This seems to have had an effect on the discussion about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Likely the costs of any "Escalation to de-escalation" would be far too big.BEIJING, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping, discussing Ukraine with U.S. President Joe Biden during their meeting on Monday in Indonesia, said nuclear weapons cannot be used and nuclear wars cannot be fought, according to a statement by the Chinese foreign minister.
I don't even know how to reply to this, because it looks to me so, so far removed from actual possibility. There's been talk - for some time now - of the whole "decline of the American Empire" and so on. — Manuel
First of all, this overlooks a crucial problem for China: drastic declining population numbers. This is going to severely affect economic output. — Manuel
But the main point to me anyway, is to ask, how many military bases does the US have around the world? Around 750.
How many does Russia have? 20. What about China? 1. That makes a grand total of 21 military bases vs 750 — Manuel
↪Manuel
That entire post is build on the predicate that the West is a power for good. Which it mostly only is when you actually live there. For the rest of the world it's been mostly shit. — Benkei
now the Rest is ~7B vs the West ~1B — neomac
American temptation to reduce their military commitment around the world — neomac
For some things yeah, you can do that, for others its much harder. I mean you have to consider military personal, construction workers, tax payers. Automation can only do so much. Maybe some radical new AI discovery will render people obsolete in most things, but we are far from reaching that point. — Manuel
In any case, whatever happens in Ukraine in terms of winning or losing, has no consequence for us in terms of who will lead us. It's not a serious issue for people who don't border Russia. — Manuel
By the way, I already mentioned the Uyghur situation and the old Canadian Indian residential school system because of the uncanny parallels with the annexations — re-culturation. — Oct 29, 2022
Is this an objection to my post? If so, that's a strawman argument since you are suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good for the rest of the world" which thing I never stated nor believe. On the other side, if you are simply suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good" because I'm living in the West where is the objection? You yourself claimed: "Which it mostly only is when you actually live there".
In any case, I never stated such a slogan "the West is a power for good" nor I would express myself in such terms. — neomac
What might prompt such a time? — Isaac
I could come across one of these guys saying something I find interesting — Olivier5
Putin made further – and stronger – nuclear threats and seemed to stretch Russian nuclear doctrine from nuclear weapons use being only in the event of an existential threat to instead a threat to territorial integrity – this is particularly worrying given that territory looks set to change and it is contested by Ukraine
These developments are escalating what was already a highly dangerous situation in which mixed messaging with the potential for misinterpretation could lead to decisions being made under false assumptions – there is a well-documented history of close calls with nuclear weapons.
... the application of deterrence theory to the post-cold war realities is hotly contested and far more complicated in the era of cyberattacks which can interfere with the command and control of nuclear weapons.
Kremlin-affiliated cretins — Olivier5
assessed their credibility and biases critically and effectively — Olivier5
ISW ... supported in part by contributions from defense contractors[6] including General Dynamics, DynCorp,[7] and previously, Raytheon.[8]
critics have described ISW as "a hawkish Washington" group[32] favoring an "aggressive foreign policy".[6] Writers for The Nation and Foreign Policy have called it "neoconservative".
I am a Ukrainian — The bloke's entire bio offered
As an Englishman, do you have a moral right to some piece of geography, like where you live? — ssu
It's not about duty. It's simply a very rational response. — ssu
the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac
and the ISW... seriously — Isaac
Chatham House? Heard of them? — Isaac
The risk of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine is low, but the consequences will be huge, so we take it very seriously," — Isaac
Michel Goya works fro BFM-TV... — Isaac
First Wikipedia copy/paste looks a bit raised to a genetic fallacy.
Second looks fine, except you'll rarely find something like this with exclusively positive reception.
Temper mon capitaine, I wouldn't just wholly dismiss them that easily with a casual handwave. — jorndoe
RAND is a military think tank with good analysts but strongly connected to the US military-industrial complex, which implies a significant bias towards their interests and thus a tendency to take any threat to US military dominance very very seriously, if not to exaggerate them. — Olivier5
I would include North America, EU, UK, Norway most certainly.What are you including in the west? — Manuel
“Overspending” in what sense? Not wrt their GDP. As by comparison with other countries, in an age of great power competition we may reasonably expect that the American military spending can grow more likely than decrease to at least preserve their overwhelming military superiority. Yet that’s not enough to think that the American commitment to the security of the West won’t change. Besides if there is a military clash between the US and Russia is more likely going to happen in Europe than in the US (as the Ukrainian war is reminding us of). So I’d find more reasonable to hit an expansionist Russia as hard as possible when it’s in a weaker position, than wait for Russia to recover and give it another try in the future just for the fun of it.They are constantly overspending on the military, no matter who gets in power. — Manuel
Anything beyond 5 years is way too much speculation in my view. We don't know what will happen. — Manuel
Putin's only alliance could crumble after special summit shows Russian despot isolated
— Alessandra Scotto di Santolo · Express · Nov 24, 2022 — jorndoe
Here's the US attitude to 'international law' - From https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-makes-a-mockery-of-treaties-and-international-law/ — Isaac
Is this an objection to my post? If so, that's a strawman argument since you are suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good for the rest of the world" which thing I never stated nor believe. On the other side, if you are simply suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good" because I'm living in the West where is the objection? You yourself claimed: "Which it mostly only is when you actually live there".
In any case, I never stated such a slogan "the West is a power for good" nor I would express myself in such terms. — neomac
So the West should lose then? — Benkei
Have you guys discussed this article yet? It argues that the war in Ukraine amounts to genocide. I am hard pressed to disagree. Yet it doesn't even go into the destruction of power infrastructure, which I am worried will lead to mass civilian casualties. — hypericin
Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "[m]inimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure",[8] and, in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction." — Shock and Awe, wikipedia
We expect the reaction of friends — not just observers — Zelensky
Oh, you lost the plot again! You can evaluate or criticise everything you want. Even Putin, if you ever wanted to…. Ha ha ha. It’s no skin off my nose. You keep on trying to make it personal, trying to hurt. But the war is not fought here on TPF and there is no point in using violence against other posters. Go fight in Dombass if you want to kill other human beings. Here, you will not succeed. You can yell at me at the top of your lungs, I don’t care and I won’t mind. I’m not the one calling the shots. — Olivier5
So you think NATO countries should hand over tanks to Ukraine? They’ve taken thousands of them from Russians already. Ukraine now boasts the largest panzer army in Europe. What they really need is an airforce. — Olivier5
American violations...are often alleged by authoritarian States which themselves have being accused of analogous behaviour, or for American domestic political competition. — neomac
the attitude of ALL geopolitical players toward it will realistically serve geopolitical goals... So more important of the attitude of the US toward international law is all other players (allies and enemies) attitude toward the US. — neomac
the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac
So I’d find more reasonable to hit an expansionist Russia as hard as possible when it’s in a weaker position, than wait for Russia to recover and give it another try in the future just for the fun of it. — neomac
you didn’t calculate by yourself, I guess - doesn’t concern the next 5 years, right? If you feel dispensed from engaging in such kind of speculation like anticipating potentially hostile competitors’ moves far before they could actually happen, States will do it at your place anyways and likely much better than you could ever possibly afford because they have means and that’s necessary for their own survival. — neomac
None of this nonsensical verbiage alleviates your error. You said that...
the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac
How is it a problem that Russia are violating international law, when America clearly violates international law all the time? — Isaac
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.