Military Draft Coming back?

[thechoson]

Peace at a minimum would be the absence of war.  Not fighting the USSR directly would not be sufficient.  General tranquility?  That's like being a little pregnant.  War is war.  Peace is peace. 

Being ready for war was offered as the way to peace.  I asked for an example and the cold war was offered.

During the cold war, we fought wars.  By definition it was not peace. 

And there are not trivial conflicts that destroy human life.  I lost family members in Vietnam.  Does it make it less tragic than World War I or II. 

I am not sure what definition you are using for peace. We did experience a period of general tranquility and lack of armed conflict with the USSR. Political strong arming, vying for a leg up, and the war of words will ALWAYS exist on the international stage. It is bred by jealousy and people worrying about who has a bigger penis. Can a Utopian peace exist? I think not due to human nature.

The important part to note is that during this time, the general welfare of the United States was maintained with the main exception being Vietnam. We (the US) were obsessed with this ridiculous domino theory that never manifested due to the self-destructive nature of communism. That was our bed, and we were forced to lay in it.

When measuring the effect of any conflict, I'm not sure why it is NOT appropriate to use casualties as the chief unit of measure. That is what sperates great conflicts from trivial conflicts.

We DID NOT WAR WITH THE USSR!!! GEEZUS!!!  The point was you can maintain peace by preparing for war.  The US and USSR did this, and we did not war.  Forget all those proxy wars. Peace BETWEEN the US and USSR was maintained.  You name me one other time in history when there were 2 powers like that, and they avoided war, and eventually one side won.  That's pretty damn peaceful, i'd say

[jgruber]

We did not go to war directly with the USSR.  Got it.  We were ostensibly at peace with the USSR.  But we were fighting wars.  War is the opposite of peace to say the least.  So arming for war did not give us peace.

Saying we had peace because we didn't fight a direct war with the USSR is more than a little silly.

Peace at a minimum would be the absence of war.  Not fighting the USSR directly would not be sufficient.  General tranquility?  That's like being a little pregnant.  War is war.  Peace is peace. 

Being ready for war was offered as the way to peace.  I asked for an example and the cold war was offered.

During the cold war, we fought wars.  By definition it was not peace. 

And there are not trivial conflicts that destroy human life.  I lost family members in Vietnam.  Does it make it less tragic than World War I or II. 

I am not sure what definition you are using for peace. We did experience a period of general tranquility and lack of armed conflict with the USSR. Political strong arming, vying for a leg up, and the war of words will ALWAYS exist on the international stage. It is bred by jealousy and people worrying about who has a bigger penis. Can a Utopian peace exist? I think not due to human nature.

The important part to note is that during this time, the general welfare of the United States was maintained with the main exception being Vietnam. We (the US) were obsessed with this ridiculous domino theory that never manifested due to the self-destructive nature of communism. That was our bed, and we were forced to lay in it.

When measuring the effect of any conflict, I'm not sure why it is NOT appropriate to use casualties as the chief unit of measure. That is what sperates great conflicts from trivial conflicts.

We DID NOT WAR WITH THE USSR!!! GEEZUS!!!  The point was you can maintain peace by preparing for war.  The US and USSR did this, and we did not war.  Forget all those proxy wars. Peace BETWEEN the US and USSR was maintained.  You name me one other time in history when there were 2 powers like that, and they avoided war, and eventually one side won.  That's pretty damn peaceful, i'd say

[thechoson]

Can you tell me how not warring with the USSR, and thus preventing the EXTINCTION of MAN, is silly?

[jgruber]

It is silly to suggest that we were at peace because we weren't directly fighting one particular country.

It is silly to say we were at peace when thousands were dying in Vietnam and Korea.

It is silly to say we were at peace when we were at war.

[thechoson]

you didn't answer my question. how is preventing nuclear war silly?

[jgruber]

The goal of preventing war of any kind - nuclear, spitball - is not silly.  I don't see the point of your question.

You suggested that the cold war was proof that being armed for war preserves the peace.
We fought wars during the cold war, therefore there was not peace. 

Have you noticed that at no time have I said that it was not a good idea to contain the Soviet Union?  That I did not question the wisdom of the policy?

All I said is that the policy did not prevent war and the proof is the wars we fought during the cold war.  I acknowledge that we did not fight a direct war with the USSR.  To that extent, the policy may have worked -- to the extent that it may have prevented a worse war than ones we did fight.  But it did not prevent war.

[thechoson]

No it did not prevent war.  But my central point is that it prevented war with USSR. If you ahve a balance of power, you prevent wars.  Would we have fought an idiotic war with Vietnam if they could nuke our asses with ICBMs? No.  Would we have gone into Korea if China could use nukes? No.  If you have a balance of power achieved by arming and preparing to fight a war, you deter all possible adversaries and ensure the peace.  Case in point, the USSR and USA in the Cold War.

I think I've made my point. I'll let you make yours, and let's talk about something else.   

[jgruber]

No it did not prevent war.  But my central point is that it prevented war with USSR. If you ahve a balance of power, you prevent wars.  Would we have fought an idiotic war with Vietnam if they could nuke our asses with ICBMs? No.  Would we have gone into Korea if China could use nukes? No.  If you have a balance of power achieved by arming and preparing to fight a war, you deter all possible adversaries and ensure the peace.  Case in point, the USSR and USA in the Cold War.

I think I've made my point. I'll let you make yours, and let's talk about something else.   

If your contention is that being armed for war can prevent some wars, I'll accept that.  If you're saying a balance of power prevents larger wars, I can support that.

If you stick to your original contention that being armed for war brings peace, I'll continue to disagree.

[thechoson]

Oh by the way, I am still a Korean citizen, but I consider myself American and plan to get citizenship. Is anyone offended however that I keep saying WE when referring to the United States? If so I apologize!

[thechoson]

No it did not prevent war.  But my central point is that it prevented war with USSR. If you ahve a balance of power, you prevent wars.  Would we have fought an idiotic war with Vietnam if they could nuke our asses with ICBMs? No.  Would we have gone into Korea if China could use nukes? No.  If you have a balance of power achieved by arming and preparing to fight a war, you deter all possible adversaries and ensure the peace.  Case in point, the USSR and USA in the Cold War.

I think I've made my point. I'll let you make yours, and let's talk about something else.   

Jeffjoe, you got yourself a deal.  now instead of arms races, we can go back to our post race.  hehehe
If your contention is that being armed for war can prevent some wars, I'll accept that.  If you're saying a balance of power prevents larger wars, I can support that.

If you stick to your original contention that being armed for war brings peace, I'll continue to disagree.