Questions for our American friends

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by onelucky1

A question for our american friends,hope it,s not been debated.
At the moment america is still in the ascendency,but china is not spending all that money on weapons for nothing They need more and more food ,water,energy and minerals ,without america do you think they will take what they want by force

Force doesn't do nearly as much good as structural adjustments to trade relations. Building pipelines to terminals owned by Chinese companies, refining facilities, etc.

The Japanese tried the physical resource grab, and everyone in Asia learned the lesson that it works poorly and excites a lot of resentment.

The Chinese understand that Australia, for example, has a lot of what they need, but is intensely suspicious of them. The more aggressive they are, the less likely the Australians are going to be to play ball the way the Chinese like.

So, if the Chinese were to expand their blue water fleet, the response in Oz probably be would be to expand US military presence (already happening), and perhaps to buy a few submarines.

[Aitken Bonar]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its actually a very small number. The US military generally has 200 or so fatalities a year in training accidents. We've got 15,000 a year in fatalities from auto accidents in the nation

The difficulty with the number is that its so concentrated . . . actual combat casualties are very heavily concentrated in the Special Forces.

The hard-to-quantify casualties are psychological. We've got hundreds of thousands of men and women who spent years of their lives driving down roads, wondering if they were going to get blown up.

It's also a very small number compared to fatalities and casualties endured in the Civil War which, if you'll allow me, was America's most formative conflict in many ways.

You make an excellent point about psychological casualties. I am involved with a veterans' charity and see the baggage men and women carry about because they've been put into no-win situations, quite often (in my view) by chickenhawks who've never had the balls to serve and would rather send their kids to Wall Street or the City of London than do duty in uniform.

Isn't that the way of it, though. Still, services people have my respect and support - always. I could start a rant about government spending on services for veterans but I shall step back.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

We've got 15,000 a year in fatalities from auto accidents in the nation

You could be right, but the guys from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say it's 40.000 per year - or about two Boeing 747s full of people for every week of every year, at least for 2001-2009

This map shows where every one of them took place. I hope it isn't against the rules to post it. If not, Mods please delete

http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa#

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by palo5

You could be right, but the guys from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say it's 40.000 per year -

You got me-- 15,000 is the number of murders, not auto fatalitiesw. . . points to palo5 for knowing the data!

40,000 was the annual number of fatalities, give or take, for the the years 2000-2007

But interestingly, the numbers have fallen sharply in the last three years . . . appears to be because of the economy folks are driving less. . . is now down to 32,000 or so.
The peak year for auto fatalities was 1973, with 54,000 . . . and bear in mind, US population at that time was around 210 million.

Interesting how much safer driving has gotten . . . and interesting what a bloody enterprise it was!

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You got me-- 15,000 is the number of murders, not auto fatalitiesw. . . points to palo5 for knowing the data!

40,000 was the annual number of fatalities, give or take, for the the years 2000-2007

But interestingly, the numbers have fallen sharply in the last three years . . . appears to be because of the economy folks are driving less. . . is now down to 32,000 or so.
The peak year for auto fatalities was 1973, with 54,000 . . . and bear in mind, US population at that time was around 210 million.

Interesting how much safer driving has gotten . . . and interesting what a bloody enterprise it was!

In this country,(the UK) with only half a million motors on the road in 1928 there were 8000 road deaths.
At present, with 30 million vehicles it's under 3000 a year.
There are 30 000 gun fatalities in the US each year though.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by knobby109

In this country,(the UK) with only half a million motors on the road in 1928 there were 8000 road deaths.
At present, with 30 million vehicles it's under 3000 a year.
There are 30 000 gun fatalities in the US each year though.

Yes on both points.

The "apples to apples" comparison for driving risk is "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" . . . this number has fallen steadily from the 1920s to the present. The thing that really impresses me looking at the data is not just that driving remains a hazardous business, but that it has been such an amazingly dangerous enterprise in the past. Its a wonder your grand-dad wasn't killed in an auto accident.

And yes on "gun fatalities" . . . murder is just one segment of them. There's murder, there's suicide, and there are accidents. Gun enthusiasts often skip over just how often folks are killed by gunshot, when no crime has been committed. Alaska and Wyoming, for example, have some of the nation's highest gun ownership rates. They also have rather low crime rates, and not much murder . . . but if you look at folks who get shot, accidentally or by suicide, the number is very high. Having a gun around makes it much more likely that you or someone in your household will be shot . . . deliberately or by accident.

[vit]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

and perhaps to buy a few submarines.

and drones not to be forgotten...

Iran rejects US calls for return of spy drone - TheGuardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...s-us-spy-drone

[JohnsonJackson]

i see very few motivating factors as to why iran would want to return the spy drone. which is dreadful news for the US and the west, but we already knew that.

what's more interesting to me is what iran ultimately winds up doing with the precious technology drop in their hands. i mean, in a land that discourages creativity and knowledge so relentlessly, how many people of their own are capable of properly dissecting the drone? which leads to the question of- which partners do they want to bring in to get professional results? mainly- the russians, the chinese, country C, or free agents?

looks like the CIA is not finished making massive screwups. one might say, kennedy-esque.

[OtisOne]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Having a gun around makes it much more likely that you or someone in your household will be shot . . . deliberately or by accident.

Especially with a Santa Ana blowing.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by JohnsonJackson

looks like the CIA is not finished making massive screwups. one might say, kennedy-esque.

Do we know that its a "screw up"?