30,000-Lb. Bomb On Fast Track For Deployment 707
coondoggie writes "Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development) up to 200 ft. underground. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has overseen the development of this monster since 2007, says it is designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers and deployed at high altitudes, from which it would strike the ground at speeds well beyond twice the speed of sound to penetrate the below-ground target." Reuters has more specifics on the MOP's chances for deployment by 2010, and the detail that the bomb's load of explosives weighs in at 5,300 lbs.
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
A hundred thousand years of human technology, and we're supposed to be impressed at the latest version of the club. Wake me up when the human race does something impressive.
Hey North Korea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Fortunately, peaceful and free nations also generally have the best technology, industry, and economy, which allows us to have the most impressive weapons.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of our clubs in the past have leveraged highly advanced theortical nuclear physics.
Now, personally I find this idea pretty impressive, club or not.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
"A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?
Sweden, maybe.
It's certainly not the U.S., what with all the wars it's been involved in in just the last century.
But you say "allows us" as if the U.S. is exactly what you mean - and the bomb TFA is about is a U.S. weapon - so I must draw the conclusion that you're living under the delusion that the U.S. is "peaceful and civilized", with "the best technology, industry, and economy[!]".
Please wake up.
Paranoia and North Korea (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what what the North Koreas are going to think when they find out about this.
The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.
At some point, they're going to feel really cornered. Then things will get really interesting.
Holey bunkers batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holey bunkers batman! (Score:2, Insightful)
You bet it does. It sends a strong message to the DPRK military: "Get cracking on your ICBMs, you slackers - what good are your nukes if you can't deliver them?".
The day the US military starts dropping these things on nuclear-armed states is the day that millions of Americans move to Canada and Mexico.
Re:Holey bunkers batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Human beings seem to be a poor invention. If they are the noblest works of God where is the ignoblest? - Mark Twain
There are times when one would like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce. - Mark Twain
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices or caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being--that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. - Mark Twain
The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner. - Mark Twain
Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. - Mark Twain
Re:Paranoia and North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia and North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.
As a guy born in a country whose people were similarly demonized just two decades ago (USSR), I have to chime in.
North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan. They might be worried about the kind of thing TFA is about, but mostly because they don't want war (which tends to screw people's lives in a major way, especially when you're on the losing side).
The "nutty bunch" are the country leaders. And keep in mind that your average North Korean most likely doesn't feel the total, overwhelming kind of love towards his dear Glorious Leader that newspapers tell him he should have. By all accounts from tourists who visited NK, people there know how poor and oppressed they actually are, if not in specific things, then at least in general feeling.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holey bunkers batman! (Score:4, Insightful)
A nuke might do the job, but there are 2 problems: ... disturbing
1: Technical: A nuke is actually a fairly sensitive weapon, if the soccer ball is disturbed, the nuclear material goes 'fizzle' and just make a big mess. Going through 61m of concrete at Mach 2 tends to be
2: Political: Even if the problems in "1" can be taken care of, no nation would ever forgive the US for first use of a nuclear weapon. That would then legitimize a nuclear response by the target nation, kill any coalitions, and forever lend backing to rogue nations wanting to make their own nukes. One of the key factors keeping many nations from being too interested is that fact that the nuclear club, since WWII, has shown the restraint of not actually using them.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.
The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.
60% tax uncivilised
Torture civilised
Can you see what is wrong here?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Is it? How do you figure (he queried, knowing the answer)?
If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?
So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?
Peaceful it sure isn't, as illustrated by 30+ wars and so-called "police actions" in the 20th century.
Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system. Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians, buying all the mom and pop's all over the country. Blatant disregard for international treaties and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.
So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's impossible to say if the second nuke was necessary or if a non-civilian target would have had the same effect.
It's not like the nukes were dropped 20 minutes apart, there was a 3 day gap. Three days in which the Japanese government chose not to surrender, despite losing a city. Three days of arguing whether or not the US had a new weapon, or if what happened was some kind of insane fluke they could cover with propaganda. Three days of arguing if the US had the capability to do it again. Three days of not attempting to negotiate a surrender. Could it have come in 3 more days? Perhaps, but we'll never know what would have happened if the US had not used a second nuke.
It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons in a world where major combat losses abroad in decade long wars cost fewer men than some individual battles of World War 2. It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons in a world where nuclear technology and weaponry is a fact of life we're all thoroughly aware of. It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons when it's not you, your family, or your friends fighting every day, potentially dying each day the war continued. It's easy to moralize about the method of ending a conflict which, not two months earlier, had Japan declaring they would NEVER accept an unconditional surrender (they wanted to drag out the fight to be as bitter and expensive for the allies as possible so they wouldn't have to accept an unconditional surrender).
You can talk about how it was the wrong choice all you want, but in the end, you're all just armchair quarterbacks. We play video games and watch movies that trivialize the most destructive and influential war since the dawn of man. Comedies are made about Nazi internment camps and we put love stories in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Frankly, nukes suck, but I'm happier knowing that today, in 2009, we're still using up the supply of purple hearts we ordered in the 1940s for expected losses in the invasion of Japan.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations, what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?
Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship? Do you want to make an argument about freedom being better than security? Because I'm pretty sure that Bush II's regime - your beloved saviors of Iraq - passed a shedload of US laws based on exactly the opposite position.
Look, I'm going to type this reeeeally slowly to make it easy for you to understand: outside of kiddie cartoons, the enemy of evil is not automatically good. In the real world, it can be evil vs evil.
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them? Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?
Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things to like about USA and I agree with most points for example in this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmFlMzViMWZmYjY5ZmUzNDg2N2JiMGMxZDllYjA2MmM= [nationalreview.com] . But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!? You must be joking.
Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon. And after he likely completely fails, THEN we can blow the shit out of them righteously, if need be, since we at least tried to talk with the crazy SOB. If the Big Dog can't get N Korea to the table, then no one can. Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq) is something that Barney Fife would do, and only works in mass market action flicks. You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.
Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Apply those standards to all countries and you'll still not see any country considered "peaceful and civilized". Sheesh.
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, it does, hence the complex international legal treatment of the subject. In general, use of weapons that kill indiscriminately was frowned upon even before the WWII.
During WWII most warring nations used such weapons to an extent. Regretfully, only those who lost were punished additionally for that. Those who won got a free pass, and that is why we may yet see some WMD usage, especially now that MAD is gone for good.
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:2, Insightful)
According to Eisenhower, MacArthur, and most of the other top American brass at that time, even the *first* bomb was unnecessary, since the Japanese, were no longer capable of undertaking offensive action, with their fleet and air forces smashed, their cities mostly rubble. The Americans dropped the bomb while the Japanese leadership was looking for a face-saving way to end the conflict.
It was a civilian official, the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, who had the ear of Truman regarding the use of the bomb, and it was his advice that Truman took (I paraphrase:) "Drop the bomb to show the Soviets how tough we are."
But the official story ever since the first bomb was dropped was that the bombings were an act of mercy that saved Japanese and American lives during the (again according to the official story) absolutely inevitable invasion of the Japanese mainland several weeks later, an invasion that could not possibly have been forestalled by a negotiated surrender.
This version of events has been repeated so many times from so many different sources that it has won out by sheer brute force of neuro-linguistic programming, and thanks to this propaganda, there are legions of liver-spotted veterans in V.F.W. halls across the fruited plain whose blood pressure rises dangerously at the suggestion of that the use of the bomb does not fall somewhere between being either a grim necessity or a sacred duty.
Re:America's like a super-hybrid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holey bunkers batman! (Score:2, Insightful)
The use of the bomb in World War II was extremely regrettable. Knowing what we do now about the bombs only makes that more apparent. But I don't think Truman or anyone else really knew what those weapons meant for the future of humanity. Hindsight is often 20/20.
I'm also sure that it is no comfort at all to the hundreds of thousands that died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki that if the bomb hadn't been used then, it would likely have been used later, perhaps in a larger exchange of weapons of greater power. Like the H-bomb. Those hundreds of thousands might have been millions or billions.
Furthermore, I wonder how many other countries would have spent so much time and effort helping to rebuild and revitalize their former enemies as the United States has done with Japan and Germany.
The rest of the world does not exactly hold the moral high ground from which to criticize the United States.
Say what you will about the US, but the US did not fire the first guns of either of the two World Wars.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Years of diplomacy (UN inspections and such) were tried with Iraq after the first gulf war.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Educated minds already know.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:1, Insightful)
That wasn't diplomacy, that was browbeating. Slight difference.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
A health care system that would be right at home in Blade Runner is uncivilized. Wake me up when the US moves out of the dark ages with it's health care system (for all of it citizens, not just the ones who have money).
You're also enormously overestimating the effect of the US on the outcome of WW2 - one of the biggest turning points, and perhaps the fulcrum of change for the whole war, occurred in Stalingrad in 1943. I don't remember seeing many pictures of GIs there.
While the US was no doubt a welcome ally to have during the second world war that helped to bring it to an end more quickly, you were hardly the shining white knight who saved us all from German oppression.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
*Note: Fox News does not count as education
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go. They could kill more than a "few thousand". The destruction of of Seoul and their likely ability to overrun the DMZ means they can be very very destructive until we start bringing in the carriers and massing in our own troops. We would also have to do this while managing China's agitation and China IS a real threat.
Incidentally trashing SK is also good for causing some financial turmoil in the rest of the world's market. So it would cost a bit of treasure. At least for awhile.
China seems to use NK the same way a redneck likes to keep a slobbering pitbull on a chain prominently on display in his back yard. Sure you can just shoot the nasty thing dead but it won't be the end of it and it isn't much use talking to it. The redneck is the one you have to reason with.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have nukes, but no way to deploy them
ICBMs and bombers aren't the only way to deploy nukes. They have merchant ships don't they? They have an intelligence agency don't they?
The U.S. military could destroy North Korea and be back by lunch if they pulled no punches
Thanks for demonstrating just how naive you really are. Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons, please explain to me how we could destroy North Korea and be back "by lunch". They have a 1,200,000 man standing army. I don't care how great our advantages in training/tactics and technology are -- we can't simply destroy them and be back home in time for lunch. We would own the oceans and the skies near/over the battlefield and I'm sure the kill ratio would tilt heavily in our favor -- but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties. Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
what we are discussing here is whether or not NK has the ability to do REAL damage to the U.S., which I would define as at least knocking the U.S. off of its perch as the dominant superpower
NK has the ability to do real damage to at least one critical ally (South Korea) of the United States and perhaps another (Japan). If the United States can't be relied on to defend our friends then we will be knocked off that perch. We enjoy the position that we have because of our relationships with our allies. The United States without allies/basing rights/trading partners is a Western Hemisphere power.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:4, Insightful)
And NK is still standing on their corner undisturbed, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan were steam rolled. So what does this tell me ? If I was a country which *MIGHT* come in friction with the US, I should develop my own WMD ASAP. Here around we call that escalation, and as far as I can tell, with the current strong arming politic of the US, there is no way to avoid it.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they understand a few things about America, then they realize that they really can do damage by killing a few thousand - look at all the idiocy we inflicted upon ourselves after al Qaeda killed a few thousand of us.
And it's not like North Korea needs to do it themselves to gain a strategic advantage from it. It is true they have nukes, but no (conventional) way to deploy them. But our borders and shipping routes are pretty porous, and there are plenty of non-state actors out there that could smuggle a weapon in. A single blast to a major American city would do lots of damage well beyond just the death toll.
Knocking us off the pedestal by overwhelming force is not the only possible or fruitful goal.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are they irrelevant, if they exactly mirror the same procedures and motivations today? They serve as good examples of how tearing down an aggressive, murderous thugocracy like Saddam's doesn't happen in one day, and it takes years for the people who lived under such a regime to develop a sustainable, democratic replacement. Which is exactly why Germany and Japan are worth mentioning. Did you think that those countries had viable economies and nice warm and fuzzy, efficient, level-headed governments running immediately after they were decapitated for their beligerant, expansionist, slaughtering ways? Why are you so anxious to ignore history, instead of learn from it? Ah, I see. Because history suggests that appeasing murderous totalitarians has a way of costing millions of lives, and you'd love to ignore that.
Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
Just ask the guys in the patrolling aircraft who were being shot at every week. You know, the patrols that were being flown to keep Saddam from killing hundreds of thousands of more people in the north and south. How? How about with the long range missiles he continued to build? How about with the large stores of nasty stuff like VX that UN inspectors knew to be there, but which were a complete mystery, in terms of their disposition? Saddam's deliberate policy was to make sure that people in Israel and Iran thought he had a large arsenal of viable, ready-to-use WMDs. His conventional forces took a serious spanking when he invaded Kuwait, and he was desparate to be able to project power in non-conventional ways. A hobbled Republican Guard or not, though, it didn't stop them from firing on the very aircraft he agreed to allow to patrol the no-fly zones, and it didn't stop him from making a public display of sending cash to groups sponsoring terrorist bombers and training facilities (on TV, no less!). And of course it didn't stop him from doing international weapons trade with fine partners like North Korea - especially on missle hardware.
Also along the lines of "with what" - don't forget the millions and millions in cash skimmed off of the Oil For Food program, and used to rebuild his military (and gold plate the doorknobs in more palaces - but that's more of an assault on good taste, despite starving his own people to do it).
And also along the lines of "how," of course, was the sustained, deliberate obfuscation of weapons destruction records and the blocking of inspectors at every turn. He wasn't just hiding a few things, he was deliberately making it clear that he was hiding things - because he knew that only the knowledge that he had WMDs and the means and willingness to use them could keep him in power.
Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?
Nice false dichotomy, there. Regardless: the primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate you seem to prefer (though it's not obvious why you like the way the Taliban treats, say, women who teach their daughters to read) was exactly the sort of spot where Al Queda found a happy home, and trained thousands of busy little bomb builders and murderers. The people trained in that environment are exactly the folks who, through connections in Pakistan, reach out to and recruit/fund the charming guys who do things like blow up train stations in London or Madrid. The dictatorship you see as the only other option doesn't really seem to be a problem in, say, Iraq. Or Turkey. It's actually dangerous dictatorships like Saddams (now gone) or Iran's (now getting crazier by the minute, and building nukes) that are the very reason to support democracy in places like Iraq. Because only the people in Iran can shut down the crazy mullahs who run that theocratic horror show, and they need to see that honest elections and a constitutional democracy can work.
I'm pretty sure
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?
You mean the same "puppet" regime that has asked us to leave and is busy signing oil deals with China? That's an interesting definition of "puppet" you have.
Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
How about the 2/3rds of it's own population that wasn't Sunni Arab? Or shouldn't we care about them because they are brown?
Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?
I guess that depends on if you are a member of Saddam's tribe or happen to be unlucky enough to be a Shia or Kurd. The women who were kidnapped off the street to be raped probably weren't big fans of the "stable advanced secular dictatorship" either.
In the real world, it can be evil vs evil.
If you think the United States represents evil then you need to crack open a history book and/or buy a plane ticket to Burma/North Korea/etc.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right. It's a really brilliant idea to sell chemical weapons to the very country you've been using them on just a decade earlier, and which _still_ hates your guts.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't have to. Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them - about 16 for every square kilometer of Seoul's area.
And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.
This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil.
And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how? NK doctrine [globalsecurity.org] (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas backed by special ops in the enemy rear - the plan you mention plays right into that strategy.
NK is a hostage negotiation, not strategic diplomacy.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them
They don't have 10,000 pieces of long range artillery. According to this [globalsecurity.org] they only have about 10k-11k total pieces of artillery.
And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.
They still need some sort of delivery system, unless you think they can slingshot their Fat Man sized bombs 40 kilometers. Besides, nukes are a moot point. If they use one they lose the war and the regime doesn't survive. I'd be more worried about them using one when it became apparent that defeat was inevitable and even at that I'd be worried about them using it in the tactical sense (put one somewhere in the path of an advancing American/ROK formation and wait -- no delivery system needed) than trying to get one into Seoul.
And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how?
Who said they were going to make it all the way to Seoul? Did you pay any attention at all to what I said? They are easier to destroy when they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. They set themselves up to be cut off and make their supply lines vulnerable to American/ROK air power.
NK doctrine [globalsecurity.org] (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas
Overwhelming force concentrations play right into our advantages. Go take a look at military history ranging from WW2 to the Persian Gulf and tell me how well massed force concentrations manage against American air power.
backed by special ops in the enemy rear
Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans but even that is only going to delay the inevitable -- and special ops won't be much use against aircraft carriers or our bases in Japan.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:0, Insightful)
Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.
Hans Blix was Swedish but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective.
Yawn.
Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world
* Engaged in more wars, invaded more countries: most of those coming to the aid of people who were being invaded or attacked, so you're mixing apples and oranges. Most people think what we did in WWI and WWII and the Gulf War and other wars were GOOD things.
And even Iraq was intended to be for the benefit of Iraq and the Middle East. Our greatest stains of imperialism are in Vietnam and Central America, and I won't defend those; and to some degree, we did the same nonsense in the Middle East, which lead to where we were in 2002. But while those were root causes for where we were in 2002, they were not reasons why we did what we did in 2003.
* Dropped more nuclear bombs: and in doing so, saved countless lives.
* Has more military bases in foreign countries: always at the request of those countries (unless there's still some bases I am forgetting about as the result of postwar treaties)
* Undermined international order and stability: says you. I think we're much more stable in the long run. Less order, perhaps, but when that order is represented by the United Nations telling Iraq "if you violate Resolution 687 we'll force you to comply" for 12 years, and in the end refuses to act ... that is an order we can do without.
But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!?
Shrug. We are not taking over nations to expand our influence (though we did try this in the Cold War and in Central America, it's really not happening today). Today there's a sort of "new imperialism" where we try to control more of the world through politics and economics (and, to a lesser degree, culture) ... though this is hardly new, since it was practiced by France and Britain for centuries. But it's not the sort of thing you appear to be referring to.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:2, Insightful)
The take-home point is this: even strategies that you think are really clever can backfire if you don't know your enemy. Japan's preemptive "bomb them so they won't enter the war" strategy might have worked against Koreans, but against Americans it was counterproductive. Nasser's bluster (or Hussein's) might have worked against another Arab nation, but it didn't work so well against Israel (or the USA). You've got to know your enemy, or all your cleverness is for naught.