Japan and Germany both benefitted hugely by staying out of the arms game since 1945. It is utterly wasteful and unproductive. They made stuff like cars instead and did well out of that. I fail to see what they have to gain by significant change. By all means though they should be free to make their own decisions.
North Korea is going to implode before it invades anywhere much. The Irish navy would probably suffice if called on.
China? Hard to see their future. Possibly they will start a re-run of their history and regions get into internal conflict long before China gets seriously into any external adventures. Given their scale, it is unlkely the Japanese will gain much in any arms race.
Russia? We have had over a century of being frightened by them but there is a lot of evidence that they feed off our fear and our apparent aggression. We provoke the problems we claim to be afraid of. Fail to see what Japan or anyone else has to gain in any arms race with Russia any more.
America? They could dispose of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short of their possible needs in any scenario. I imagine that a genuine invasion of Japan would provoke American involvement whatever, in their own interests. But the delusion that America is helping rather than destabilizing world peace will become history before too long.
So cut the crap, drop the arms race and start dealing with real issues.
Originally posted by finnegan Japan and Germany both benefitted hugely by staying out of the arms game since 1945. It is utterly wasteful and unproductive. They made stuff like cars instead and did well out of that. I fail to see what they have to gain by significant change. By all means though they should be free to make their own decisions.
North Korea is going to implode before ...[text shortened]... ory before too long.
So cut the crap, drop the arms race and start dealing with real issues.
America? They could dispose of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short of their possible needs in any scenario -finnegan
The U.S. has approximately 5000 nukes.
Disposing of "tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short" is a uninformed pipe dream you are indulging in.
That being said, how many nukes should the U.S. have in your opinion, to handle any possible scenario ?
Keep in mind Russia has approximately 5,500.
America? They could dispose of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short of their possible needs in any scenario -finnegan
The U.S. has approximately 5000 nukes.
Disposing of "tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short" is a uninformed pipe dream you are indulging in.
That being said, how many nu ...[text shortened]... your opinion, to handle any possible scenario ?
Keep in mind Russia has approximately 5,500.
Where do you get your figures from? While there are differences in ways to count nuclear warheads ("deployed" "active v. inactive" etc), the latest figures released by the US government show that we have more nuclear warheads than Russia. http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/06/us-russia-nuclear-weapons.html
Originally posted by no1marauder Where do you get your figures from? While there are differences in ways to count nuclear warheads ("deployed" "active v. inactive" etc), the latest figures released by the US government show that we have more nuclear warheads than Russia. http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/06/us-russia-nuclear-weapons.html
There are several links to be found.
Here is one site that cites the Arms Control Association, Federation of American Scientists, International Panel on Fissile Materials, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of State as its source.
And apparently it has been updated as recently as May 2012.
Both of your sources agree that the Pentagon said in May 2010 the US had 5,113 warheads.
From no1's source - the 30% figure:
In October 2009, two months before the end of the original START treaty, the State Department issued strategic offensive arms figures that showed the United States possessed 5,916 "attributed" warheads, compared to Russia's 3,897.
The Russian number of 5500 is an approximation.
In any case the scale is 1-2 orders of magnitude less than finnegan suggests.
Originally posted by no1marauder That would lead to disaster; look what happened last time the Japanese military was weak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8trsDPpAI5E
Each nation ought to keep whatever military force required for their own security, based on their own judgement.
Japan, only a short distance from a long time declared enemy is in an unenviable position.
09 Jun '12 20:20
YouTube
Japanese military - how strong should it be?
Back to Top