Re: Newsweek magazine
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Lovejoe" <konusan1@...> wrote:
>Maybe not but it does mean that the US is capable of a lot of damage
> --- In email@example.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
> > The US accounts for almost half the global defence budget and is
> > about one sixth of the global economy as well as having nuclear
> > weapons and the ability to rocket mail them pretty much anywhere
> > on the planet. I think that makes the US matter quite a lot to
> > those outside it.
> None of above are right qualites to be concerned or to be respected.
(and I would be quite willing to respect having one sixth the global
> My concerns of USA would be around:That can be dealt with by merely using better technology (and adding a
> Biggest consumer of the Earth resources and
> biggest pollutant of Earth
good carbon tax). History has shown that when the US really wants to
reduce pollution it can do a very good job of it.
> and having largest foreign debtsI wouldn't be lending money to the US government then.
> and having 15% of population starving etc...Not sure it's quite that many in the US though it can be fixed.
The biggest problem with the US is the excessive religiosity of those
running the place, if you could deal with that you'd make the other
problems a lot more manageable.
> Similar concerns go to China nowadays.With China I'm more concerned about it being an autocracy though I
hope the dictators lose their power.
> Having largest arsenal of nuclear weapons?I didn't say that though the US probably does right now (Russia's
nuclear arsenal is a bit run down).
> That Russians have, Chines, Pakistanis, Indians have,Yes, not to mention the UK, France and Israel.
> Kubans harbours,If you mean Cuba that would be a no, they don't have any (the Soviets
did briefly have nuclear weapons there but they were removed after an
> even Iran and S.Korea develops...Actually it's North Korea that recently had a fizzle, South Korea
doesn't seem to be working on nuclear weaponry though in the future it
might be in their interest to have a nuclear deterrent (North Korea
might also prompt Japan to develop nuclear weapons).
> USA has no way to use its nuke arsenal unless they wantThere are people in the US who want exactly that (and they very well
> to end humanity on Earth.
can use their nuclear weapons without ending our civilisation, they
managed it at Hiroshima and Nagasaki after all, though probably not
against another nuclear power).
> Rocket mail to the anywhere in the world???Their ICBMs have a range greater than 10 000 km and they have the
technology to put nuclear weapons in orbit (illegal though it would
be) or fractional orbit (probably legal but it certainly violates the
spirit of the law, the Soviet Union used to have such a system).
> Americans even afraid to use electronic mail after patriot act! :-)Good point, but there are some Americans who trust their government
and president and who would not expect the patriot act to be misused.
> If nuke was a solution, breaking up the Iraq would costNuke is the most likely solution to our global warming problem (cause
> only 15 billion US$ (15 warhead each 1bn) instead of
> 150 billion every year! :-)
a nuclear winter to counteract the temperature rise :-p or maybe just
build nuclear power plants) but it isn't the solution to the mess in
the middle east (though having everyone in the region nuclear armed
might be effective at stopping them from fighting, part of the reason
that the Arab countries don't attack Israel directly any more (instead
supporting terrorist organisations) is probably because Israel has
nuclear weapons making any war with Israel impossible to 'win').
> Now if you do not hear from me anymore it means CIA capturedLOL.
> my mail and assasinated me to silence my critics! :-)