NationStates Jolt Archive

Which nation do you think is next in order on the US chopping block. I think the top 3 are Syria, Iran, or North Korea. If you think it is a different nation, please say who, and explain why. I think that North Korea would be more likely. Iran is currently haulting its Nuclear program, and Syria isn't much of a threat, although it does have terrorist that cross the border into Iraq. But then again, North Korea is probably the strongest. I believe that North Korea posses the greatest threat. BUT war is unlikely because how the US troops are already spread too thin.

Nobody. I'm cynically assuming that Bush is going to drag out this Iraq thing for his remaining four years, and then optimistically hoping our 44th president will have enough sense to not go anywhere else.

One question I have for the administration: How come we and other first world countries get to have lots of nuclear weapons free of warning, but anyone else is invaded just for developing them? Especially since we're the only country ever to have used a nuclear bomb.

Thats because the 1st world countries, like America, France, UK, Russia, and so on and so forth, are less likely to use them. Since we used them to end WWII, we have seen the devastaing effect they have. Also, most 1st world countries only produce them as a defense. The more nukes they have, the less likely to get invaded they are. But nations like Iran and more importantly North Korea, are definately a threat to other nations. I also think that we should work with Pakistan and India to scale down their nuclear arms, because of their willingness to use them on each other over Kashmire (SP?)

It's Iran, if anything.

I voted nobody. I think we've worked it out of our system now.

Nobody; Bush is too chickenshit to go after the real threats.

Thats because the 1st world countries, like America, France, UK, Russia, and so on and so forth, are less likely to use them. Since we used them to end WWII, we have seen the devastaing effect they have. Also, most 1st world countries only produce them as a defense. The more nukes they have, the less likely to get invaded they are. But nations like Iran and more importantly North Korea, are definately a threat to other nations. I also think that we should work with Pakistan and India to scale down their nuclear arms, because of their willingness to use them on each other over Kashmire (SP?)

Define "first world".

America isn't a first world country.

If America isnt, then who is?

If America isnt, then who is?

"Anything we can do, European nations/terrorist regimes can do better."

Just because they so something better than us, that doesnt mean that we arent a 1st world country. I mean, look at the Olympics. The US brought home more medals than the other countries, and the US also brought home the most golds. The US also has the strongest military. So yes, the US is a 1st world country.

someone should figure out the ratio of medals to athletes... i mean, china and america probably had much bigger teams than most other countries (i know china had a huge paralympic team)

stark county ohio.

The problem right now is to leave a stable Iraq, and I believe it'll take at least 2 other years. It might even never happen, and we would see the US troops leaving a destructed country lead by the religious extremists :/

So, whichever it is, the US economy won't be good enough to afford another war. Well, if anycountry is attacked, it is going to be Iran. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, it would be very difficult to attack them.

Just because they so something better than us, that doesnt mean that we arent a 1st world country. I mean, look at the Olympics. The US brought home more medals than the other countries, and the US also brought home the most golds. The US also has the strongest military. So yes, the US is a 1st world country.

In fact Europe got a lot more medals than the US if you count all europeans countries, and also if you consider the number of medal by population; but it can be explained by the fact that each country has a limited number of athletes to send, so europe could send much more athletes than the US.

I dont think the US will leave Iraq for a long time. It will take a while to put up a stable government. And even after that, we will still probably have bases over there. Look at Japan. We rebuilt their nation, and now look at them.

It's North Korea. Bush's ultimatum has set it in motion already. I sincerely hope he will be out of office before destablising Iran, the new, West-amiable generation is set to overthrow the current aging political class in the next 30 years peacefully... unlikely that he will though...

Iraq is somewhat similar to postwar Germany. There are differences, Postwar Germany was a pile of rubble with no surviving infrastructure, while postwar Iraq does have infrastructure. Postwar iraq has the insurgents as the big threat, postwar Germany mainly had drunk allied soldiers with guns as the big threat.

The similarity is the neighbor. Both nations border a hostile force for Germany it was soviet occupied eastern europe. For Iraq it is Iran. We will need to have forces in Iraq for many years. I'd suspect to see US force commitment halved in three years, and by 2010 to see it to a quarter of it's current strength, but we'll be there for a while.

Nobody. I'm cynically assuming that Bush is going to drag out this Iraq thing for his remaining four years, and then optimistically hoping our 44th president will have enough sense to not go anywhere else.

One question I have for the administration: How come we and other first world countries get to have lots of nuclear weapons free of warning, but anyone else is invaded just for developing them? Especially since we're the only country ever to have used a nuclear bomb.

The answer is first world countries aren't supposed to have them either. The Non proliferation treaty says that nuclear powers are supposed to gradually reduce their nuclear arsenals to nothing. Of course they never tell you that part. Kind of like how the NRA leaves out the "well regulated militia" bit from the second amendment. Additionally under the NPT the nuclear powers of the world are supposed to help the non nuclear powers develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes so under the NPT the US should help Iran build nuclear power plants!

Personally at this point the way the US is threatening so many countries I have very little respect for any leader who doesn't try to develop nuclear arms.

The answer is first world countries aren't supposed to have them either. The Non proliferation treaty says that nuclear powers are supposed to gradually reduce their nuclear arsenals to nothing.

Tell that to Russia who "lost" their doses of smallpox, then so did the US. And now Russia just began making a new nuclear weapon.

Thats because the 1st world countries, like America, France, UK, Russia, and so on and so forth, are less likely to use them. Since we used them to end WWII, we have seen the devastaing effect they have. Also, most 1st world countries only produce them as a defense. The more nukes they have, the less likely to get invaded they are. But nations like Iran and more importantly North Korea, are definately a threat to other nations. I also think that we should work with Pakistan and India to scale down their nuclear arms, because of their willingness to use them on each other over Kashmire (SP?)



I disagree that N Korea would be the most likely to use an atom bomb.

I think Korea got a bomb for use as a deterrant.

They now know that they are one hundred percent immune from possible invasion by anyone.

I disagree that N Korea would be the most likely to use an atom bomb.

I think Korea got a bomb for use as a deterrant.

They now know that they are one hundred percent immune from possible invasion by anyone.

But then again if they used their one or two bombs, not only the US but Russia and possibly China would declare war on them or possible nuke them back. But only after they are sure that North Korea doesnt have any more nukes.

As far as I can tell, another war = the draft. So it depends if you think Bush is willing to bring one up. Most people don't, so there probably wont be any more US wars anytime soon luckily.

The American people would not stand for a war in another nation unless a direct attack was carried out. Even if Bush got the people riled up again, the Democrats and moderate Republicans would toss Iraq in Bush's face. America cannot do anything else large scale until Iraq is secure and stable. The U.S. needs to stop the flow of terrorists into the country, so they can fix the nation up and haul ass out of there. To attack another Middle Easter nation would be like saying shaking daring all hell to break loose. I really think North Korea can be talked down with America, Russia, China, South Korea and Japan all pushing them.

I voted for nobody simply because Brer Rabbit Bush has no way out of the Iraq Tar Baby. Unless he can convince a lot of people to reinstate the draft, the US military does not have enough personnel for another invasion. I don't think he can lie enough a second time to scare people into supporting a draft for another war. :mp5:

Of course, he did tell enough US citizens the lies they wanted to hear to get re-elected, so who knows? :eek:

stark county ohio.
Stark Co. If I remember correctly, that would be Kent? Or Akron? And by looking at your location, I think you can appreciate my sig.

I voted for nobody simply because Brer Rabbit Bush has no way out of the Iraq Tar Baby. Unless he can convince a lot of people to reinstate the draft, the US military does not have enough personnel for another invasion. I don't think he can lie enough a second time to scare people into supporting a draft for another war. :mp5:

Of course, he did tell enough US citizens the lies they wanted to hear to get re-elected, so who knows? :eek:

I hope your right, but if the US does pacify Iraq Iran and Syria are right next door. It would be such a waste to buy all those plane tickets for the soldiers to come home when they are already in the neighborhood.