Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Melissia wrote:What level of isolationism are we talking about here?

Purely military? That's a bit extreme, but understandable. But in the end, impossible-- we're gonna need to patrol trade routes for example, so our navy will not be able to be isolationist-- it'll have to kill some pirates and all that. But if you mean no more direct, troops on the ground interventions? I can probably get behind that I suppose.

***What you just said actually. The same position as China, most of Latin America, and and Europe. trade and plitical isolationism - no no not at all.

More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there.

See yet another reason. We beat hell out of Japan for what they did. Time to has a California roll, grab some Katana and Ninja crotch rockets and a nice Yamaha road cruiser and call it a day.

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor? Your people knew of the latter, but your President let it happen as an excuse to have Congress declare war.

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there.

See yet another reason. We beat hell out of Japan for what they did. Time to has a California roll, grab some Katana and Ninja crotch rockets and a nice Yamaha road cruiser and call it a day.

I other words, let the Japanese fry...great, that'll keep the folks back home on your side.

Amaya wrote:Better yet, go to a policy of any terrorist activity against America will lead to us nuking you until any survivors grow additional limbs and extra eyes.

Show me the country of Al Queda on a map...

You do understand that terrorist groups often are NOT states unto themselves and thus you can't target and "nuke them"?


And yes I understand that certain states are sympathetic to and sponsor terrorists, but that isnt the same as what you describe.

CT GAMER wrote:

Amaya wrote:Better yet, go to a policy of any terrorist activity against America will lead to us nuking you until any survivors grow additional limbs and extra eyes.

Show me the country of Al Queda on a map...

You do understand that terrorist groups often are NOT states unto themselves and thus you can't target and "nuke them"?


And yes I understand that certain states are sympathetic to and sponsor terrorists, but that isnt the same as what you describe.

Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor?

There have been countless times that terrorists are caught before they manage to do anything. Especially after 9/11, which prevented us from slipping back in to isolationist.

Also, Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a military attack, aimed at killing off as much of our navy at Pearl Harbor as possible.. Claiming that it is on the same level as 9/11 is stupid, and also stupid. But even then, we were heavily isolationist after WWI.

As for your claim that the president knew about the attack before it was going to happen, lol, no.

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor? Your people knew of the latter, but your President let it happen as an excuse to have Congress declare war.

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there.

See yet another reason. We beat hell out of Japan for what they did. Time to has a California roll, grab some Katana and Ninja crotch rockets and a nice Yamaha road cruiser and call it a day.

I other words, let the Japanese fry...great, that'll keep the folks back home on your side.

If we weren't there Japan would not be threatened (unless of course, like me, their hatered of YuGiYo is worth blowing up the world over DIE PIKACHU DIE DIE!).

Frazzled wrote:
You’re right. Of course that wasn’t my statement either, so you’re er wrong to.

Right, my mistake, I was assuming that you weren't arguing from an absurd position.

Frazzled wrote:
And? Has it made the US more safe? Has it made US citizens abroad more safe?

Its definitely made the US safer, as without our many foreign deployments (largely spurred by the Cold War) we wouldn't be sitting on nearly as large an advantage in military technology, because we would never have needed one.

Citizens abroad aren't our problem, the US government has no duty to protect people beyond its jurisdiction. That they still attempt to is a matter of political kindness. Though the the military and economic position of the US certainly means they have an enhanced ability to do so.

Frazzled wrote:
I’d put good money that our GDP growth rates after 1955 (once Europe started to recover) are lower than the 19th century.

They were, but the population was also growing much faster. The annualized growth rate in real per capita GDP from 1850 to 1950 was about 1.6%, while from 1951-2010 it was about 2.1%.

Frazzled wrote:
Sure you can. Explain to me how the Korean War helped US business? How did the Vietnam war help the economy? oh lookey we had a nice recession. Please prove to me your tenuous connection that the Iraq War helped the US economy?

I'm not talking about wars, Fraz. I'm talking about the actual military physical plant. War almost never helps an economy, but solid relations with states in which our physical plant is present generally do, especially since the presence of US bases tends to have a way of ensuring the existence of a stable, US sympathetic, government.

No just portions of Afghanistan and in 2002*. Please get your facts together. As the immortal bard once said: "put down the bong pipe and keep up!"

I wasn't even on this forum in 2002 and you've advocated for it repeatedly. So spare the ivory tower. It's on record and it's part of why you're not a mod.

No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Tadashi wrote:Look again: your government has the biggest debt in the world, social issues are rife, your economy is faltering, and your military is being bled white by 'police actions'.

Wait what? Japan has the worse, I say again the worse debt to GDP ratio IN THE WORLD. And you are agitating for them to spend more money on thier military whilst saying we can't afford ours. Come back to reality.

Tadashi wrote:There are around fifty thousand (AFAIK) American troops along the Korean DMZ, not counting vehicles and aircraft, not to mention around a million land mines, which are supposed to be illegal but are far too many (or useful) to remove.

Again, back over here in the real world the DMZ is not a part of North Korea and land mines aren't illegal. Neither North Korea or the US are signatories to the Ottowa Treaty.
Shall I go on?
Almost everything you've said ITT is nonsensical at best.

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor?

There have been countless times that terrorists are caught before they manage to do anything. Especially after 9/11, which prevented us from slipping back in to isolationist.

Good for you...now what? The more you intervene in the Middle East, the more people you incarcerate in Guantanamo, the more you create support for those cowardly scum known as terrorists.

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

AustonT wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Look again: your government has the biggest debt in the world, social issues are rife, your economy is faltering, and your military is being bled white by 'police actions'.

Wait what? Japan has the worse, I say again the worse debt to GDP ratio IN THE WORLD. And you are agitating for them to spend more money on thier military whilst saying we can't afford ours. Come back to reality.

Not really seeing as much of the government's debt is owned by Japanese companies...so the government owes money to its own citizens, which isn't really all that bad.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You’re right. Of course that wasn’t my statement either, so you’re er wrong to.

Right, my mistake, I was assuming that you weren't arguing from an absurd position.

An insult after such a fine conversation. I'll take that as your white flag of surrender. I hope you don't mind but its likely that TBone will try to shred the cloth. When I stop after our walk to get milk, he'll go from "oh I can't see and am older than dirt" to "ooh I think I'll shred this napkin I found into little bits CURSES you're back already?!?"

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

If we wipe Pakistan off the map I bet India would send us a fruit basket.

*snark*

Honestly that's a problem that might very well not have a solution.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No just portions of Afghanistan and in 2002*. Please get your facts together. As the immortal bard once said: "put down the bong pipe and keep up!"

I wasn't even on this forum in 2002 and you've advocated for it repeatedly. So spare the ivory tower. It's on record and it's part of why you're not a mod.

No, thats more to do with my "Thats it I'm gathering up pitchforks and torches and heading over to Shuma's house. Who with me?" thread on the DCM space. For some reason Dakka frowns on honest villagers just gathering for some light mob action. I don't know why.

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

Those missiles are aimed at both of us...they hate us, and after the events before and during WWII, I can't really blame them. Still unforgivable if they dare strike at our homeland.

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

I acknowledge it, I'm just saying on the subject of NK, the nukes and Japan. No one feels the need to comment on Best Korea wanting to nuke South Korea because it's blatantly obvious. Though my guess is the Nukes are more a "back up" plan to make sure the SKs don't come after THEM.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

If we wipe Pakistan off the map I bet India would send us a fruit basket.

*snark*

Honestly that's a problem that might very well not have a solution.

You can invade ala Iraq/Afghanistan.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

I acknowledge it, I'm just saying on the subject of NK, the nukes and Japan. No one feels the need to comment on Best Korea wanting to nuke South Korea because it's blatantly obvious. Though my guess is the Nukes are more a "back up" plan to make sure the SKs don't come after THEM.

They have no intention of doing so...SK isn't exactly keen on the idea of spending money modernizing NK's ancient industries, de-militarizing its vast military, or for that matter rehabilitating and re-integrating millions of people.

Good for you...now what? The more you intervene in the Middle East, the more people you incarcerate in Guantanamo, the more you create support for those cowardly scum known as terrorists.

Not really. It's pretty much too late to stop them entirely. They need a cause to maintain their organizations and we're a good, "great satan" for them to preach against-- far enough away that the ignorant masses they recruit from don't really know much, but with just enough information off the internet that they can condemn us as much as they want, so long a they present the right sort of information to their recruits. Being active on the world stage allows us to work with other countries' intelligence services and counter attacks. Being isolationist just invites another terrorist attack on the level of 9/11.

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

In 2012 under an enlightened Frazzled regime it wouldn't be an issue. We would have strong borders and security by 2013 (ok that border may be the Panama Canal, but a man can dream can't he?). Terrorists wouldn't attack us because we wouldn't be there.

Oh and its been suggested that all cats be rounded up and put into special locations, for their protection.

Melissia wrote:

Good for you...now what? The more you intervene in the Middle East, the more people you incarcerate in Guantanamo, the more you create support for those cowardly scum known as terrorists.

Not really. It's pretty much too late to stop them entirely. They need a cause to maintain their organizations and we're a good, "great satan" for them to preach against-- far enough away that the ignorant masses they recruit from don't really know much, but with just enough information off the internet that they can condemn us as much as they want, so long a they present the right sort of information to their recruits.

Ok...but what about a long-term solution? Setting up garrisons and provisional governments are just short-term (if that) solutions, so what can America do to cut out this cancer?

Tadashi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

Yes nothing like having the Big MO in Tokyo harbor as motivation for everyone to "remain calm."

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

Yes nothing like having the Big MO in Tokyo harbor as motivation for everyone to "remain calm."

An act of war is an act of war...you would the same of a Chinese/NK missile dropped on your homeland. If that happened Japan will stand by America, and we expect the same from America if a Chinese/NK missile dropped on our homeland. Just as Britain is your 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the Atlantic, let Japan be the same in the Pacific. Show some trust in the Empire, and we can bury the last of WWII's grudges and stand by you as allies...if you give platitudes and use us as meat-shields, then you'll lose over fifty years worth of built-up trust and respect.