[Pseudonym]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

When the "evil" comes I'm sure we will manage even if you decide to sit out.

Thanks though.

You are quite welcome, though I do question your recollection of certain world events.

[saturn_656]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

When the "evil" comes I'm sure we will manage even if you decide to sit out.

Thanks though.

You are quite welcome, though I do question your recollection of certain world events.

Just for clarification, what world events are you referring to?

[Pseudonym]

bootlegga bootlegga:

So, you're saying that the US stations troops in South Korea because the Koreans are too cheap to spend on defence? Or that's why they have almost 50,000 troops in Japan.

Come on, the US has troops stationed around the world because of its national interests, not those of the host nations. Troops in Europe were placed there to contain the USSR, and have been steadily reduced. Troops in Asia are thereto contain the North Koreans and the Chinese, not because the US feels generous. If the Philippines hadn't kicked them out, I guarantee that they'd still have a base st Subic Bay too.

And while no single European nation has troops that can match the US, it shouldn't come as a surprise, given that their economies, populations and geographic sizes are all quite a bit smaller too. Howver, combined, they have similar numbers in all those areas, including the military.

You seem to have mistaken me. I stated that many nations do not have to expend as much as they would have otherwise due to the US military, not that the US was acting purely out of benevolent, altruistic intent. The US has interests that it supports with its military, and other nations benefit from this. Let's take Canada. Canada has an excellent, well-trained military. I would contend, however, that that military would be larger if the US wasn't sitting right next door to lend a hand if necessary.

[Pseudonym]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Just for clarification, what world events are you referring to?

You might recall a few wars, way back in the day, where the US jumped in to lend a pretty big hand. Not that everyone couldn't have managed without us, since such a hypothetical is beyond human ken, but there was a pretty big role filled by us.

[saturn_656]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Just for clarification, what world events are you referring to?

You might recall a few wars, way back in the day, where the US jumped in to lend a pretty big hand. Not that everyone couldn't have managed without us, since such a hypothetical is beyond human ken, but there was a pretty big role filled by us.

Well it isn't as if you jumped in to just lend us a hand (not that we didn't appreciate the help, much the opposite).

But once the bombs fell on Pearl, sitting out wasn't an option, unless the United States wanted to surrender its Pacific territory to Japan without a fight.

[bootlegga]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

bootlegga bootlegga:

So, you're saying that the US stations troops in South Korea because the Koreans are too cheap to spend on defence? Or that's why they have almost 50,000 troops in Japan.

Come on, the US has troops stationed around the world because of its national interests, not those of the host nations. Troops in Europe were placed there to contain the USSR, and have been steadily reduced. Troops in Asia are thereto contain the North Koreans and the Chinese, not because the US feels generous. If the Philippines hadn't kicked them out, I guarantee that they'd still have a base st Subic Bay too.

And while no single European nation has troops that can match the US, it shouldn't come as a surprise, given that their economies, populations and geographic sizes are all quite a bit smaller too. Howver, combined, they have similar numbers in all those areas, including the military.

You seem to have mistaken me. I stated that many nations do not have to expend as much as they would have otherwise due to the US military, not that the US was acting purely out of benevolent, altruistic intent. The US has interests that it supports with its military, and other nations benefit from this. Let's take Canada. Canada has an excellent, well-trained military. I would contend, however, that that military would be larger if the US wasn't sitting right next door to lend a hand if necessary.

If Canada was ringed with potentially hostile nations like Russia or China, then yes, we would have a larger military. However, that argument cuts both ways. If we weren't sandwiched between you and the USSR during the Cold War, there's plenty of stuff we wouldn't have had to buy either (like the DEW line, BOMARC missiles, etc). Then, there's also the problem that the US won't let other nations export certain technologies to us. Mulroney wanted to buy Brit nuke subs, but the US torpedoed that out of security concerns (at least publicly - in reality they didn't just want us under the ice in what they consider their playground).

And you never bothered to answer my questions about the containing potential belligerents. South Korea maintains a huge military (somewhere in the neighbourhood of 550,000 troops)...the token US presence (about 40,000 troops) is there as a deterrent to the wackos north of the border. You make it sound like if the US Army wasn't there, they'd need a million troops.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then, there's also the problem that the US won't let other nations export certain technologies to us. Mulroney wanted to buy Brit nuke subs, but the US torpedoed that out of security concerns (at least publicly - in reality they didn't just want us under the ice in what they consider their playground).

$1:

Late on an April afternoon in 1988, the long awaited word from the White House reached the U.S. national security bureaucracy: President Reagan had approved the transfer of U.S.-developed nuclear submarine propulsion technology to Canada and would inform Prime Minister Brian Mulroney during his visit to Washington later that month. The opponents of the transfer, the Department of Defense, the United States Navy and the Department of Energy (the home of naval reactors), were stunned. In spite of lukewarm support from State, the NSC staff, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) for approval, how, in the face of seemingly compelling national security arguments against it, could the President say yes? Yet it had happened and there were to be no appeals. The Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy were instructed to negotiate the necessary agreements to allow the transfer-- conditioned only to protect classified nuclear technology design information. It appeared that the issue had been lost--or had it? The dance which was to follow between the bureaucracies of the United States and Canada, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and France, eventually was to result in a decision by Mr. Mulroney not to seek nuclear submarines at all. What follows is an analysis of the issues involved in the approval and the final Canadian decision. The matter began in June, 1987, with the publication of a Canadian White Paper on Defense which announced that Canada would spend $8 billion to build 10 to 12 nuclear attack submarines (SSN's) to defend the Arctic against the Soviet submarine threat, and, importantly, for patrolling the Northwest Passage and territorial waters over which it claimed sovereignty. Canada, not wanting to design an SSN from the keel up, would buy existing hull and nuclear propulsion technology designs and build them under license in Canadian shipyards.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/70/7067/A706734.html

The President of the United States approved it, I'd send it up as a Canadian politician not following through on his word.

Not a rare thing at all.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Late on an April afternoon in 1988, the long awaited word from the White House reached the U.S. national security bureaucracy: President Reagan had approved the transfer of U.S.-developed nuclear submarine propulsion technology to Canada and would inform Prime Minister Brian Mulroney during his visit to Washington later that month. The opponents of the transfer, the Department of Defense, the United States Navy and the Department of Energy (the home of naval reactors), were stunned. In spite of lukewarm support from State, the NSC staff, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) for approval, how, in the face of seemingly compelling national security arguments against it, could the President say yes? Yet it had happened and there were to be no appeals. The Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy were instructed to negotiate the necessary agreements to allow the transfer-- conditioned only to protect classified nuclear technology design information. It appeared that the issue had been lost--or had it? The dance which was to follow between the bureaucracies of the United States and Canada, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and France, eventually was to result in a decision by Mr. Mulroney not to seek nuclear submarines at all. What follows is an analysis of the issues involved in the approval and the final Canadian decision. The matter began in June, 1987, with the publication of a Canadian White Paper on Defense which announced that Canada would spend $8 billion to build 10 to 12 nuclear attack submarines (SSN's) to defend the Arctic against the Soviet submarine threat, and, importantly, for patrolling the Northwest Passage and territorial waters over which it claimed sovereignty. Canada, not wanting to design an SSN from the keel up, would buy existing hull and nuclear propulsion technology designs and build them under license in Canadian shipyards.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/70/7067/A706734.html

The President of the United States approved it, I'd send it up as a Canadian politician not following through on his word.

Not a rare thing at all.

I've read that too (on the NY Times website as well), but I've also seen notes that while the US/UK finally agreed to let us have the reactor tech, it was with severe restrictions, while the French offered theirs up without a fuss.

$1:

U.S. navy and diplomatic chiefs, he notes, fought giving Canada the U.S. submarine technology. In spite of Mulroney-Reagan coziness, they never accepted Canada's sovereignty over Arctic waters. And they thought Canadians too primitive to handle nuclear propulsion...

My second expert, Franois Bujon de l'Estang, was France's ambassador to Canada (1989-91) at the height of the sub debate, then ambassador to Washington. He notes that in the Rubis-Trafalgar competition, Canada's navy chose the Rubis in spite of bitter U.K.-U.S. opposition. France offered its technology "without restriction," while the U.S. (owning the Trafalgar's technology) would not relent.

After a three-year public debate, Mulroney sank the seabed subs for "budgetary" reasons. "Although lacking a smoking gun," says Bujon de l'Estang, "I was always convinced that Washington's pressures weighed heavily in this, and were likely decisive. The truth is, the U.S. didn't want (and still doesn't) Canada to be able to protect its own territory, especially the Arctic. (That's why) they refused to allow transfer of the (U.S.-leased) Trafalgar technology. ... With Russia's pretensions," he adds, "this is singularly timely ... Canada certainly did miss the boat with the Conservative government's 1990-91 decision."

http://www2.canada.com/components/print ... a70001bef6

[saturn_656]

If that deal had gone ahead, with all 12 subs aquired, our "SSN fleet" would be junior to only USA, Russia, and maybe the UK.

I can see why it didn't happen, too much power for little Canada to have.

[bootlegga]

Yeah, but fuck, even a half dozen would be awesome right now!

Imagine being actually able to patrol the Arctic. If we had subs like that, we wouldn't need any heavy icebreakers.