By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Has a country ever embarked on an arms build up and not used them?
Has a country in history ever embarked on an arms pile up and not used them? I refer to the tensions in the franco-prussian war, the Russo-Japanese War, the First and Second World War. The Cold War had both Korea and Vietnam, and the US had the war on error, giving us drones and guns with curved bullets.
-Since China is embarking on a defense blitz, and building fake islands with airstrips, is there really anybody who thinks this is 'peaceful'? I'm not talking about right or wrong, but it would seem people really need to wake up..
They kinda dropped that pathetic Diaoyu drama, give them that.
But yeah, what they managed so far is getting neighboring countries to consider more US military presence, including Vietnam. What an achievement.
They kinda dropped that pathetic Diaoyu drama, give them that.
But yeah, what they managed so far is getting neighboring countries to consider more US military presence, including Vietnam. What an achievement.
. 
As you say, the Americans have always found a use for their weapons. The Cold War was a non shooting war. No one used their arsenal. The Soviet Union capitulated before we saw a war. As far as China is concerned, I think they've gone far enough down a path that they can't back down from. Her neighbors are building up arms too. And then ther is Russia, putting pressure on Europe to arm themselves. It seems the whole world is stockpiling. This can't end well. Peaceful arms buildup is an oxymoron.
Well, PRC could probably use a good war. It could help reduce the amount of men who will never be able to find a woman, and reduce the excessive population.
hi2u:
Sad but true. China will have to rely on its numbers rather than its combat expertise.
Lord_hanson:
Don't worry, the PLA is exceptionally well trained. Everyday they practice shouting patriotic songs, marching and cleaning government officials cars. No other bus boys could stand against them.
diverdude1:
humans do a lot of weird things,,,,, but I would have to put 'Goose-stepping March' up in the Top 10.
*why is it only weird countries/regimes do this?
I would say that the answer very much lies in the nature of an arms build-up. Even if the initial build-up might be peaceful (which would be an oxymoron in itself), the resulting competition from neighbours would very quickly lead to a less than peaceful scenario. In the case of China, it was never very likely to be peaceful in the first place, looking at China's historical role as an aggressor in the region.
As some other posters pointed out, once China (or any other country) reaches a certain point in their arms build-up, it becomes impossible to back down without a massive loss of face and a potential loss of territory. This is mainly to do with the competition that follows it and historically led to the Cold War as well as, arguably, colonialism in the first place.
What are the figures? I recall the US spends more on defence per year than the next 14 countries combined, including China.
If other countries did not arm themselves and disbanded their forces, would the US spend less money on arms ?
jetfire9000:
Bloated defense budgets have the biggest effect on the populations of that particular country - in the U.S.'s case, an incomprehensible amount of money is spent somewhere that Americans themselves don't receive an obvious benefit. However, another way to look at it is, that the U.S. (despite signs of a closing gap) is still the leader in the world order of things. Having a strong military is the means to maintaining that position - hard power is necessary in some cases. (when push comes to shove, can economic sanctions, ie, an economic measure, serve as a powerful means of intervention? It didn't stop Russia in 2013, it also isn't stopping North Korea.) Obviously a military clash isn't preferable for anybody, but if one country is perceived to be weak in that respect, the opponent will usually take advantage of that. The biggest argument for U.S. defense spending is probably to be made that the U.S. has done too much in terms of intervention - You won't find too many Americans in agreement with the Iraq War.
when you have no relationships with other countries that dont rely purely on money and therefore no true friends or allies, and your budget for internal security is higher than your army budget, and 4 of the 10 largest armies in the world are own your border, your basically screwed, but your not going to let the world know that.the only country with a stockpile not used would be the swiss.
Arms buildups are completely normal in the tide of history as your examples have pointed out... They even predate those examples of mention. The security dilemma is an impossible to ignore fact of the state system. One state having arms will prompt all others to have them. And don't count on everybody disarming themselves because nothing significant has ever been done in this effect (except for SALT agreements of course.)
When it comes to criticism of this reality, I often notice Europeans to be on their high horse - many of them often disregard the fact that their own countries had large military forces all up until they were pulled into the framework of NATO, where much of the benefits come from American contribution. America becoming the protector of Europe is just a fact of the changing ebb of history - the traditional European powers accepting it begrudgingly out recognition of the fact that they didn't have the resources to balance against their newest enemy. America has allowed them the benefit of security, so they have the liberty of criticism and hypocrisy. This wasn't your point I know, I just wanted to curb a bit of the high horse arguments that will inevitably be directed as some kind of criticism towards America by those clever posters.
In short, arms could be used to defend a status quo or to change it. Therefore, acquisitions of arms don't say much about intentions. It's our nature to be suspicious, but in order to make believable arguments, we should look for actions which seek to change the current state of things as they are in the world... The presence of arms itself is a constant factor in status quo and revisionist nations, so it isn't a decisive factor in the argument.
coineineagh:
Preemptive anti-Americanism prevention commentary. Chinese will just mockingly say: "You are so noble." For the record, a lot of Americans also take the high horse argument, and agree that their own country is OTT militaristic. Try to be impartial, not caring about whether it's *your* country that doesn't withstand scrutiny. You're American, but you're not America. And just because I'm European and against militarism, doesn't mean I'm trying to score points.
jetfire9000:
Perhaps you can provide some commentary that actually seeks to refute something I said, instead of playing an emotional card. I made that example because it is the one that fits closest to my experience (meaning I can speak somewhat confidently and authoritatively on it). If you change the focus of my argument you could see people using a similar tactic but pointing it against China. The core of my argument stands - that arms do not contribute any immediate elevation to whether a country is going maintain the current state of affairs or use them to create a new one.
coineineagh:
Your comments sort of invalidated people's opinions based on their home country's situation, which I felt was a bit biased/territorial and not objective. A greater good argument then. By all means, explain how any country can use a military advantage to alter the paradigm. You can use USA as example, or not, if you feel I'm oppressing you.
bill8899:
OP, you presented a well reasoned argument that happens to support the USA. Unfortunately, on this board, that is a akin to at least a misdemeanor. Some here probably consider it an indictable offense.
icnif77:
edit: @Bill: On this Board? Do you ''proud 'mericans'' ever read news? Step out of your passport, and look at the world as Iraqi.
Now, fuk off with 'misdemeanor'!
jetfire9000:
Icniff, can you explain your argument? Did I validate the Iraq War? As the "holder of an EU passport" you may want to take your own advice! The EU forms its own power block with its own intentions... look at the mess they contributed to in Ukraine.
jetfire9000:
@coineineagh: Like the example or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is that it shows that there is a huge dependency on hard power politics in the world and its not going to change, no matter how much Western Europeans seem to think. It's a bit unfair, simply because Europe has gained the greatest advantage from having America as its protector. The world order lead by America has been, historically speaking, must more stable than the one lead by Europeans before. By the time America showed up as an influential power, what it had to offer to the world was a much better choice than what Hitler or Stalin would have done... which were the only other alternatives. That's a tough admission to make across the Atlantic I guess. And stability only comes with having the firepower to maintain that from potential challengers, no matter how much we loathe the idea of using it.
icnif77:
@jet: I was replying to Bill! Sorry for misunderstanding!
Mess in Ukraine was started by U-SS-A as a revenge for 'Up-yours' asylum. EU are USA's lackeys. Krauts are holding Obama down on talk with Putinski. Newly established EU defence force is 'STFU' to Washington's Neocons.
There is no muscle in the world today equal to China&Russia alliance, hence provocations of USSA against Russia and China were/are foreplay for 3rd WW, IMO.
bill8899:
icnif has the personal attack for 'Mericans all ready fer anything i guess.
oh btw, icnif, the news you read is not news, its opinion and guesses.
I very love you guys. very entertainer you are. can't handle a good comment on the USA. so many haters. please continue, fun to read
icnif77:
Was is it false pretense to enter Iraq in 2003 news, opinion, guess or fact?
I am 'aware' that copied opinion sources promote hatred against USA, haa. And before that, main reason for negation of my opinions was my lousy English.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/marching-towards-disaster-whats-really-behind-the-u-s-push-in-the-asia-pacific/5424569
The Asia-Pacific region has steadily militarized in recent years. The Australian Defence Ministry has talked about a regional arms race and issued reports on increased Chinese military spending and naval expansion. Never once is it mentioned the Chinese naval expansion and Beijing’s increased military spending are reactions to US militarism and Washington’s attempts to encircle the Chinese. China is acting defensively and trying to secure the Indian Ocean’s maritime trade routes and energy corridors from the US, because it fears the US could block them in the scenario of a confrontation.
Washington’s militarization agenda is tied to a multilateral trade agenda that has hegemonic connotations. In other words, there is a trade dimension to the militarization and the stoking of tensions in the Asia-Pacific. The case is the same for Europe too. In both cases, Washington’s thirst for a unipolar world order is evident. It is in this context that China and Russia are being demonized to help increase US influence and justify a larger US presence in both regions. The United States is trying to exclude and cast out the Russians and Chinese in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. While Washington works to exclude China and Russia, the US goal is to integrate the other countries of these areas with itself.
In the Asia-Pacific region the US is following or using the same strategy of artificially creating tensions and instigating problems between China and other countries in the region. This is exactly why Obama mentioned territorial disputes in his speech and the reason why the US has been getting itself involved in bilateral disputes between China and several local countries over territorial issues. The US government has used this to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the Asia-Pacific theatre. Creating tensions between the Chinese and other East Asian countries, like Vietnam, is part of the strategy to expand US influence.
At the same time that tensions are being ratcheted up with the Chinese, tensions with the Russians are increasing too. Russian politicians and military leaders have continuously warned that if tensions continue, a nuclear war could erupt and devastate the world. Both China and Russia have taken measures to prepare for a possible global military conflict with Washington and its allies. Beijing and Moscow have increased their interoperability and are training together through bilateral exercises and through multilateral military exercises held by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. All the while, as Washington pushes the world closer to the abyss, the governments of countries like Australia and Japan continue sleepwalking their people towards disaster.
Another article full of 'opinions':
http://www.globalresearch.ca/forty-years-ago-victory-in-vietnam-history-and-reflections/5443739
jetfire9000:
@Icnif77, I appreciate that report, because i find that to be somewhat enlightening in terms of what is really going on in the world strategically as far as the U.S. is concerned. I see this report as a somewhat sturdy explanation of facts available on hand. However, as far as international politics is concerned, I don't see much reason for critisism here. The U.S. is pivoting to this region in order to "stabilize" it (aka control it better) which is a well observed fact in the relations between current powers and rising powers... In fact, the trend often goes that a rising power will seize upon some opportunity to change the established order. China maintains the constant message that it will not do this. Nevertheless, the importance of east Asia as a driver for economic growth in the world really necessitates renewed focus to be put on the region. I think a lot of the noise in the argument usually comes from the disagreement over "who" should be getting the pie and how to divvy it up. Playing old enemies off against each other certainly isn't a new invention... and the ability of such a tactic to succeed says much to the effectiveness of this type of strategy. There are clearly some unresolved issues that make this successful. Different perspectives are always present - in the perspective of the powerful side which this is harmful to, it is "playing sides against each other" whereas from the perspective of the weaker side it serves to benefit, such a notion is seen as "giving us a voice in something we otherwise cannot control by ourselves." I'm not sure that these territorial disputes were "artificially created by the U.S." and I think they are more so in existence largely because of history.
icnif77:
I have problem with 'US stabilize.....'.
Many examples where USA was 'stabilizing' anything: Afganistan (opium), and other -stans, Libya (no more US$ for crude exchange), Iraq (crude), Syria, Ukraine.....
Why not let somebody else do some 'stabilizing'?
Doesn't matter how long we're arguing about, only WW can stop (temporarily) Chinese (and others) progress over USA, IMO.
English teachers and other members of this board don't 'see' USA is 'out of the sync' last 15Y. Stock market traders do.
Federal Reserve status:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-18/world-ponders-life-after-us-hegemony
The spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have filled Washington with motorcades and traffic jams and loaded the schedules of President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. But they have also highlighted what some in Washington and around the world see as a United States government so bitterly divided that it is on the verge of ceding the global economic stage it built at the end of World War II and has largely directed ever since. “It’s almost handing over legitimacy to the rising powers,” Arvind Subramanian, the chief economic adviser to the government of India, said of the United States in an interview on Friday. “People can’t be too public about these things, but I would argue this is the single most important issue of these spring meetings.” Other officials attending the meetings this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity, agreed that the role of the United States around the world was at the top of their concerns.
jetfire9000:
The actions taken in Afghanistan are justified. The one in Iraq wasn't, but at least we've done a 180 reversal and gotten out. The one in Libya was connected to European dependence ( French) on that particular type of oil, yet the French munitions didn't last a month and the US had to shoulder the burden once again. Hopefully we can lessen the military footprint in foreign policy, which is a road that does seem to be being taken.
Ehhh... Does this mean ICBMs will inevitably be used one day?
