|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 12 2016 08:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The idea of aggregate "winners" and "losers" on the world stage is such nebulous ground. For example, Russia definitely isn't "beating" the U.S. in overall economy security and prosperity, and while China is prospering in many areas they're struggling in others (overall standard of living and dissemination of improvements) and facing the societal ramifications of the 1-child policy.
The main reason to fear Russia is fear of the unpredictability of someone with their back against the wall and almost nothing to lose, really.
Nobody said russia is beating the US in whatever. The statement was "nobody is challenging the US", and that's factually untrue. I personally am not too fond of russia either, i wasn't trying to paint them stronger as the US in any shape. I was just saying that russia is challenging the US (amongst other countries) constantly.
|
On August 12 2016 07:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 07:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
even if the next 5 years becomes progressively much worse and an actual civil war happens in either france or the US, 1945 - 2020 will be just about the most peaceful and prosperous 75-year period the west has ever seen, and the US has been leading during this period.
You can definitely argue about the costs to the non-west, and in isolation the previous 2-3 years and probably the following 5+ years are less good, but specifically to the west, US hegemony has been very good, so far. White supremacist and imperialist apologist ! PS : i'm joking. The US has been a responsible hegemon since the end of second world war. On another note, the 75 years before the first world war was actually a pretty peaceful period, except for the 1870 franco prussian war which was basically settled in a few month.
Yes, Pax Britannica was interrupted by some world wars and now New Britain is in charge.
On August 12 2016 07:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 07:35 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 12 2016 07:31 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 07:29 PassiveAce wrote:
Except it's objectively true Is it? What part? The one that said "nobody is challenging the US", which is objectively and factually wrong, or the "age of peace", which is even worse, considering that there never was more fear, death and terror for the west, and the shit show that you guys turned the middle east into? Right. The latter is very wrong. This is going to be the most peaceful century Europe has probably ever seen. And that clearly has nothing to do with the EU. I'm just saying maybe the first part of Kwark's statement you could contest. But I don't think the latter is very debatable It is if you're stating that the US is the reason for that. Europe hasn't had a big war (like we used to) because they've sat together and worked, well.. "something" out. The EU is far from perfect, maybe even far from actually "good", but it's definitely the biggest stabilizer. Show nested quote +even if the next 5 years becomes progressively much worse and an actual civil war happens in either france or the US, 1945 - 2020 will be just about the most peaceful and prosperous 75-year period the west has ever seen, and the US has been leading during this period.
That's just dumb. Yeah, we didn't have another world war (which, funny enough, almost happened thanks to the US/USSR). That's it. If you're saying that we didn't have another war with literally billions of people dead or close to death, then yes. What an amazing feat. We just killed hundreds of thousands.
Europe wasn't brought together by vacuum accident. It happened precisely because the continent had been shattered and the US was far ahead of other western powers. So the US brought the umbrella. And the USSR would have been a threat to that even without the US.
|
On August 12 2016 07:59 m4ini wrote:
That'd be the NATO, not the US. You know. The allegiance that only was called upon once in regards to what it was intended for. By the US. To fight a war based on a lie.
I'm not saying the US didn't play a role. What i'm saying is, that it's extremely ignorant to assume the US made the world a better place by itself. Because if you look at the US in a vacuum, the opposite is the case.
The US is NATO. The entire organization exists to allow the US to project power through the veil of cooperation.
On August 12 2016 07:57 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On August 12 2016 07:31 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 07:29 PassiveAce wrote:
Except it's objectively true Is it? What part? The one that said "nobody is challenging the US", which is objectively and factually wrong, or the "age of peace", which is even worse, considering that there never was more fear, death and terror for the west, and the shit show that you guys turned the middle east into? Right. As periods of human history go, the last 70-odd years (or even the last 10) have barely any "fear, death and terror" for the west, and worldwide is probably at worst average. The assertion that "nobody is challenging the US" seems fairly ridiculous though. From where I sit, the US is presently in the process of losing to China. (Not that I think Trump would do anything but accelerate that.) How is the US losing to China? Because I don't see pretty much any facet in which China can be seen as 'winning' outside of pure population numbers. Economically. I don't know if China's ahead at this moment, but considering trajectories...
China is surging in economy because it was going from bad towards good. The early steps are a lot easier and quicker to make then the top steps. There is no way they can continue to keep growing as fast as they are and I do believe the Chinese stockmarket has already started to show cracks recently.
On August 12 2016 08:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The idea of aggregate "winners" and "losers" on the world stage is such nebulous ground. For example, Russia definitely isn't "beating" the U.S. in overall economy security and prosperity, and while China is prospering in many areas they're struggling in others (overall standard of living and dissemination of improvements) and facing the societal ramifications of the 1-child policy.
The main reason to fear Russia is fear of the unpredictability of someone with their back against the wall and almost nothing to lose, really. Nobody said russia is beating the US in whatever. The statement was "nobody is challenging the US", and that's factually untrue. I personally am not too fond of russia either, i wasn't trying to paint them stronger as the US in any shape. I was just saying that russia is challenging the US (amongst other countries) constantly.
A child shouting at a boxer he will come and beat him up is not 'challenging' him.
|
|
|
Isn't the thing with China's growth that its coming at a pretty big cost that will knock them down in the future because of the way they are doing it?
|
On August 12 2016 08:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The idea of aggregate "winners" and "losers" on the world stage is such nebulous ground. For example, Russia definitely isn't "beating" the U.S. in overall economy security and prosperity, and while China is prospering in many areas they're struggling in others (overall standard of living and dissemination of improvements) and facing the societal ramifications of the 1-child policy.
The main reason to fear Russia is fear of the unpredictability of someone with their back against the wall and almost nothing to lose, really. Nobody said russia is beating the US in whatever. The statement was "nobody is challenging the US", and that's factually untrue. I personally am not too fond of russia either, i wasn't trying to paint them stronger as the US in any shape. I was just saying that russia is challenging the US (amongst other countries) constantly.
Oh, that's true. I thought you were saying that we weren't just losing to China, but Russia as well. They're definitely challenging us but, hey, North Korea challenges us too. Russia is worth watching out for though since they actually have functional weapons and longstanding grudges against small neighbors.
|
Man, this discussion tends to turn to shit really easily.
The US is realistically the only superpower in the world right now. It doesn't and cannot influence everything and it's arrogant and dangerous to think otherwise. Other large, powerful economic/military powers have plenty of influence and the US can only control so much.
The general attitude towards Russia among most is the need for an enemy at the top, and mostly ignorance among most individuals. Russia isn't really a Western nation and won't behave like one. There is a very consistent logic to just about everything Russia does and it's very far removed from what the vast majority of posters here (and people in general) think it is.
|
On August 12 2016 08:06 Slaughter wrote:
Isn't the thing with China's growth that its coming at a pretty big cost that will knock them down in the future because of the way they are doing it?
Imo you guys overvalue the role of economics in a war or in international politics. Russia and China are powerhouse, with or without growth.
|
On August 12 2016 08:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:02 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 08:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The idea of aggregate "winners" and "losers" on the world stage is such nebulous ground. For example, Russia definitely isn't "beating" the U.S. in overall economy security and prosperity, and while China is prospering in many areas they're struggling in others (overall standard of living and dissemination of improvements) and facing the societal ramifications of the 1-child policy.
The main reason to fear Russia is fear of the unpredictability of someone with their back against the wall and almost nothing to lose, really. Nobody said russia is beating the US in whatever. The statement was "nobody is challenging the US", and that's factually untrue. I personally am not too fond of russia either, i wasn't trying to paint them stronger as the US in any shape. I was just saying that russia is challenging the US (amongst other countries) constantly. Oh, that's true. I thought you were saying that we weren't just losing to China, but Russia as well. They're definitely challenging us but, hey, North Korea challenges us too. Russia is worth watching out for though since they actually have functional weapons and longstanding grudges against small neighbors.
Well yeah, north korea, .. Well. I actually forgot about that, but they're not really challenging you guys, they've already won. According to their state TV anyway.
A child shouting at a boxer he will come and beat him up is not 'challenging' him.
Except the child packs as big of a punch as the the boxer, with less to lose. What a dumb comparison.
|
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
|
On August 12 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:06 Slaughter wrote:
Isn't the thing with China's growth that its coming at a pretty big cost that will knock them down in the future because of the way they are doing it? Imo you guys overvalue the role of economics in a war or in international politics. Russia and China are powerhouse, with or without growth.
I would say economics have a very real impact in politics. Just look at Germany for example. It is the defacto leader of the EU largely because of its economic power and a major share of the US's influence stems from their markets.
It doesn't much in actual war between Russia/China/EU/US because if those nations go to direct war with each other, neither side is likely to be left standing in the end regardless.
Edit:
China's growing global influence is also directly tied to their growing influence in the economic market.
|
On August 12 2016 08:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:On August 12 2016 08:06 Slaughter wrote:
Isn't the thing with China's growth that its coming at a pretty big cost that will knock them down in the future because of the way they are doing it? Imo you guys overvalue the role of economics in a war or in international politics. Russia and China are powerhouse, with or without growth. I would say economics have a very real impact in politics. Just look at Germany for example. It is the defacto leader of the EU largely because of its economic power and a major share of the US's influence stems from their markets. It doesn't much in actual war between Russia/China/EU/US because if those nations go to direct war with each other, neither side is likely to be left standing in the end regardless. Edit: China's growing global influence is also directly tied to their growing influence in the economic market.
Germany is a really bad exemple because you're talking about a region of the world that has completly let go of any kind of military and who is tied together by a set of regional institution - the european union - that do not exist anywhere else.
China already had a huge influence, it's just that they were dominated by the japanese and the colonial powers. Russia is somewhat similar : it was somehow viewed as a shithole due to the fact that it was still an agricultural society in an era of industrial revolution. But, even in this time, it was a huge player who influenced the west in a lot of ways.
Those are countries that will always be powerful politically for cultural and geographical reasons. Note that, before the two world wars, the US was a huge economic player, but a political dwarf.
|
On August 12 2016 08:13 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
... I'm also going to call {Citation needed} on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
AFAIK the most promising anti-nuclear defense system in development by both Russia and the US is one that uses nukes to destroy large quantities of incoming missiles, both nuclear and decoys.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
|
On August 12 2016 08:13 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
... I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
|
Hillary Clinton has assembled a virtual army of formal and informal advisers on energy, the environment and climate change — and the names on the list indicate she fully aims to continue President Barack Obama's push to green the economy and take on global warming.
The team of nearly 100 informal advisers, who have spent the past year compiling recommendations on everything from chemical safety and Everglades restoration to nuclear power and climate finance, includes holdovers from the Obama administration such as former White House advisers Carol Browner and Heather Zichal.
Besides offering a rough picture of who might claim high-level jobs in her administration, the massive collection of Clinton advisers contrasts sharply with Trump's campaign, which is relying on just a few outside experts such as Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm to help chart his energy agenda.
Like Obama, Clinton is prepared to rely on her executive powers to make progress on climate change, rather than waiting on Congress to send her legislation. She also intends to make climate change a bigger focus in the general election, a campaign official who requested anonymity to talk about Clinton's strategy told POLITICO, in an effort to draw a contrast with Trump, who has scoffed that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
“I think the choice is pretty clear this year for voters on this issue more than on any other issue," Clinton energy adviser Trevor Houser said during a POLITICO policy discussion in Philadelphia last month, underscoring the fact that the campaign sees climate as a general election wedge issue.
The Clinton campaign is relying on three former Obama administration energy and climate aides — Houser, Pete Ogden and Ben Kobren — to lead a behind-the-scenes effort to collect input and advice from dozens of policy veterans.
Source
|
On August 12 2016 08:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:13 Aquanim wrote:On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
... I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow... Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012. And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles. Show nested quote +US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
Both have a full nuclear triad and more nuclear weapons than they would need to kill everyone plenty of times over. The major strategic difference is that the US assumes that in a first strike, all of their land based nuclear weapons would be destroyed. Russia has a lot more land and a lot more nuclear fallout infrastructure and that would be less likely to happen.
China is very strongly land based and focuses on designing mountain-based silos that would be functional after being hit by a nuke. Britain is mostly submarine based because they don't have much land. France also got rid of a lot of their land-based nuclear capability for some reason or other.
|
United States43505 Posts
On August 12 2016 08:13 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
... I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7
Basically the Russian Republic hasn't had the money or organization to maintain an effective second strike capability. Which is fine because there is absolutely no anticipation of a first strike out of nowhere and they could restore second strike capability if relations with the west deteriorated to the point that MAD became a relevant concept again. But right now they don't have any interest in engaging in a futile contest with a superior power. They have better things to spend the money on than trying to measure dicks with someone they know has a bigger dick.
That's what I mean by there being no interest in challenging American hegemony. That while some nations wish they had America's dick they recognize that they don't and they're happy enough working within that reality because America doesn't helicopter dick too much in their faces. China could spend their time mass producing nukes and ICBMs to enter a cold war over the South China Sea but it'd be an awful lot of effort and money and they don't care enough.
|
On August 12 2016 08:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:20 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 08:13 Aquanim wrote:On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
... I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow... Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012. And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles. US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower. Both have a full nuclear triad and more nuclear weapons than they would need to kill everyone plenty of times over. The major strategic difference is that the US assumes that in a first strike, all of their land based nuclear weapons would be destroyed. Russia has a lot more land and a lot more nuclear fallout infrastructure and that would be less likely to happen. China is very strongly land based and focuses on designing mountain-based silos that would be functional after being hit by a nuke. Britain is mostly submarine based because they don't have much land. France also got rid of a lot of their land-based nuclear capability for some reason or other.
You never stop learning i guess.
Point of me was though, one or two Akula class boats are already enough to retaliate. Devastatingly. And there's a couple more than two. The US struggles to keep an eye on those already, and these are not half as modern as the newer yasen class, which carry 40 cruise missiles, each 200kt warhead.
And missile defense systems don't work against cruise missiles, only ballistic ones. To argue that the US doesn't need to fear retaliation is.. "optimistic" at best.
|
On August 12 2016 08:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:13 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 08:08 WhiteDog wrote:On August 12 2016 08:06 Slaughter wrote:
Isn't the thing with China's growth that its coming at a pretty big cost that will knock them down in the future because of the way they are doing it? Imo you guys overvalue the role of economics in a war or in international politics. Russia and China are powerhouse, with or without growth. I would say economics have a very real impact in politics. Just look at Germany for example. It is the defacto leader of the EU largely because of its economic power and a major share of the US's influence stems from their markets. It doesn't much in actual war between Russia/China/EU/US because if those nations go to direct war with each other, neither side is likely to be left standing in the end regardless. Edit: China's growing global influence is also directly tied to their growing influence in the economic market. Germany is a really bad exemple because you're talking about a region of the world that has completly let go of any kind of military and who is tied together by a set of regional institution - the european union - that do not exist anywhere else. China already had a huge influence, it's just that they were dominated by the japanese and the colonial powers. Russia is somewhat similar : it was somehow viewed as a shithole due to the fact that it was still an agricultural society in an era of industrial revolution. But, even in this time, it was a huge player who influenced the west in a lot of ways. Those are countries that will always be powerful politically for cultural and geographical reasons. Note that, before the two world wars, the US was a huge economic player, but a political dwarf.
Ofc the easiest way to spread influence is with violence and that trumps economics as you said but when violence is not an option, be it because your dealing with allies or because the other side has the means to retaliate, economics takes over.
Russia 'lost' because it could not economically keep up with the west which led to the fall of the USSR and with it a vast amount of their influence. The cold war had made it impossible for them to exert the influence through violence for fear of MAD.
China and the US were political dwarfs at times because they were pursuing isolationists agenda's. Once they turned their eyes outwards their economic power allowed them to leverage influence.
|
On August 12 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:13 Aquanim wrote:On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:...
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
... I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow... http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7Basically the Russian Republic hasn't had the money or organization to maintain an effective second strike capability. Which is fine because there is absolutely no anticipation of a first strike out of nowhere and they could restore second strike capability if relations with the west deteriorated to the point that MAD became a relevant concept again. But right now they don't have any interest in engaging in a futile contest with a superior power. They have better things to spend the money on than trying to measure dicks with someone they know has a bigger dick. That's what I mean by there being no interest in challenging American hegemony. That while some nations wish they had America's dick they recognize that they don't and they're happy enough working within that reality because America doesn't helicopter dick too much in their faces. China could spend their time mass producing nukes and ICBMs to enter a cold war over the South China Sea but it'd be an awful lot of effort and money and they don't care enough.
Well to be fair isn't our maintenance of our arsenal completely flubbed and a mess as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
