NK launches long-range missile. Discuss

[inscribed]

They do this once in awhile to make sure the world doesn't forget they exist it seems. No other real reason for it.

Sometimes I think North Korea is like a celebrity, if they aren't in the news they aren't happy.

This is about the extent of my thoughts on it as well. What the PRK does is about as important as what guy Taylor Swift just dumped. If they successfully launched a long range missile, it was because the US deemed it harmless and allowed it.

[egreir]

Couldn't it also be argued that the US is in favor of giving certain countries/leaders just enough rope to hang themselves by? It's not like we exactly act on the drop of a dime and go in and circumvent things from happening.

[inscribed]

Couldn't it also be argued that the US is in favor of giving certain countries/leaders just enough rope to hang themselves by? It's not like we exactly act on the drop of a dime and go in and circumvent things from happening.

Speaking from personal experience with North Korea's previous attempts at launches... yes we do.

[egreir]

lol

[Aulian]

If you call defense budget cuts and a reduction in nuclear stockpile "building muscle"

What does 'reduction in nuclear stockpile' even mean?

I mean from my point of view, and I am no scientist, but doenst it take a relatively SMALL number of nuclear weapons to destroy a lot of something....

Wouldnt having 10 weapons stockpiled be an extreme amount?

If they've reduced the number from 100 to 60 weapons, thats still a ridiculous amount.

[egreir]

I agree. But it is a step forward.

[Celerity]

If I cut off 4 inches of your hair, you have a lowered amount of hair.

If you have 12 inches of hair now, and over the next year, you grow 8 inches, but cut off 4...you will have 16 inches.

Do you consider this shortening your hair? That is what the US budget does...it is growing, and in absolute terms it is in an increase, but since they slowed down the increase, they call it a cut.

[egreir]

If you have 12 inches of hair now, and over the next year, you grow 8 inches, but cut off 4...you will have 16 inches.

Do you consider this shortening your hair? That is what the US budget does...it is growing, and in absolute terms it is in an increase, but since they slowed down the increase, they call it a cut.

When you cut your hair, you had 20 inches, now you have 16. It's been shortened. Is it the shortest you've ever had in your life? No, but it is smaller than what it was before you cut it and if you're attempting to reign in how long it's getting, you're making a step in the right direction.

Spending and mass, in this context, go hand in hand. If you cut spending (or stop spending as much) then you have to forfeit mass that you can't afford to upkeep anymore, thus it (military strength) shrinks.

[Celerity]

20 to 16 isn't the case of the defense budget though. Like I keep saying, it is more than before.

Make it really easy: Go an look at the total defense budget for the last few years, and let me know if it is more or less each year.

[egreir]

It is down overall since 2011...did you not read my post earlier?

edit: That being said, it is projected to reach record highs in the next couple years. As I prefaced from the beginning, these are not necessarily opinions I agree with...but someone's got to argue the opposite side from you all

[egreir]

[egreir]

It may be coincidence, but I find it funny that in 2002 when our spending was at an extreme low...what happens the next year? Biggest terrorist attack in our nation's history lol

[Imoutgoodbye]

The chart is a little faulty. It has Homeland Security going all the way back to 1962.

[Celerity]

Your chart is showing a "decrease" (not in total, but in some areas?) in 2014...which is only 'projected', which we both know is a load of crap. The dotted line is when the chart was made, btw. They predicted a downturn, naturally. Using the same site in which you got that chart, look at the other charts, especially the ones that give the numbers spent, esp. considering the 2011 - 2012 (latest figures they have)..then read the bit about the accountability and controls on the bottom.

Besides, look at that little thing that says inflation adjusted on the side--which inflation rates are they using? What the US gov. says its inflation rate is, is not the same as what the rest of the world says the US inflation rate is. May as well write "we have skewed this chart as we please" on it.

And btw, that chart, even with its adjustments and projections...still shows an increase?

[egreir]

It shows a current decrease, with an increase coming.

[Celerity]

Also, that chart doesn't include Afghan/Iraq, which aren't considered "defense spending" by the US gov. The decrease on there that you are mentioning is that tiny blip down from 2011 to the dotted line, which is questionable at best, especially considering we know the chart does not contain all defense spending.

The main point is, as you always seem to be missing (no matter the thread..), is that the US is certainly not gearing down or cutting its defense budget in any significant way.

-

To be fair, China doesn't really like North Korean that much either. If it is looked at as 'us and them', then it is ironically stuck in the cold war mentality. First, the Chinese gov. (as well the US and other gov.) does not have some singular, unitary direction. There are factions in the various govs and populations that want to do different things, especially concerning foreign affairs.

Red does well to remind that China is surrounded by enemies. I'd like to point out that Vietnam hasn't really been friendly to China at all, even in the war with the US. China tried to pull a Soviet-style puppet state on them and they refused. That is why Vietnam had such a powerful military in the post US-war era...and it is also why they had the power and sovereignty to invade and usurp the Khmers--something that both the US and China did not want to be done.

It has always been a big question "what would happen if the US invaded NK or Taiwan declared independence?" In both situations, China has said they would go to war with the US, but nobody really knows what would happen, as that leads to assured mutual destruction of all countries involved.

My personal take on it is that China, as well as the US and just about everywhere else in the world, does not put foreign affairs as their primary focus. I think the assumption that China did xx to stop the US doing xx and vice versa is somewhat inaccurate. Much more likely is that countries are trying to please their upset populaces (e.g., China/US) and maintain some kind of political power (domestically). China has been on the verge of civil war for quite awhile, always creeping closer and closer (just wait for that housing market to bust in Shanghai in the next year or so, heh..heh..) and the US isn't doing much better domestically.

What we have is the consecutive failing of national economies (e.g. Japan, Russia, HK, UK, US, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, and so on..) due to the incorporation of popular, yet idiotic economic policy. If there is going to be any war, it will be because of economic strife at home (in modern times, often aggravated by foreign intervention)--just as in the case of the vast majority of other wars...it will not be because some country made technological advancement.

When your economy tanks, you have a restless, unemployed, unhappy population. If you want to stay in power, you turn that population against something OUTSIDE the country.

[egreir]

Hey, you leave my chart alone.

edit: Yes, that's me signaling I've run out of space on this side of the argument lol

I personally think we spend wayyyyy too much money and have been for a long time in many, many things while neglecting several more important things for our own infrastructure. There's no way anyone could legitimately say that the US is giving an honest effort to truly "cut" its military. There might be small spending freezes here and there, but overall, it continues to go up while we sit back and watch our schools decline and our economy suffer. If we spent a little less time trying to police the world and instead focused our efforts on rebuilding the greatness that was America then maybe we could gain a little bit of the respect back that we have lost as a nation.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Does that defense spending also take into account the maintenance and running of the 234 golf courses that the military owns and operates throughout the world?

[inscribed]

Does that defense spending also take into account the maintenance and running of the 234 golf courses that the military owns and operates throughout the world?

Those are operated off the money they bring in, like any normal business. Same with any of the hundreds of movie theaters, bowling alleys, bars, etc, that operate off military bases throughout the world. If it stops being self sufficient, it will typically get shut down, just like what happened to many of the on-base facilities where I'm currently stationed (the golf course is still open here though ). Also, the military doesn't "own" the golf courses in overseas bases, the host country does per their respective Status of Forces Agreement, and are usually open to both local nationals as well as military members.

[-red-]

When your economy tanks, you have a restless, unemployed, unhappy population. If you want to stay in power, you turn that population against something OUTSIDE the country.

Totally agree with this statement, and there's a fair amount of evidence (and here- a secret document written in 1950 and only declassified in 1977) to support that not only do we focus hatred to an outside force during economic troubles, but for essentially anything; The Gulf of Tonkin is widely regarded as a lie to escalate the war in Vietnam to garner support at home against the communists, for instance, and Operation Northwoods which would enact terrorism in the US and abroad, then subsequently blame it on Cuba and give us an excuse to blow the island all to hell (does this sound familiar to anyone else?).

Even 9/11 saw a HUGE upsurge in patriotism from all walks of life which allowed the government to pass controversial legislation and bring us in to a war that'd last ten years.