|
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 2017 03:43 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 03:17 mozoku wrote:On August 12 2017 00:06 KwarK wrote:
As for NK, it's covered by the aegis of Chinese MAD. There has been some talk of it being irrational for China to go to war with the United States over an unprovoked American attack on NK. This is absolutely true, it would be highly irrational, after all, the world would get completely fucked up, NK isn't as valuable as the world, therefore it would be irrational. However that's the entire point of MAD.
If the Soviet Union had said "we're going to roll into West Berlin, that's all we're going to take, West Berlin only, not West Germany, not France, just West Berlin" and then done it, it would have been completely irrational for the United States to go to war. NATO would nuke the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would nuke NATO, hundreds of millions would die. It would obviously be far more rational to just let them take West Berlin. And they know that, just as you do. They know that if you are a rational actor then you will never decide that MAD is the optimal course.
The foundation of MAD is saying
1) These are my red lines.
2) If you cross my red lines I will flip the fuck out in the most irrational way possible. If you don't let me have this not only will I take my ball and go home, I'll burn the entire stadium to the ground. My response will be so catastrophically disproportionate we'll both have nothing left. I promise you that. Even though it makes no fucking sense that I would act that way, I absolutely will.
3) Given that I am clearly an insane person, please do the rational thing and don't test me.
In a rational world filled with rational actors there isn't a situation where the optimal solution is to kill most of the world's population in a nuclear hellfire. Nuclear war is fundamentally irrational, MAD is built on irrationality. That's what the "it wouldn't make sense for China to get involved" people are missing. That whether or not it makes sense isn't always important. That the only reason we survived the Cold War at all is because whenever one side promised to be insanely irrational about something, the other side said "okay, let's be rational and not test them". And even then, we got lucky. We exist in one of the few timelines in which the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't trigger war.
China has a mutual defence treaty with North Korea built on the promise of MAD. An attack on North Korea is one of their red lines that they have assured us will cause them to act really irrationally. Now maybe they're bluffing. Maybe deep down they're rational and when forced to choose they'll not follow through. I have absolutely no clue either way. But here's the thing, nor does anyone else on tl. And whether it'd be irrational to follow through simply doesn't matter, and has never mattered. The only way we survive in a nuclear world is that when one side says "this is my red line which will trigger me to act really irrationally", you don't test them on it.
And sure, China's interests in the Korean peninsula have changed massively since they first swept the US army back to the beaches in the Korean War. Nobody is debating that. Times have changed. Hell, the Chinese turn towards the United States in the 80s is probably a big part of the reason that NK became so desperate to get their own nuclear deterrent. But they still renewed their mutual defence treaty with NK, as recently as 2001. And whenever asked they still promise to defend NK against an attack.
Personally, I think the odds are pretty good that China would love a third option. That if NK randomly shelled SK again they would say "we said we'd defend you if you got attacked for no reason but we're not gonna defend you after you shelled SK". But if Trump unilaterally attacks NK there is no third option. There is honour their MAD obligations or betray their MAD obligations. And I don't like those odds. Apart from the issues I've already raised with this (the fact that the NK issue has been written about ad nauseum without any mention of China's nuclear arsenal, the irrationality of it, etc.), there's other huge problems with your MAD theory. 1) Has China ever even embraced a MAD philosophy? There's a defense treaty, but that doesn't necessarily imply MAD. A defense treaty may be fulfilled through conventional means. It may have embraced it at one point; I'm asking this out of actual ignorance. But it leads to my second point... 2) There's no such thing as a "secret MAD strategy." MAD is a deterrent, and therefore only works when the opposing side is fully aware of it. Apart from the fact that the Chinese nuclear threat doesn't appear to be playing a role out in the Pentagon's calculations (judging from the articles written on US approach to NK), if China truly wanted to avoid war on the Korean peninsula, it would want to make its MAD intentions very public, no? The threat of certain nuclear war from China would have a massively chilling effect on US public opinion of military action in NK, and consequently, would almost certainly change Trump/the Pentagon's calculations through public opinion alone. Not even accounting for the direct effect that Chinese nuclear war would have on Trump/the Pentagon's calculations. 3) Why do you think China cares about its defense obligations to NK so much? It feels like your taking the most well-known example of defense obligations (the US and NATO) and applying it to China. Which makes no sense from a geopolitical perspective, and totally belies historical precedent (where defense treaties are often unfulfilled). Does China even have a defense treaty with any other nation? What exactly do they lose from not fulfilling it? And why is it insufficient to fulfill it with only conventional forces when nuclear alternatives pose realistic existential threats to China? The US, on the other hand, would lose credibility with the entire world if it failed to live up to its defense obligations. The costs of not fulfilling their respective obligations are hugely asymmetric, so applying the US commitment to the China-NK treaty doesn't make any sense. 4) The CCP has shown in the last several decades its number one priority in China is maintaining its ruling power. There's very few things the CCP could do to threaten its rule in the short-term. I'm willing to go as far as to say that starting unnecessary nuclear wars might top that list though. A leading government newspaper in China just stated that China will remain neutral if DPRK strikes at the US, Japan, or South Korea and is met with a proportionate response. It also stated that China will go to war backing the DPRK in the event of an unprovoked first strike by the US. So I think China has made its position very clear here, and this public statement should actually help prevent war in Korea, because it basically says that whoever uses weapons first will get screwed by China. I would be very careful about assuming that China is not serious about its commitment to defending North Korea against unprovoked attacks. If you think that first-rate powers don't make dumb decisions about going to war over their troublesome client states, look at Russia, Serbia, and Austria-Hungary in 1914 compared to China, North Korea, and the US today.
It wasn't clear from that post, but I've never ruled out the possibility of conventional Chinese intervention on NK's behalf. I think it's unlikely, but real possibility (between 33%-50% maybe). Moreover, as I've stated repeatedly, I don't see any scenario where the US attempts NK regime change without engaging in some dialogue with China first, so I think the risk of miscalculation with regard to China is a bit overstated on this forum.
However, I estimate the probability of a nuclear retaliation from China on the US to be near-zero.
I don't think the WWI analogy holds much relevance on nuclear issues for obvious reasons (there were no nukes in 1914). Nor do I don't think it's inconsistent with what I said above as far as conventional intervention goes.
|
On August 12 2017 03:50 Plansix wrote:
Although the concept and definition of racism and sexism are broad in scope, there is a legal frame work in place to prove if discrimination took place, if that is what you are asking. I doubt that framework would be sufficient to prove the existence of God, though.
Exactly. That framework needs to be based on manifest reality not philosophical hypothesis or things can go south really fast.
As for the Google guy, he probably has a legal case?
|
On August 12 2017 03:57 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 03:50 Plansix wrote:
Although the concept and definition of racism and sexism are broad in scope, there is a legal frame work in place to prove if discrimination took place, if that is what you are asking. I doubt that framework would be sufficient to prove the existence of God, though. Exactly. That framework needs to be based on manifest reality not philosophical theory or things can go south really fast. As for the Google guy, he probably has a legal case?
Laws tend to have extremely strict framework of what constitutes a violation of them. Which has zero relevance to common word usage (which you yourself should be aware of, as "thought police" has no bearing on actual police work).
The Google guy has no case, as has been discussed yesterday, because his contract is more than likely "at-will" employment. So he can be fired for any reason at all. Including wearing bunny slippers on casual Fridays.
|
On August 12 2017 03:53 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 03:43 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On August 12 2017 03:17 mozoku wrote:On August 12 2017 00:06 KwarK wrote:
As for NK, it's covered by the aegis of Chinese MAD. There has been some talk of it being irrational for China to go to war with the United States over an unprovoked American attack on NK. This is absolutely true, it would be highly irrational, after all, the world would get completely fucked up, NK isn't as valuable as the world, therefore it would be irrational. However that's the entire point of MAD.
If the Soviet Union had said "we're going to roll into West Berlin, that's all we're going to take, West Berlin only, not West Germany, not France, just West Berlin" and then done it, it would have been completely irrational for the United States to go to war. NATO would nuke the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would nuke NATO, hundreds of millions would die. It would obviously be far more rational to just let them take West Berlin. And they know that, just as you do. They know that if you are a rational actor then you will never decide that MAD is the optimal course.
The foundation of MAD is saying
1) These are my red lines.
2) If you cross my red lines I will flip the fuck out in the most irrational way possible. If you don't let me have this not only will I take my ball and go home, I'll burn the entire stadium to the ground. My response will be so catastrophically disproportionate we'll both have nothing left. I promise you that. Even though it makes no fucking sense that I would act that way, I absolutely will.
3) Given that I am clearly an insane person, please do the rational thing and don't test me.
In a rational world filled with rational actors there isn't a situation where the optimal solution is to kill most of the world's population in a nuclear hellfire. Nuclear war is fundamentally irrational, MAD is built on irrationality. That's what the "it wouldn't make sense for China to get involved" people are missing. That whether or not it makes sense isn't always important. That the only reason we survived the Cold War at all is because whenever one side promised to be insanely irrational about something, the other side said "okay, let's be rational and not test them". And even then, we got lucky. We exist in one of the few timelines in which the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't trigger war.
China has a mutual defence treaty with North Korea built on the promise of MAD. An attack on North Korea is one of their red lines that they have assured us will cause them to act really irrationally. Now maybe they're bluffing. Maybe deep down they're rational and when forced to choose they'll not follow through. I have absolutely no clue either way. But here's the thing, nor does anyone else on tl. And whether it'd be irrational to follow through simply doesn't matter, and has never mattered. The only way we survive in a nuclear world is that when one side says "this is my red line which will trigger me to act really irrationally", you don't test them on it.
And sure, China's interests in the Korean peninsula have changed massively since they first swept the US army back to the beaches in the Korean War. Nobody is debating that. Times have changed. Hell, the Chinese turn towards the United States in the 80s is probably a big part of the reason that NK became so desperate to get their own nuclear deterrent. But they still renewed their mutual defence treaty with NK, as recently as 2001. And whenever asked they still promise to defend NK against an attack.
Personally, I think the odds are pretty good that China would love a third option. That if NK randomly shelled SK again they would say "we said we'd defend you if you got attacked for no reason but we're not gonna defend you after you shelled SK". But if Trump unilaterally attacks NK there is no third option. There is honour their MAD obligations or betray their MAD obligations. And I don't like those odds. Apart from the issues I've already raised with this (the fact that the NK issue has been written about ad nauseum without any mention of China's nuclear arsenal, the irrationality of it, etc.), there's other huge problems with your MAD theory. 1) Has China ever even embraced a MAD philosophy? There's a defense treaty, but that doesn't necessarily imply MAD. A defense treaty may be fulfilled through conventional means. It may have embraced it at one point; I'm asking this out of actual ignorance. But it leads to my second point... 2) There's no such thing as a "secret MAD strategy." MAD is a deterrent, and therefore only works when the opposing side is fully aware of it. Apart from the fact that the Chinese nuclear threat doesn't appear to be playing a role out in the Pentagon's calculations (judging from the articles written on US approach to NK), if China truly wanted to avoid war on the Korean peninsula, it would want to make its MAD intentions very public, no? The threat of certain nuclear war from China would have a massively chilling effect on US public opinion of military action in NK, and consequently, would almost certainly change Trump/the Pentagon's calculations through public opinion alone. Not even accounting for the direct effect that Chinese nuclear war would have on Trump/the Pentagon's calculations. 3) Why do you think China cares about its defense obligations to NK so much? It feels like your taking the most well-known example of defense obligations (the US and NATO) and applying it to China. Which makes no sense from a geopolitical perspective, and totally belies historical precedent (where defense treaties are often unfulfilled). Does China even have a defense treaty with any other nation? What exactly do they lose from not fulfilling it? And why is it insufficient to fulfill it with only conventional forces when nuclear alternatives pose realistic existential threats to China? The US, on the other hand, would lose credibility with the entire world if it failed to live up to its defense obligations. The costs of not fulfilling their respective obligations are hugely asymmetric, so applying the US commitment to the China-NK treaty doesn't make any sense. 4) The CCP has shown in the last several decades its number one priority in China is maintaining its ruling power. There's very few things the CCP could do to threaten its rule in the short-term. I'm willing to go as far as to say that starting unnecessary nuclear wars might top that list though. A leading government newspaper in China just stated that China will remain neutral if DPRK strikes at the US, Japan, or South Korea and is met with a proportionate response. It also stated that China will go to war backing the DPRK in the event of an unprovoked first strike by the US. So I think China has made its position very clear here, and this public statement should actually help prevent war in Korea, because it basically says that whoever uses weapons first will get screwed by China. I would be very careful about assuming that China is not serious about its commitment to defending North Korea against unprovoked attacks. If you think that first-rate powers don't make dumb decisions about going to war over their troublesome client states, look at Russia, Serbia, and Austria-Hungary in 1914 compared to China, North Korea, and the US today. It wasn't clear from that post, but I've never ruled out the possibility of conventional Chinese intervention on NK's behalf. I think it's unlikely, but real possibility (between 33%-50% maybe).
Is that probability given in the event of US first strike?
Millions will still die in a conventional full scale war. Seoul is 35 miles from the DMZ with 10 million people living in it, and conventional artillery can turn into a "sea of fire" to use the North Koreans term. Honestly, SK should have moved their capital farther south after 1950.
Moreover, as I've stated repeatedly, I don't see any scenario where the US attempts NK regime change without engaging in some dialogue with China first, so I think the risk of miscalculation with regard to China is a bit overstated on this forum.
However, I estimate the probability of a nuclear retaliation from China on the US to be near-zero.
I don't think the WWI analogy holds much relevance on nuclear issues for obvious reasons (there were no nukes in 1914). Nor do I don't think it's inconsistent with what I said above as far as conventional intervention goes.
I've never said China will nuke the US over North Korea. The only scenario I could see that occurring is if the US strikes first by turning North Korea into a sheet of glass and spreading radioactive fallout all over Northeast Asia.
|
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must [usay[/u] in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco.
|
On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco.
In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable.
Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations.
|
On August 12 2017 04:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 03:53 mozoku wrote:On August 12 2017 03:43 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On August 12 2017 03:17 mozoku wrote:On August 12 2017 00:06 KwarK wrote:
As for NK, it's covered by the aegis of Chinese MAD. There has been some talk of it being irrational for China to go to war with the United States over an unprovoked American attack on NK. This is absolutely true, it would be highly irrational, after all, the world would get completely fucked up, NK isn't as valuable as the world, therefore it would be irrational. However that's the entire point of MAD.
If the Soviet Union had said "we're going to roll into West Berlin, that's all we're going to take, West Berlin only, not West Germany, not France, just West Berlin" and then done it, it would have been completely irrational for the United States to go to war. NATO would nuke the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would nuke NATO, hundreds of millions would die. It would obviously be far more rational to just let them take West Berlin. And they know that, just as you do. They know that if you are a rational actor then you will never decide that MAD is the optimal course.
The foundation of MAD is saying
1) These are my red lines.
2) If you cross my red lines I will flip the fuck out in the most irrational way possible. If you don't let me have this not only will I take my ball and go home, I'll burn the entire stadium to the ground. My response will be so catastrophically disproportionate we'll both have nothing left. I promise you that. Even though it makes no fucking sense that I would act that way, I absolutely will.
3) Given that I am clearly an insane person, please do the rational thing and don't test me.
In a rational world filled with rational actors there isn't a situation where the optimal solution is to kill most of the world's population in a nuclear hellfire. Nuclear war is fundamentally irrational, MAD is built on irrationality. That's what the "it wouldn't make sense for China to get involved" people are missing. That whether or not it makes sense isn't always important. That the only reason we survived the Cold War at all is because whenever one side promised to be insanely irrational about something, the other side said "okay, let's be rational and not test them". And even then, we got lucky. We exist in one of the few timelines in which the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't trigger war.
China has a mutual defence treaty with North Korea built on the promise of MAD. An attack on North Korea is one of their red lines that they have assured us will cause them to act really irrationally. Now maybe they're bluffing. Maybe deep down they're rational and when forced to choose they'll not follow through. I have absolutely no clue either way. But here's the thing, nor does anyone else on tl. And whether it'd be irrational to follow through simply doesn't matter, and has never mattered. The only way we survive in a nuclear world is that when one side says "this is my red line which will trigger me to act really irrationally", you don't test them on it.
And sure, China's interests in the Korean peninsula have changed massively since they first swept the US army back to the beaches in the Korean War. Nobody is debating that. Times have changed. Hell, the Chinese turn towards the United States in the 80s is probably a big part of the reason that NK became so desperate to get their own nuclear deterrent. But they still renewed their mutual defence treaty with NK, as recently as 2001. And whenever asked they still promise to defend NK against an attack.
Personally, I think the odds are pretty good that China would love a third option. That if NK randomly shelled SK again they would say "we said we'd defend you if you got attacked for no reason but we're not gonna defend you after you shelled SK". But if Trump unilaterally attacks NK there is no third option. There is honour their MAD obligations or betray their MAD obligations. And I don't like those odds. Apart from the issues I've already raised with this (the fact that the NK issue has been written about ad nauseum without any mention of China's nuclear arsenal, the irrationality of it, etc.), there's other huge problems with your MAD theory. 1) Has China ever even embraced a MAD philosophy? There's a defense treaty, but that doesn't necessarily imply MAD. A defense treaty may be fulfilled through conventional means. It may have embraced it at one point; I'm asking this out of actual ignorance. But it leads to my second point... 2) There's no such thing as a "secret MAD strategy." MAD is a deterrent, and therefore only works when the opposing side is fully aware of it. Apart from the fact that the Chinese nuclear threat doesn't appear to be playing a role out in the Pentagon's calculations (judging from the articles written on US approach to NK), if China truly wanted to avoid war on the Korean peninsula, it would want to make its MAD intentions very public, no? The threat of certain nuclear war from China would have a massively chilling effect on US public opinion of military action in NK, and consequently, would almost certainly change Trump/the Pentagon's calculations through public opinion alone. Not even accounting for the direct effect that Chinese nuclear war would have on Trump/the Pentagon's calculations. 3) Why do you think China cares about its defense obligations to NK so much? It feels like your taking the most well-known example of defense obligations (the US and NATO) and applying it to China. Which makes no sense from a geopolitical perspective, and totally belies historical precedent (where defense treaties are often unfulfilled). Does China even have a defense treaty with any other nation? What exactly do they lose from not fulfilling it? And why is it insufficient to fulfill it with only conventional forces when nuclear alternatives pose realistic existential threats to China? The US, on the other hand, would lose credibility with the entire world if it failed to live up to its defense obligations. The costs of not fulfilling their respective obligations are hugely asymmetric, so applying the US commitment to the China-NK treaty doesn't make any sense. 4) The CCP has shown in the last several decades its number one priority in China is maintaining its ruling power. There's very few things the CCP could do to threaten its rule in the short-term. I'm willing to go as far as to say that starting unnecessary nuclear wars might top that list though. A leading government newspaper in China just stated that China will remain neutral if DPRK strikes at the US, Japan, or South Korea and is met with a proportionate response. It also stated that China will go to war backing the DPRK in the event of an unprovoked first strike by the US. So I think China has made its position very clear here, and this public statement should actually help prevent war in Korea, because it basically says that whoever uses weapons first will get screwed by China. I would be very careful about assuming that China is not serious about its commitment to defending North Korea against unprovoked attacks. If you think that first-rate powers don't make dumb decisions about going to war over their troublesome client states, look at Russia, Serbia, and Austria-Hungary in 1914 compared to China, North Korea, and the US today. It wasn't clear from that post, but I've never ruled out the possibility of conventional Chinese intervention on NK's behalf. I think it's unlikely, but real possibility (between 33%-50% maybe). Is that probability given in the event of US first strike? Millions will still die in a conventional full scale war. Seoul is 35 miles from the DMZ with 10 million people living in it, and conventional artillery can turn into a "sea of fire" to use the North Koreans term. Honestly, SK should have moved their capital farther south after 1950.
Yes, in the event of a US first miitary action.
It wasn't clear from either post, but I don't think the US should invade NK. Real action should have been taken years ago, but at this point the US is probably best off letting actual MAD do its thing with Kim Jong Un.
Moreover, as I've stated repeatedly, I don't see any scenario where the US attempts NK regime change without engaging in some dialogue with China first, so I think the risk of miscalculation with regard to China is a bit overstated on this forum. However, I estimate the probability of a nuclear retaliation from China on the US to be near-zero. Show nested quote +
I don't think the WWI analogy holds much relevance on nuclear issues for obvious reasons (there were no nukes in 1914). Nor do I don't think it's inconsistent with what I said above as far as conventional intervention goes.
I've never said China will nuke the US over North Korea. The only scenario I could see that occurring is if the US strikes first by turning North Korea into a sheet of glass and spreading radioactive fallout all over Northeast Asia.
I agree. I was responding to Kwark, who seems to think that the threat of retaliatory Chinese nukes is the largest factor in US-NK military deliberations.
|
United States41989 Posts
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by both probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time.
|
Remember that recent Trump comment thanking Putin for kicking 755 American diplomats out of Russia, as a response to the new sanctions? Apparently now, Trump is walking back his whole official statement of "I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down our payroll, and as far as I’m concerned I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll" to "jk I was being sarcastic".
|
On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must [usay in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. [/u]
gender identity being a fluid category is factually and scientifically wrong?
peterson's point about compelled speech is well taken and i agree with him on the limited point that the bill as written is a (very) bad bill. it's the rest of his reductive and unreflective hackery that is the problem
|
On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time.
I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK. The fight in Korea itself would be over before they could even mobilize anything other than missile launches and some sorties. They really just don't want a US vassal on their border and a wasteland Korean peninsula also handles that problem.
As an American I've heard approximately 0 about the Korean peninsula being inhabited since the neolithic period, pottery since 8000 BC, and enjoyed hundreds of years of relatively peaceful rule (my detailed knowledge is limited).
That's an ancient culture with bottled farts older than our country, it would be a shame for us to wipe it off the earth because we think it's insane for someone to build a weapon comparable to the one we've had pointed at them for the last 50+ years.
I don't understand how people think other countries should just accept that only some countries are allowed to the security of MAD. Especially a country grouped with other countries where the US just went in and removed their leadership at gunpoint.
A nuke and China is all NK has standing between it and a foreign country coming in and replacing leadership, getting a nuke and an ICBM to carry it seems like the only rational path for NK.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 12 2017 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK.
As opposed to all the other things which it would make sense for two nuclear powers to go to war over?
|
On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations.
If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected?
|
On August 12 2017 04:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK. As opposed to all the other things which it would make sense for two nuclear powers to go to war over?
I just think there's an out for China where we destroy NK, and much of SK as collateral damage, and it essentially opens up the peninsula for China and it's a win, win for them. The downside is they look "weak" by not honoring the treaty, but in reality, who would be mad at China for not standing up for NK and what could/would they do about it? China would draw praise (especially from Trump) for just not interfering. Plus he got a 15-0 vote on sanctions so EVERYONE knows NK is pissing in the kool-aid.
|
On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected?
The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing.
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41
|
On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by both probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
Because zero times anything is zero. I've read a fair amount on NK and potential military scenarios, and you're literally the only person I've ever encountered who has ever even raised the possibility of a nuclear strike coming from China. I'm also relatively familiar with Chinese politics (Chinese wife, in addition to significant self-study), and I know China has no appetite for nuclear wars with the US (or anyone) over NK. Forgive me when I take your opinion as rogue outlier amongst a sea of literature on the subject.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time.
I never denied the possibility that China may get involved; I've acknowledged it several times. China launching retaliatory nukes at the US for a conventional military first action against NK (esp given there would likely be some China-US dialogue before hand) is crazy talk.
|
On August 12 2017 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK. The fight in Korea itself would be over before they could even mobilize anything other than missile launches and some sorties. They really just don't want a US vassal on their border and a wasteland Korean peninsula also handles that problem. As an American I've heard approximately 0 about the Korean peninsula being inhabited since the neolithic period, pottery since 8000 BC, and enjoyed hundreds of years of relatively peaceful rule (my detailed knowledge is limited). That's an ancient culture with bottled farts older than our country, it would be a shame for us to wipe it off the earth because we think it's insane for someone to build a weapon comparable to the one we've had pointed at them for the last 50+ years. I don't understand how people think other countries should just accept that only some countries are allowed to the security of MAD. Especially a country grouped with other countries where the US just went in and removed their leadership at gunpoint. A nuke and China is all NK has standing between it and a foreign country coming in and replacing leadership, getting a nuke and an ICBM to carry it seems like the only rational path for NK.
You are vastly underestimating how long that war would last. While not able to win in any form or fashion it would likely be a slow invasion because they have a decent military. Even Iraq took a month to reach the capital and NK is FAR more advanced.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 12 2017 05:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by both probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1. Because zero times anything is zero. I've read a fair amount on NK and potential military scenarios, and you're literally the only person I've ever encountered who has ever even raised the possibility of a nuclear strike coming from China. I'm also relatively familiar with Chinese politics (Chinese wife, in addition to significant self-study), and I know China has no appetite for nuclear wars with the US (or anyone) over NK. Forgive me when I take your opinion as rogue outlier amongst a sea of literature on the subject. Show nested quote +The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I never denied the possibility that China may get involved; I've acknowledged it several times. China launching retaliatory nukes at the US for a conventional military first action against NK (esp given there would likely be some China-US dialogue before hand) is crazy talk.
It appears we're talking across each other. You thought I was suggesting that China would attempt a first strike on the US in the event of conventional war breaking out? I wasn't, that seems unlikely, they don't have first strike capability. But China getting dragged into a conflict that Trump starts, that seems entirely plausible. And again, we should weight the possibility of a conflict with China proportionately to how shit that would be. And shit can very easily get out of control. It's entirely plausible that if the US attempted a conventional war in NK then China would move their troops into the peninsula while trying to negotiate an end to the war. That's like the bare minimum we would expect. At that point if Kim starts mashing buttons and Trump starts mashing them back then we have ourselves a clusterfuck.
|
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support).
|
On August 12 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:06 mozoku wrote:On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by both probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1. Because zero times anything is zero. I've read a fair amount on NK and potential military scenarios, and you're literally the only person I've ever encountered who has ever even raised the possibility of a nuclear strike coming from China. I'm also relatively familiar with Chinese politics (Chinese wife, in addition to significant self-study), and I know China has no appetite for nuclear wars with the US (or anyone) over NK. Forgive me when I take your opinion as rogue outlier amongst a sea of literature on the subject. The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I never denied the possibility that China may get involved; I've acknowledged it several times. China launching retaliatory nukes at the US for a conventional military first action against NK (esp given there would likely be some China-US dialogue before hand) is crazy talk. It appears we're talking across each other. You thought I was suggesting that China would attempt a first strike on the US in the event of conventional war breaking out? I wasn't, that seems unlikely, they don't have first strike capability. But China getting dragged into a conflict that Trump starts, that seems entirely plausible. And again, we should weight the possibility of a conflict with China proportionately to how shit that would be. And shit can very easily get out of control. It's entirely plausible that if the US attempted a conventional war in NK then China would move their troops into the peninsula while trying to negotiate an end to the war. That's like the bare minimum we would expect. At that point if Kim starts mashing buttons and Trump starts mashing them back then we have ourselves a clusterfuck.
Fair enough. That's reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
