OT (or is it?): American Imperialism

[Will]

dogscoff said:Everyone in Hollywood is insanely happy all the time. They all have great teeth and big cars and no-one os ever sad. Or so I'm told.

Pssh. I think somebody also forgot to tell you that Hollywood is the ***-crack of Los Angeles Everything is a facade, and if you go beyond the main roads, you can see it for the slum it really is. Now the Valley on the other hand... or more accurately, vallies, there's a lot of them... Those people are the ones with the great teeth, big cars, and are never sad. They usually work in Hollywood, and they're almost always stoned. Which explains the never sad bit.

And as for nukes in other countries... look at it this way. Yes, technically it would be just as easy to put all of them on subs, and then the missile force would be a lot more mobile. But by having missiles at a fixed land location, it is more guaranteed that the missile will be there and ready the instant it is needed. But there's another reason. The countries hosting the missiles WANT them to be there. Think about it: some neighbor is giving you problems, all you have to do is mention that the US gave you THE BOMB. That's a pretty powerful bargaining tool. So in the end, it ends up being a trade. The US gets a guaranteed launch point, the host country gets better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that little fact in any negotiations.

And that basically sums up everything in this thread. If something exists, there's probably an American who will try to sell it. But, as was already said, you shouldn't get pissed off at the US for selling, you need to get pissed off at the people who are buying it. Basic economics, if there is no demand, supply means diddly. People all over the world buy into "American excess" because THEY WANT TO. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I personally abhor most of it, and prefer to live simply. But don't blanket-blame an entire country for what amounts to the vices of everyone else.

[TerranC]

The countries hosting the missiles WANT them to be there. Think about it: some neighbor is giving you problems, all you have to do is mention that the US gave you THE BOMB. That's a pretty powerful bargaining tool. So in the end, it ends up being a trade. The US gets a guaranteed launch point, the host country gets better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that little fact in any negotiations.

I was under the impression that US nukes deployed to foreign bases stay in the foreign US bases themselves, which are sovereign US territory unless otherwise dictated, which means that the nukes are under total US control and are not "given" to their host countries.

And a nuke does not mean better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that "little fact" in any negotiations; it only gives the other party (or parties) incentive to gain equal nuclear footing, or even achieve nuclear "superiority", which just screws up everything. Cuba was awarded nukes because the soviets wanted to offset american nukes in Turkey; The UK and France developed their own nukes in responce to Soviet and perhaps American ones; Pakistan developed nukes in order to offset India's military might, which in turn developed nukes itself; China developed nukes in order to tell the soviets off in the Sino-Soviet split, and support for nukes is growing if not revitalized in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, because of NK's nukes. Need I say more?

I personally abhor most of it, and prefer to live simply. But don't blanket-blame an entire country for what amounts to the vices of everyone else.

Hear, hear.