Shared publicly  - 
The new issue of The Economist is now available to view online via our website:
Ethan Einar Anders's profile photoRichard Young's profile photoMurdoch Thomson's profile photoJOHN ERLING JEELANI DENMARK BROADCASTING WORLDWIDE's profile photo
The enduring conflict on the Korean peninsula is one of the world's worst political comedic tragedies. "Regime change" is the only option for legitimate change. The US should be more aggressive in pursuing that goal.
+Viney Varughese Cause we got guns? No, but serious, the strongest guy in the room has the greatest morale imperative to combat obvious injustices. We are the strongest guy in the room.
+Viney Varughese Really? China has 1/2 the GDP, 1/10 the GDP per cap, and 1/5 the military expenditure. By what measure do you think China is "the strongest guy in the room"?
раздавит если близко подойти
+Nicholas Sammons Sorry buddy, the US is not the strongest guy in the room. They have the anti-Midas touch; anything they interfere with turns to crap. And just cause they have billions to spend in defense doesn't make them strong either, its the equivalent of botox & steroids. Take a few hints from the happiest country in the world, Denmark.
North Korea will NOT change until it is in China's interest for it to do so.  And for now, North Korea continues to be a pesky distraction to the West, and therefore still a benefit to China.
Economist out to lunch this time. Change is the most dangerous thing conceivable for the dictatorship. Steve Brown is right, that country will NOT change until China wants it to.
+Jonathan Cubas Hey, no one's arguing that American interventionism hasn't gone wrong in some places, but that's not universally true.
I don't dislike the USA, but that attitude is a big part of their problem. The British are no where near as indoctrinated by government. If anything our first instinct is suspicion, then rebellion. When N. Korea stop Samsung exporting phones from the south, I'll start to worry. 
+Omar Morales Luna Europe still doesn't have the same military expenditure the US does. And Europe doesn't really have a single military to command.

Plus, Europe does get into wars. Europe's in Afghanistan remember....
I never implied we don't get into wars, I just said compared to you, the US takes the cake for getting its hands dirty DESPITE the fact we have similar military might as you do. (Whether Americans want to believe it or not) that's my point.

You can intervene without leaving a mess or being a "douche" about it. 
пустая голова не компенсирует наполнение пустого кармана и с чего всем кажется что сша более опасны чем другие силы по инерции и из зависти что они впереди в мрафоне все ненавидят впереди бегущих
+Omar Morales Luna re "DESPITE the fact we have similar military might as you do." - EU combined has about 1/2 the military expenditure of the US.
You're still concerned with expenditure? You honestly believe that the portion of American tax payer dollars used for military expenditure are being properly distributed for advancing technology/skills? You guys can't even properly fund NASA (even though it costs less than a penny on the USD). Perhaps the US should just hand us over their programmes, we'll put them to good use.
+Omar Morales Luna Sure expenditure isn't an end all and be all, but it's a meaningful statistic. What do you have?

You want me to give you another statistic..... Ok. America has 10 aircraft carriers in service. Europe has 6.
дорогой я русский художник и не полиглот и возраст не позволяет стать им если вы прочли то что пишу и показываю я то потрудитесь коротко изьясняться  по русски и я отвечу на все ваши вопросы
николас спасибо за совет
How is it a meaningful statistic if it isn't properly utilized? Go ahead spend trillions on military, it may sound rich, but in the end your military just makes the rest of the world laugh; it causes more destruction, unrest, & stalemates than it sets out to quell!

Also, I'm from Spain I had the courtesy of speaking English to you, but nothing is stopping me from speaking Italian, Portuguese or Spanish, +George Ringzak can speak whatever he likes :) Saluti!
+Omar Morales Luna Ok. Well clearly you're not interested in looking at the numbers. If you want to imagine the US military is "laughable", you're free to do so. Good day.
Money spent and numbers of aircraft carriers don't count for shit. Name a conflict in the last 40 years where the US military has won. Vietnam? Iraq? Bosnia? Somalia? Afghanistan? The truth is that the US achieves its goals using other people's armies, client states, wars by proxy, and divide and conquer. Standard imperial strategy, used throughout history. Like most empires, the home population won't support spiralling military spending when unemployment and poverty set in. 
+Nicholas Sammons I'm aware of the numbers. They're just insignificant, redundant, and misleading. Expenditure means nothing if it isn't utilized properly. Those are the numbers, & they all point to the US being a fool on stage.

Most agree, the US makes matters worse & their "oh so powerful" military can't seem to get jobs done on time. There were Spanish troops in Afghanistan (and other countries aiding the US) they had their misson, got it done and José Luis Zapatero got them back home. Quick, clean & professional with less €
+Omar Morales Luna +Nicholas Sammons +Jonathan Harker Mr. Harker (comment at 5:19) is somewhat correct. But there are a few things missing from this conversation. The goal of the US is not to "win the war" in the traditional sense. Yes Vietnam was a total failure and Somalia was embarrassing. But, the neo-conservative goals of the the Iraq War and Afghanistan were much different:
1) Regime Change (success)
2) test and prove new weapons and technology (success)
3) Prevent unification of Arabic and/or Islamic countries (partial success)
4) create a deterrent for countries harboring terrorist training camps (partial success)
5) dismantle Al Qaeda (success)
6) gain more control over middle-eastern oil (mostly fail)

meanwhile, Al Qaeda's goal was to bankrupt the US by drawing them into "impossible to win" wars. They came damn close too! And the US is not out of the woods yet either.

With respect to "who's the strongest guy in the room", the answer is obvious: the US. If you factor in technological advantages, no country in the world even comes close. But as many have pointed out, this does not necessarily mean  "smart" or "happy" or "better" or anything like that. It just means that my country (Canada) were to be threatened with an existential threat the US would be by far my first pick as an ally. And anyone from France, Holland, and the UK who was born before 1940 thanks god for the US being a great ally.

I'll leave you with this one last comment: name a single world super power in the history of super powers who handled their power in a more ethical manner than the US? I'd suggest this: all superpowers will abuse their power... but I can not think of a single country in the world that I would prefer to have as a super power than the US.

+Leigh Christie you have many points, definitely more to consider than +Nicholas Sammons . the US utilizes its power much more than any other country in the world. What I was getting at was that EU, German engineering and other US allies have as much or close to as much technological advancement as the US does (many US weapons & skills are are made in conjunction with & influenced by Europe & her allies) but we know when not to get involved & let things be, of course we're not perfect either. But Why is it that the US has such a bad reputation for making things worse? Why are most of US missions always partial successes (half assed jobs)? By default the strongest guy in the room is the ONLY guy in the room, the US. But I think Brazil, EU, & Russia alone are unsung heroes in this equation.

Now as for your history question. That isn't really fair, the US happens to be in the right time period at the right time. I have a minor in anthropology. Human culture has changed much in the last 300 years, specifically our abandonment of slavery and our more liberal & tolerant view on life such as women having more rights and more unification among countries. My country of Spain & possibly England, Rome & france were probably the greatest & most feared powers the world has ever known....however look at the time period they existed in. where slavery was ethical and the Spanish inquisition was considered cleansing. So yes once again by default, the US is the most ethical super power.
Add a comment...