Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (108751)	7/29/2003 6:46:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I realize the USA states are widely subordinate to the federal government of the USA, that's why I said the UN federal system would need to have a constitution less integrated, < Just as the USA has many self-running states and they don't each maintain peace with neighbours by military means, let alone nukes, but by way of a federal constitution, so the world can run in such a way, though less integrated for now.> limited to border security and certain levels of insurrection or human rights abuse. Border security would include pollution. A nation wouldn't be allowed to send clouds of muck into other countries. There would need to be spectrum control so one doesn't pollute a neighbour's radio transmissions. Oceans would need protection. As would other commons. On North Korea, I am not so certain that China doesn't want North Korea to have nukes. Kim seems much too cheerful to be as isolated as is made out. China has got a major issue with Taiwan and the USA is constantly sabre rattling and has got umpty megatons of nukes ready to go onto China at a moment's notice. The USA doesn't have the nukes to keep New Zealand on good behaviour [though they don't know we are developing the Q-Bomb] nor to tame Mugabe or liberate Liberia. They have them to blow up China, Russia, Japan [if they ever get too stroppy again], Germany [if their proclivities to attack and dominate resurface] and, um, well, North Korea and of course a bunch of Islamic Jihad countries if they get hold of nukes and go nuts in mass martyrdom, such as Pakistan, Iran and co. If I was running China, I think I'd offer North Korea a couple of nukes with a CDMA2000 controlled trigger and sabotage device. It would only be armed if I phoned it and gave it a few codes. If it stopped transmitting a happy signal to me, I'd trigger the sabotage explosive to disintegrate it = a dead man's switch [as they have on trains so that if the driver doesn't keep reporting by pressing a lever or something, then the brakes automatically go on]. Any breach of the case would interrupt the signal. I wouldn't want to just ship them some nukes [unless they had a short half-life] in case they were sent back in a few years on the tip of a rocket during some dispute or misunderstanding. Nor would I give them H bombs big enough to blow up everything. Just cute little ones able to make a big mess of some USA bases and Seoul and remove an aircraft carrier from the sea-scape. That way, if the USA gets too belligerent, a distraction could be arranged up north, near Japan, South Korea and vital USA interests. There's a state of war there anyway, so it would just be a continuation of the conflict. I know it's fashionable to say they are mad in North Korea, but they aren't. I disagree with their philosophical foundations, but that doesn't mean they are mad. They are just operating on old-style territorial tribalism, but with modern weaponry. They are in good company. I see a bit of old-style territorial tribalism in most places of the world. Good old J K Galbraith recently agreed with me that the old ideas of territory and population as power and wealth are over. It's now brainpower and technology. An old geezer in his 90s can figure that out, but it escapes most people. rediff.com <"In the old days, land was important as the giver of all things," he said. "That period is gone now. Technology and brainpower are all that matters and yet conflicts over land, specially one like on the India-China border, that yields nothing, continue. This is a burden of ancient history that we continue to carry. If tomorrow there is settlement on planet Mars, we will begin to worry if others are interested." > Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (108751)	7/29/2003 7:02:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, it's true that at present, the economic dislocation from a parting of the ways of the USA and China into isolationist Albanian paradise followed by armed conflict wouldn't be too dramatic [for a lot of people anyway - though I'm not convinced of that]. But as development and integration continues apace, it will be like having a heart and lungs go their separate strategic ways to follow their separate strategic interests. I do like analogies! :-] Personally, I would find the prospect disturbing. My QUALCOMM shares for a start would not be very valuable. The USA tax base would take a large hit. Americans would find their standard of living dropped like a Daisy Cutter as Made in China ships stopped delivering megatons of goods at very low prices. Just exactly what strategic interests do you have in mind? Yes, there's Taiwan, but Taiwan and China are so integrated already, like New Zealand and Australia, that independence doesn't have a lot of meaning. Well, maybe not so integrated, but increasingly so. The world is rapidly integrating and at 4% of the world's population, the USA is too pokey to go it alone, even with quarter of the world's economic activity [or whatever it is]. The USA is the 1980 Apple Computer of geopolitics. The clones and network effect are where the real action is. Choosing an isolationist approach such as Apple's is not the best idea, though when big and tough, it seems easy enough. Mqurice