldn't hesitate to defend actively if aggression is taken against them, no matter how justified.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese leadership were thinking the same thing I am. North Korea is not good for their image, and they certainly don't need a maverick state operating right near their vital economic partners. China won't love this action, but it won't send a nice little volunteer army down, either.
2) Proximity to Allies: While nobody is suggesting that S. Korea is weak militarily; the damage that N. Korea could cause through conventional means alone has created a mini MAD scenerio. Sure, we could defeat N. Korea, but they are poised to flatten S. Korea's major cities with altillery alone.
I think you grossly overestimate them. The artillery sites, as well as most everything the North Koreans have, are located right on the DMZ. It may take a little buildup, but after that, those artillery sites will be destroyed in the first hour or so, and minimal damage will be done. However, this is only possible if we strike first.
In order to bring the situation to more acceptable terms, the US would have to effectively neutralize the vast majority of N. Korea forces within a few hours.
That's easy, as they are located on a strip of land no wider than Mississippi.
Acomplishing this objective would mean a tremendous allocation of pin-point weaponry to bring the hundereds of induvidual altillery sites down quickly. While this is possible, it would take months to build up that kind of firepower in the area; the troops we have there would take weeks to mop up the North Koreas as is.

But therin lies the problem; a military buildup on that scale in the region would alarm the Chinese, who would fully expect a field trip to Taiwan afterwards. The loss of an ally, even one so utterly useless as N. Korea, would be irratating to the Chinese authority right now, so political efforts to isolate N. Korea from its protector would be paramount.
I still deeply subscribe to the economic arguement. Why do China and the US want to go to war? Military action in Taiwan will be taken only after China attacks, not before. The US isn't as stupid to engage China, and vice versa.
Fanatacism in loyalists would likely be the gavest threat to destabilizing any occupation attempts; though the direction post-war Iraqi fanatcism took was a bit easier to predict, its still proving difficult to suppress.
It won't be surpressed because it will die quickly. Most of the ocupiers will be Korean themselves, and tremendous wealth surrounds them on all sides. In addition, communications, like the internet and sattelite TV, will flow in from the South. Bosnia has it now, and the region is, by and large, quiet. Sure, a few die hards will exist, but in a couple of years, they'll achieve the same status in their society as that of a common criminal.
Given a lot of conditions, its possible to isolate and occupy N. Korea successfully. However, many of those challanges lie in percision application of obscene amounts of firepower, and successful negotiations with particularly irratable and irksome nations. It'd be very hard to make it work.
Not necessarily. China is already convinced that North Korea is a burden of theirs, and view it moreso now that there's a madman in office. South Korea is, well, easy to convince. I don't think it's possible or necessary to convince the public, but this can be a perfect night operation. When the South Koreans wake, their army will be beyond the DMZ. It may not be popular during the war, but it certainly will be afterward. The peninsula is reunified, and there's a lot of economic potential.
As for ordnance, well, we're experts at that. The first night of Shock and Awe in Iraq consumed more ordnance than Gulf War I, but killed far less civilians. I'm expecting that it'd be even easier in North Korea, considering how few North Korean civilians live in (or even near) the DMZ.

Well, for the sake of my entire immediate family, save my youngest sister, I sincerely hope you are right. But when you study ideas like Plan XVIII, or Plan G or A, you tend to fear the worst out of plans that call for surrender en masse, of resistance crumbling in the face of our own forces.
It's not called for, but it'll happen. But if it doesn't, it doesn't matter. We have many ways of smoking troops out of their positions, or in the case of the military, bombing them back to the stone age (even though they're almost there).

Absolutely right: that is the risk of a world of rivaling powers.
And illiberal dictatorships, as pre war Germany basically was (even though he called himself Caesar). There's a reason Britain didn't start WWI: if they had grievances, they had many ways to solve them, be them diplomatic or economical. In the case of Germany, however, its existence really came about as a regime to loot. That's partly why they supported Austria: they were also a looting regime, taking what the Ottoman Empire was too weak to defend. The tragedy is that this is Europe's entire history.
Germany was also economically illiberal. It heavily subsidized its industry and agriculture, and in WWI, even seized all of it as state property. They were not a shining model of capitalism then.
Britain, on the other hand, was different. It maintained an empire, but it was far different than its European peers. It promoted free trade in its colonies, and it was very good at advancing the cause of liberty and democracy in the Victorian era. There is a reason it didn't start a great power war after 1860. Hell, it wasn't even the main cause for othe Crimean war (Russia was, another illiberal regime).

In any case, I would feel that there is near consensus that war on the peninsula will happen by 2015, like it or not. By that date, North Korea will be able to hit the West Coast US, and Kim Jong-Il would be far too eager to do that. He probably could care less what his actions mean for his country. He sees this as a game, and the people are just fun little objects. It convinced me that this guy really needs to go.

i think north korea has as much right to a nuclear - or any other kind - of arsenal as any other country around. what makes them worse than the united states?exactamente

bump

It's not called for, but it'll happen. But if it doesn't, it doesn't matter. We have many ways of smoking troops out of their positions, or in the case of the military, bombing them back to the stone age (even though they're almost there).

"The Army no longer knows any doctrine but offensive a la outrance (offensive to the utmost)."
"Fast moving field artillery combined with excellent cran will win through to victory"
"Field Artillery will scatter enemy troops, into which our soldiers will crash into, destroying the enemy" - Source, French Field Regulations Guide June, 1914

"The enemy can not but hope to put up a defense that will last longer than a month" - General Joseph Joffre, French Commander, August 1914
"Our Soixante-dix-cinq (75's, the Field Artillery) will send the enemy back into the Dark Ages" General Georges Foch, 1914

Result
The First, Second, and Army of Alsace are all thrashed and thrown back on the defenses of Nancy, held only becuase of Foch's XXth Corps' stout defense. The Third Army thouroughly beaten and falling back on Verdun. The Fourth Army almost completely destroyed as an effective Army, and the Fifth Army in retreat, though perhaps the most successful of any of the French armies, as it's commander Lanrezac never fully trusted Plan XVII, and saw France's destruction in the German Right Wing. The loss of over 90% of France's iron ore in Lorraine, it's natural defenses on the Muese, the industrial North, including the manufacturing center of Lille, 300,000 casualties in only a single month a number that almost matches French casualties in a single year of fighting, and forced to host a German Army for the better part of 4 years.


Now, obviously the two are not the best comparison to draw, Germany was a first-class power (though the French didn't think so), but as you can see from the French rhetoric, and the result, any plan that guarantees qiuck victory is usually doomed to failure, especially those which envision rapid destruction of enemy forces. I don't expect North Korea to be able to hold out against an ROK/US attack, but I also don't expect them to crumble the way Iraq did. The Iraqi Army had been recovering from a decade of major war against Iran, being squashed the first time around, and another decade of serious troubles. The North Korean Army is suffering from internal troubles, but it has not been thouroughly thrashed in one war, and is not recovering from a decade of serious drain on the country's morale.

And illiberal dictatorships, as pre war Germany basically was (even though he called himself Caesar). There's a reason Britain didn't start WWI: if they had grievances, they had many ways to solve them, be them diplomatic or economical. In the case of Germany, however, its existence really came about as a regime to loot. That's partly why they supported Austria: they were also a looting regime, taking what the Ottoman Empire was too weak to defend. ).
Oh please: now you come up with a theory of a destructive nature of a country or its leadership. Probably France has such accepts as well: the idea that one country should have hegemony over Europe was first attempted by Napoleon actually. Hitler followed in that sense in his footsteps.
The form of government wasn´t completly democratic at that time: but there was a parliament based on the principal one man one vote. By the way: at the time all parties supported the war- even the political left.
They were reasons for this action. You can actually say that the action against Serbia was in many ways actually justified, giving the policy Serbia Russia were conducting. The problem was that given the European constellation of rivaling powers that resulted into a bigger war: the first world war. The advantages of our time are that there is only one super power. Otherwise such conflicts like about Iraq would become very dangerous as well.
The Ottoman Empire by the way was actualy already allied to Austria and Germany. That was Germanys new Middle East policy of that time: alliance with the Sultan in Konstantinopel: began already in the 1890s. The biggest thread for the Sultan was actually Russia and Britain. That is why they joined Austria and Germany actually.

The tragedy is that this is Europe's entire history.).
You can even look back to the 17 th century to see the destruction of wars - and that sense also of the major powers linked with religious and political reasons.
Germany was also economically illiberal. It heavily subsidized its industry and agriculture,.).
It was a growing power with a growing industry and coal production, even exceeding that one of Britain shortly before the war. However it introduced certain customs. Shure: The Junker needed protection - the aristocratic class which owned huge farms in the east. Protectionism is of cours a strange word for the US. Especially after 1929 such illiberal policies especially of the US were certainly deepening the crisis especially for European countries. That of course made it easier for political radicals to seize power.

and in WWI, even seized all of it as state property. They were not a shining model of capitalism then.,..
During the war certainly not. But in a war everything has to follow it: you don´t had a complete free market economy during World War II either. Especially in that situation it is just logical to put everything in the arms industry.

Britain, on the other hand, was different. It maintained an empire, but it was far different than its European peers. It promoted free trade in its colonies, and it was very good at advancing the cause of liberty and democracy in the Victorian era. There is a reason it didn't start a great power war after 1860. Hell, it wasn't even the main cause for othe Crimean war (Russia was, another illiberal regime).
Britain is an island: it was smart enough to obstain from many disputes on the continent and the aim to have territorial gains over there. But it expanded its territory overseas and had some minor wars with the countries it coloniesed though.
It is certainly smarter to chose weaker enemies than stronger. The problem with Germany indeed was that the colonies were mainly already divided between the other countries. That was certainly frustating for the leadership.
The policy of balance of power by the way followed in no way liberal or illiberal ideas. It followed the idea that now country should dominate on the continent. British idea. Other used it as well later. But of course: all powers of the continent at the end wanted to expand.
And this simply wasn´t able to keep a balance.
There are many reasons for that: One can be seen in the German unification by Prussia. That enormously strengthened it. On the other hand: a continuation of the division would not have been accepted much longer. One reason for example many european countries rejected the reunification in 1990. The other one is that after 1890 (under Kaiser Wilhelm II) the German leadership gave up its approach to keep good ties to Russia and was more eager to anger Britain with colonial demands and the navy issue (Germany invested very much to built up its navy). That leading up to the Franco-British alliance. And the friendly policy towards the Ottoman Empire which began at the 1890s angered both Britain and Russia who were from different sides aiming to destroy this empire.
Though Russia and Britain rivaled as well a lot in East Asia. The assumption was that bear and whale never would come together. But after Russia lost to Japan in 1905 it happened. Liberal Britain formed an alliance with illiberal Russia. A thing which was believed to be impossible. Big mistake by the foreign policy planners.
From that moment on everything was leading to a confrontation.
Partly provoked, party uninteneded. None the less: one many occasions it was diplomaticly possible to prevent a confrontation.
I wonder personally whether the outbreak of hostilities would have happened when we had been in the nuclear age already.
And I wonder whether Kennedy and Chrustev would have been able to resolve the Cuba crisis peacefully if we hadn´t been in the nuclear age (though it was still very close eventhough of that).
I personally think that the main reason for all those events was the fact that there were rivalling powers. Any system like that is inevitable leading to war from time to time. If you have rivalling powers that is unavoidable.
Nuclear age prevented direct confrontation between the US and the USSR but there were many proxy wars though.
A world of rivaling powers is always a dangerous world.
Therefore the question should be: How can we get rid of it, if that is possible.
One option is certainly an unipolar world - Pax Americana. That however would need many wars to establish.
The other option which may be viable in the long-run my be a more cooperative order based on cooperation.
That however would require democratic reforms in countries like China for example. Otherwise that is not going to be sustainable. So: I think this can probably a vision for the very distant future. But for the time being the US has to play the leading role. Not because it is better than every country of the world. But because it is the only democratic country which can play this role.
And it has to play it alone if it things it is necessary: but than it also needs to be ready to go through a mission alone or only with few close allies.
Quite frankly spoken I don´t want to change positions with the US - of cours hypothetically spoken. It is an enormous burden you have and an enormous responsibilty also for the whole world since you are the only super power. It is lonely at the top but to quote the Swiss national hero Wilhelm Tell: The strong is the strongest alone.
And interesting statement: It points out that every alliance is restricting your options. And especially if your interests differ for example between a medium power - like Germany- or a super power like the US they can be situations where we couldn´t come to an agreement - even if we tried harder.
As a world power with interests all around the world the US may decide for missions we don´t see as necessary for us.
I would think that it would make sense in those situations simply to say: Well, we don´t have a veto right on your policy but you can´t demand us to conduct a certain policy either. So: just work together in the issues we agree with - and that are most issues after all - and say that in the other issues we don´t participate.
That is actual the reason I´m especially angry at the German government: not that they decided not to sent a few hundred troops to Iraq (instead they sent more to Afghanistan though: in numbers that makes no difference) but that they conducted in the Security Council a diplomatic policy against the US till the begining of the war.
Well: after the war they corrected that. But that was of course were damaging to the relations. While on the other hand Germany was of course even securing Kuwait with anti-WMD tank Fuchs and of course granting all stationing and basing rights to the US on our territory (in contrast to Turkey by the way).
That actually shows that on substance the dispute was actually not as severe as rhetorically. And this rhetoric served political reasons of course: short-term goals. And that is what I call short-sighted and inapropiate.

Oh please: now you come up with a theory of a destructive nature of a country or its leadership. Probably France has such accepts as well: the idea that one country should have hegemony over Europe was first attempted by Napoleon actually. Hitler followed in that sense in his footsteps.

It is hard to deny though, that the Kaiser's government was actively pursuing a policy towards war a lot more clearly than any other European Country. This is not entirely Germany's fault, they were surrounded by the Franco-Russian Alliance, and an increasingly hostile Britain, but they were spoiling for war in 1914, as Moltke's own projections showed France and Russia overcoming Germany by 1916.

The form of government wasn´t completly democratic at that time: but there was a parliament based on the principal one man one vote. By the way: at the time all parties supported the war- even the political left.

Kybernetia is right here, Germany was one of the more liberal and democratic countries of Europe, certainly compared to Russia or Austria, not quite as liberal as Republican France or Great Britain.

They were reasons for this action. You can actually say that the action against Serbia was in many ways actually justified, giving the policy Serbia Russia were conducting. The problem was that given the European constellation of rivaling powers that resulted into a bigger war: the first world war. The advantages of our time are that there is only one super power. Otherwise such conflicts like about Iraq would become very dangerous as well.

Iraq and Serbia have odd parallels, such as the group that carried out the attack on Franz Ferdinand were Austrian subjects, not Serbians, somewhat like there being no Iraqi's involved in 9/11. Though the Black Hand has closer ties to Serbia than Al-Queda does to Iraq, but the attack on Serbia could have been a fait accompli,and the rest of Europe might have agreed that it was justified, but the Austrians were too uneasy without German support, and far too zealous once they had their blank cheque from Germany.

The Ottoman Empire by the way was actualy already allied to Austria and Germany. That was Germanys new Middle East policy of that time: alliance with the Sultan in Konstantinopel: began already in the 1890s. The biggest thread for the Sultan was actually Russia and Britain. That is why they joined Austria and Germany actually.

The OE was in the middle at the beginning of the war. It had always had warm relations with Britain, who had defended it during the 19th century, but Britian was beginning to become more of a threat, and Germany had been warming relations since the 1890's. Joining with the Franco-Russian Alliance might give them security against any Russian encroachments for years to come, in the end the issue was forced by the Goeben and Breslau. And the Alliance with Germany was specifically not against Britain, so it was void by August 1914.


During the war certainly not. But in a war everything has to follow it: you don´t had a complete free market economy during World War II either. Especially in that situation it is just logical to put everything in the arms industry.

Agreed, a large degree of State Management is required when fighting a war the scope of WWI, unprecedented in European history, it required the full attention of the Government and people.


Britain is an island: it was smart enough to obstain from many disputes on the continent and the aim to have territorial gains over there. But it expanded its territory overseas and had some minor wars with the countries it coloniesed though.

The time known as "Splendid Isolation", during which Britain fought no major wars against a European Power (they did come close during the F-P war though).

The policy of balance of power by the way followed in no way liberal or illiberal ideas. It followed the idea that now country should dominate on the continent. British idea. Other used it as well later. But of course: all powers of the continent at the end wanted to expand.
And this simply wasn´t able to keep a balance.

Indeed, the British policy was not liberal or illiberal, it was simply the smartest thing to do for Britain's benefit.

That leading up to the Franco-British alliance. And the friendly policy towards the Ottoman Empire which began at the 1890s angered both Britain and Russia who were from different sides aiming to destroy this empire.

Britain wasn't aiming to destroy the OE, just not to protect it at no cost as it had before, Russia was still a threat though. And on a nitpick point, it was just an Agreement between France and Great Britain, it was far from an Alliance, they just agreed to a raproachment, and that Britain would defend the French Atlantic/Channel coast, allowing the French Navy to concentrate in the Mediterranean.

Though Russia and Britain rivaled as well a lot in East Asia. The assumption was that bear and whale never would come together. But after Russia lost to Japan in 1905 it happened. Liberal Britain formed an alliance with illiberal Russia. A thing which was believed to be impossible. Big mistake by the foreign policy planners.

Britain and Russia only had a small raproachment, and only at the urgings of France, the two were still poles apart, but the tensions in the Great Game quieted down. The Franco-Russian Alliance was the larger threat, as it was an actual Alliance.

Partly provoked, party uninteneded. None the less: one many occasions it was diplomaticly possible to prevent a confrontation.

The Agadir Crisis (Second Moraccan Crisis)
First Moraccan Crisis
Balkan Wars
Europe had been on the edge of war many times before the July Crisis, and all had been avoided becuase (usually at the urging of Britain), the powers agreed to a peace conference. The difference between these problems and the July Crisis was when a conference was proposed by Britain, Germany refused to agree, stating that it was a regional conflict between Austria and Serbia, and no outside powers should intervene, they used the same excuse to avoid sending the issue to the Hague Conference as Russia proposed.

One option is certainly an unipolar world - Pax Americana. That however would need many wars to establish.

Traditionally, history shows when the world is uni-polar (Pax Brittanica, Pax Romana), the world is much spared from the horrors of massive devestating wars. The problem being no one can decide who should be on top, and they all want to be.

The other option which may be viable in the long-run my be a more cooperative order based on cooperation.

It's been tried, the various conferences (Especially The Hague) pre-1914, the UN (which has been the most successful thus far). In the end, I believe this is the most prosporous idea, since power naturally shifts from various areas of the globe, and a uni-polar world will never stay one.

"The Army no longer knows any doctrine but offensive a la outrance (offensive to the utmost)."
"Fast moving field artillery combined with excellent cran will win through to victory"
"Field Artillery will scatter enemy troops, into which our soldiers will crash into, destroying the enemy" - Source, French Field Regulations Guide June, 1914

"The enemy can not but hope to put up a defense that will last longer than a month" - General Joseph Joffre, French Commander, August 1914
"Our Soixante-dix-cinq (75's, the Field Artillery) will send the enemy back into the Dark Ages" General Georges Foch, 1914

Result
The First, Second, and Army of Alsace are all thrashed and thrown back on the defenses of Nancy, held only becuase of Foch's XXth Corps' stout defense. The Third Army thouroughly beaten and falling back on Verdun. The Fourth Army almost completely destroyed as an effective Army, and the Fifth Army in retreat, though perhaps the most successful of any of the French armies, as it's commander Lanrezac never fully trusted Plan XVII, and saw France's destruction in the German Right Wing. The loss of over 90% of France's iron ore in Lorraine, it's natural defenses on the Muese, the industrial North, including the manufacturing center of Lille, 300,000 casualties in only a single month a number that almost matches French casualties in a single year of fighting, and forced to host a German Army for the better part of 4 years.


Now, obviously the two are not the best comparison to draw, Germany was a first-class power (though the French didn't think so), but as you can see from the French rhetoric, and the result, any plan that guarantees qiuck victory is usually doomed to failure, especially those which envision rapid destruction of enemy forces. I don't expect North Korea to be able to hold out against an ROK/US attack, but I also don't expect them to crumble the way Iraq did. The Iraqi Army had been recovering from a decade of major war against Iran, being squashed the first time around, and another decade of serious troubles. The North Korean Army is suffering from internal troubles, but it has not been thouroughly thrashed in one war, and is not recovering from a decade of serious drain on the country's morale.
You know far more about military situations than I do. I just know that they'll be one of the easier enemies on our list (and certainly the easiest of the two "Axis of Evil" states remaining). You guys do the fine tuning, I just see the consequences of winning. We are, of course, in consensus that the ROK would win, right?

Oh please: now you come up with a theory of a destructive nature of a country or its leadership. Probably France has such accepts as well: the idea that one country should have hegemony over Europe was first attempted by Napoleon actually. Hitler followed in that sense in his footsteps.
And how did Napoleon get to power? He used his military genius to exploit the French Revolution. Sure, they were illiberal. But lets fast forward to 1830. France afterwards wasn't as great as Britain, but it certainly was far better, as a constitution finally existed. Of course, it was nearly perfected by the Third Republic, but not entirely. Under the "republic" after WWI, France was slipping into a proto-Fascist state.

You can even look back to the 17 th century to see the destruction of wars - and that sense also of the major powers linked with religious and political reasons.

It was a growing power with a growing industry and coal production, even exceeding that one of Britain shortly before the war. However it introduced certain customs. Shure: The Junker needed protection - the aristocratic class which owned huge farms in the east. Protectionism is of cours a strange word for the US. Especially after 1929 such illiberal policies especially of the US were certainly deepening the crisis especially for European countries. That of course made it easier for political radicals to seize power.
It indeed is strange, and is what did help the German economy. But if WWI never happened, the Germans would have one bad recession. Look at Japan at the second half of the 20th century. High tariffs, generous subsidies, and a clubbish business atmosphere made them very rich, but only for a time. Japan crashed and burned, and their recovery is because PM Koizumi has lifted some of the protectionist policies.
But it led to other consequences that could breed a warrior spirit, if given time to develope. One Prime Minister in 1997 resigned because he suggested Japan should acquire nukes. And western observers have often noted that in the eighties, the Japanese had an air of superiority that Michael Crichton called them "the most rascist society on the planet" (I got a long bibliography on his research, btw). The same elements were probably at work in Germany. Out of 117 top German diplomats at the time, only 14 were commoners, according to Fareed Zakaria. The rest were all nobles by birth.

During the war certainly not. But in a war everything has to follow it: you don´t had a complete free market economy during World War II either. Especially in that situation it is just logical to put everything in the arms industry.
I can't speak for other cxountries, but it was lamentable what the US did to our economy. I can see rationing, but price controls? The government even went out of its way to surpress a peacetime economy. In fact, in 1942, a bill was introduced in Congress to draft people to work at home. Had that bill been passed, it is likely that the foundation of our economy would be shaken, and a whole generation would loose out on their vital years (being their twenties). Fortunatly, that was defeated, but it probably wouldn't go away if it were passed. The draft lingered until after the Vietnam War, which I also think is immoral. Most of the WWII vets I know volunteered. In fact, it wasn't until 1943 that are navy began conscription (thank God).

Britain is an island: it was smart enough to obstain from many disputes on the continent and the aim to have territorial gains over there. But it expanded its territory overseas and had some minor wars with the countries it coloniesed though.
But they were not great powers. At the time, they only existed in Europe. Their wars with China weren't even that big.
Britain, btw, was indeed a smart country to stay out of continental affairs. In the 19th century, they were the world's bankers, and Europe was their biggest client. Wars on the continent would mean an impoverished Britain.
It is certainly smarter to chose weaker enemies than stronger. The problem with Germany indeed was that the colonies were mainly already divided between the other countries. That was certainly frustating for the leadership.
As you outlined, the German economy was pretty strong. Colonies weren't needed. Thus, this is just simply due to a desire to compete imperialy, even though they were pretty strong already. It was really illiberal elements in the way.
The policy of balance of power by the way followed in no way liberal or illiberal ideas. It followed the idea that now country should dominate on the continent. British idea. Other used it as well later. But of course: all powers of the continent at the end wanted to expand.
It was actually what the British thought was a liberal policy. It produced the closest thing to peace Europe knew until after the Cold War. But like you said, it only works well if everyone cooperates, which is not what happened.

bump

I've sort of having an epiphany, btw. Why is the US on the peninsula? There's benefits for us, but why are we wanted there?
I'm sure you remember a poll done about a year ago, where 74% of the Koreans found the US a bigger threat than North Korea. Now I can see them disagreeing with the US, but a threat? We're helping to defend them against a country that wants to invade the South. I suppose that many Southerners are just convinced that North Korea has a secret love affair. My fears were affirmed when a South Korean exchange student I met told me that the North's response was "an act of desparation against the US", and "justified". Sometimes I think that US forces should leave, and let these loony Koreans feel that the Korean War is just a code word for a giant orgy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/international/asia/0http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/international/asia/04korea.html4
This is certainly a fear that should be keeping diplomats up at night. South Korea is under suspicion that it may be trying to develope nukes. Whether this is an experiment by rogue scientists or a government action is beyond the point. North Korea can now destroy Seoul and the Korean army with the few nukes it has. This will certainly intimidate the South Koreans to try to gain them, and more importantly, the Japanese. After all, many Western observers say that Japan has the technology and the know-how to have a decent nuclear arsenal built in a matter of months if it really wants to. Even if North Korea is defeated down the road, this can serve to later antagonize China unless the arsenals are destroyed immediately.
That's not all, I fear. As Japan, the US, and South Korea are economically and militarily tied to the hip with one another, the US's enemies are their enemies. Our enemies aren't the prettiest leaders around, or the most stable countries. It's possible that the action in NE Asia can spur an arms race in the Middle East, as more nations scramble to find detterance. It may even lead to an arms race in Central Asia, especially if Mussharaf is overthrown. While they increase their arsenal to try and war off a US strike, other Central Asian countries may arm themselves. It is important to say that South Korea has a significant presence in Central Asia, even maintaining a large garrisson at Manas International airport outside Bishkek. A destabilized Pakistan would inherently work in their disfavor. It'd also, btw, lead the other "stans" to try and seek nukes, especially if a destabilized Pakistan antagonizes US garrisons in the North.
I'm not suggesting something far-fetched. It is almost a given that Pakistan will destabilize within the next thirty years. Should that happen, and South Korea is a close military partner by then, then it is almost assured that a bunch of mini arms races will occur. Thanks, North Korea.What's your point?
And shouldn't you be more alert that your own government is trying to implement mini-nukes?
BTW as an American I would be more cautious with pointing fingers, after all there is only one country in the world that has already applied nuclear bombs (on civilians if I might add), and the US is no longer seen as trustworthy around the world, thanks to your current government.

We are, of course, in consensus that the ROK would win, right?

Of course, the DPRK cannot hope to win a war against either the ROK (barring use of nuclear weaponry), or a US/ROK alliance. They do not have the equipment or training to partake in a full scale offensive to overrun the South (the terrain is better than that found in the North, but still not friendly to offensive action). In a pitched battle the DPRK will also lose to superior American/ROK equipment, training, leadership and morale, but they have the ability to at least put up a stubborn, if crumbling, resistance. The DPRK also, afaik, does not have the manufacturing ability to support sustained full-scale defense for more than a year before facing a situation similar to Japan's circa September, 1945 (assuming the A-bomb had not been used).

What's your point?
And shouldn't you be more alert that your own government is trying to implement mini-nukes?
BTW as an American I would be more cautious with pointing fingers, after all there is only one country in the world that has already applied nuclear bombs (on civilians if I might add), and the US is no longer seen as trustworthy around the world, thanks to your current government.
In certain situations, nukes are a good thing. I actually think that it's the best weapon we've ever built because it is the only one that brings peace, not war. They prevented war between the US and USSR. I really don't mind South Korea gaining them either, had it not been for the circumstances surrounding it. And I do like the idea of mini nukes.
However, the problem is when nukes, and weapons in general, get into the hands of rogue regimes. They do not follow the same security rules as most nations on the planet do. Now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, it'll use them for blackmail, not just for detterance. If Iran gets nukes, it'll try very hard to target Israel. And if Pervez Musharraf is overthrown by some wacko, he may use them to try and destroy India, or perhaps sell them to terrorists. It doesn't matter if nukes exist, just who has nukes. All of the current declared nuclear powers are responsible enough to have them, but not North Korea.

Of course, the DPRK cannot hope to win a war against either the ROK (barring use of nuclear weaponry), or a US/ROK alliance. They do not have the equipment or training to partake in a full scale offensive to overrun the South (the terrain is better than that found in the North, but still not friendly to offensive action). In a pitched battle the DPRK will also lose to superior American/ROK equipment, training, leadership and morale, but they have the ability to at least put up a stubborn, if crumbling, resistance. The DPRK also, afaik, does not have the manufacturing ability to support sustained full-scale defense for more than a year before facing a situation similar to Japan's circa September, 1945 (assuming the A-bomb had not been used).
I think it may actually be quicker. Korea is a peninsula, and their army is located mostly along the DMZ. On Okinawa is an entire MEF. As General McArthur showed us, an amphibious assault from behind works very good. The North Koreans, unlike the Japanese, don't have much of a navy. What navy they do have are probably floating museums in other parts of the world.

In certain situations, nukes are a good thing. I actually think that it's the best weapon we've ever built because it is the only one that brings peace, not war. They prevented war between the US and USSR. I really don't mind South Korea gaining them either, had it not been for the circumstances surrounding it. And I do like the idea of mini nukes.
However, the problem is when nukes, and weapons in general, get into the hands of rogue regimes. They do not follow the same security rules as most nations on the planet do. Now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, it'll use them for blackmail, not just for detterance. If Iran gets nukes, it'll try very hard to target Israel. And if Pervez Musharraf is overthrown by some wacko, he may use them to try and destroy India, or perhaps sell them to terrorists. It doesn't matter if nukes exist, just who has nukes. All of the current declared nuclear powers are responsible enough to have them, but not North Korea.Rogue regimes? That's a joke? Do you really think anyone around the world trusts your government more than the ones in Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere? Bush would use nukes wherever he would, if he was allowed to, and he would care a shit if he had the reason or the right to do so.

Rogue regimes? That's a joke? Do you really think anyone around the world trusts your government more than the ones in Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere? Bush would use nukes wherever he would, if he was allowed to, and he would care a shit if he had the reason or the right to do so.
Now I can see disagreements, but you're being rediculous. If Bush was really that unstable, we'd have marched into Mexico and Canada, withdrawn from the UN, and had formal trade sanctions against the EU.
I know many in the world disagree with him, and that's fine. But that doesn't make him a crazed lunatic, just because you disagree with him. Besides, there are intellectuals that are just like you, but agree with him, like the authors of this blog.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

bumm

The blogspot you mentioned is...well, perhaps easy to explain. Lets just say for now that I'm not holding my breath on "success" in near-future Iraq, and instead simply hoping that it holds together until some momentum can build on a local level.

The notion that Iraq can go from Totalitarian dictatorship to anything resembling a stable democracy within even 10 years is highly ambitious an fraught with problems. Optimism is nice, but solid planning works a lot more often than words. The WORDS on that blog ring well in my ears, but the infrastructure of a democracy takes time to build.

Rome wasn't build in a day, it didn't become a dicatorship instead of a republic in that time period either; and I doubt seriously that any goverment can spring up out of a completely different government within a few years.

The point is that the local, state, and federal levels of government have to reflect the needs of the people; are there local councils, city governments, county regulatory comissions, state funding, and federal oversight? Are they set up in a way that prevents graft and streamline's policy implementation? Is there a culture of trust in the government or are crooks lining up to be in office?

Even assuming a perfect security situation in Iraq, the challanges of bringing a decripit old infrastructure of roads, bridges, powerplants and water to spec are serious. Now imagine that the hearts and minds of the people now have to be healed in the same way.

What on earth makes someone think that a family that has been oppressed and cut off from the outside world will suddenly shed all notions of the past and embrace the first government that shows up without regret or question?

What is the likelyhood that good, honest men will rise up to take up positions in regional governments? What are the odds that numerous small, petty men will instead try to bend their officies for personal gain? How many times will those men be overlooked because of greater threats? How many years will pass before the graft is serious enough to be a threat itself?

It is the poison inside Iraq that worries me; we have little idea of how grave or good the situation will be for years to come. But prominent headlines suggest that even major members of the reconstruction are small, petty men...How likely is the bottom to meet expectations that the top cannot?

Not to be so down on ya... But nation-building is not something that can be done lightly. Its eversomuch like playing god really, or actually, like setting up any government based on ideals alone.

We know democracy works...but democracy is made up of the people; if you don't have the right people in the right places, democracy falters. Just as having a crazed serial killer in charge of the white house would be counter-productive; having crooks and opportunists in local and regional governments is like clutching an asp to your chest. Posion can stop the heart.

The blogspot you mentioned is...well, perhaps easy to explain. Lets just say for now that I'm not holding my breath on "success" in near-future Iraq, and instead simply hoping that it holds together until some momentum can build on a local level.

The notion that Iraq can go from Totalitarian dictatorship to anything resembling a stable democracy within even 10 years is highly ambitious an fraught with problems. Optimism is nice, but solid planning works a lot more often than words. The WORDS on that blog ring well in my ears, but the infrastructure of a democracy takes time to build.

Rome wasn't build in a day, it didn't become a dicatorship instead of a republic in that time period either; and I doubt seriously that any goverment can spring up out of a completely different government within a few years.

The point is that the local, state, and federal levels of government have to reflect the needs of the people; are there local councils, city governments, county regulatory comissions, state funding, and federal oversight? Are they set up in a way that prevents graft and streamline's policy implementation? Is there a culture of trust in the government or are crooks lining up to be in office?

Even assuming a perfect security situation in Iraq, the challanges of bringing a decripit old infrastructure of roads, bridges, powerplants and water to spec are serious. Now imagine that the hearts and minds of the people now have to be healed in the same way.

What on earth makes someone think that a family that has been oppressed and cut off from the outside world will suddenly shed all notions of the past and embrace the first government that shows up without regret or question?

What is the likelyhood that good, honest men will rise up to take up positions in regional governments? What are the odds that numerous small, petty men will instead try to bend their officies for personal gain? How many times will those men be overlooked because of greater threats? How many years will pass before the graft is serious enough to be a threat itself?

It is the poison inside Iraq that worries me; we have little idea of how grave or good the situation will be for years to come. But prominent headlines suggest that even major members of the reconstruction are small, petty men...How likely is the bottom to meet expectations that the top cannot?

Not to be so down on ya... But nation-building is not something that can be done lightly. Its eversomuch like playing god really, or actually, like setting up any government based on ideals alone.

We know democracy works...but democracy is made up of the people; if you don't have the right people in the right places, democracy falters. Just as having a crazed serial killer in charge of the white house would be counter-productive; having crooks and opportunists in local and regional governments is like clutching an asp to your chest. Posion can stop the heart.
Hey, I don't really want a democracy in Iraq just yet. "Elected autocrats" are a problem in many democracies around the world, like Venezuela, Ukraine, and to a certain extent, Russia. As Fareed Zakaria observes, below $3,000 GDP/capita, the life expectancy of a democracy is just six years, with, of course, a major exception being India. Iraq has just $2,500 GDP/capita, but worst yet are its oil reserves. They don't need to work for their wealth, just drill it from the ground. And as Sharia forbids interest rates, it never grows in banks. Some enterprising Muslim bankers have found ways around this, however, but it meets the most resistence in the Middle East.
Anyhow, I want to see two things come first: the rule of law, and free markets. Those two things are a forgotten success story in Iraq. The free markets are rising, as unemployment is now below pre-war levels, and street vending is a booming business, even if it is just the first stages of a market economy. Another untold success story is how the rule of law has been established. I admit that many areas have it uneforced, but keep in mind that the Sunni Triangle (and al-Sadr's occaisonal moodswings in Najaf) are small areas. The north and much of the south tend to be orderly, and higher quality policemen are on the streets to buttress the quantity rich police on the streets.

If I were president, however, I'd do it differently. I'd occupy the country for years and years, perhaps as long as Japan's. But like Japan's, I'd have the administrator simply be an observer. We'll handpick a leader committed to establishing economic freedom, the rule of law, and security. Call him a dictator, but if we find something wrong with him, we get someone else. When we deem it necessary, we'll have free elections. And just to make sure that this never becomes an "elected autocracy", our dictator is inelligible to run for a while. However, that's just my two cents.
And btw, I was merely showing that some intellectuals love Bush to peices, not that I want democracy in Iraq.

And how did Napoleon get to power? He used his military genius to exploit the French Revolution. Sure, they were illiberal. But lets fast forward to 1830. France afterwards wasn't as great as Britain, but it certainly was far better, as a constitution finally existed. Of course, it was nearly perfected by the Third Republic, but not entirely. Under the "republic" after WWI, France was slipping into a proto-Fascist state..
Ironically it was a military defeat against Prussia-Germany in 1870 that led to the end of Napoleonism in France and to the third republic.
The democratic experiments before didn´t work very well really. 1789-92 can be considered as a democratic and liberal period. But who followed? The Jacobines: and they were very illiberal and radical indeed. Many of their ideas are simular to those of the communists. Some people are actually calling them early-communists.
Second republic was from 1848-51( or 53 I´m not shure) followed by the February Revolution. It ended with the dictatorship of the nephew of Napoleon who did a succesful uprising, ceising power. Which he only lost after the defeat against their (at that time in public opinion on both sides of the rhine) arch-enemy at the east.
The French are great at one thing: glorifying their history. But indeed: between 1804-1871 they were mainly ruled by authoritarian kings or emperors (as the two used to call themself).

1848 was actually a revolutionary year all over Europe.
In Germany there was the directly elected National Assembly in Frankfut. Its aim was actually to draw up a constituition for an united Germany. The majority of it was liberal and they favoured actually a modell simular to Britain: constituitional monarchy. However they faced the problem on the one hand to unify the country against the local dynasties, especially the small onces. And they had to take the Prussian-Austrian rivalry into account and the fact that Austria-Hungary was a multi-ethnic state. The solution they agreed at the end was to go for the small-german solution excluding Austria (however offering an alliance to it). That left the crown to Prussia. However this solution could have meant war: Austria and Russia would likely not have accepted it. Aside of the fact that the Prussian king didn´t want to receive a crown from an elected assembly but from his fellow royal colleagues by a consensus of the dukes and kings.
That led to the failure of its ideas at that time.
Well: However 23 years later the unification happened under Prussian leadership (as the idea of 1848 was). A consensus of royalists and national-liberals in Prussia stood behind this development. But it had a price for the liberals. They had to give up some of the ideas of the 1848 constituition (they got many things though: like rule of law, constituition, parlamentarian approval of budgets and laws, one man one-vote principle for electing the federal parliament; but not the idea of a parlamentarian government). And that was indeed a big weak spot from a liberal perspective.
Also the fact that the liberal movement split in the 1860s into the national-liberals who cooperated with the royalists and the left-liberals who rejected to compromise on their ideas (for the sake of national unity) weakened this movement.
The ideas of 1848 were actually reached much much later.
The state between 1871-1918 laked an elected government. At the time of 1918-33 it lacked a viable base, had to deal with the occupation of certain territories by France (like the Saarland till 1935 or the Ruhr arrea 1923-30) and the complete fragmentation and radicalisation on both sides of the political spectrum: on the right but also on the political left. The state between 1933-45 was a totalitarian dictatorship.
The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949:
It was an is the most liberal state in German history.
With the revolution of 1989 in East Germany it was possible to realize the ideas of the revolution of 1848: an united, democratic, free and independent Germany.
Achieved on October 3, 1990: About 142 years after the March revolution in 1848 and the National assembly.
That was really a long way: from the revolution of 1848 which failed at the end to 1918 and finally to the succesfull revolution in East Germany in 1989 which paved the way for the realisation of the ideas. But what was also needed was the fact that the Federal Republic conducted a pretty smart foreign policy keeping good ties to the US and France. That at the end prevented a possible British-French alliance against the reunification. And a few billions for the Soviets of course: everything has its price. The support by President Georg Herbert Walker Bush was very important to achieve it.
Thus led to the accession of the five east German states (GDR) with its 16 million people to the Federal Republic (with 64 million, now 80 million) according to Article 23 (old) of the constituition of the Federal Republic on October 3, 1990. So finally: mission accomplished.

A very broken history. But other countries also have broken history. I see that Germany can be an example for others like Serbia or Russia on their potential ways to become democracies.

The democratic movements are historically linked by one thing: the flag.
Our natinonal flag black-red-gold was the flag of the liberal and national movements of the 19 th century. It was declared to be the national flag in 1848. It was the flag between 1919-33 and is again flag since 1949.
The relationship of the country to its flag is not as close as in the US. But it has a positive history because it stands for the democratic Germany.



It indeed is strange, and is what did help the German economy. But if WWI never happened, the Germans would have one bad recession. Look at Japan at the second half of the 20th century. High tariffs, generous subsidies, and a clubbish business atmosphere made them very rich, but only for a time. Japan crashed and burned, and their recovery is because PM Koizumi has lifted some of the protectionist policies...
Japan was even at the time of its recession in the 1990s still the second richests country of the world. None the less it was a serious crisis.
Britain and the US had serious recessions in the 1970s. Reagan and Thatcher ended that era.
It seems to be the case that recessions happen from time to time.

But it led to other consequences that could breed a warrior spirit, if given time to develope. One Prime Minister in 1997 resigned because he suggested Japan should acquire nukes. And western observers have often noted that in the eighties, the Japanese had an air of superiority that Michael Crichton called them "the most rascist society on the planet" (I got a long bibliography on his research, btw). The same elements were probably at work in Germany. Out of 117 top German diplomats at the time, only 14 were commoners, according to Fareed Zakaria. The rest were all nobles by birth...
Well: Japan is potentially threatened by North Korea. What should Japan do if the US would ignore the nuclear program? It is logical that Japan would need a nuclear deterent as well: also potentially against China as the two countries use to be arch-enemies.
During the Cold War the US stationed nukes in Germany as well. There was also a discussion in Germany in the end of the 1950s about nukes. However public opinion and political opinion was overwhelmingly against it. And since the US stationed nukes for our security it wasn´t necessary. Today we are surrounded by allies. Japan isn´t. So I can actually understand the Japanese discussion.
Regarding the feeling of superiority: that existed before in the first half of the 20 th century. If you don´t feel superior to others you don´t occupy other countries and you don´t think that your country should be the hegemonial power of a region. That certainly existed both in Japan and Germany. And in Russia and France and to a degree in Britain as well.
Today I see such tendencies of a feeling of superiority in the US actually.
It is a thing every nation needs to be very careful about: bigger nations don´t have more right to exist than smaller nations. In the end of the 19 th century there was the origin of the Darwinist theory. It was also used by some people to describe the relationship of nations.
Survival of the fittests interpreted as only strong nations survive, nations which are eager to go to war. Either eat or being eaten. Under that pretext Japan took over Korea and huge parts of the rest of east Asia (as China) and Germany huge parts of Europe.

I can't speak for other cxountries, but it was lamentable what the US did to our economy. I can see rationing, but price controls? The government even went out of its way to surpress a peacetime economy. In fact, in 1942, a bill was introduced in Congress to draft people to work at home. Had that bill been passed, it is likely that the foundation of our economy would be shaken, and a whole generation would loose out on their vital years (being their twenties). Fortunatly, that was defeated, but it probably wouldn't go away if it were passed. The draft lingered until after the Vietnam War, which I also think is immoral. Most of the WWII vets I know volunteered. In fact, it wasn't until 1943 that are navy began conscription (thank God)....
I think I told you that France was the first country who started with that to defend itself during the revolutionary wars in the 1790s. It was used in France till 2001.
It is still used in Germany by the way. Reintroduced in 1956. It wouldn´t have been possible to get 500000 soldiers otherwise. And that was needed during the Cold War. But I don´t see it as justified to keep it today.
But if the US decides to start new missions it may need to introduce a draft. Otherwise the US military may be too small for all the mission it is conducting.

As you outlined, the German economy was pretty strong. Colonies weren't needed. Thus, this is just simply due to a desire to compete imperialy, even though they were pretty strong already. It was really illiberal elements in the way.).
True it was unnecessary. Chancellor Bismarck (1871-90), prussian prime minister from 1862-90), was against it as well. But the pressure was too big from interested groups who also wanted to compete imperialy and demanded "a place on the sun". He however managed to get colonies diplomatically (buying them from Portugal for example).
After his dissmissal it was a very ideologic foreign policy which led to dangerous developments.


It was actually what the British thought was a liberal policy. It produced the closest thing to peace Europe knew until after the Cold War. But like you said, it only works well if everyone cooperates, which is not what happened.
Not at that time. But it was a concept of rivaling powers. Today we have a concept of cooperating powers and of integration of the powers via the EU.
That is working. And I think it can be a model for the world in the long-run.
Economic cooperation combined with political cooperation of democratic nations is a solid foundation for "eternal peace". A stable peace requires justice.
Any forced solutions are not stable - like the Soviet block was for example. The system of Balance of power wasn´t either stable because it didn´t take the will of the people into account. The nationality conflicts played a destabilising role and under this system it was not able to fix it, because it had the aim to keep the status-quo. Just like the Soviet system had.

If the world would be the way America and most parts of Europe are today it would be possible to reach it. We are far away from that point outside of North America and EU-Europe though.
None the less: ideals can come true. It needed 142 years to get an united, democratic, free and independent Germany. So: why should other countries be much faster in there development?
It is certainly a long-way to go for that. And the US is in the position and in the responsibility to lead this way which could one day in the very distant future lead to such a situation of the world. Won´t happen in our life time.
But the world could develop into a better place than it is now.

It is hard to deny though, that the Kaiser's government was actively pursuing a policy towards war a lot more clearly than any other European Country. This is not entirely Germany's fault, they were surrounded by the Franco-Russian Alliance, and an increasingly hostile Britain, but they were spoiling for war in 1914, as Moltke's own projections showed France and Russia overcoming Germany by 1916..
It was just stupid by the leadership and a blind loyality towards Austria. The Austrian Emprie was due to collapse anyway (like the Soviet Union did). Many nationalities wanted to get out of it.


Iraq and Serbia have odd parallels, such as the group that carried out the attack on Franz Ferdinand were Austrian subjects, not Serbians, somewhat like there being no Iraqi's involved in 9/11. Though the Black Hand has closer ties to Serbia than Al-Queda does to Iraq, but the attack on Serbia could have been a fait accompli,and the rest of Europe might have agreed that it was justified, but the Austrians were too uneasy without German support, and far too zealous once they had their blank cheque from Germany...
They were Bosnian Serbs and therefore Austrian subjects. But of course their aim was Serbian dominance over the Balcans - which was archieved after World War I till 1991. Interrupted from 1941-45 by Germany and the Croats with their Ustascha regime.
Serbia by the way had Russian backing. So: this conflict was leading into a broader confrontation. Especially since Serbia was smart enough to back down to some of the demands however rejected the ultimatum.
However: this crisis would not have led to a world war if it hadn´t been a world of rivaling powers.
The advantage of today is that there is only one superpower. That makes the world more stable.

I actually agree with most what you say. However I don´t want to answer to everything since that is already going far away from the actual topic of this thread.

Traditionally, history shows when the world is uni-polar (Pax Brittanica, Pax Romana), the world is much spared from the horrors of massive devestating wars. The problem being no one can decide who should be on top, and they all want to be...
Today it is clearly the US.
France is too unimportant to challenge it. You shouldn´t react so harsh to them. We use to say: The elk tree doesn´t care when the wild pig is running against it.
The only power with a potential that could really threaten the US may be China in the future.
There is none otherwise with the potential to do that seriously: Europe isn´t. It is not a power. There are 25 powers with different interersts and different foreign policies. If there is one day may be a Common foreign and security policy it is certainly not be a gaullist one.
America and Europe have much more in common than what seperates them. So: certainly not Europe.


It's been tried, the various conferences (Especially The Hague) pre-1914, the UN (which has been the most successful thus far). In the end, I believe this is the most prosporous idea, since power naturally shifts from various areas of the globe, and a uni-polar world will never stay one.
It works in Europe today: but today all countries are democracies. And there is close cooperation and even integration of our economies. Could be a model for the world in the long-run. But up until the conditions for it are realized America must lead.

bump