Well not necessarily to gain but perhaps to retain. Such as your Hong Kong - UK example.
‘It could be that the other guy is, through good policies, attracting all capital from us and hence eroding our tax base. I can surely see how China would have liked to have invaded Hong Kong back in the ’60, and I’m sure that hadn’t it been form British nukes (which Her Majesty’s government made very clear of having every intention to use in that instance) there would have been no Hong Kong as we know it today.’
So is your argument: Britain would use nukes against millions of people in order to retain a territory that was never rightfully acquired by them? This makes me ask why anyone should allow the UK to have nukes but perhaps you have the same sentiment.
They trade much more freely than they used to (especially , though far from a totally free trader). Let them close their borders to trade, and they shall starve within a year.
"So is your argument: Britain would use nukes against millions of people in order to retain a territory that was never rightfully acquired by them? This makes me ask why anyone should allow the UK to have nukes but perhaps you have the same sentiment. "
Would Hong Kong prefer to go with China or the UK in the ’60? Well, the UK could (and indeed should!) have held a referendum on the issue, but I haven’t a shred of a doubt on what would the result have been. Thus ‘legitimized’ (by statist standards, that is), the UK would have been right indeed to black million of Chinese soldiers (I advocate tactical nukes) for trying to rape Hong Kong into submission a stehy did with the rest of the country. I myself would have pushed the button with pleasure.
But of course the Chinese where not stupid, and they would have preferred a million times that no referendum ever be held, else no transfer of sovereignty could have happened in a ‘legitimate’ manner in 1999 without an other referendum 9wich would have likewise failed miserably, in turn undermining the PRC’s claim towards Taiwan). So perhaps they secretly negotiated for no referendum with the UK in the ’60 and the transfer of sovereignty at a later date in exchange for leaving British interests alone in Indochina.
So, I must repeat myself: the UK is following what seems to me to be by far the soundest nuclear policy of a minimum 24/7, second strike deterrent capability and nothing else. If anyone should have nukes, it must be the Brits (and the French possibly).
The countries most likely to go to war in the next 5 to 10 years are the US and Iran. The BP oil spill only increased that likelihood because government cannot solve the problem and will instead enact all of these regulations and taxation and prohibitions which will lead to higher oil prices. Just another reason to blame Iran. On the part of Iran they don’t really care because they indoctrinated by religious mumbo jumbo.
North Korea is too poor to be a major threat.
China will continue to be blamed by US media but war is unlikely. I think it was Jesse Ventura who said that neocons are pussies and will only attack the weak of the world. So I don’t think US-China war is likely, but then again, you never know.
The start of WWIII will happen within the next 2 years.
Gates said a few days ago that he won’t hesitate to use a military strike on Iran.
The Israel lobby is too powerful and Obama is too pro-war for it to not happen. I’ve thought there was going to be world war iii ever since I saw his campaign when I he said something like, “we are the party of LBJ we are the party of FDR. If Bush and the GOP could only chase Bin Laden into a cave, then I could chase him to the gates of Hell”.
Saying something like that is a very ominous message.
To the poster who mentioned France’s elite military status in 1929, Mises thought the same as well. The French military WAS superior to Deustchland’s even in 1939, the issue came when the top military commander of the French force surrendered immediatly, which funnily enough was due to his own collusion with the Nazis to further his position in the new Vichy France.