The roads leading to disaster

[Alkaloid]

Yeah, the PRC would have to think they were holding all the cards to attempt it, and the US being focused somewhere else would only be one of those cards so it's not likely. But dealing one of those cards to them on purpose before you have to is not really worth the risk at this stage.

As for the hypocrisy thing, that's worked internally and will presumably continue to do so, but even in international politics if you want to be taken seriously you need to back up your threats at some point. The reason every one is so damn jumpy about the whole US attacks Iran thing is that they have proved they are willing to invade someone if they need to/want to/feel crotchety on a Monday morning. If China seriously intends to become a major player or a superpower it needs the military and economic might to do so, and demonstrate that it is capable of using it to advance it's interests. Shouting across the ocean about how Taiwan has been very naughty and should come home for two or three decades from now doesn't do that, especially if there is no one of comparable strength in a position to oppose you, it just encourages other nations do defy you as well because you obviously don't have the will to force the issue.

[Aaron MkII]

...justifiable in light of the potential harm of islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.

islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.

Where's Shep when you need him? I'm so sick of idiots raving about things they hardly even understand.

Well it certainly won't do us any good.

I'd like to know how he figures to get off with the same losses as Iraq though. If the US invaded tben they have no reason not to fuck up Gulf traffic or start lobbing missiles at bases in the region or at Israel.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, the PRC would have to think they were holding all the cards to attempt it, and the US being focused somewhere else would only be one of those cards so it's not likely. But dealing one of those cards to them on purpose before you have to is not really worth the risk at this stage.

What risk? That Beijing just got a shipment of Idiot Balls?

As for the hypocrisy thing, that's worked internally and will presumably continue to do so, but even in international politics if you want to be taken seriously you need to back up your threats at some point. The reason every one is so damn jumpy about the whole US attacks Iran thing is that they have proved they are willing to invade someone if they need to/want to/feel crotchety on a Monday morning. If China seriously intends to become a major player or a superpower it needs the military and economic might to do so, and demonstrate that it is capable of using it to advance it's interests.

...Uh, what? What if they don't want to acquire this nebulously defined "major player" status by invading people randomly when it's not to their advantage, and instead prefer to just end up richer than God? Why would they pursue a circular definition of power, in which you beat people up randomly to prove you have power, purely for the sake of proving that they have power? Why do they care what devotees of fake-realpolitik posturing think about whether they're a "major player," compared to their own country's prosperity and excellent trading relationships with the developed world?

It's not like anyone actually pushes them around these days, which is pretty much the definition of "major power." What crazy standard of "major power" are you using, that a nuclear-armed nation with a billion people and a large industrial base doesn't qualify for?

What I don't think you quite grasp is that China does not need imperialism. They are quite capable of looking at the hundred-billion-dollar cost that even a dark-comically one-sided war requires these days, and thinking "it really isn't worth conquering some flyspeck that will be so bombed out by the time we're done that it wasn't worth the money and blood we spent." They have enormous untapped or underused economic potential in their own homeland, and conquest would just divert resources from developing that potential.

You seem to have gotten the notion that a nation cannot have "real" power unless it fights random wars and scares people all the time. That makes very little sense to me.

[Alkaloid]

What risk? That Beijing just got a shipment of Idiot Balls?

Pretty much, yeah. If it could theoretically lead to a multi national war around the pacific rim I'd ideally like everybody involved to be far more cautious than they have been in the past.

...Uh, what? What if they don't want to acquire this nebulously defined "major player" status by invading people randomly when it's not to their advantage, and instead prefer to just end up richer than God? Why would they pursue a circular definition of power, in which you beat people up randomly to prove you have power, purely for the sake of proving that they have power? Why do they care what devotees of fake-realpolitik posturing think about whether they're a "major player," compared to their own country's prosperity and excellent trading relationships with the developed world?

They might not want to have control over any more territory and just keep making money, but that strikes me as being unlikely given pretty much every superpower in history has started, if not directly annexing places they like, going to a whole lot of effort to ensure what goes on there is what they want to go on there.

It's not like anyone actually pushes them around these days, which is pretty much the definition of "major power." What crazy standard of "major power" are you using, that a nuclear-armed nation with a billion people and a large industrial base doesn't qualify for?

The ability to push other people around. A billion strong nuclear armed country is a qualifier for sure, but if all that ever happens every time China and another country have a dispute is a lot of noise, no one is going to be too bothered by it and will just do whatever they feel like, not much different to how things currently stand. If it isn't going to do anything with the changes it makes then why bother changing at all, you could do a lot of good with all the money they have spent on aircraft carriers and the like.

What I don't think you quite grasp is that China does not need imperialism. They are quite capable of looking at the hundred-billion-dollar cost that even a dark-comically one-sided war requires these days, and thinking "it really isn't worth conquering some flyspeck that will be so bombed out by the time we're done that it wasn't worth the money and blood we spent." They have enormous untapped or underused economic potential in their own homeland, and conquest would just divert resources from developing that potential.

Very few major powers that have started creating empires have needed to. It still happens, normally because someone gets it into their head that the state is more important than the people in the state, and that the betterment of the state is more important than the betterment of the people in the state. More education and improved living conditions, while better for the people, are not necessarily better for the state itself, after all, if a huge segment of you population are going to be working in low skilled factory jobs how well educated do they really need to be?

You seem to have gotten the notion that a nation cannot have "real" power unless it fights random wars and scares people all the time. That makes very little sense to me.

You can develop types of power without fear and war, but the way Chinas' defence forces are changing that doesn't appear to be the case. Nuclear weapons already almost guarantee their defence, while aircraft carriers and long range aircraft have almost no purpose but imperialism and power projection, and they are sure as hell trying to build more of those. Combine that with their insistence that a sovereign nation is their territory, and that they also make disputed claims to several other land masses and areas of ocean and I don't think expecting them to make use of them is unreasonable. By the same token if they build those things and don't make use of them then why build them in the first place?

[bobalot]

Oh look it's HMS Conqueror making fantastic claims again.

This is the same guy who claimed that the USA could default on its debts to China and render its currency worthless and somehow it would be the Chinese who would be screwed.

All based on his gut feeling... of course.

[HMS Conqueror]

Fantastic claims like that a third world crazy nation isn't a military superpower, or it having nuclear bombs would be Bad.

If you disagree with my arguments on that thread I'm happy to discuss it there btw, but the passive aggressive sniping is off-topic here.

[Akhlut]

No moreso than any other form of violence or warfare.

Except that these days conventional warfare or other violence isn't guaranteed to kill over 80% of humanity within a year. If the nukes start flying, well... :v

Yes, his opposition was distinctly more... 'bad', but he still authorized the destruction of civilian centers to do it.

So did Wilson, FDR, and Truman; turns out modern warfare's a complete bitch, and maybe we shouldn't elect leaders eager to hop into it, like Castro suggests?

He was still a civilian opposition movement leader, NOT a Government leader with the authority to actually affect things. We can't compare those two directly.

Yes, why would we want leaders MORE like MLK than not in office?

Israel is allied to the US, and thus 'not in national interest', just like how it's not in the national interest to bomb England or France.

Good to know we don't have to worry about nuclear armament escalation if its done by our friends, even though it does give direct reason for our foes to want to get nuclear arms themselves.

North Korea is a very special situation. Seoul is held hostage by NK by thousands of pieces of conventional artillery and rockets within range of causing massive death and destruction. Attacking NK is pretty much out of the question due to the huge loss of life and economic damage that would occur if NK opened up, and before the US could roll them over.

Good to know it's okay to kill who knows how many innocent Iranians should we go to war with them to stop them from trying to acquire the bomb. It's only a problem if they can harm our allies.

Well, Canada isn't a government that is under international economic sanction to cease it's nuclear development, defying that, and building armored highly attack resistant defendable nuclear enrichment sites for it's 'peaceful power usage', while under an unstable government system that has potentially opposing military, civil and religious public authority structures that has had a history of antagonism with the US.

The only reason our ally Israel isn't under the EXACT same situations is because the US continually vetoes anything the UN tries to pass as far as sanctions go. Hell, they even have a history of antagonism with the US!

Extra hypocrisy fun: aside from the embassy hostage situation, anything and everything that Iran has done, the US has done in much greater quantity and with much more horrific results. They fund Hizbollah, we've funded death squads throughout central America and Africa. They warred with Iraq, we did so twice (after arming both sides of their war). They want to develop nuclear weapons, we have the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. They execute members of a minority group, we do that all the time. But, I guess because they wouldn't accept our own dictators and secret police ruling in our stead in their nation, we gotta make them learn to love us via precision airstrikes and assassinations of their people.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed, the fact that you move to dismiss it serves as a key tell that you disagree with it but have no strong arguments against the content, instead going for the fallacious-but-easier character argument.

Fuck off.

I didn't dismiss the content, or express disagreement with it at all. I am questioning how newsworthy it is. Very different things. But, by all means, continue your holier-than-thou act.

[Rabid]

"News & Politics"

It doesn't need to be new to be discussed.

[K. A. Pital]

Fantastic claims like that a third world crazy nation isn't a military superpower, or it having nuclear bombs would be Bad.

If you disagree with my arguments on that thread I'm happy to discuss it there btw, but the passive aggressive sniping is off-topic here.

No it's not moron, you said Iran could destroy all life on earth, I'll stress that. That's way above most of the routine idiocy which flies here and there. That's A-grade idiocy. So let's discuss it.

[HMS Conqueror]

Depends how many bombs they build. They probably can't build that many in a short space of time, but the proposal is to let them do whatever, so it will happen eventually.

[Nephtys]

None of those countries even have a land border with Iran, nor are they "enemies" of the US. Are you expecting PRC to up and nuke California or something? It's sheer wishful thinking. The only thing holding back the US is domestic disapproval of war following Iraq.

No, but if China wants to expand its influence in Asia? Maybe take Taiwan by force instead of just yelling about it? Start sinking ships in disputed waters instead of both sides being massive passive aggressive douches about it? That would be the time to do it. If they do it, it would also make sense for them to start funnelling weapons and equipment into Iran so the US is required to expend more effort there for a longer period of time, buying China more time to dick around in the Pacific. Of course, Japan, South Vietnam and the other countries affected by this wont be able to just let China gobble up big chunks of land, so they will fight back, and who knows where the fuck that will lead. Russia relies on Iranian oil, so they also have a vested interest in not allowing the US and Israel to roll in and take it over, or just carpet bomb the place and destroy all the refineries there, so they may well decide to do the same damn thing like they did in Vietnam, just to make things more difficult for the US. It's better all around if it just doesn't happen at all.

Stop reading shitty Tom Clancy novels, bad episodes of 24, etc.

Taking Taiwan by force? The world economy right now between first-class nations is so intertwined, that any armed conflict spells economic disaster for the entire planet. In fact, even an aggressive disruption of trade from heightened tensions would be godawful.

No, the US is not horrified of it being tied down in Iran so that then other nations will start gobbling up territory. Although Iraq was a horrific expense, the pentagon often states it's goal is to able to fight '2 major wars, one minor'. A few carrier groups can hold down anywhere long enough for boots to be sent out if need be.

The ONLY thing that could hold back the US from hitting Iran in some capacity is public disapproval.

Except that these days conventional warfare or other violence isn't guaranteed to kill over 80% of humanity within a year. If the nukes start flying, well... :v

For one, 80 percent of humanity is an exaggeration. Just to be clear, there aren't enough operational, deliverable nuclear weapons to do that now, or ever. It'll be really godawful bad, but it's not 80 percent extinction bad.

But more seriously, is this new? It's the best things have ever been. EVER, in terms of major nations and their hold on nuclear weapons. Yes, it's said that the US and Russia still operate as they did during the cold war. Except nobody wants or expects war. NATO no longer fears a tank invasion through Germany. The 'USSR' no longer expects invasion either. China doesn't have more than a hundred deliverable weapons, and mostly on crude platforms.

So did Wilson, FDR, and Truman; turns out modern warfare's a complete bitch, and maybe we shouldn't elect leaders eager to hop into it, like Castro suggests?

Are you suggesting Wilson, FDR and Truman were eager to hop into warfare? Or are you suggesting since then, many US Leaders were? Name one US president besides Bush that was 'eager' to hop into a war? It ends up, part of global politics is having your options on the table, especially against irrational and antagonistic nations.

Yes, why would we want leaders MORE like MLK than not in office?

Because civil leaders are not in positions of authority, and have no higher chance of being better than a government leader? See Pre-election Obama vs post-election's track record. An 'MLK' administration or similar would likely fare not much better.

Good to know we don't have to worry about nuclear armament escalation if its done by our friends, even though it does give direct reason for our foes to want to get nuclear arms themselves.

That's how the world works, buddy. If someone has something, an enemy will want a +1.

Good to know it's okay to kill who knows how many innocent Iranians should we go to war with them to stop them from trying to acquire the bomb. It's only a problem if they can harm our allies.

How about the number of allied innocents at risk of being blow up, should the nuclear weapons actually be used? One important thing also is that Invasion is practically off the table the instant a nation gets a nuclear weapon, and Iran has been a consistant global rogue? Especially when these innocents are being FLAGRANTLY used as hostages by their Government which is deliberately placing nuclear development sites in densely packed civilian office buildings, and city blocks?

The only reason our ally Israel isn't under the EXACT same situations is because the US continually vetoes anything the UN tries to pass as far as sanctions go. Hell, they even have a history of antagonism with the US!

So does England. History of Antagonism stops mattering when you've been exceptionally close allies for 3+ generations.

Extra hypocrisy fun: aside from the embassy hostage situation, anything and everything that Iran has done, the US has done in much greater quantity and with much more horrific results. They fund Hizbollah, we've funded death squads throughout central America and Africa. They warred with Iraq, we did so twice (after arming both sides of their war). They want to develop nuclear weapons, we have the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. They execute members of a minority group, we do that all the time. But, I guess because they wouldn't accept our own dictators and secret police ruling in our stead in their nation, we gotta make them learn to love us via precision airstrikes and assassinations of their people.

How simplistic. FAR more people died in the first Iran-Iraq War than both US Invasions combined. Around 2 million people died, Chemical Weapons were deployed en-masse in the longest (8 years) running conventional war in the last century and then some.

The US developed nuclear weapons and employed them to end WW2, then built them up during the Cold War to oppose the USSR, before that ended. Are you saying that having weapons is inherently 'horrific', or perhaps the act of developing them to fight a global war against explicitly and inarguably evil empire builders was the 'horrific' part?
Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons so it can act without accountability and against international sanction still.

When exactly does the US 'execute minority groups all the time'?

You're seeing this as some sort of magical 'good and evil' thing. Reality doesn't work like that. Nations look after their self interest, the interest of their allies, the interest of friends/neutrals and everyone else a distant third.

Depends how many bombs they build. They probably can't build that many in a short space of time, but the proposal is to let them do whatever, so it will happen eventually.

Just to save you some headache, enough bombs to destroy all life on Earth exceeds the number of nuclear bombs in existance right now. They are NOT building tens of thousands of bombs or more. That's never the issue. The issue is enough bombs to blow up a few cities and thus cause millions of deaths.

[HMS Conqueror]

Depends whether you believe in nuclear winter, and the various computer simulations so far produced. I haven't looked at it in great depth myself so it may be nonsense, but a lot of clever people believe it.

Maybe your next move is to say that will only destroy 95% of life on earth? Ok, but I don't see how it changes the effect of the statement.

[Nephtys]

Depends whether you believe in nuclear winter, and the various computer simulations so far produced. I haven't looked at it in great depth myself so it may be nonsense, but a lot of clever people believe it.

Maybe your next move is to say that will only destroy 95% of life on earth? Ok, but I don't see how it changes the effect of the statement.

There's a lot of exaggerations about nuclear weapons that we just need to stop perpetuating. Nuclear Winter is not scientifically plausable. At no point in time, would '100 percent extinction' be possible. What is a true statement instead could be that a nuclear war can destroy the civilizations of modern nations. There's a difference. It's still horrific beyond belief, but actually true.

[HMS Conqueror]

It's easily plausible; it's just increasing the planetary albedo. A first or second year physics student could find it plausible.

Whether it actually happens is predicated on whether huge ash clouds 1. form 2. reach high enough in the atmosphere, and I don't know about that.

As for 'destroy all life' vs 'destroy all civilisation', it's like complaining that being shotgunned the face won't literally blow your head off, just eject most of the contents. It makes little practical difference, and the simplification is rhetorical anyway.

[Nephtys]

It's easily plausible; it's just increasing the planetary albedo. A first or second year physics student could find it plausible.

A good thing this is handled by people with 8+ years more education than a first or second year physics student.

Whether it actually happens is predicated on whether huge ash clouds 1. form 2. reach high enough in the atmosphere, and I don't know about that.

Except we can predict and model that. And that the nuclear winter hypothesis is entirely disproven at this point.

As for 'destroy all life' vs 'destroy all civilisation', it's like complaining that being shotgunned the face won't literally blow your head off, just eject most of the contents. It makes little practical difference, and the simplification is rhetorical anyway.

The difference is, one statement is true and one is not. Yes, both are scenarios that are terrible and should be avoided at all costs. There IS however, a difference. Exaggerated prose about wiping out all man, plant and animal kind makes someone sound like the OP Article's ridiculous wording. The difference is, Civilization will be back up and running to some form after a few years in one case. In the other case, not happening within the same couple of geologic timespans.

[HMS Conqueror]

Except we can predict and model that. And that the nuclear winter hypothesis is entirely disproven at this point.

If you can cite papers I will provisionally concede the point.

[Rabid]

So, basically, if we get back from this nitpick tangent over "How bad is nuclear war", what's you point, Boatty ?

[KhorneFlakes]

I don't even think he has a point, man. I've read his so called posts. All he seems to be doing so far is blabbering, and going "NO YOUr WRONG" whenever someone tries to address one of his "points".

[Rabid]

To add, even if Nuclear Winter was unlikely, a simple application of the Precaution Principle, the same used to justify preemptive strikes in the first place, would logically impose to do all that can reasonably be done to reduce the likeliness of a conflict that could involve nuclear weapons.

And a good way to reduce the likeliness of conflict in general is to avoid acting like dicks in the first place. Which is more or less the point of Castro in this article as far as I can tell.

[HMS Conqueror]

To add, even if Nuclear Winter was unlikely, a simple application of the Precaution Principle, the same used to justify preemptive strikes in the first place, would logically impose to do all that can reasonably be done to reduce the likeliness of a conflict that could involve nuclear weapons.

And a good way to reduce the likeliness of conflict in general is to avoid acting like dicks in the first place. Which is more or less the point of Castro in this article as far as I can tell.

Wait what?

Your way to "avoid nuclear war at any cost" is to allow crazy countries to freely acquire nuclear weapons?!

Look there are honest arguments for pacifism, you don't need to roll out the bullshit.

[Rabid]

There are words in my mouth.

... Strange. I didn't put them there...


There is a teensy little bit of a gap between "let's bomb the shit out of any country trying to upset the world's balance of power by acquiring nuclear weapons" and "let us happily give nukes to everybody".

My point, my precise point, is that pursuing an aggressive policy of violence and menace of further violence toward any Nation you don't like which has the potential (because it is precisely of potential we speak here) of acquiring nuclear weapons is highly counter-productive to the goal of reaching long-lasting peace, as it will only achieve in giving the targeted country a real reason to develop the Bomb, to defend itself from this aggression [*] ; as much as it will reinforce the will of other Nations around the world to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

The problem isn't nuclear weapons in themselves. The problem is that the idiocy of the American government lead to a climate which create more and more incentive for countries around the world to seek a way to obtain their own nuclear arsenal to shield themselves from American meddling - a road that can only lead to disaster. That is the point of the article.


I do not have the pretense to tell you, or anyone for that matter, what should be done. I can only say that what is being done is not the way to go, and that it can only lead us to Bad ThingsTM down the road.

I leave to people more versed than me or you in the arcane of Diplomacy and International Politics to find a way out of this downhill slope.


[*] : If the US is going to bomb you because they think your may be trying to build a nuclear arsenal, and your continued demonstration that it is in fact not the case are continually ignored and only reinforce the will of America to bomb you, it stand to reason that you might as well develop the Bomb to be able to defend yourself and deter the US from attacking you.

[HMS Conqueror]

You have two choices:

1. Attack countries that want nukes.

2. Let said countries obtain nukes.

You have to pick one.

[KhorneFlakes]

How about option 3: I claim that I am a intelligent Tyrannosaurus and slobber all over our head, because you are a stupid fuck who seems to think that MURCA should control the planet, which it should not.

[Rabid]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prosecution rest its case.