(January 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Great Britain (UK) with its empire was the world's economic superpower in question back then, not the USA. America supplied resources late into the war, profiteered and emerged in the aftermath as a global power while Europe lay in ruins. The single biggest contributor to the allied war effort was the Soviet Union, non-holy-crap, they practically bore the brunt of the German military, and those battles at Stalingrad were some of the bloodiest ever in mankind's history.

It's all a matter of timing. When we got into both world wars, the tide turned. Coincidence? Perhaps but it fits well with our egotistical hero complex, coming in to save the day just in the nick of time. It's the kind of stuff that looks good in the movies, you know.

I can just see either Wilson or FDR just watching the conflicts mumbling "not yet... not yet... not yet..."

America joining the second world war was perfectly timed to take advantage of Britain's financial mess after fighting a war on nearly it's own for so long with only Russia in support on the other side of Europe. Americas position as a world power was greatly helped by joining the war at the point it did as it was really the only real economic beneficiary from several years of war.

(January 3, 2011 at 6:55 pm)Skipper Wrote: America joining the second world war was perfectly timed to take advantage of Britain's financial mess after fighting a war on nearly it's own for so long with only Russia in support on the other side of Europe. Americas position as a world power was greatly helped by joining the war at the point it did as it was really the only real economic beneficiary from several years of war.

if it was a online game it would go like this:
UK:we're almost doing it, thanks for the support Russia
Russia:No, prob.
Germany: I will go down but i will take most of you with me
USA:Lol, noobz *Deals final blow without doing much damage, and takes all the loot
UK:WTF, my Bastard son stole my kill.
Russia:yeah and he's boasting about it and smothering all over our faces, not cool.
USA:Trololololo
Russia: and now he's mocking my music

(not very good at this thing)

Quote:There is no such thing as already beaten before the war.

In this case there is. In 1939 and 1940 massive expansions of the US Navy were voted in Congress which allowed for the R & D on Essex-class carriers, Iowa-class battleships, Baltimore-class Heavy Cruisers, Cleveland-class light cruisers and so on. When war broke out they raised the order from 2 Essex-class to 32.
The Japanese could have sunk every ship in the Pacific on Dec. 7, 1941 and by the summer of 1943 they would have still been outweighed in every class by bigger, more modern ships with radar as well as superior aircraft.

In John Toland's "The Rising Sun" there is a discussion about Japanese thoughts to invade Australia with 10 divisions in 1942. The Army could not scrape them up and the Navy could not transport them if they had. The notion that the Japanese could ever have mounted an invasion of the continental US was simply war hysteria. The entire Japanese war plan was to strike a big blow, occupy the colonial possessions of the European powers which were involved in the war and then wait for the US to sue for peace. It was an absurd hope. No less a figure than Admiral Yamamoto told them that. He said the Navy could keep the US at bay for a year. He knew that Japan could not replace their battle losses. What he perhaps did not realize was that replacing lost ships was less of a problem than replacing lost air crews. The Japanese singularly failed to replace the pilots lost either in combat or operationally. The elite air crews from the pre-war days were lost at an amazing pace. Shokaku and Zuikaku were kept out of Midway because their air groups were shot to hell at Coral Sea. On top of all that, Japanese plans to deal with the submarine threat were a joke. They essentially told themselves that the war would be over before the submarines could be effectively deployed against them.
D'uh!

By 1944 the difference between a kamikaze and a regular pilot was one of intent. Japanese pilots who wanted to fly their mission and return were doing so as poorly-trained replacements in obsolete aircraft against Hellcats and Corsairs which were radar directed. If they did survive contact and made it back they still had to land their plane.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Single handedly? I think not, sure it provided some indispensible aid to the British and Russians, but the war could have been won in Europe without American intervention. Even without America it still probably would have been over by 1946 at the latest.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: If there were to be World War 3, I wouldn't know who would win, as China is now the current economic super power.

Holy shit, have you actually looked China's economy and its relation with the US economy? These two countries make all their money off each other, why would they ever go to war? Furthermore, America is still, and will be the world's pre-eminent economic superpower for about the next 30 years, that is if China keeps growing at its current rate, and the US continues to grow so very very slowly. Also America would win, hands down.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: With that considered, who do you think is propping up North Korea? China.

Without a doubt, but that doesn't mean they're happy about it, it's just the lesser of two evils for them.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Knocking them away from North Korea enough to let it die most likely would be ridiculously difficult. Also, the North Korea leaders have been dealing with a near mutinous populace for a long time. They dealt with it through indoctrination, starvation, mass murder and careful application of terror. I bet that even if everything to North Korea was blocked, including food, they'd still manage to find a way to keep their populace in check.

Nobody is inerested in destroying North Korea. South Korea doesn't want a flood of Commies streaming across the border lookng for a free handout, China doesn't want squillions of refugees, America doesn't want to deal with more world-police action at the moment and the North Korean leadership doesn't want to lose the vice-like grip on power. As for the mutinous population, this is the country where the people starved and in rare cases resorted to cannibalism rather than take back control of their country.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What happens to people who stand up to those with guns? Nothing good.

Might makes right.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: So no, I don't think that pure economic punishments would work, proof being current North Korea. They'd rather starve swathes of their population and blame it on the same foreigners who have queasy stomaches and sooner or later, fold and give food aid.
It's bloody convenient.

It's the standard North Korean playbook, misbehave until they give us what we want. Now that they have nukes to throw into the mix, their bargaining chips got that much stronger.

(January 5, 2011 at 4:40 am)Ubermensch Wrote: It's the standard North Korean playbook, misbehave until they give us what we want. Now that they have nukes to throw into the mix, their bargaining chips got that much stronger.

Unfortunate as that is.

They'll never use them though, not unless they want their half of the peninsula turned into glass.