|
The Iron Rose posted:This is absolutely the case! It's why free trade is so important, because it establishes mutually beneficial spiral relationships between nations that reduce the incentives for conflict. I don't believe that's sufficient all on its own like neoliberals do, since I think that states will always choose security over prosperity, but anything that makes the world more peaceful is A-OK in my book. Weren't you a log cabin republican?
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You know one of my best friends went into the military and has broadly similar opinions, but based out of an earnest optimistic belief in idealized American power and genuine neoconservative beliefs about the power of our military as a force for good. And I respect him, if only because he admits when he's wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence and generally believes that above all we should at least try to make killing people a last resort. And I accept him as being willfully ignorant and dense, but well-meaning. I mean, I'm not even advocating for the use of nuclear weapons, or even the use of our military in the first place. I'm saying that having them is important because it means other nations are less likely to go to war as a result, meaning less people are going to die. Which means it's very important to ensure we don't elect bloodthirsty madmen like Trump who are going to use our military to kill lots of people for no good reason! The entire foundation of hegemonic stability theory is the preservation of all human life. If advocating for the maintenance of American full spectrum dominance is malevolence, so be it, but yeah, we should absolutely make killing people a last resort! And it's easier to make killing people unnecessary when we have a military that's very very good at killing people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:09
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere. Your posts are filled with the kind of jingoism hitherto reserved for caricatures. Your opinions are so completely morally and ethically bankrupt that I believe if Richard M Nixon were alive to read them would cause him to blush. The things you type are almost exclusively complete fabrications lacking any connection to reality whatsoever. The world is a worse place with you in it and I hope you get to spend an eternity experincing the nuclear fire you so desperately wish for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's not irrelevant, but it means they're easier to discount. I don't see why that's desirable. The Iron Rose posted:Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. You are arguing that nukes can both be discounted and cannot ever be discounted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Your posts are filled with the kind of jingoism hitherto reserved for caricatures. Your opinions are so completely morally and ethically bankrupt that I believe if Richard M Nixon were alive to read them would cause him to blush. The things you type are almost exclusively complete fabrications lacking any connection to reality whatsoever. The world is a worse place with you in it and I hope you get to spend an eternity experincing the nuclear fire you so desperately wish for. It reminds me of Point Break, where the bank robbers think their so clever for realizing peace through intimidation, like it'll never get anyone killed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Iron Rose is dangerously wrong but people aren't actually listening to what she is saying and arguing with what they imagine she is saying. Iron Rose is wrong but Goons are dumb. Dumb is less dangerous than wrong but really, really?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
dogs named Charlie posted:Weren't you a log cabin republican? I don't know why you think that'd be the case! What I think you guys seem to be missing is that I don't want to have to use our military. I don't want to kill anyone. But ultimately the best way to stop warfare between great powers is by having a really big stick. That's why maintaining credibility is so important, and why Obama's biggest failure was making a Syrian red line and then refusing to act on it. mandatory lesbian posted:okay cool, we're still not at peace so it's ultimately meaningless to try and compartmentalize conflict like that It's not meaningless, when the difference is 174,000 dead Iraqis compared to millions and millions of dead in every single incidence of great power war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I mean, I'm not even advocating for the use of nuclear weapons, or even the use of our military in the first place. You only are not advocating for the use of nuclear weapons because they would cause severe blowback on the United States. If we lived in a hypothetical world where the US was the only ones with nuclear weapons I bet you'd advocate for their use in a loving heartbeat. The notion that having a large military actually makes us safer is blatantly absurd. We were far and away the most powerful military in the world when a bunch of goat farmers with box cutters brought down the most prominent symbols of American capitalism and did massive damage to our military headquarters in a single morning. And our insistence on privatized military-industrial complexes creates hilarious moral hazards to use our stupidly massive military on adventures like Iraq, to justify building and buying more and to forcibly open new markets to fuel our increased need for raw materials to replace what we lose in said war. Your thesis is clearly stupid, and your lack of regard for the lives of non-Americans and willingness to declare non-white, non-Americans expendable to maintain some non-existent benevolent American empire is laughably reprehensible. I hope you never hold any meaningful position in foreign policy work in this country, because holy poo poo are you unfit for any such work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
That only works when you base it on your rather insane assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's not meaningless, when the difference is 174,000 dead Iraqis compared to millions and millions of dead in every single incidence of great power war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You are arguing that nukes can both be discounted and cannot ever be discounted. I'm arguing that there are degrees to which nuclear weapons act as deterrents. Even with a no first use policy, they still act as a deterrent to conventional war. However, they are a weaker deterrent as a result of a no first use policy than they would be otherwise. Nuclear weapons can never be fully discounted. However, there are degrees to which they can be discounted, which is influenced by IR signalling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That only works when you base it on your rather insane assumptions. This argument gets Iron Rose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
dogs named Charlie posted:There would have been 0 dead Iraqis if our leadership didn't think they needed to prove their manhood to the region Which is why we shouldn't elect Republicans, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Which is why we shouldn't elect Republicans, I agree. And so the real long con emerges: The Iron Rose wants to be to foreign policy what MIGF is to domestic policy for the Democrats. Bring home all the Blue Dogs and neoconservatives to roost and stick the party firmly in the regressive, centrist position of being milquetoast, permanently neoliberal and aggressively hawkish in foreign policy, but juuuuust responsible enough to not enter into Iraq level shenanigans. Too bad for you that you can't enforce the status quo forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
I don't have the plat or the $10 to helldump your Romney post. I don't have to, it's clear who you want to rule. The God of Death from that one flash video from like four years ago, Jesus gently caress grow up and realize everyone has agency with a capital A, not just military powers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You only are not advocating for the use of nuclear weapons because they would cause severe blowback on the United States. If we lived in a hypothetical world where the US was the only ones with nuclear weapons I bet you'd advocate for their use in a loving heartbeat. I'm not advocating for the use of nuclear weapons because it defeats the whole point of nuclear weapons for them to be used. I'm not advocating for their use not because of blowback, I'm not sure how you got that impression, but because I cannot conceive of a situation using nuclear weapons would ever be a good idea. To the rest of your post, all I can say is that you should study your history better. Three thousand dead on 9/11 were tragic, and showcased that our national defense was weaker than it should have been. But uh, three thousand dead is way different from millions in a war with another great power, and between the two I'll take the three thousand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And so the real long con emerges: The Iron Rose wants to be to foreign policy what MIGF is to domestic policy for the Democrats. Bring home all the Blue Dogs and neoconservatives to roost and stick the party firmly in the regressive, centrist position of being milquetoast, permanently neoliberal and aggressively hawkish in foreign policy, but juuuuust responsible enough to not enter into Iraq level shenanigans. Yeah that'd be pretty rad tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Yeah that'd be pretty rad tbh. Well let's do a comparison, do you believe that when the British Empire as the paramount power and there were no "large scale" wars in Europe that was a "good time" for everyone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Yeah that'd be pretty rad tbh. Don't break kayfabe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:To the rest of your post, all I can say is that you should study your history better. Three thousand dead on 9/11 were tragic, and showcased that our national defense was weaker than it should have been. 9/11 wasn't a failure of national security, it was a failure of national intelligence, because our intelligence apparatus is designed to interfere in the affairs of Third World nations and play Tom Clancy bullshit roleplay games with the Russians and Chinese, not actually do anything meaningful to protect us. Further still it was a failure of our foreign policy, in pushing and prodding a people and a region until they couldn't take it anymore and lashed out and back at us for being so goddamn stupid in not leaving them alone. The Iron Rose posted:Yeah that'd be pretty rad tbh. It's adorable for you to tell me to learn history better and then say stupid rear end poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
dogs named Charlie posted:I don't have the plat or the $10 to helldump your Romney post. I don't have to, it's clear who you want to rule. Yo if anyone else can find this I would like to peep it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Well let's do a comparison, do you believe that when the British Empire as the paramount power and there were no "large scale" wars in Europe that was a "good time" for everyone? Oh god no, but that's the beauty of liberal democracy. You can enjoy the benefits of comparative global peace and stability without having to deal with the whole colonialism and slavery thing. I also think it's questionable whether or not the British empire actually saved lives through deterring large scale wars between great powers when compared to the millions and millions it enslaved, starved, and genocided. Lightning Knight posted:9/11 wasn't a failure of national security, it was a failure of national intelligence, because our intelligence apparatus is designed to interfere in the affairs of Third World nations and play Tom Clancy bullshit roleplay games with the Russians and Chinese, not actually do anything meaningful to protect us. Further still it was a failure of our foreign policy, in pushing and prodding a people and a region until they couldn't take it anymore and lashed out and back at us for being so goddamn stupid in not leaving them alone. Mhm, have you read the 9/11 commission report? It was a failure of our intelligence agencies, sure, but it was first and foremost a failure of our political leadership. They decided to stovepipe intelligence, and we all paid the price for it. Rather similar to when the Johnson administration discounted the warnings of the CIA in Vietnam, preferring the much neater enemy count analyses of MACV. also I'm under no illusions that American hegemony will last forever. That's too arrogant, even for me. But the fact that American hegemony is inherently impermanent is no reason not to try and make it last as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Mhm, have you read the 9/11 commission report? It was a failure of our intelligence agencies, sure, but it was first and foremost a failure of our political leadership. They decided to stovepipe intelligence, and we all paid the price for it. Of course it was, but the political leadership you're happily criticizing are the same people who think your philosophy is correct and who you want to infest the Democratic Party, so your contradictory bullshit just confuses me at this point. You know what, fine, you win. The American political class is going to keep following your philosophy indefinitely anyway because it's convenient to their corporate masters. I'm going to stop arguing with you now, before I say something actually inappropriate and get probated or banned. I need to go take a shower and wash off the disgusting feeling of having been moralized at by an unironic imperialist in the 21st goddamn loving century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Oh god no, but that's the beauty of liberal democracy. You can enjoy the benefits of comparative global peace and stability without having to deal with the whole colonialism and slavery thing. I also think it's questionable whether or not the British empire actually saved lives through deterring large scale wars between great powers when compared to the millions and millions it enslaved, starved, and genocided. Was Britain not a liberal democracy during most of the Empire? Certainly not everyone was allowed a vote, but that doesn't take place until the 1900's anywhere. The Iron Rose posted:also I'm under no illusions that American hegemony will last forever. That's too arrogant, even for me. Do you think that people in Britain would not have wanted to trade the entire empire for enough food to eat or something like the NHS? I know I would have done. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm arguing that there are degrees to which nuclear weapons act as deterrents. Even with a no first use policy, they still act as a deterrent to conventional war. However, they are a weaker deterrent as a result of a no first use policy than they would be otherwise. You haven't proven this and it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The only situation so dire that there's risk we'd actually follow through on such a policy are also so dire that we're just as likely to do it regardless of policy. That's really only going to be imminent defeat in a total war: MAD, and in no other situation. I have another question about your position The Iron Rose posted:But ultimately the best way to stop warfare between great powers is by having a really big stick. That's why maintaining credibility is so important, and why Obama's biggest failure was making a Syrian red line and then refusing to act on it. If making threats we don't intend to act on makes the world more dangerous, then why should we threaten a nuclear response when we'd never act on it, doesn't that undermine our credibility? Indeed we've shown repeatedly that we don't intend to act on a First Strike doctrine in ever war and crisis we've ever had since 1946.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Was Britain not a liberal democracy during most of the Empire? Certainly not everyone was allowed a vote, but that doesn't take place until the 1900's anywhere. Uh, no? No it wasn't a liberal democracy? It might well have had democratic elements, but it sure as gently caress wasn't liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Let me clarify. That's the beauty of a liberal democracy that doesn't go around enslaving people or colonizing as a matter of state policy. Lightning Knight posted:Of course it was, but the political leadership you're happily criticizing are the same people who think your philosophy is correct and who you want to infest the Democratic Party, so your contradictory bullshit just confuses me at this point. I'm not an imperialist. I've no taste for colonialism or imposing our will when doing so is unnecessary and unwanted. I just want American full spectrum dominance to be maintained, so that the United States remains the unquestioned sole hyperpower and hegemon. The result is global peace and stability, and that's a result I'm happy with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm not an imperialist. I've no taste for colonialism or imposing our will when doing so is unnecessary and unwanted. Don't you loving lie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You haven't proven this and it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The only situation so dire that there's risk we'd actually follow through on such a policy are also so dire that we're just as likely to do it regardless of policy. That's really only going to be imminent defeat in a total war: MAD, and in no other situation. Well, total war isn't really the only thing I'm interested in deterring? I don't really want China loving around in the South China Sea or the Taiwanese Strait either. I'm not really sure how to phrase it other than I have. States can never entirely discount tools in another states' toolbox. However, through the use of IR signalling, they can assess, to greater or lesser degrees of accuracy, the likelihood that those tools will be used. A no first use policy signals to the world that we, obviously, won't use nuclear weapons first in a given conflict. That's all well and good, but for the fact that it means that conventional war suddenly became a hell of a lot safer to engage in, since the threat of nuclear destruction as a result just became a whole lot less. quote:I have another question about your position Well, yes, but uh. There hasn't actually been any event that would trigger a first strike doctrine, seeing as there hasn't actually been a large scale war that would trigger said first strike doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Uh, no? No it wasn't a liberal democracy? It might well have had democratic elements, but it sure as gently caress wasn't liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Classical liberlism had ones of it's chief founders as part of Great Britain. Adam Smith for one, and the later trade liberalisations under various governments. Also, the empire had stopped slavery far earlier than many colonial powers. Colonization was usually only done by private companies, so why was the Empire "bad"? The deaths of Thousands in famines situations and the eventual collapse and anarchy that it lead to? The support of regimes that we find abhorent and which hurt millions even today? The constant high handed arrogance of "Whatever happens we have got, the maxim gun and they have not?" Because I'd agree with you there, the problem is that some of those have current paralels. Also it doesn't result in global peace and stability. It results in stability for some and peace for some, but not any result close to "global".
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Well, yes, but uh. There hasn't actually been any event that would trigger a first strike doctrine, seeing as there hasn't actually been a large scale war that would trigger said first strike doctrine. True, and therefore first strike doctrine doesn't deter The Iron Rose posted:China loving around in the South China Sea or the Taiwanese Strait either. because those aren't dire enough to trigger a first strike!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:
... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Classical liberlism had ones of it's chief founders as part of Great Britain. Adam Smith for one, and the later trade liberalisations under various governments. Fair point, I was being sloppy with my words and my definitions. When I talk of liberalism I'm talking about a universal franchise. Let me put it another way. Whether or not it's turtles all the way down, it's better that everyone, from every background, can participate in that conversation about those turtles. This is a feature that wasn't present when the british were hegemon, when the dutch were, when the mongols were, or when the romans were. It is, for the most part, present now. quote:Also, the empire had stopped slavery far earlier than many colonial powers. Colonization was usually only done by private companies, so why was the Empire "bad"? The deaths of Thousands in famines situations and the eventual collapse and anarchy that it lead to? The support of regimes that we find abhorent and which hurt millions even today? The constant high handed arrogance of "Whatever happens we have got, the maxim gun and they have not?" Because I'd agree with you there, the problem is that some of those have current paralels. I'm not really sure I'd make such a distinction between the actions of private british companies and the british government, but I'm not a SME in that particular time period and can't really comment beyond the basics. You may well be right, I couldn't possibly comment. Nonetheless, I would absolutely say that American hegemony results in global peace and stability, when compared to the alternative. I think that's the missing component here. In the absence of alternatives, I can easily see how American hegemony is seen as an evil, horrendous thing! But when the alternative is war between great powers, any great powers, it's on the balance not just the lesser evil, but the greater good. VitalSigns posted:True, and therefore first strike doctrine doesn't deter They would be if China and Japan fought one another in the Pacific Rim! The historical means by which these sort of territorial problems were solved was through warfare - that's not nearly as safe an option anymore thanks to the USN and the nuclear umbrella. I'm personally of the belief that the seventh fleet has more to do with that than our nuclear umbrella, but I've still yet to hear any reason why a No First Use policy would be useful. The deterrence value generated by a no first use policy, however great or meager it is in the estimation of China and Russia, is essentially free. There is nothing, to my knowledge, to be gained from a No First Use Policy whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm personally of the belief that the seventh fleet has more to do with that than our nuclear umbrella, but I've still yet to hear any reason why a No First Use policy would be useful. The deterrence value generated by a no first use policy, however great or meager it is in the estimation of China and Russia, is essentially free. There is nothing, to my knowledge, to be gained from a No First Use Policy whatsoever. Correct, it is the USN that deters Chinese aggression in the Pacific. And again the deterrent effect against anything short of total war (if it exists, which it does not) is not free, both for reasons that you don't accept (the damage to our moral credibility when we announce our callous disregard for the deaths of billions and world Armageddon) but also for a reason you've already put forth (making threats we would never act on damages our credibility if another state takes the risk and proceeds anyway). The only real downside to a No First Use policy is it lets Republicans and Trumpists and neocons dickwave about Obama's weakness emboldening the terrists so they can corral people like you into panic voting for Nixon or Romney or Jeb or Trump or whatever garbage they're offering up next. Actually, I just convinced myself that a First Strike policy from Democrats is essential for this reason alone given how disastrous it is for the world whenever Democrats lose the White House. I now only support No First Use if a Republican administration inaugurates it, Only Nixon Can Go To China etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Correct, it is the USN that deters Chinese aggression in the Pacific. I suppose this is where you and I disagree then. I don't believe that maintaining a first use policy damages our credibility when we have yet to be put in a situation where that credibility would be damaged by our failure to use nuclear weapons in accordance with that policy. In other words, even if it deters wars only to a minor degree, well, that's worth it in my book. The moral hazard I'm less worried about because I can't picture a situation in which we'd actually do that, and the result of a first use policy is a deterrent effect, once again, however minor or great that turns out to be. However, matching policy to practical reality is dangerous, because PLA planners in the Central Military Commission (or Russian generals in the Kremlin) can put that possibility out of their minds easier with a no first use policy than without.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:But when the alternative is war between great powers, any great powers, it's on the balance not just the lesser evil, but the greater good. Disagree entirely. Its definetly "lesser evil", because you can't do bad guy poo poo and then say you are the good guy. You can't set up torture camps in foreign nations and then go "well we're doing this because we're good guys!" And you "can't see an alternative" is that not partially due to the fact that no power likes sharing hegemon and therefore does it's best to prevent an alternative?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
So long as we have active nuclear arms, how worthwhile is any "no first use" pledge?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:However, matching policy to practical reality is dangerous, because PLA planners in the Central Military Commission (or Russian generals in the Kremlin) can put that possibility out of their minds easier with a no first use policy than without. The PLA attacked the US military in a conventional war already, our nuclear umbrella did nothing to deter them. "The PLA would never do this thing they already did!" They don't attack Taiwan because they don't have the naval power to hold it, not because they seriously think we'd blow up the world over some rinky dink island (no offense to Taiwan I'm sure it's a very lovely rinky dink island whose independence isn't quite worth destroying civilization itself) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:
Do you remember the Bush years? Did W's (seemingly?) serious talks of using tactical nukes make the world safer or more dangerous?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The PLA attacked the US military in a conventional war already, our nuclear umbrella did nothing to deter them. Alright, that's an excellent counterpoint that, in all honesty, I had forgotten about. I had gotten it into my head that Chinese interference in the Korean War had been significantly less direct. I'll concede my point. You were right and I was wrong. I will still maintain that there's no benefit from a no first use policy now, and any deterrent effect, while clearly more minor than I initially thought, is still worth keeping. But that's more because I can't see an upside to a no first use policy rather than anything else. Josef bugman posted:Disagree entirely. Its definetly "lesser evil", because you can't do bad guy poo poo and then say you are the good guy. You can't set up torture camps in foreign nations and then go "well we're doing this because we're good guys!" moreso because multipolarity has never been anything other than chaotic and filled with death, but that's definitely true as well. Shbobdb posted:Do you remember the Bush years? A head of state openly and publicly threatening the use of nuclear weapons is a very, very dangerous line and escalates conflict to a degree that's rarely acceptable. The point of nukes is that they're defensive and strategic, not tactical. While no US president should ever categorically rule out the use of nuclear weapons due to the damage caused from that signalling, I was never a great admirer of madman theory either. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc2aaDed2hI
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:23
|
|