Economic not Political Question:

[Junctionfan]

I'm so angry with my federal government for their stupid idea of buying subs from Britain second hand. Leave it to the Liberals or I call them Fiberals, to go and spend our money on hazardous junk. The incident near Ireland is just a tip of the iceberg of the uselessness of the present Canadian government that cost us the life of an officer.

Rather than going to a used car salesman type atmosphere to buy our things, we should have bought new. I wonder if the subs came with seat warmers and air fresheners.[banghead][banghead][censored][V]

[daveklepper]

With reference to terrorism and 11.09.01, remember that all but one of the terrorists made it into the USA by picking up a visa at a Ryadh credit card office. Pretending that your chief enemy is your friend is sometimes not a good idea. The 6th and 9th Avenue Manhattan elevated scrap steel was sold to Japan just before Pearl Harbor. Bush says he intends to get serious with the Arab world about democracy . A real energy independence policy is essential if that is to be have any credibility, and fair treatment for freight railroads, a viable Amtrak or similar system, and a boost for public transit are necesary and steps to energy independence without pie in the sky research.

Regarding China. How much is a guarantree of Taiwan's independence by the USA worth? How much is its independence worth to us?

How much is the continued existance of Israel worth to the USA? And if Israel were sacrificed for cheap oil, would Christian communities in the Neareast endure?These are parallel and important questions. And they relate directly to transportation policy and thus to the future of railroads in the USA

Again, a reserve of rail passenger equipment is necessary for national defense, and it is less expensive to keep such equipment in service with people who know how to run it than to mothball it.

[Junctionfan]

True, if our countries get destroyed, think how many people will get employed by the construction companies for example. We won't have an unemployement rate because we may not have to many people left but at least our economies will do better and we don't have to give out welfare either.

(a little morning sarcassim)

[Anonymous]

It took WWII to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Sometimes the act of war can really mobilize an economy, especially one that has previously been emasculated via excessive taxation and regulation. It's not the war itself per se that ressurects an economy so much, as it is the realization by voters and lawmakers that many of the previous acts of legislation designed to create "a level playing field" or "save the planet from the evil corporate polluters" can really inhibit a nation's ability to respond to crisis.

[Anonymous]

Trains and economics of the modern world are linked at the hip, as are almost all transportation issues. The services rendered while being talked about many times as commodities, are actually in the realm of strategic services. To give a bit of observation in this area. Only wealthy countrys can develop railroads and improved transportation systems beyond a footpath either by private or public action. This brings into focus that some parts of the world and in particular the West and parts of the Far East that are indeed very wealthy. The lessons of history in this area can be most instructive. No economic power in the modern world (definition post 1770) has been able to rise without improved or modern transportation networks. This combination applies to systems going either by water as in canals and ocean routes, overland as in railroads and roadways, or in the air in air routes (maybe even space routes). Finance, payment, economic and political systems are indespensable to any of this happening or working. One of the saddest and most tragic occurances in this modern world is these same dynamics that are a driving forse in the improvement of life, have also been party to some of the most horrific and terrible wars in history. This warring activity often refered to by Generals of the Army Douglas McAurther and George Marshall, as mankinds greatest folly can never be far from the modern worlds greatest technical and peacefull triumphs. The trouble of all this seems tobe that the modern world kept much of the old worlds follies but on a vastly larger scale of not just states at war, but of entire populations and systems in protracted conflict. John Donne, an English poet and thinker put it best when he wrote No man is an island but is a part of the main. Therefore send not form whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. May we of this forum never fear from discussion of this topic. Courage to know whom the bell tolls for is no reason to desire to be the one that it tolls for.

[Junctionfan]

Well.....We've gone from discussion on trains to discussion on war analysis. Still interesting though.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan
They have also outlasted the British Empire

Evidently the British were undone by the cost of WW I. Will the US follow the same path---that is, spend so much on the war on terror (and other associated battles) that it is knocked from its perch at the top? That is one factor that could seriously weaken the US financially and would enable China to ascend to the top...

[Anonymous]

It's funny how the title of this thread is "Economic not Politcal Question," yet it has become political! [(-D] Oh well, not complaining, it's great to hear all of these different facts and views.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

It would be advisable to over-estimate them and be prepared for anything. The chinese are not to be trifled with. The U.S might be mighty but the Chinese have the experience. The U.S is about 250 years old where as the Chinese is several thousands and is the only real existing ancient empire to remain in today's standards. They didn't become that way by being stupid.

They out lasted the Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Greek, Carthaginians, Egyptians and the other ancient civilizations. They have also outlasted the British Empire, Prussian, Austria-Hungarian, Dutch Empire, French Empire, and others.

They survived against the Mongolians under the Khans and survived against the once powerful Japanese thanks to the chinese general Chian Ka Chek.

China pretty much owns all of its original land except Taiwan. Other's have been changed either by the amount of land, name, power or all of the above; China has not.

No one who has had to deal with them or keeps tabs on them under-estimates their capabilities or trifles with them. They are growing rapidily in the technological abilities of their armed forces, but it is still quite limited at this time. Having nukes and the ability to use them effectively are two diffent things. Having state of the art weapons is good, but only if your operators are proficient and they can be effectively employed in an overall strategy. In that regard they are very much still a regional, not global military threat. The bulk of their forces are 40s-60s Soviet based technology and doctrine, based on overwhelming an enemy with sheer numbers and winning through attrition. We don't try to win through attrition anymore, we rob them of their ability to conduct war, by removing commications, logistics and mobility, then cut them off and attrite them at will. If their planes don't have a controller to guide them, they are out of the fight, and picked off. If their tanks don't have fuel they don't move. They never get to the fight they want. We learned a great deal about Chinese tactics in the Korean war first hand, and they haven't really changed their principle doctrine since. No one is under-estimating them. And while China has been China for a long time, well ......... okay. They have also been colonized, cut up, parceled, occupied, overun, civil-warred...the Chinese have been there along time, but not as a single unified country under a stable independent government...though the actual basic form hasn't changed..it's still a dynasty

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

If I'm not mistaken, Finland is a neutral country therefore their security is their own doing.

Neutrality is only as good as your neighbors allow it to be. If you mean that Finland is neutral because it was neither a Warsaw Pact or NATO country, you would be correct. Finland is fiercely independent by nature but the cost of their independence was essentially not to join NATO or else. They fought essentially two wars against the Soviets during WWII to stalemates. They opted out of a third. The Soviet Union did not force them into the Warsaw Pact, soley becasue they weren't in possession of Finland as they were with Eastern Europe, but they did convince them that NATO would be the wrong choice. So if that is your definition of neutral you would be correct. So to answer your question, because they were not a part of a collective "defense" alliance, they were and are responsible for their own defense, which presumably includes landmines to force an enemy to choose between good terrain to advance with landmines or into poor terrain that easily defended. A no brainer.

Sweden in that respect is also neutral and has a relatively small, but technically robust and exceptionally trained for their defense...along with manditory service and a lifetime reserve commitment...something required if you choose to go it alone. The Swiss, another "neutral" country are also quite concerned with their armed forces. The only reason these countries remained neutral in WWII is becaue the Germans allowed them to do so. The Swiss, because they needed them as a safe place to launder money and it offered a convenient middle ground to conduct business "outside" of the war. And the Swedes, who tended to lean towards the allies, had volunteers fighting with the Finns against the Soviets on the "side" of the Germans. You can declare yourself neutral all you want, but unless it's in the other guy's interest to honor it, you're screwed. Better buy some landmines.

[Junctionfan]

It would be advisable to over-estimate them and be prepared for anything. The chinese are not to be trifled with. The U.S might be mighty but the Chinese have the experience. The U.S is about 250 years old where as the Chinese is several thousands and is the only real existing ancient empire to remain in today's standards. They didn't become that way by being stupid.

They out lasted the Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Greek, Carthaginians, Egyptians and the other ancient civilizations. They have also outlasted the British Empire, Prussian, Austria-Hungarian, Dutch Empire, French Empire, and others.

They survived against the Mongolians under the Khans and survived against the once powerful Japanese thanks to the chinese general Chian Ka Chek.

China pretty much owns all of its original land except Taiwan. Other's have been changed either by the amount of land, name, power or all of the above; China has not.

[edblysard]

Never make the mistake of assuming that anyone could read any book, treatise or manifesto and come away understanding how the Chinese think.

They are a people so bound by their caste system as to be almost alien to every other culture on this planet.

The concept of saving face, while often applied to the Japanese in cheap martial arts movies, is paramount to the Chinise political system, and their personal system of beliefs.

If waging a war over Taiwan is what it takes to, in their minds, save face to the rest of the world, then they will do so with no hesitation.

Observe Tinmen Square, and the death of so many.

While the rest of the world demanded change, and explanations of how and why, the leaders of China did what they do best....

They calmly looked the world squarely in the eyes, said and did absolutely...

nothing.

No explanation worth mentioning, no promise of change, no remorse, not a blink of a eye.

The leaders of todays China are, in fact, the same caste and class who have lead that country for centuries, they just swaped the robes and headresses for green uniforms and a little red book....but make no mistake about it, they are experts at gambeling and winning high stakes games.

They will, and have, intentionally destroyed parts of their economy and culture if that will divert world attention away from their other actions which they wi***o go un-noticed.

Remember, the leaders there have to report to no one other than themselves.

The internal policies and structure of their goverment, how and who really makes the deals and decisions, are almost unknown, even to the British, who wrote the book on black ops, and are the leaders in the sneakey, snoopy department.

Even the Soviets, who's goverment took paranoina and deceit to unbelieveable hights, gave up trying to understand them, and just pointed as many guns at them as they could, hoping they stayed put.

They will remain the wild card in world politics for quite a long time, and any attempt to "understand" their motives will, at best, result in poor guesses....

Ed

[Junctionfan]

If I'm not mistaken, Finland is a neutral country therefore their security is their own doing.

[Anonymous]

That was the point of the question about Finland. The one who *has* to do the protecting will have a whole different outlook about what he needs to ensure he's successful than those he's protecting. Finlanders from hard experience know who is next door to them, and who would get stomped first. It's easier to live a never,neverland if the burden of the reality and result doesn't fall on you. The US faces the same issue regarding nukes and environmental treaties.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Yes Mark but you don't vote in folk who will end up bringing a man-made apocolypse I would hope. Being a self-preservist, I would hate my government for starting a war and than end up causing a world wide nuclear fallout do boot. That is why Canada doesn't have nukes. Our people and foreign policy more or less says that nukes may keep the peace but talking maintains it. Smart and civil folk will negotiate, wheel n' deal your way to international success.

I wouldn't say it's a fact because I can't prove it but; most first world countries without nuclear weapons tends to be trusted and liked more than the ones with. I don't recall anybody suggesting that Canada should be invaded for a long time (not since after the civil war).

This subject kind of scares me because the way people think, I would live a short life and our railfanning days would be over too.

No, the reason that Canada doesn't have nukes is because they have the best trained force to the south of them. They know that they have nothing to worry about because there will never be a war between us, and that we will always protect you. Since the Government know that, it knows that they can spend money on other things besides that. It has nothing to do with the moral aspects of nuclear weapons. I would think that Brittain is the most trusted country in the world, and they surely have nukes. And as I said earlier, anybody who messes with you messes with us, that is why you haven't been invaded.

[dharmon]

Having spent too much of my life in areas where mines were/are a real threat I have big problem with mines. I also do not like seeing folks of any age missing limbs due to mines or envisioning myself without one of my OEM parts. However, the fact is that landmines are weapons, they like a bullet or a shell, or a nuke have no instinct, morality or political views in and of themselves. They are completely without remorse and have absolutely one purpose in life. How they are used does not matter to them and is 100% the responsibility of the user.

The anti-personal mines causing mayhem in Africa, Asia and the Balkans were used primarily to create civilian casualties during times of civil or tribal warring. They were to create fear and to restrict movements of people. The ones used for true military purposes were usually restricted to defensive perimeters or minfields used to deny access to the enemy force. It is as important for the enemy to know that they are there as it is to your own troops. Those are the ones that are easy to find. The ones placed with the sole purpose of creating civilian and random casualties are the ones that make the news and that are unfortunately found by kids or livestock. Having watched the clearing process firsthand, it is a tedious, nasty and extremely dangerous job.

A landmine is no different than any other weapon. There is no humane weapon, its an oxymoron. The responsibilty rest with the user on how and against who it is employed. If you lived under constant or historical fear of someone rolling tanks and troops into your neighborhood, say in the case of the Finns, then perhaps a few rows of mines along the border would make you feel more secure. LIke I said before, in a defensive action, landmines are economy of force or a force multiplier. Everyday that a minefield keep the enemy at bay, is one less day of potential war and if they are used, one less enemy that has to be fought.

I do not like landmines, but inb the grand scheme of things they are just another weapon. When a person dies from a landmine or a bullet the end result is the same. The morality of the user is the issue not the weapon...they are not burdened with such thoughts.

[Junctionfan]

I don't have a problem with anti-vehicle mines as long as they are weighted so that they can only be set off by the vehicle's weight, but not anti personal mines. I hate seeing children in particular with missing limbs on t.v because of those things.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Speaking of countries without nuclear capability, why did Finland refuse to accept a worldwide ban on the use of landmines?

I woundn't mind knowing the answer to that myself. After seeing the photographs and hearing the terror of the guys who are along the Thailand / Burma boarder, I can't imagine why they would want to ban them. (at least the anti-personal ones)

It probably has a bit to do with sharing a long common border with a country that has has owned them periodically. A country that has a large standing mechanized army, and has not been afraid to use on occasion. Landmines are a cheap way to try and even the odds and slow or funnel the advance into a more defensible position. It's simple economics of force.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Speaking of countries without nuclear capability, why did Finland refuse to accept a worldwide ban on the use of landmines?

I woundn't mind knowing the answer to that myself. After seeing the photographs and hearing the terror of the guys who are along the Thailand / Burma boarder, I can't imagine why they would want to ban them. (at least the anti-personal ones)

[Anonymous]

The big eagle would never let any harm come to his neighbor up north. I know you folks get nervous when we fight but I promise its not personal. We are not going to unleash any of our 30,000 stockpiled nukes and turn the Middle East into glass.
Were saving those for the War of the Worlds. Remember Ronnie Reagans UN speech about an alien threat?

[Anonymous]

Speaking of countries without nuclear capability, why did Finland refuse to accept a worldwide ban on the use of landmines?

[Junctionfan]

Yes Mark but you don't vote in folk who will end up bringing a man-made apocolypse I would hope. Being a self-preservist, I would hate my government for starting a war and than end up causing a world wide nuclear fallout do boot. That is why Canada doesn't have nukes. Our people and foreign policy more or less says that nukes may keep the peace but talking maintains it. Smart and civil folk will negotiate, wheel n' deal your way to international success.

I wouldn't say it's a fact because I can't prove it but; most first world countries without nuclear weapons tends to be trusted and liked more than the ones with. I don't recall anybody suggesting that Canada should be invaded for a long time (not since after the civil war).

This subject kind of scares me because the way people think, I would live a short life and our railfanning days would be over too.

[espeefoamer]

I dont think China would be stupid enough to start a war with the U.S.A. If there was a war, some countries would join our side,and others would side with China.It is very possible that some of these countries may not have the most stable governments,and may also have nukes.If one of these pushes the button,it's all over because the other side would retaliate and we are in WWIII.
Picture Chill Wills riding the bomb down waving his cowboy hat. Fade to black.
[:(!][:(][8][B)]

[Anonymous]

What a bright and happy future we get to look forward to [:(]

[AntonioFP45]

Wow!

You guys have really posted some very powerful ideas, and so many variances of scenarios. I hope that the "mushroom cloud" scenario is one that we won't have to deal with, ever but realistically it's something that we can't dismiss easily either.

[Junctionfan]

If you pay attention to the history books; Japan was already getting ready to surrender before the bomb. China also has cruise missle subs and could do the same thing. What would the point in nuking each other be if nobody would be around to celebrate some sort of victory. Last time I checked 1000 nukes over China would blow up parts of Russia too. Although the U.S has thousands of nukes, so does Russia. If China and Russia launched a counter-strike, there would be no victory except victory in who gets killed first.

[Anonymous]

This is where you are wrong, Japan would not have surrendered had we not dropped the bomb. Japan would have lost millions of lives, and the US would have as well. They wouldln't have given up in this war. As to the reducing of the weapons, those are the outdated weapons, there are still plenty of boomers in the ocean with 24 missiles with 10 warheads apiece in the ocean. When each sub has 240 possible targets, that means that we have plenty of nuclear matierial. Now that is not counting all the Nukes we have up in wyoming and places like that. If China were to launch, they would have over 1,000 nukes on their butt in less than 30 minutes, and we would probably be able to knock thier's down with the technology that we have that we haven't told anybody about. Do you really think if we had a NMD that worked we would tell them, then they wouldn't try to use that as an area of attack. Hell the millitary had the b2 before the gulf war, it flew in missions there, yet we didn't use until kosovo? Right

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan
I disagree. As longs as no nukes were used, it should stay a U.S / China War; but if nuclear weapons are used, the world will take sides and you'll end up with a NATO vs Warsaw Pact like war (hence a world war).

"Should?" Is there some natural law that determines this? Certainly there is no moral obligation on any country's part to keep their nose out of it.

Long before the point that nuclear weapons would be used all other nations will have taken sides. Study what happened in WW-II. That is what made it a world war. The use of atomic weapons ended it. The Warsaw Pact did not come into existence until 1955.

I don't believe you fully comprehend what the use of nuclear weapons means. The current weapons are to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki weapons as a .50 caliber machine gun is to a Daisy BB gun, and that is understating the comparison. Within a period of time of about one hour after the first weapon was launched the world as we know it would cease to exist. There would be no taking sides. There would be no further war.

In response to your first paragraph, the reason why wars were easier to wage was because they did not exist. Had Hitler had them, he might have used them hence the scientist defecting to the U.S to start the Manhattan Project. They assumed I guess that the U.S wouldn't be foolish enough to use them. When they did, mass petitions were signed from all countries and eventually the UN passed a nuclear non-paliforation treaty in which not all nations signed I might add.

In response to your second paragraph, no doubt of that. However, some weapons are not as destructive as others. The U.S has several varieties such as the hydrogen bomb (strongest), neutron (human casualties only) and the thermonuclear weapons. Now since the U.S has eliminated a good pile of their nukes, I would think that they realize that use of nuclear weapons is out of the question. Nuclear weapons are only good if you make good on your threat and nations no that as long as they don't get nuclear, they won't.

For your last statement, no there isn't except that if anybody nuke anybody today; there would be such a big stink about it. Consider this, if a country attacks another with conventional weapons (Pakistan and India), the world is upset but doesn't really care that much. If they started to Nuke each other, now the world gets directly involved because they don't want nuclear fallout all over the place. The U.S should never have nuked Japan. Look at what it has caused. Babies are still born with luekemia and horrible deformities from the materials in the air getting breathed in by the mother.

Only the most depraved would even consider using these weapons. I would rather surrender than kill my own people from the spreading fallout or radiation burns that would result in a horrible and painful death. In nuclear war there can be no victory; only death.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan
I disagree. As longs as no nukes were used, it should stay a U.S / China War; but if nuclear weapons are used, the world will take sides and you'll end up with a NATO vs Warsaw Pact like war (hence a world war).

"Should?" Is there some natural law that determines this? Certainly there is no moral obligation on any country's part to keep their nose out of it.

Long before the point that nuclear weapons would be used all other nations will have taken sides. Study what happened in WW-II. That is what made it a world war. The use of atomic weapons ended it. The Warsaw Pact did not come into existence until 1955.

I don't believe you fully comprehend what the use of nuclear weapons means. The current weapons are to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki weapons as a .50 caliber machine gun is to a Daisy BB gun, and that is understating the comparison. Within a period of time of about one hour after the first weapon was launched the world as we know it would cease to exist. There would be no taking sides. There would be no further war.