The right doesn't care about national defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

America might be in a position to build items with no foreign parts (although considering the output of electronics fromt he Far East I find this unlikely)

---

at the height of the recession Intel managed to find the cash to invest $12b upgrading about five or their 20+ worldwide fab plants to 32nm.................. all happened to be in america!

subsidies in the name of "strategic national interest" methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I do believe it applies. Without subsidies, it sounds like there would be a significant amount of food being shipped in. It's not the exports of your farmers (of the lack thereof) but the fact that dirt poor third world farmers would have a new market to sell goods in.

---

We already import the majority of our food.

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Banning subsidies and such won't do much to the dirt poor countries. It'll do wonders for countries like Brazil, but to get the dirt poor ones competing, there's only one thing to do, and that is to industrialize those countries.

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

In light of this thread, do you still want to overwhelm Norway's five million inhabitants by importing ten million people from the Third World, HoreTore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

In light of this thread, do you still want to overwhelm Norway's five million inhabitants by importing ten million people from the Third World, HoreTore?

---

Yeah. We're still bummed by logistics.

And I don't give a damn about national defense, I want to disband the army. I'm just having a laugh at the right-wingers who think they care about national defense ~;) Also, I have to point out that I've never said I wanted 10 million new guys here, just 8-10 million total(ie. doubling our population), so around 5 million new imports is quite ok :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

---

So we have the power to decide to get rid of democratically elected, native heads of state that we don't like the look of? Rather Imperialistic methinks.

Other ones that come to mind include N. Korea's leader any takers, or do you advocate only picking on weak leaders who are destroying their country?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm just having a laugh at the right-wingers who think they care about national defense ~;)

---

i'm not at all sure that you have managed demonstrate anything risible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So we have the power to decide to get rid of democratically elected, native heads of state that we don't like the look of? Rather Imperialistic methinks.

---

Mugabe is democratically elected...? What have you been smoking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Other ones that come to mind include N. Korea's leader any takers, or do you advocate only picking on weak leaders who are destroying their country?

---

Of course he's included. I've said it a million times on this forum, if there is one invasion I would support, then it's an invasion of North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We already import the majority of our food.

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Banning subsidies and such won't do much to the dirt poor countries. It'll do wonders for countries like Brazil, but to get the dirt poor ones competing, there's only one thing to do, and that is to industrialize those countries.

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

---

Ah. I'm not so sure about the dirt poor countries being unable to compete. But I don't have the details.

CR

Quote:

---

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

---

Those countries one step up the ladder likely subsidize their agriculture...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, indeedy, that's what the title says.

The two parties(the conservatives and the right-wing progress paty) in this country who wants the strongest army and generally wants to increase the military budget are also the two parties, who, if in charge, would leave us with by far the weakest defense.

---

I admit, when it comes to Norway I am totally out of my element.

1. What military power are you threatened by? Russia couldn't attack the European Union without half the world coming to your rescue and the other staying neutral.

2. Why couldn't you get your food from the United States? Basically the only thing we export these days is food

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and "Democracy" :rolleyes:

3. If food is in such demand in your country, why do the farmers need subsidies from the government? They should be rich.



But then again I haven't the foggiest idea what I am talking about half the time, so feel free to bring me up to speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Those countries one step up the ladder likely subsidize their agriculture...

---

That would be the countries one further step up the ladder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I admit, when it comes to Norway I am totally out of my element.

1. What military power are you threatened by? Russia couldn't attack the European Union without half the world coming to your rescue and the other staying neutral.

---

The only scenario, in the current world, in which we could get attacked, is in a world war 3 scenario. Basically it would have to be an attack on europe(EU), in which case we would be dragged along(due to tasty oil, and a coastline to attack england).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

2. Why couldn't you get your food from the United States? Basically the only thing we export these days is food

---

Because we're talking WW3 here. The world would be at war, including the United States, and well, relying on shipping in such a situation isn't ideal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

3. If food is in such demand in your country, why do the farmers need subsidies from the government? They should be rich.

---

Because it's very hard to grow something here, and thus very expensive. To explain a little further; let's say you have one acre of land, and you wish to grow wheat there. With the soil in Norway, you can get x amount of wheat from it. With one acre in a more fertile country, like say Brazil, you would get 10x wheat.

Also, 1000 USD is a fortune in some countries, while it's pocket change here....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The only scenario, in the current world, in which we could get attacked, is in a world war 3 scenario. Basically it would have to be an attack on europe(EU), in which case we would be dragged along(due to tasty oil, and a coastline to attack england).

---

The trouble I see here is this; you would have to spend a huge chunk of your economy on creating a vast military to even slow down a huge threat like Russia. It's unrealistic to expect to be able to do so... it would be like Denmark becoming the 5th greatest military on the planet. Even if you could do so, you'd collapse in on yourself like the Soviet Union.

Quote:

---

Because we're talking WW3 here. The world would be at war, including the United States, and well, relying on shipping in such a situation isn't ideal...

---

I see your point. I really think we've gone beyond self-sufficiency here, though; few nations can support themselves individually. Some are too small or too poor to have a huge army, or cannot afford the space or the effort to grow their own food. What you should have is a stockpile of non-perishable food and containers of fresh water stored by the government in facilities all over the nation, which over time will accumulate and provide food and clean water in times of crisis like war or famine.

Or at least I think it's a good idea. We have gone too far; we cannot revert back to an agrarian economy. There are too many people and not enough arable lands for everyone. A tree cannot revert back into a sapling. The only realistic option to prepare for times of need is to store surplus goods. Take the money you would be spending on farm subsidies and use it to buy non-perishable goods and you'll actually be making an investment in your future rather than spending money on expensive crops that will die and farmland which can be easily destroyed or devastated by conflict or weather patterns. Buy a lot of cheap crops and can them and store them.

Or perhaps a little bit of both. I suppose increasing your own food yield isn't exactly a bad notion; I just think it's expensive and inefficient to put all your effort in that one direction when it may not be practical for Norway.

I'd like to think the United States and other allies will be there to kick some invader butt... that is, if our economy doesn't collapse or we don't lose all credibility with the international community. But I guess you can't count on that.

Quote:

---

Because it's very hard to grow something here, and thus very expensive. To explain a little further; let's say you have one acre of land, and you wish to grow wheat there. With the soil in Norway, you can get x amount of wheat from it. With one acre in a more fertile country, like say Brazil, you would get 10x wheat.

Also, 1000 USD is a fortune in some countries, while it's pocket change here....

---

I think I understand more clearly now. Thanks! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

The trouble I see here is this; you would have to spend a huge chunk of your economy on creating a vast military to even slow down a huge threat like Russia.

---

You can buy a lot of Vodka and leave it at the borders :beam:



Forget resource independence. It is a dinosaur. The modern global economy is too interconnected for said independence to be a viable strategy. You may do it in theory but not without an immensely huge penalty on your GDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

The trouble I see here is this; you would have to spend a huge chunk of your economy on creating a vast military to even slow down a huge threat like Russia. It's unrealistic to expect to be able to do so... it would be like Denmark becoming the 5th greatest military on the planet. Even if you could do so, you'd collapse in on yourself like the Soviet Union.

---

Hey, I'm pretty damn honest about not caring about national defense in the slightest, I've said a million times that I want the army disbanded(30 billion we could spend on something useful...).

However, the right-wingers want national defense. They want a huge army to defend our country. However, when they instead disband our agriculture, their national defense plan is useless, which is what my original post was about :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hey, I'm pretty damn honest about not caring about national defense in the slightest, I've said a million times that I want the army disbanded(30 billion we could spend on something useful...).

However, the right-wingers want national defense. They want a huge army to defend our country. However, when they instead disband our agriculture, their national defense plan is useless, which is what my original post was about :yes:

---

Who is going to attack these dictators then?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Who is going to attack these dictators then?

---

I think it should be pretty damn obvious now that invading a country to remove an unwanted dictator isn't going to work, Iraq is proof of that.(North Korea would be the exception to that rule).

So, it's time to start thinking about new approaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So, it's time to start thinking about new approaches.

---

Maybe some of the super-smart science-types who are working on "climate change" could put more effort into devising a way to neutralize nuclear warheads, a much more imminent threat to humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Maybe some of the super-smart science-types who are working on "climate change" could put more effort into devising a way to neutralize nuclear warheads, a much more imminent threat to humanity.

---

Nah, they can continue working on environmentalism, they're not needed.

All we need to solve that issue, is around 7 guys. And all we would need them to do, is to simply want all nuclear warheads to disappear, and so it shall be done.

Unfortunately, those 7 guys we have don't want that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Norway's national defence plan came up in another thread, didn't it? I'm fairly sure that the detail that Norway only had to hold for a few weeks for the defence plan to be a "success" against the Russians came up somewhere.

Nobody is going to starve to death in that time. I'd be more worried about Russians than grain in a WWIII.

---

Agreed...

And agricultural welfare = bad.