As lame as this topic may sound, Danny and I were engaged in a pretty decent debate before Lex decided he wanted to write a résumé. As a result, I bring the debate to XF. The subject at hand is simple enough:
What nation would be most successful in aggression to the world community?
Danny's initial suggestions were Japan and Korea. While North Korea is indeed an impressive military powerhouse, Japan is lacks the means to aggress the mainland. Other than a substantial navy, Japan has the military resources to defend their island and nothing more. They are in no position to invade the mainland with nations such as China and North Korea occupying the coast.
I could elaborate on my own thoughts further, but I'll instead open the floor to debate. Let's see if XF is capable of something somewhat serious and intelligent.
Post by Mikhail Kalashnikov on Jun 2, 2008 20:57:49 GMT -5
Japan has a defense-only policy, the US spends more on its military each year (on average) than the rest of the world combined, North Korea would probably do pretty well for itself, and China would probably win or something. Though, the US has the moral precedent of being the only country in the history of the world to attack a civilian population (twice) with a weapon of mass destruction, the advantage being that we can't sink any lower. Also, we've got atleast 737 military bases in other countries, including ones like Japan, while I don't think any other country comes anywhere near that close.
Then again, China owns our economy, a sixth of the worlds population, the 2nd biggest military budget, and the 2nd largest weapons stockpile.
Do not rule out the United States on the basis that "nobody likes them." That doesn't mean shit. No one likes North Korea, but the KPA is the forth-largest military force in the world, and supposedly possesses nuclear weapons. International reputation doesn't particularly stop a nation from being powerful. Germany wasn't making an awful lot of friends outside the other two axis powers during World War II, but he was an incredibly powerful military force to be reckoned with during that time.
Japan does shit, okay? We're technically still protecting them from after WWII. They have really nothing to complain about.
North Korea has like nothing. Besides their little tests and small dispute about a reactor in the Middle East, they aren't really anything besides being Communist.
The three real powerhouses would be China, the US, and Russia. China is the obvious and so is the US, but Russia also has like 200+ nuclear weapons. I'm kinda tired, maybe I'll debate when someone smart comes along.
I must restate and elaborate what Daryl has mentioned about Japan's self-defense policy. With such a policy, Japan currently possess the military resources to defend their island, but they lack the additional forces to successfully penetrate the Asian mainland or the United States (much like Kuldeep can't penetrate Anna's Asian mainland). Given Japan's huge economic resources, they could quickly mobilize into a impressive military powerhouse, but such actions would be noticeable by the international community, and one or more of the big three mentioned could step in to halt it. Their sketchy relationship with mainland countries such as China, Korea and Russia could see a quick end to their manifest destiny.
uhh i like america, kuldeep i'm pretty sure they would annihilate anyone who attacks them... This is just an assumption, but i'm pretty sure the US is miles ahead of everyone else in terms of military technology
also, i don't know what you're talking about samantha
Edit: Also, Russia has well over 200 nukes.... Heck, they have more than us
The US has put a lot of money into their missile defense programs, so i'm not sure how big of a threat nukes/ICBMs are
Post by Tex-Mex Alex A. Dex on Jun 10, 2008 23:16:20 GMT -5
I think the approach everyone is very wrong in this aspect, the question isn't who would do the best against the world, it is What nation would be most successful in aggression to the world community?
Now if the US takes agression against the world, they could have the EU, Russia, and China breathing down their neck, could create a nuclear war, and would cost way more than any gains from agression, so they are out. The only places with the power to strike intercontentally in a war without it being an internationally planned strike are European countries, and possibly China. China has enough problems with tibet (internationally and domestically); so they should avoid further territorial gains at the moment. Europe isn't united enough to go international as a group, and each individual jepordizes what has been gained through the EU by going into a war alone without international concoltation. Russia (europe but not EU) actually is the only one of these super powers that can go into an intercontinental war and have potential rewards outweigh problems if sucessful so they are to be considered.
Now, no country, save the US, could take on every country at the same time, and win [china is outgunned and thus only can last in a land war (where US financing india produces the same effect on just one front), and US isn't likely because their population is beat 20:1 and they don't even spend quite enough to match financially 1:1], so by opposing the world, i assume you mean UN sanctions and the like when doing agressive action.
So every country save russia would have to attack their neighbors first. US can't go anywhere, because against canada or mexico would warrent counteraction. europe is surrouneded by equally strong neighbors. Russia has some posibilities. China shouldn't for the same reasons it can't intercontinentally. However, many small countries fly under international radar. I will cover them continent by continent.
North America: nothing to be gained. South America: Brazil has some unique possibilites, being the hegemon of south america. However, i think it would bring up to many international problems to have anything gained, though lately there has been a huge military build up in brazil with no defensive reason to do so, hmmmmm....
Australia: they own the continent, lol! ohh, and New Zealand has international support.
Antartica: Nothing to be gained except the epic music industry of the future.
Eurasia: Too large, needs to be split up into sub continents [and there is no geological reason why they should be 2 continents, so i treat them as one]
East Asia: China can't do anything, and no one can do anything as long as China is there.
West-Europe: Spain acting alone against Moroco would be destine to win, and would likely be scolded but not prosecuted against by the international community even though it goes against international warnings, so the net gains would be some islands between spain and moroco, and some control over future morocan policies.
East-Europe: Serbia has very real moves to go for, esspecially in Kosovo. However, there is not a united international stance against Serbia retaking Kosovo, so it doesn't qualify. (and i didn't forget about poland :-P)
South Asia: India vs Pakistan is the obvious one; however it is too risky for either to do. Pakistan has alot to gain by moving against Iran (but it might draw international support, disqualifying it), and India against South East Asia (though China would likely stop them), but niether can try anything while the other exists.
Middle east/Russia: This is where Russia comes in. While many countries can get sugnificant gains by strikes against Iraq, they risk holy war by doing so [Turkey+Allies vs Iran+Al Queda]. Since the US invaded a country in the Middle East with no international santions, Russia gets a free play against a dictator in the region. Now they could dislodge a dictator, spark middle eastern chaos, and reap oil benifits from it. Gain: Oil benifits.
Africa: Egypt is a powerhouse on one end, it has reason to strike, and would slip under the international radar if it did. It could crush Sudan, and continue moving until it gained all of the Nile. This would secure it water in a continent quickly running out, ensuring it's dominance. Gain: Hegemony of Africa
So the options are Spain gets control over Moroco and a couple of islands, Russia gets increased oil revenue, or Egypt gets Hegemony over Africa. My pick is Egypt, though Russia also gets a good deal out of it.