The Rise of US Nuclear Primarcy

A couple of debateable points there. Define 'most democratic'...
Plus, America is not the only country to have a very mixed ethnic/cultural background - England is a good example of another country with this characteristic.

However, I'm not suggesting that we (Engand) would be 'better' - in fact, given our level of resources, we'd be a crappy global superpower in this day & age. We only ever managed it when control of the sea meant control of everything...
The only possible 'rivals' to America are Russia (decaying), China (growing, so probable), India (not yet, but maybe one day) or a united Europe (as if that will ever happen ).

But that means that the 1 superpower can essentially do what it likes. Would you be as happy if the 1 superpower was China? Yes, America is so far being benevolent, but can you guarentee that they still will be in 20 years (after 5 different Presidencies)?
Having 2 superpowers places checks and balances on the actions of both of them - not unlike a President having to pass bills through 2 governmental bodies before it is passed.

And actually your conclusion is exactly the same as pretty much everybody else on that topic. The only reason we let it run was because it was so obviously flawed that it would be easily refuted - and it was, many many times.

I read in the news recently that China was updating its nuclear arsenal...

 

How is that a fact? Present some proof to your "theory".

Would it have been better if the USSR had been the sole superpower after WW2? Is that a fact? :roll: :roll:

Having two powers means they will balance each other out. Research the MAD doctrine for an example.

Who should use their head? Pretty much all of the forum disagreed with that post and have debated against it, myself included.

What "pisses the crap out of me" is young men/teenagers who seem so completely blinded by their political passions that they get completely irrational. Terms like "retarded" (it's spelled with a d, btw ) and "gay" have nothing to do in a debate like this. Even if you ARE homophobic and see "gay" as an offensive term, it seems completely out of place in a political debate on a forum. :evil:

 

Two super-powers, in my opinion, would be better than one. Checks and balances.

Should the US ever decide that the only "logical" form of government is democracy would it decide to enforce it (Walker's Manifest Destiny?)? Some of the TV reports over here (BBC and largely Blairite rather than US inspired) sound disturbingly like we're not leaving Iraq until they get a democracy.
Okay, stopping them invading other countries is one thing (the world is far too small for that of thing), but enforcing a political system on another country....
Sounds much like the under/overtones of Arthur Scargill's comment years back, before the miners' strike: "I'll keep calling for a ballot until result is the correct one" :roll:

 

Well put, I understand TD is one of the younger forum members here but these immature and offensive terms really have no place in these kinds of debates. If that's the kind of way you argue in the playground, that's one thing, but it doesn't belong here.

 

Seconded. TD, your opinion will be respected as long as you present it in a reasonable way without resorting to swearing and insulting. Arguments do more to advance your statements than calling another's opinion "retarded and gay".

 

Thirded. Or is it fourthded?

TD, do bear in mind that we are hear to have resonable debate. Panzerman's response may seem rather patronising and even a little offensive, but frankly he is on the money here. As is Simon.