America wasn't involved, in fact there was a distinct lack of US support... is that what your getting at?
my point is that historically the US has not supported great powers in maintaining trade routes in favour of regional powers, this was in response to a poster claiming that the US actively controlled such routes in order to benefit its own interests, and america was involved in the suez crisis as it ended it showing an even greater support that moved away from the old system of certain powers controlling trade routes
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
For people who actually know what they're talking about it's quite well documented fact...they are the only countries with blue water navies and decent air forces. Additionally no one mentioned super powers, there is only one super power (actually the hyper power), the US, the UK and France are simply the next strongest countries in terms of military power projection capabilities (obviously Russia and China have more men but good luck getting them anywhere).
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
maybe the post was 90 years old
lol look it up the French Armed Forces is currently the largest army in Europe the 3rd largest army in NATO and only the US and Russia have more nukes then France. SO yeah check your facts before you start being a douche and an ignorant American and start hating on a country you know nothing about.
Well... It seems in your title is states you are from the United States, and neither I nor the other member of TL you mentioned pose the same location. He is from Australia and I am from Canada, aren't you an ignorant American and a hipocrite.
And last time I checked, the largest army per capita was Switzerland, and I think we all know something about the French attempts at being an army past the Napoleon Era. (WW1, ope fucked that, WW2, didn't even notice there involvement after being dominated so badly)
Good thing that I, being opposite of the ignorant hipocritical American, has video proof of the effective French army.
Enjoy : D
Where did you see anything about largest army per capita? He simply meant largest army by size and he is correct, the French military is regarded as either the 2nd or 3rd best in the world today.
And your history is off, France fought well in WW1 and was on the winning side, it sacrificed the most out of the western allies in that war.
AND your video is the freaking Canadian army, jesus christ.
On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific.
This isn't 1930, there is no way an "arms race" would emerge in the present day. Also there are severe restrictions on the Japanese military because of WWII.
Why would there not be an arms race? Countries are constantly investing in research into new potential weapons. Maybe at a slower rate than during the coldwar, but they could always invest more if they thought it was necessary.
On June 26 2011 07:43 AttackZerg wrote: How is it possible for countries like the U.K and France to have still have such strong militarizes?
Is it just trade relation with the US and German aka the kings of western arms dealing?
It is hard to imagine such a dangerous country that is so small?
Well really it's just the UK and France, Germany and Italy are probably the next best in Europe but they're quite far behind Britain and France in terms of tech/numbers.
Germany was limited like Japan after WW2 so that's why it's not so high up on the list, the UK and France though have been 2 of the richest countries in the world since WW2 and the United States' top allies so it's really expected that they have decent militaries.
On June 26 2011 07:43 AttackZerg wrote: How is it possible for countries like the U.K and France to have still have such strong militarizes?
Is it just trade relation with the US and German aka the kings of western arms dealing?
It is hard to imagine such a dangerous country that is so small?
Well really it's just the UK and France, Germany and Italy are probably the next best in Europe but they're quite far behind Britain and France in terms of tech/numbers.
Germany was limited like Japan after WW2 so that's why it's not so high up on the list, the UK and France though have been 2 of the richest countries in the world since WW2 and the United States' top allies so it's really expected that they have decent militaries.
Okay, then it makes sense why their economies are in bad shape like ours =)
Except France isnt in bad shape, its one of the more healthy economies of the western world along with us nordic countries (protip, the common denominator is high taxes)
You cant make the correlation Huge army => Economy in shambles, Spain has a much smaller army than France and Germany and is in much grander economic trouble, its a really wierd link you thought up there.
On June 26 2011 08:24 Catch]22 wrote: Except France isnt in bad shape, its one of the more healthy economies of the western world along with us nordic countries (protip, the common denominator is high taxes)
You cant make the correlation Huge army => Economy in shambles, Spain has a much smaller army than France and Germany and is in much grander economic trouble, its a really wierd link you thought up there.
When I checked european debt last week, france and england were both nearly at 100% GPD in debt?
I don't want to derail this thread any further, please if you have linkable information please PM me, I am rather interested in informed information!
On June 26 2011 08:24 Catch]22 wrote: Except France isnt in bad shape, its one of the more healthy economies of the western world along with us nordic countries (protip, the common denominator is high taxes)
You cant make the correlation Huge army => Economy in shambles, Spain has a much smaller army than France and Germany and is in much grander economic trouble, its a really wierd link you thought up there.
When I checked european debt last week, france and england were both nearly at 100% GPD in debt?
I don't want to derail this thread any further, please if you have linkable information please PM me, I am rather interested in informed information!
Its more complex than just a solid debt figure. I suggest you read this link for more in depth info
You know one thing i love is how people cry about "We spent to much money on war and blah blah yet they wont go live in one of those countries who suffer from war everyday or there own goverment or terrorist groups killing the locals. If USA doesnt have bases its hard for us to respond to emergency situations and also to provide backup as we need a place to land/takeoff. Also many of you dont know there is a hospital in Germany for wounded troops coming home from afghanistan and iraq? Do we just shut it down? Go live in another country were war is everyday and then come back here and post "Lets bring our troops home so we can have war at our homefront!"
On June 26 2011 06:00 Swagalisk wrote: Just as a note. We will never "pull out" of Japan or South Korea. It doesn't matter who the President at the time; our pressence there is needed. Simply us being near by to "dangerous" countries keeps them in check.
For example, lets say North Korea does attack countries in that region. We could launch an offensive from Japan or South Korea the same day. As apposed to having to fight for a foot hold in that region, which could take some time.
Who dictates the rights of the United States to even involve themselves in the matter, your "foothold" on every ones earth. Not your earth, don't speak as if you are the peacekeepers of the world, whenever I hear of that I think of Robin Williams take on the military, went something like this (paraphrased)
"yeah... (heavy drawl) We sure did save the middle east, we went in, john wayne style, blasted 1 big hole after another, we did good didnt we... We, us Americans, are such great people we decided to go back a few decades later and blow the holes we already blew open, into bigger ones. We like to blow, especially in san fransico, but not to stray from the point, we just decided to move the rubble on the left, slightly to the right... Aren't we kind, bet the people in the Middle East alwaysss thank us for are reconstruction efforts and kind support"
United States are far from a peacekeeping nation, and the foothold is only to withhold its general interest in the sector, not attempt to "keep peace" if the American government gives less than a shit about its own population, then I hardly think it cares about SK and NK, or Japan for the matter. It's all about keeping chinas growth limited, trade lanes open, not peace in the area (that's just a perk). Don't be naive, you are right on one thing though, "keeps them in check" because thats all it is, just keeping the interests of America in check.
You're an idiot. If you really think our pressence in SK and Japan is about keeping China's growth limited, i reccomend you stop watching so much liberal news casts.
I understand that the Western media likes to portray the Chinese, Iranian, and Korean leadership as being insane, but... the truth is, to have become major leaders and held onto their positions, there must be more to it.
The most logical attribute of any person is that of self-preservation. Even if the US pulls their troops out of Asia, that just increases their response time, from a few hours to a few days. The US would still come to the aid of its allies should they need it.
NK will not fire nukes at SK without provocation, because they don't want to destroy SK. They want to reunite under their own government. Also, NK knows that a full scale mobilization against SK would lead to their country being invaded by multiple foreign entities. NK cannot give up their military arms, because that would leave them exposed with no bargaining power (See: Libya). NK will just continue posturing, triggering incidents, to increase their perceived threat, to ensure they receive foreign aid in exchange for not attacking anyone.
China will not fully mobilize against any country, because that would align the Western powers against them. A lack of US presence in the area will mean that China will be able to use their navy to set up blockades of disputed islands to assert their sovereignty. China will not risk a war with any neighbouring country, in the knowledge that the US will not hesitate to side against it.
US military expenditure per capita is currently almost 30x that of China's, and its military expenditure in pure monetary terms amounts to about a third of the world's total military expenditure. Although the Western media likes to report on China's "massive" military spending, China's military spending as a percentage of GDP is at 2.2%, which ranks it between 40th and 50th place in the world. Besides, Japan and SK's military is far ahead of China's due to their military trade agreements with the US. It's hard to imagine China being able to truly threaten any of the developed Asian nations.
So... I don't see how the US pulling its troops out of Asia will make much of a difference.
On June 26 2011 06:00 Swagalisk wrote: Just as a note. We will never "pull out" of Japan or South Korea. It doesn't matter who the President at the time; our pressence there is needed. Simply us being near by to "dangerous" countries keeps them in check.
For example, lets say North Korea does attack countries in that region. We could launch an offensive from Japan or South Korea the same day. As apposed to having to fight for a foot hold in that region, which could take some time.
Who dictates the rights of the United States to even involve themselves in the matter, your "foothold" on every ones earth. Not your earth, don't speak as if you are the peacekeepers of the world, whenever I hear of that I think of Robin Williams take on the military, went something like this (paraphrased)
"yeah... (heavy drawl) We sure did save the middle east, we went in, john wayne style, blasted 1 big hole after another, we did good didnt we... We, us Americans, are such great people we decided to go back a few decades later and blow the holes we already blew open, into bigger ones. We like to blow, especially in san fransico, but not to stray from the point, we just decided to move the rubble on the left, slightly to the right... Aren't we kind, bet the people in the Middle East alwaysss thank us for are reconstruction efforts and kind support"
United States are far from a peacekeeping nation, and the foothold is only to withhold its general interest in the sector, not attempt to "keep peace" if the American government gives less than a shit about its own population, then I hardly think it cares about SK and NK, or Japan for the matter. It's all about keeping chinas growth limited, trade lanes open, not peace in the area (that's just a perk). Don't be naive, you are right on one thing though, "keeps them in check" because thats all it is, just keeping the interests of America in check.
You're an idiot. If you really think our pressence in SK and Japan is about keeping China's growth limited, i reccomend you stop watching so much liberal news casts.
It's not directly keeping China in check, but it certainly is indirectly. The US bases in the region and more importantly, quickly establishing a logistics line in the case of any conflict from further bases in the Pacific at the very least allows some countries plan their foreign relations around a possible US response.
How accurate can we assume the reports of military spending in nations across the world to actually be?
I'm not scared of china or a chinese threat, I've always viewed china as a ying, yang situation and hoped for equality among super powers, but how is it possible to truly trust government reports on military spending, and yet nobody knows accurate costs of the nuclear age of america-russia and how much money is spent on the different covert agencies around the world. I don't think it is possible to judge a military according to world numbers about spending. Why would any country fully disclose what they spend on and especially a country which limits information in and out of the country.
On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote: I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now.
wtf you talking ? seriously
in germany are nearly all us troops gone (bad for german economy cause they was in not that righ regions and bring alot of jobs/money etc so far a BIG lose for germany) out of japan well i dont know perhaps japan lose some money but i think its not that problem
but south korea ? realy ? the day they do north korea just destroy south korea man .. their army is like 200 times bigger
i dont think they are able to take on japan cause of the ocean and the way bigger japan army then the south korean, also they not attack other countrys without americans in the region, but with south korea they still IN WAR
I find the general opinion of this thread absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone even think that China would take over SK or Japan? What would that even do for Chinese interests? China has never been an expansionist state even during the 1000-2000 years that it had capability of doing so. It has always been content to rule within its sphere and use its political influence to keep its neighbours peaceful with them.
I'm not saying that history would repeat itself with the new China. I just want to ask why the hell people treat China as some potentially dangerous or aggressive state. The only areas where China has tried exert dominion over are Tibet and Taiwan, both of which, are part of China's traditional territory that China wishes to or has reclaimed.
Second of all, I firmly think that having one's forces overseas in another State's territory, surrounding this "potential threat" is far, far more aggressive than anything that China has done. USA has always fought its wars on enemy territory. By definition, they have always been the aggressors. By mentality, they have always been the aggressors. Only by politics, have they been "defending the peace" like the Templars "defended the Church" in the Islamic world. Hah! Yeah, sure.
Lastly, I implore all the white Americans in this thread to actually go and ask a Japanese or Korean person (not whitewashed ones from America) how they view the US occupation of their country. The people who I have asked view it as humiliating, demeaning and aggressive. Perhaps in the case of Korea, they actually believe in a genuine threat of NK (although I have doubts about the validity of such fears anyway), but in Japan, it is only a shameful reminder of their past.
This is ridiculous. China would never support NK if they went aggressive on SK. China have been the mediators of peace in the region for a long time, and rightfully so - China is concentrated on economic growth and solving many very major internal issues like social disharmony, environmental pollution and institutional corruption. The last thing they want is a war, and the second last thing they want is to sabotage the image they have been building for themselves in the international community for the last 30 years. Only America and its allies have viewed China as an expansionist threat in the last 20 or so years.
As a preface to my post, I would like to state that the enormous presence of valuable cobalt in Korea will keep the United States there until it is mined out, like the newly discovered wealth of lithium will keep the US in Afghanistan for until it is depleted.
That said, the US pulling out of Korea would definitely destabilize the country, but I really cannot say to what extent. The South Korean army is a capable one, and they acquitted themselves well in Vietnam as our allies. My experiences with KATUSAs in the army was mixed, but they generally seemed to be capable individuals. Surely North Korea would be at least somewhat more bold with their probing antics if the US were to leave, though I feel fairly certain that if there was an invasion, The United States would honor their long time allies' requests for help. A more interesting possibility would be that reunification could be an outcome.
Aside from an increase in defense spending in Japan, I don't really see a massive change in the Japanese people's lifestyles (though potentially in politics) being the result of a full US withdraw from Okinawa. Their nation operates as if the base on Okinawa is as as insignificant as it probably is.
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definitely) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasn't had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to today's Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
For people who actually know what they're talking about it's quite well documented fact...they are the only countries with blue water navies and decent air forces. Additionally no one mentioned super powers, there is only one super power (actually the hyper power), the US, the UK and France are simply the next strongest countries in terms of military power projection capabilities (obviously Russia and China have more men but good luck getting them anywhere).
China: You really should not discount the Chinese Navy, which is incredibly capable. They have a vast fleet with a large carrier capability, and very advanced submarine technologies. Their air assets are years behind those of the US, the UK, France, Russia, and India, but to assert that they're not a world military power is foolish.
Russia: With access to the Atlantic, and very extensive access to the pacific, the Russian navy is probably the closest rival to that of the United States in the pacific ocean. Despite the problems created by the collapse of the USSR twenty years ago, they've rebounded in terms of spending and proficiency, though not to the levels seen during the Cold War era.
India's blue water navy is definitely small, but in trials (Cope India 04-the present) against United States and UK fighter pilots, the Indian pilots either won the scenarios outright (as in Cope India 04, with a 90% win rate over the US) or traded at least evenly with their adversaries, while not using the full radar capabilities of their craft as to hide their precision and acquisition techniques. They fly the newest Sukhoi aircraft and are well trained. On a final note, I'd like to add that after the Falkland war, arm chair tacticians (like myself) ought to be more wary of the fallibility of Super Power-level naval craft as nearly every power I've listed (as well as South Korea) field G4 fighter squadrons. Generation 4 Fighter Jets and the weapons they carry continue to evolve in terms of range and shrinking radar cross-sections while the defense capabilities of the sea-going vessels fielded by the navies of the world have largely stagnated for a half a century. While Generation 5 fighters are superior in most terms of detectability, that is not necessarily as viable a trait as maneuverability in close air combat situations, and many (if not most) G4 fighter craft have outright superior maneuvering capabilities to their G5 counterparts, particularly the SU47, which will be entering production in around five years. It's important not to think of Generation 5 stealth fighter craft as the next stage of fighters, but rather as a parallel philosophy of what fighter craft ought to be. With this in mind, G5 fighter craft will never replace G4 fighters, but rather can operate in additional role as deep strike air cover, since they are capable of evading many detection techniques that their predecessors were not. I have digressed pretty significantly; I mean to say that any nation with carrier technology and up to date G4 aircraft are more than capable of standing up to a superpower's navy with the right pilots at the stick.
If the US pulled out of South Korea and Japan, the region would be a little destabilized. It would depend on to what extent they pulled their forces. Maintaining the alliances, but pulling the troops would not do too much, but if the alliance obligations were severely weakened, I think Japan would face new problems. They would have to up their defense spending considerably lest they be in a weak military position, and East-Asian countries usually react negative to any increase in the Japanese military due to WW2. Another problem Japan would face would be if they lost their "nuclear umbrella" the US provides, as the Japanese population would certainly object to any nuclear weaponry being developed.
EPT
