Talk politics.

Nothing you say here gives me any reason to abandon the idea of scrapping Trident. Or a replacement.Just so you know...

If America chooses to keep their nukes, well, hopefully, they will do like we do one day and do without them. not having US missiles behind us for defence is not going to change my mind. And would America really risk themselves to save an ally? I don't think so...

But, yeah, I must remember to turn on my spell checker.

From:

And would America really risk themselves to save an ally?

Yeah, you're right. America totally doesn't have a history of risking their soldiers to help out European allies at all...

Edited Date: 22/4/10 23:08 (UTC)

From:

Not until they get their ships sunk by U boats ( WW1 - Lusitania is the name to google), or their arses bombed by Japanese naval planes,( think Pearl Harbour, spelled with or without the U). That's if I remember any of my history, at any rate.

I mean, nice of you guys to turn up an all that, but we started the war against Hitler in 1939, not the day after Pearl Harbour - know what I'm sayin'...?

From:

Yeah because America was totally threatened by a land invasion from the German troops, so we had to take action to defend ourselves, right? Come on now, the Germans sunk one freaking boat which was carrying ammunition over to our European allies, and the US jumped in with both feet, because it was a fight they wanted to get into anyway.

And yes, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, because we were screwing with their fuel supply. But last I checked, we didn't just send our troops to fight the Japanese, and the Normandy invasion wasn't somewhere in the pacific ocean.

So what's your bitch? That we didn't help you soon enough? 500,000 + American soldiers that died fighting both of these wars doesn't count as Americans risking themselves for their allies?

Go ahead. Get rid of your military's nukes, but understand that the only reason you can do something that utterly stupid is because Americans and their nukes make it possible.

From:

dv8nation.livejournal.com

Don't forget Italy. My grandfather risked ending up a smear on some Italian hillside along with a bunch of other Air Force guys to drive the Fascists out of Sicily.

From:

Actually, while it must be said there was a certain level of political will in the U.S. to intervene on behalf of England, the tipping point at which it became a politically viable option in the face of isolationist tendecies, only came once it became obvious that should England fall, the U.S. would be next on the list.

So it was certainly self-interest, rather than some pure altruist tendency that motivated U.S. efforts in the first place.

But that is as it should be. No-one expects to provide help, military or otherwise, for no return and it would be foolish in the extreme to do so. Equally painting the U.S. as being some saintly provider of selfless aid to those in need is at least as foolish.

From:

Equally painting the U.S. as being some saintly provider of selfless aid to those in need is at least as foolish.

I'm not. I don't think we're saints at all. I think we're enablers who need to stop enabling, bribing and defending other countries so they'll do what we want. We should let them stand or fall on their own. Unfortunately that's not going to ever happen if they do stuff like disarm themselves.

Actually, while it must be said there was a certain level of political will in the U.S. to intervene on behalf of England, the tipping point at which it became a politically viable option in the face of isolationist tendecies, only came once it became obvious that should England fall, the U.S. would be next on the list.

Right. Because I'm sure after fighting most of of Europe as well as the Russians, the Germans were totally going to be in such awesome shape that they could cross the Atlantic and seriously threaten the US. Or that Kaiser Wilhelm's troops were a real threat to US sovereignty.

I don't think so. Not for either WWI or II.

Was it pure altruism? No. But it really wasn't us jumping to our own self defense either. A lot of it was about helping our allies out, not just with our troops but with our resources too - so to see an Englishman of all freaking people, be all "derp, derp, derp Americans wouldn't help out their allies" kinda irritates me considering our history.

From:

Right. Because I'm sure after fighting most of of Europe as well as the Russians, the Germans were totally going to be in such awesome shape that they could cross the Atlantic and seriously threaten the US.

Really? You don't think the worlds best army, in control of the entire resources of continental Europe, fresh from having beaten the worlds largest army, was a viable threat to the 3rd rate, undermanned, underequipped, under-trained and unexperienced armed force which was the U.S. army at that point in time?

I mean, we're all greatful the U.S. helped out in WW2, but it wasn't until the end of the war, after the Russians had already turned the war around that it really started to have an impact in Europe. And we all know, the U.S. wasn't there just out of the goodness of your hearts. So saying that we can't expect the U.S. to rush to the rescue of it's allies in any future conflict is not unreasonable.

Machiavelli warned against allying with those who are stronger, because they don't need you, and are liable to abandon you when you are in the time of your greatest need and largest threat, at the greatest threat.

It's not an insult to the U.S., it's just a recognition of pragmatic facts.

From:

Really? You don't think the worlds best army, in control of the entire resources of continental Europe, fresh from having beaten the worlds largest army, was a viable threat to the 3rd rate, undermanned, underequipped, under-trained and unexperienced armed force which was the U.S. army at that point in time?

No. Because after fighting all of Europe and the Russians and taking all of the casualties and destruction of their infrastructure, they'd actually have to keep the territory that they took and spend a generation or two rebuilding. Then they'd have to cross the Atlantic ocean and tangle on the soil of a highly populated, very large and extremely industrialized nation that wasn't ravaged by two world wars.

So to say that we were in any immediate danger from Germany is pretty laughable. Any danger that may or may not have come would have been a generation or two later and even then it may or may not have ever happened.

So saying that we can't expect the U.S. to rush to the rescue of it's allies in any future conflict is not unreasonable..

What it is, is total bullshit. But hey, if the half a million American troops that died fighting fights that weren't ours, and the billions and billions of dollars of American tax money spent afterwords rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan aren't enough to convince you that America has a history of sticking by their European allies, then nothing will.

If something happened to England right now, the first country everyone come crying to is the US. And I think, given our history with England we deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one.

From:

No one is claiming you were in immediate danger. It was the eventual outcome of not intervening in the European war that worred the U.S.

What you talk about is exactly what the U.S. was fearful of, that after the Germans pacified Europe, they would be facing an enemy in control of the entire continent of Europe, the North of Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Against that would be the U.S. alone and isolated, with an unexperienced army which no-one up to that point took seriously. It doesn't matter that your potential industrial output was that high, because the Germans would be able to match it, plus they were allied with the Japanese, who would likely be in a similar position in Asia by that point.

Anyway, the thing is, of course the U.S. would PROBABLY come to the aid of England, but frankly, if you think the English should rely on it, simply because America has been a good ally in the past, you don't understand military history.

From:

From:

Where the U.S. declared war, after it was found that Germany was in secret negotiations with Mexico to provide military aid in order to recapture Texas, in return for Mexico (in conjunction with Japan) pinning down U.S. forces until the Germans had finished off the other Europeans.

No. We jumped into the war after Pearl Harbor. Not because "OMG THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!" And certainly, Germany wasn't a real threat to us in WW1 either.

So yes, the Germans certainly expected to create a real threat to U.S. sovereignty.

So what if they did? That doesn't make it a particularly realistic expectation. Again, they'd have to do this with really dodgy allies, after fighting through all of Europe and Russia and rebuilding their infrastructure as well as finding a way to keep what they held.

You do realize that America is a country that's in large part populated by immigrant groups from Europe. And that people here had a lot of familial and cultural ties to the countries that Germany happened to be trying to steamroll? And that maybe, just maybe, that was one of our motivations for jumping into a fight that wasn't ours and fighting an enemy what wasn't really a threat to us?

From:

No. We jumped into the war after Pearl Harbor. Not because "OMG THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!" And certainly, Germany wasn't a real threat to us in WW1 either.

Pearl harbour was the second world war.

From:

I'm not talking about the 2nd world war.

The primary reason the U.S. joined the 1st world war is because the Germans were trying to bring the Mexicans into the war and pin down U.S. forces, in return for assistance in recapturing Texas from the U.S.

In 1914, the Mexican army could have been a serious potential adversary to the U.S.

Read up on the Zimmerman telegram.

It was the perception in the U.S. that they were facing a serious threat to their territory that spurred them into declaring war on Germany. If it wasn't for that, the U.S. would likely not have gotten involved, even though they were sympathetic to the Allied cause.

From:

So it was certainly self-interest, rather than some pure altruist tendency that motivated U.S. efforts in the first place.

But that is as it should be. No-one expects to provide help, military or otherwise, for no return and it would be foolish in the extreme to do so. Equally painting the U.S. as being some saintly provider of selfless aid to those in need is at least as foolish.

Thanks. I see that sanity has not totally left the forum yet.

From:

I think your points about America helping its allies has been tackled by others - but 'we can only scrap Trident because America will protect us'?

As others have said, America was isolationist, only came in when it's own interests were seriously threatened - like all nations , I grant you, but the point is that we cannot count on American help for nothing. We have no bases to offer them this time.

What makes it possible is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Warsaw Pact; the Proximity of China to the Pacific , not the Atlantic and the short range of Korea's missile system. We are not facing nuclear threat any more, quite simply.

From:

I think your points about America helping its allies has been tackled by others - but 'we can only scrap Trident because America will protect us'?

Yes. You can scrap Trident, and then hide behind American power the way that most of Europe already does. That way, American can play world cop the way that we always do, when one of our allies that is actually armed, defangs themselves.

It would be stupid as hell of you, but you could do it. What makes me laugh is that you want to do it, even though you'd think America would let England twist in wind if you all were threatened.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem too bright of you.

From:

dv8nation.livejournal.com

Recheck your history. Truman was wanted to get into the war in Europe but couldn't until Pearl Harbor due to political pressure at home.

From:

It's that 'pressure at home' I am talking about.

See, after WW1, nobody had any grandiose ideas any more about how sweet and glorious it was to die for ones country. Everyone thought they could , and should avoid war by giving Hitler what he wanted. And the terms of the Treatyof versailles made this seem a fair and just option.

But let's return to the presnt. No nukes is good nukes, agreed?

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

Nice revisionism there bub.

The UK brought the shit on itself by not preventing Hitler from remilitarizing the Rhineland, then there was Austria, then the Sudetenland, then finally you got a pair of balls with Poland; but even then you guys didn't send in a single man or piece of artillery. American help with lend-lease and other under-the-table-deals (almost 31 BILLION dollars), along with some mistakes by Germany was the only thing that kept you guys from goose-stepping by Buckingham Palace with Hitler on the balcony.

Edited Date: 23/4/10 04:11 (UTC)

From: