131–140 of 400 posts
We need to take a MUCH harder stance against Russia poisoning the public discourse with conspiracy theories, fake news and alternative medicine/science/history/morality. We have to restore values and trust to the public affairs.
At this point wars between powerful nations are almost impossible. Proxy wars are the current fashion, and those tend to be controlled in scale by the puppetmasters behind it. I'm more scared about a great civil war in a powerful nuclear nation. Civil wars are a savage affair where no rules apply.
This book was hugely influential in the years just before WW1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion Premise: the large nations of the world are far to intertwined by commerce and culture. Large scale war would be suicidal and the leadership of these countries would never do something so foolish.
What's the point of war in the modern world? Gain land/people? If there's a thriving economy there, war will probably change that quickly. If there's no thriving economy, what's the point? You could try to exploit the people/resources there, but the profits in that seem (at least compared to a world power) pretty thin. Unskilled labor and unimproved land are just not worth what they used to be. Specific resources mig…
I'll add trade as an important deterrent to war in the modern world. The more countries' economies become intertwined, the more incentive there is to work things out peacefully. Unfortunately, the wave of protectionism we're seeing undermines this incentive.
What's the point of war in the modern world? Gain land/people? If there's a thriving economy there, war will probably change that quickly. If there's no thriving economy, what's the point? You could try to exploit the people/resources there, but the profits in that seem (at least compared to a world power) pretty thin. Unskilled labor and unimproved land are just not worth what they used to be. Specific resources mig…
It bugs me that thinking of states as rational actors is called "foreign policy realism".
What's the point of war in the modern world? Gain land/people? If there's a thriving economy there, war will probably change that quickly. If there's no thriving economy, what's the point? You could try to exploit the people/resources there, but the profits in that seem (at least compared to a world power) pretty thin. Unskilled labor and unimproved land are just not worth what they used to be. Specific resources mig…
Why must war be about gain? Many conflicts in the Middle East seek to reduce standards of living to feed radicalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a possibility but that's provided everything else holding up the system(s) actually holds up. The minute supermarkets stop having enough food on their shelves is the minute panic sets in. After that it's not long before any nation runs the risk of turning into Venezuela and people are killing their neighbor's dog for food. I don't think you're giving enough weight to the grim reality of human nature. T…
Also it feels like food supply is much more fragile now (more dependent), almost 8 bln people now compared to ~1.5 bln 100 years ago, if this collapses, it'll collapse big time.
This practice is pervasive throughout most of the economy and there is very little planning for any disruptions in any supply chains whatsoever. The decades of relative peace, prosperity, expanded trade, and global growth have tricked everyone into thinking nothing will ever disrupt anything at all. That's probably a mistake.
This kind of foolishness may have some serious consequences at some point. We've also become substantially more dependent on a number of nations for constant imports of raw materials and food as well. And we've largely stopped manufacturing pretty much everything which means we also get almost everything sent to us. This could be a real serious issue if there is a sudden large-scale war and a number of countries we rely upon aren't on the same side as ours. And from an economic perspective, business conditions have been pretty sweet for companies over the last 30-40 years outside of a few catastrophic events. Is there even anyone in the business world left at this point that even remembers what it's like to have to survive on low debt and increasing interest rates? Companies have just expected ever-lower interest rates since the early to mid 80's and they've been able to rollover debt easily and take out more money to fund operations. Is there anyone left who has actually managed large businesses in an environment that was less predictable?
What's the point of war in the modern world? Gain land/people? If there's a thriving economy there, war will probably change that quickly. If there's no thriving economy, what's the point? You could try to exploit the people/resources there, but the profits in that seem (at least compared to a world power) pretty thin. Unskilled labor and unimproved land are just not worth what they used to be. Specific resources mig…
And then the WW1 broke out.
Dan Carlin gives the relevant background quite good.
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepr...
Nationalism. This has been rising up like a plague in recent years and it isn't going away any time soon. When ego and emotion come into play, the question of what is the point because a matter of pride and the point is just to win regardless of the costs.
Not only nationalism. Current conflicts are rooted in the same prejudices as a hundred years ago. The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior) hasn't been resolved, only more or less patched, and thus these conflicts are bound to reappear and escalate sooner or later until we recognize that that despite the valuable diversity humanity is essentially one and align the political and e…
Honest question: is it possible in your opinion for someone to not believe "my nation/religion/race/etc is superior" yet still be opposed to globalism? To me, this is what nationalism means, international cooperation while unequivocally maintaining the right to national democratic self-determination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible Are you implying you can destroy the enemy's nuclear arsenal in your first strike? If so, you don't understand MAD. Any submarine arsenal will be nearly impossible to destroy. If you first strike North Dakota (for example) to destroy all the missile silos, subs will simply eradicate your country.
I understand MAD. But "nearly impossible" is not impossible (think not only nuclear, but the whole arsenal of modern weapons, including computerized, chemical, biological etc). The problem is not actual first-strike capability though, it is perceived such, be it one's own or the enemy's.
A single submarine cannot be trivially located - the ocean is too deep and vast. If countries working together can't find the wreckage of a single crashed airplane in a generally known location, how do you expect them to find dozens of cloaked subs in unknown locations each holding hundreds of nuclear warheads?
Even assuming you wipe out 100% of the continental USA's weapons with a first strike, there are still thousands of nukes in the ocean ready to wipe your country off the face of the earth.
How does this fit in with your original argument that first strikes "render the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible"?