The speaker is Charles R. Van Hise, President of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
"This world war cannot cease; it must not cease until Germany shall recognize that the laws of nations must be obeyed, that the conquest of small and weak nations is wrong. It is to establish these great principles that we entered the war. In order to establish these great principles that we entered the war. In order to establish that they may be maintained, all the sacrifices which are necessary must be made by this nation. If the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy call for the death of hundreds of thousands of our young men, the sacrifice must be made." — Charles R. Van Hise
I didn't agree with Trump and the republicans on many things when he was in office, but I agreed on their stance that they can't be soft on China about the issues with regarding trade, military posturing, etc. I'm not exactly sure what Biden is doing wrong in regard to China (other than not taking as hard as stance as Trump did).I love the arguments that China and the US will not start a war that could possibly destroy the world but I am afraid wars are a form of insanity and we are headed into that insanity. I am so angry with Biden for being disrespectful and pushing the wrong buttons. Evidently, he thinks this is appealing to US citizens? But saving face is of supreme importance to China and Japan, being disrespectful is pushing the wrong buttons. The nation will not tolerate it. — Athena
Part of the problem with nukes is since they are a weapon of last resort (by those that are sane at least), countries that have them (and have other countries threating them) have to make other countries think that they are are willing to not as a last resort but long before they even get there. I believe this is what nuclear brinkmanship more or less is all about, making your opponent think you are more willing to use nukes than them thus complicating any military advantage they may have with conventional forces and their ability to exploit such an advantage.Yes, China has said so, and given the history of China in the 20th century, I get that perspective and I have no reason to believe they are bluffing.
People in power do have to deal with nukes, but I highly doubt most sane citizens would want those used, I mean they're not supposed to be used at all, the point of having them is deterrence not attack. — Manuel
It is almost always easier for those in power to beat the drums of war and blame problems on outsiders than trying to really focus and deal with domestic issues. However, the more that is spent on the military and the more rhetoric to is spew, the harder and harder the line a country has to take to either a real or imagined enemy and the more need for such a country has to go to war in order to prove they are not just bluffing.All I'm saying that it's a dangerous game of chicken to be playing. It's bad enough that China and the US are doing military exercises in the South China sea, but if you get other countries copying the US in the same territory, that's considerably different. To be clear, I don't think most of the world cares about Taiwan to THAT degree (the exceptions being China and Taiwan, obviously) , it's more a manner of pride. — Manuel
I didn't agree with Trump and the republicans on many things when he was in office, but I agreed on their stance that they can't be soft on China about the issues with regarding trade, military posturing, etc. I'm not exactly sure what Biden is doing wrong in regard to China (other than not taking as hard as stance as Trump did). — dclements
And by backing up your answer with numbers it makes it more believable or true?I'm surprised at the answers though - people seem surprisingly confident of their answers despite the fact that no one posted a figure/number and showed their work. — TheMadFool
And by backing up your answer with numbers it makes it more believable or true? — Caldwell
This is a matter of political, historical, and social events. If you couldn't be bothered to read history, and just use numbers to gain credibility, I couldn't be bothered either. — Caldwell
Incorrect. The OP or anyone can say that in normal speak, and not wanting to get the numbers. I'd say review Wittgenstein's ordinary language. We can move out of formal definitions."What are the odds?" is clearly a mathematical question and I've given some hints on how we might be able to actually get our hands on a number to anyone who has the information. — TheMadFool
Oh you're not agreeing with me. Maybe you disagree. That's fine. But I have the microphone, so... — Matt Scannell, Vertical Horizon, Southington CT
I don't think one can use basic statistics in determining whether China will be willing to go to war in order to get control over Taiwan since there are too many unknown variables in such a equation that would nearly be impossible to give a percentage chance at any time. It is as complex or even more complex that determining whether the stock market will either go up or down in a 6 month or 12 month period.The OP's a mathematical question about odds/chances/probability of in general hot wars and in particular a sino-US military engagement. I know basic probability but to give a good answer is beyond my ken. Where do I even begin? Perhaps experimental probability is the way to go - how many times in the past has a similar situation been true of the world and ended in bellum? Do we have the data? I'm surprised at the answers though - people seem surprisingly confident of their answers despite the fact that no one posted a figure/number and showed their work. — TheMadFool
I don't think one can use basic statistics in determining whether China will be willing to go to war in order to get control over Taiwan since there are too many unknown variables in such a equation that would nearly be impossible to give a percentage chance at any time. It is as complex or even more complex that determining whether the stock market will either go up or down in a 6 month or 12 month period. — dclements
Exactly! China use to be happy just in controlling it's borders and maintaining it's status quo in the world but now it changing it's stance to one of being one of being a super power that either rivals the US and her allies and being a superpower more powerful than the US itself.It is about having power and right now we need every bit of power we can get because China is spinning out of control. As I said war is insanity. I have no memory of China expanding its territory since all of China came under one ruler. Something has triggered China to disrespect the status quo and I think this is a very serious situation. — Athena
I believe that is the five thousand dollar question. Maybe they feel that they are close enough in power to the US that they can do whatever they want, maybe it is just a change of posturing in order to gain more political power in their country (kind of like the game some republicans sometimes play by pretending we don't have to care what other countries opinions are), or maybe they are doing because they don't believe any other country can or will stand up to them if they just do whatever they feel like doing.Does anyone know why China has become so aggressive? — Athena
I could be wrong but I imagine neither China nor the US want to resort to NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) type weapons even if China tries to invade Taiwan.So much for probability and the alleged unreasonable effectiveness of math....
All we can say is the likelihood ain't cipher and that's not very helpful is it?
You're aware of DEFCON system, right? It seems the US military and probably other armies around the world have in place some criterion to measure the likelihood of war. — TheMadFool
I think the more accurate way to put it is that with NBC type weapons the level of collateral damage becomes so high that it becomes difficult to justify the gains of any war when compared to that would be lost. One should note that during modern convention wars "usually" the damage is contained to the enemies military and maybe a few economic/strategic targets unless things get worse and then it becomes what one might describe as a unrestricted type war. In any case, usually the wealthiest people and their assets in either country are not usually damaged since neither side wants to destroy any centers of commerce or product which will either may be needed to support a war effort or help rebuilding and/or paying for costs reconstruction after a war is fought - unless of course a losing side decides on using a scorched earth mentality (such as during the first Iraq war with the Us, and what Russians did to their cities and towns before the Germans took control of them) but of course such measures are one of what one might do when it is inevitable when one can not win.This is the paradox: The more lethal weapons are, the less likely armed conflict is. Nobody wants to die (for nothing). MAD (mutually assured destruction) is an effective deterrent, more so than pacifism. — TheMadFool
I'm not sure how exactly how gun control and possible war with China really tie in together. I think the problem with gun control in America is basically we Americans for some reason have a weird love relationship with our guns and some of us can't have enough of them. I don't know if it is either because we are more capitalistic than other countries (buying junk that we don't really need or buying something in the hopes it will solve something that it doesn't) or if the average American is neurotic/psychotic then your average person in another part of the world or maybe it is a combination of both of them as some other issues.What's up with the US and gun control? Explains proxy wars (skirmishes essentially at a global scale and also winnable), cold wars (stalemate), and arms races (messing with balance of power). — TheMadFool
To use a chess analogy, we have 3 options:
1. Checkmate
2. Draw
3. Stalemate
Option 1 is impossible (MAD). Option 2 is pointless (why fight if you can't win). Option 3 seems to be the only one that makes sense (cold war).
Amazing ain't it how it all works out? Everybody goes for the win - the checkmate - which is, obviously, irrational but then what happens is the most rational state of affairs - the stalemate - game theoretically that is.
Being illogical ultimately leads to being logical. I haven't the slightest clue how that comes about? — TheMadFool
Nuclear warheads and other NBC type weapons are really only useful as a deterrent to preventing another country from trying to invade you since you could "theoretically" get away with using a nuke against a military force (somewhere outside of your country where they are building up for an invasion) if that force was much too big for your own military to deal with. Also they can be useful if you need to strong arm a neighboring country that has powerful conventional forces but no nuke themselves.If we consider the fact that there are still thousands of active warheads, located around the world, it will just be a matter of time before they will be actually used. However rational the stalemate, some are just mad and wanna win. — KaimBasha
Maybe I'm wrong and all they are is really just a baby tiger instead of a mean and vicious bear they are trying to pretend to be. But even if they are not really ready to be the world superpower that they think that they are, I sure they have enough people, resources, etc. to make themselves a bit of a headache for the West in the years to come. However if they are almost at the point of being a super power on pare with the US, it is going to take carefully planning and work with our allies in the West to make sure China realizes that they really can't just do whatever they want. — dclements
will just have a cold war with them until they tire of this as well.. — dclements
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.