|
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. |
United States41983 Posts
On October 21 2016 23:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness. BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY. Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to. I remember a long time ago I was listening to some historian who was trying to figure out the reasons for WWI. Everybody in the room was ready to say "it's because that dude got killed in this shithole and then ...". In reality, if you look at it closely, it is much more complicated. We are in a situation of increasing tensions, economic trouble, there are various conflicts that appeared throughout the world and they have indirect impact on global powers. So no, nobody knows what or how a WWIII might appear, but it could very well.
Dude. WW1 is super easy to explain. So you have about 150 years in which France and the United Kingdom are the strongest nations in the world and they basically take over most of the world. Then, right at the tail end of it, Germany suddenly appears as a superpower that eclipses either of them (was arguably the strongest nation in the world in 1900) in industrial production, population and military might. And they are robbed of their destiny by the UK and France and told they must content themselves to being a second rate imperial power and just having European influence. And so they flip the fuck out, say that it's total bullshit and go "fite me irl bitches".
The shooting of Archduke Ferdinand did not need to lead to war and wasn't going to lead to war until the Prussian military elites pushed everyone into doing it. It wasn't a trigger, it was an excuse. There was a deliberate and intentional policy of war against Britain, France and Russia in Germany at the time which was the primary cause for that war. They wished to realize their global destiny and could not do so without war against Britain and France so they decided to go to war against Britain and France.
Do you think they accidentally spent the two decades before mass producing battleships and got lucky that they ended up going to war with an island nation? Or could this perhaps have been their plan? I mean come on.
|
United States41983 Posts
On October 21 2016 23:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Clinton calls up Putin and says "my guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far and then Putin says..." Either one of the actor accept to fold, or they go at it. Until now, it's always the US that has folded. For Russia, there is much more than just rationality at stake : it is also about how they view themselves at the world level, the fact that they are coming back from a long slumber, and their desire to assert themselves as a world leaders, against everybody else.
This was a shitty job of explaining it. Come on, do it properly. In like 10 steps explain how we get from
1. My guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far.
to
10. And President Putin authorizes the use of nuclear weapons to destroy the capitalist warmongers.
|
On October 21 2016 23:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:37 WhiteDog wrote:Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness. BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY. Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to. I remember a long time ago I was listening to some historian who was trying to figure out the reasons for WWI. Everybody in the room was ready to say "it's because that dude got killed in this shithole and then ...". In reality, if you look at it closely, it is much more complicated. We are in a situation of increasing tensions, economic trouble, there are various conflicts that appeared throughout the world and they have indirect impact on global powers. So no, nobody knows what or how a WWIII might appear, but it could very well. Dude. WW1 is super easy to explain. So you have about 150 years in which France and the United Kingdom are the strongest nations in the world and they basically take over most of the world. Then, right at the tail end of it, Germany suddenly appears as a superpower that eclipses either of them (was arguably the strongest nation in the world in 1900) in industrial production, population and military might. And they are robbed of their destiny by the UK and France and told they must content themselves to being a second rate imperial power and just having European influence. And so they flip the fuck out, say that it's total bullshit and go "fite me irl bitches". The shooting of Archduke Ferdinand did not need to lead to war and wasn't going to lead to war until the Prussian military elites pushed everyone into doing it. It wasn't a trigger, it was an excuse. There was a deliberate and intentional policy of war against Britain, France and Russia in Germany at the time which was the primary cause for that war. They wished to realize their global destiny and could not do so without war against Britain and France so they decided to go to war against Britain and France. Do you think they accidentally spent the two decades before mass producing battleships and got lucky that they ended up going to war with an island nation? Or could this perhaps have been their plan? I mean come on.
Turns out military spending is increasing everywhere right now. And look at your arguments : it's not about rationality (do you know that, before WWI, Germany's biggest trading partner was France ?) it's about perceived "destiny".
On October 21 2016 23:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:45 WhiteDog wrote:Clinton calls up Putin and says "my guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far and then Putin says..." Either one of the actor accept to fold, or they go at it. Until now, it's always the US that has folded. For Russia, there is much more than just rationality at stake : it is also about how they view themselves at the world level, the fact that they are coming back from a long slumber, and their desire to assert themselves as a world leaders, against everybody else. This was a shitty job of explaining it. Come on, do it properly. In like 10 steps explain how we get from 1. My guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far. to 10. And President Putin authorizes the use of nuclear weapons to destroy the capitalist warmongers.
Why should WWIII be a nuclear war ? The major nations can very well be super safe in their borders, with no russian entering the US and vice versa, but fighting on various front to acquiert political and economical superiority on the world stage.
|
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC.
|
United States41983 Posts
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had.
|
On October 21 2016 23:20 farvacola wrote:
"amount of collaboration" and "rhetoric used" are not "very objective measures" because each requires a significant amount of contextualization/subjectivity/inductive reasoning in order for it to be judged properly. Political collaboration outside the vacuum of the poly sci classroom is an incredibly difficult to thing to measure for the same reason the stories behind the passage of bills like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold Act) or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are fascinating stories. Rhetoric, naturally, appeals to different people in many different ways, and while it's nice to pretend that political promises can be neatly unpackaged in the form of a self-satisfied fact checker, I think the reality of contemporary politics is a bit more complex than that.
Just so that we start this discussion on the right foundation:
Do you disagree with the point that the political climate is comparatively worse or do you disagree with the off-hand briefly mentioned proxy-measures I chose?
I'll happily concede they aren't entirely objective - what I meant to say was that they were measurable, but you'll have to forgive me for typing on a phone and not spending an entire paragraph explicitly detailing things which aren't actually my main argument. Just like I'll forgive the weak as shit jump you made between rhetoric and political promises. Rhetoric is a great deal more than political promises and you are a smarter guy than this, so how about we skip that non-point? Obviously politics - contemporary as well as past - are complex.
|
On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC.
Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ?
On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had.
How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ?
|
United States41983 Posts
On October 21 2016 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC. Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ? Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had. How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ?
Okay, firstly Germany did land troops on US soil in WW2 and secondly, they sunk a shitton of US shipping in both wars.
The word WW3, when considering Russia and the United States, refers to an old school all out conflict in the style of the first two world wars. It does not refer to espionage and competition for influence among the neutral states a la the Cold War. It has a specific meaning which you briefly tried to defend, lost and then tried to redefine to be something else. The events of the Cold War, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to the Yom Kippur war, were not WW3. And yet they would meet your current definition of WW3.
|
On October 21 2016 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC. Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ? Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had. How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ?
Their ally attacked U.S. soil directly.
Of course, it doesn't matter, because U.S. participation is in no way a perquisite for something to be a world war.
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that "countries fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority" is literally how the world works all the time, and at the VERY least is a perfect description for the Cold War, so we'd at least be on World War IV.
|
On October 22 2016 00:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC. Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ? On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had. How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ? Okay, firstly Germany did land troops on US soil in WW2 and secondly, they sunk a shitton of US shipping in both wars. The word WW3, when considering Russia and the United States, refers to an old school all out conflict in the style of the first two world wars. It does not refer to espionage and competition for influence among the neutral states a la the cold war. It has a specific meaning which you briefly tried to defend, lost and then tried to redefine to be something else.
So, a direct conflict between russian troops (and their allies) and US troops (and their allies) in western europe, for exemple, could not be considered as WW3 for exemple ?
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that "countries fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority" is literally how the world works all the time, and at the VERY least is a perfect description for the Cold War, so we'd at least be on World War IV.
There were no direct engagements between USSR and the US, just through proxy.
|
On October 22 2016 00:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC. Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ? On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had. How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ? Okay, firstly Germany did land troops on US soil in WW2 and secondly, they sunk a shitton of US shipping in both wars. The word WW3, when considering Russia and the United States, refers to an old school all out conflict in the style of the first two world wars. It does not refer to espionage and competition for influence among the neutral states a la the Cold War. It has a specific meaning which you briefly tried to defend, lost and then tried to redefine to be something else. The events of the Cold War, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to the Yom Kippur war, were not WW3. And yet they would meet your current definition of WW3.
I didn't know that about Germany. For others that didn't either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland_invasion_of_the_United_States#Nazi_Germany
|
United States41983 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:02 KwarK wrote:On October 21 2016 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC. Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ? On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had. How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ? Okay, firstly Germany did land troops on US soil in WW2 and secondly, they sunk a shitton of US shipping in both wars. The word WW3, when considering Russia and the United States, refers to an old school all out conflict in the style of the first two world wars. It does not refer to espionage and competition for influence among the neutral states a la the cold war. It has a specific meaning which you briefly tried to defend, lost and then tried to redefine to be something else. So, a direct conflict between russian troops (and their allies) and US troops (and their allies) in western europe, for exemple, could not be considered as WW3 for exemple ?
The scenario is absurd. You're asking me about a direct and open conflict between the armed forces of Russia and the United States that is contained to a small geographic area and has no broader global implications or escalation. You might as well say "but what if a triangle had four corners".
Sure, in the scenario you describe in which for some reason the US and Russia have decided to be some kind of gladiatorial contest by throwing some of their military into an arena to fight each other with no broader context, that wouldn't be WW3. Let me know when it happens.
|
I'd say the world is absurd.
|
On October 22 2016 00:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:02 KwarK wrote:On October 21 2016 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 21 2016 23:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If countries around the world fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority constitutes a World War, I think we're in World War LVII at this point. Or CCC. Tell me at what point in time the German actually attacked US soil during WWI and II ? On October 21 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:
You've just shifted the argument away from your entire starting premise on the grounds that your starting premise was ridiculous and indefensible. I mean sure, the ground you've given up wasn't worth defending but it was all the ground you had. How ? Because I disagreed with the idea that russia will be using nukes ? Okay, firstly Germany did land troops on US soil in WW2 and secondly, they sunk a shitton of US shipping in both wars. The word WW3, when considering Russia and the United States, refers to an old school all out conflict in the style of the first two world wars. It does not refer to espionage and competition for influence among the neutral states a la the cold war. It has a specific meaning which you briefly tried to defend, lost and then tried to redefine to be something else. So, a direct conflict between russian troops (and their allies) and US troops (and their allies) in western europe, for exemple, could not be considered as WW3 for exemple ? Show nested quote +All of which is irrelevant to the fact that "countries fighting on various fronts to acquire political and economic superiority" is literally how the world works all the time, and at the VERY least is a perfect description for the Cold War, so we'd at least be on World War IV. There were no direct engagements between USSR and the US, just through proxy.
Ah, you envision some bizarre deployment of U.S. troops with a specific mission to shoot at Russians and vice versa, despite the fact that the U.S. and Russia spent 40 years doing literally everything but that, all because Clinton said she wants to negotiate a no-fly zone. I thought you were talking about something that's actually plausible.
|
On October 22 2016 00:13 WhiteDog wrote:
I'd say the world is absurd.
It is, but to conclude from trying to impose a bilateral no fly zone over Aleppo that a WW3 with Russia invading Western Europe is a likely outcome it takes quite a bit of paranoia and misunderstanding of geopolitics
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 21 2016 23:33 KwarK wrote:
Hell, Turkey shot one down and nothing happened.
Not open war but it was far from nothing. That incident didn't exactly go down without some substantial consequences. Turkey made a fool of itself and paid the price (even had to apologize to Russia eventually), Russia had a good excuse to bring its AA system into Syria, and only as of a few months ago are Russia-Turkey relations starting to improve.
On non-nuclear direct conflict: I think that people undervalue the conventional aspect of war and that even the conventional weapons that modern militaries have are enough to reduce the conflict zone to a barren wasteland much faster than could be done 70 years ago. That shit's going to escalate really fast and nukes will probably get involved sooner or later.
Also, there is no such thing as "no nukes war." Nuclear weapons exist for a reason, and the threat of using them in case of a conflict is pretty damn real. If there is an actual open military conflict between two large nations it will likely eventually escalate to that point - which is precisely why you don't actually have those kind of conflicts anymore and war is generally fought more indirectly nowadays.
|
On October 22 2016 00:16 Dan HH wrote:It is, but to conclude from trying to impose a bilateral no fly zone over Aleppo that a WW3 with Russia invading Western Europe is a likely outcome it takes quite a bit of paranoia and misunderstanding of geopolitics
Bilateral fly zone makes no sense, it's either unilateral or it's not.
On October 22 2016 00:16 Dan HH wrote:It is, but to conclude from trying to impose a bilateral no fly zone over Aleppo that a WW3 with Russia invading Western Europe is a likely outcome it takes quite a bit of paranoia and misunderstanding of geopolitics
I'm not saying it must happen, like there is a necessary causality between this and that.
Just that in the current context, with the rising tensions in the world at large, one must accept the worst possible outcome, and imo the worst outcome could be that a fed up Russia (because, it is a country that is getting out of period of relative compliance in regards to world diplomacy, where it basically lost its place and influence) respond violently to something.
|
Amuses me that there is overlap between the "No Fly Zone will cause massive war" and "America should launch a full-scale invasion of the Middle East" crowd here.
|
United States41983 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:16 Dan HH wrote:On October 22 2016 00:13 WhiteDog wrote:
I'd say the world is absurd. It is, but to conclude from trying to impose a bilateral no fly zone over Aleppo that a WW3 with Russia invading Western Europe is a likely outcome it takes quite a bit of paranoia and misunderstanding of geopolitics Bilateral fly zone makes no sense, it's either unilateral or it's not.
You really are determined to play a game of idiot or troll today, aren't you?
There have been plenty of bilateral agreements in the past and there will be more in the future. And even if it is largely unilateral it doesn't benefit either party to present it as such. Putin isn't going to walk out of a meeting and say "we didn't want this, we don't support it but we'll accept it anyway because we don't have the power to change it" and he certainly won't then decide to violate it.
|
Do you understand the amount of ressources (and men) Russia used in order to make sure Assad get back into power ? Why would they accept a no fly zone on aleppo ? I don't understands it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
