I can't read the whole article, and F me for saying something dumb and cavalier, but... IMHO it is better for U.S. politicians to remain apparently oblivious to the party's hard-line on these...
I can't read the whole article, and F me for saying something dumb and cavalier, but...
IMHO it is better for U.S. politicians to remain apparently oblivious to the party's hard-line on these things, and rely on cooler heads prevailing in China. The party seems to have forced itself into a corner where it must keep the tensions high and point fingers at other countries, but it is hard for me to imagine anyone actually committing to a war with no clear good outcome.
If the U.S. takes everything the party says (seriously or not, and they say a lot of similar things probably not seriously) seriously, recognizing and acknowledging those positions makes doing anything at all waaaay more likely to blow up. I think.
I certainly didn't expect Russia to invade Ukraine when it did, although I at least knew it was on the table, so this is almost certainly the wrong attitude to have about such matters. Well, it is what it is...
Maintaining the status quo is important to achieving very long-term peace. It's certain that a cultural globalization will grow more dominant, and it's possible that future Chinese generations...
Maintaining the status quo is important to achieving very long-term peace. It's certain that a cultural globalization will grow more dominant, and it's possible that future Chinese generations will liberalize and become more globally integrated and see less need to complete the territorial aspects of national rejuvenation.
This is going to sound pretty ignorant of me so I would appreciate being educated on the matter, but what is there to worry about here? If war breaks out, won't the nukes start flying? At that...
This is going to sound pretty ignorant of me so I would appreciate being educated on the matter, but what is there to worry about here?
If war breaks out, won't the nukes start flying? At that point, for most normal people, there's zero hope for survival. So war's not really a problem anymore, since I will be dead.
And if nothing happens between the two, then great.
Why worry is my question? Seems the decision is out of our hands.
I don't think it would necessarily go that way, but I do agree that most people don't have anything to do here, and it's probably not a good use of your time to talk about it. It's the sort of...
I don't think it would necessarily go that way, but I do agree that most people don't have anything to do here, and it's probably not a good use of your time to talk about it. It's the sort of thing where we (in the US) try to elect good leaders and hope for the best. (Electing good leaders is difficult.)
I started reading a book about the decision-making leading up to the disastrous Iraq war. I voted for Gore and vaguely remember being against it, but I wonder, even in hindsight, what could I have done about it?
Of course we can still talk about it, but sometimes following current events is just a form of entertainment.
This is how I feel about all politics in general. Even if the war did break out in Taiwan like @MimicSquid suggests, it's not really my problem as cold as that sounds. Best I can do is vote, but...
but I wonder, even in hindsight, what could I have done about it? ... but sometimes following current events is just a form of entertainment.
This is how I feel about all politics in general. Even if the war did break out in Taiwan like @MimicSquid suggests, it's not really my problem as cold as that sounds. Best I can do is vote, but even voting blue doesn't solve anything or make any meaningful progress at a national scale.
A side point: at least theoretically, voting isn't the best you can do, it's more like doing the minimum. For example, if you convince two people to vote your way, that's twice as effective as...
A side point: at least theoretically, voting isn't the best you can do, it's more like doing the minimum. For example, if you convince two people to vote your way, that's twice as effective as voting yourself. There's no limit on how many people you're allowed to persuade. I generally assume that people I know who volunteered for political campaigns achieved lots more than me, though probably more due to getting out the vote than actually changing minds.
But I think foreign policy is particularly difficult. When do we ever vote on China policy by itself? It's more likely to be a minor consideration when choosing which candidate to support.
You'd need to be in a position to influence political leaders in some way. I've never met them and I'd guess they've never read anything I wrote. There are probably people on politicians' staff that read Foreign Policy, but I have doubts about how influential one article is.
Yeah I think spreading the word is a good cause but I have next to no influence in my life. And I am in a blue state so it wouldn't matter anyway. I really don't have the resources to be...
Yeah I think spreading the word is a good cause but I have next to no influence in my life. And I am in a blue state so it wouldn't matter anyway. I really don't have the resources to be converting right wingers right now. My biggest worry right now is getting a proper job and trying not to be replaced by AI.
Eh. Look at all of the wars between major powers since 1945. Have nukes been thrown around? Not in any sort of world-ending way. A limited conventional war seems far more likely. Taiwan wouldn't...
Eh. Look at all of the wars between major powers since 1945. Have nukes been thrown around? Not in any sort of world-ending way. A limited conventional war seems far more likely. Taiwan wouldn't appreciate it at all, but it's far more likely that the US and China would keep all the fighting on or around the island, as it's not a war of survival for either country. What would slinging nukes actually do to get either country closer to achieving their geopolitical goals?
One thing I would add is that the the leading nuclear usage theory is no longer MAD as is often described in history books, but NUTS. That is to say, even if the nukes were to be flung, it is...
One thing I would add is that the the leading nuclear usage theory is no longer MAD as is often described in history books, but NUTS. That is to say, even if the nukes were to be flung, it is unlikely that response would be to commence all-out nuclear war, but a targeted response of similar magnitude.
By what metric is this the leading theory? Genuinely curious. I try to stay up to date with nuclear security and policy and this is the first time I’m seeing this be discussed.
By what metric is this the leading theory? Genuinely curious. I try to stay up to date with nuclear security and policy and this is the first time I’m seeing this be discussed.
During the late 1970s and the 1980s, the Pentagon began to adopt strategies for limited nuclear options to make it possible to control escalation and reduce the risk of all-out nuclear war, hence accepting NUTS. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Directive 59 which endorsed the NUTS strategic posture committed to fight and win a nuclear war, and accepted escalation dominance and flexible response.
Right, but just from that article its not clear to me the scope nor longevity of that endorsement. Recent policy positions seem to indicate to me a return to MAD, with claims that a nuclear war...
I would not agree that document suggests an approach of MAD over NUTS, rather the reverse. “Cannot be won” and “far reaching consequences” recognize the destructive force of nukes but do not...
I would not agree that document suggests an approach of MAD over NUTS, rather the reverse. “Cannot be won” and “far reaching consequences” recognize the destructive force of nukes but do not assert that both sides would certainly be obliterated and leaves open the door for small scale and tactical uses.
I believe it’s also a better deterrent. If i can persuade you that i might drop a tactical nuke under certain circumstances, you are leas likely to help bring about those certain circumstances. Which Putin and kim jong il have both presented as having that degree of bravado; not sure about nato.
I can't read the whole article, and F me for saying something dumb and cavalier, but...
IMHO it is better for U.S. politicians to remain apparently oblivious to the party's hard-line on these things, and rely on cooler heads prevailing in China. The party seems to have forced itself into a corner where it must keep the tensions high and point fingers at other countries, but it is hard for me to imagine anyone actually committing to a war with no clear good outcome.
If the U.S. takes everything the party says (seriously or not, and they say a lot of similar things probably not seriously) seriously, recognizing and acknowledging those positions makes doing anything at all waaaay more likely to blow up. I think.
I certainly didn't expect Russia to invade Ukraine when it did, although I at least knew it was on the table, so this is almost certainly the wrong attitude to have about such matters. Well, it is what it is...
Maintaining the status quo is important to achieving very long-term peace. It's certain that a cultural globalization will grow more dominant, and it's possible that future Chinese generations will liberalize and become more globally integrated and see less need to complete the territorial aspects of national rejuvenation.
Archive
This is going to sound pretty ignorant of me so I would appreciate being educated on the matter, but what is there to worry about here?
If war breaks out, won't the nukes start flying? At that point, for most normal people, there's zero hope for survival. So war's not really a problem anymore, since I will be dead.
And if nothing happens between the two, then great.
Why worry is my question? Seems the decision is out of our hands.
I don't think it would necessarily go that way, but I do agree that most people don't have anything to do here, and it's probably not a good use of your time to talk about it. It's the sort of thing where we (in the US) try to elect good leaders and hope for the best. (Electing good leaders is difficult.)
I started reading a book about the decision-making leading up to the disastrous Iraq war. I voted for Gore and vaguely remember being against it, but I wonder, even in hindsight, what could I have done about it?
Of course we can still talk about it, but sometimes following current events is just a form of entertainment.
This is how I feel about all politics in general. Even if the war did break out in Taiwan like @MimicSquid suggests, it's not really my problem as cold as that sounds. Best I can do is vote, but even voting blue doesn't solve anything or make any meaningful progress at a national scale.
A side point: at least theoretically, voting isn't the best you can do, it's more like doing the minimum. For example, if you convince two people to vote your way, that's twice as effective as voting yourself. There's no limit on how many people you're allowed to persuade. I generally assume that people I know who volunteered for political campaigns achieved lots more than me, though probably more due to getting out the vote than actually changing minds.
But I think foreign policy is particularly difficult. When do we ever vote on China policy by itself? It's more likely to be a minor consideration when choosing which candidate to support.
You'd need to be in a position to influence political leaders in some way. I've never met them and I'd guess they've never read anything I wrote. There are probably people on politicians' staff that read Foreign Policy, but I have doubts about how influential one article is.
Yeah I think spreading the word is a good cause but I have next to no influence in my life. And I am in a blue state so it wouldn't matter anyway. I really don't have the resources to be converting right wingers right now. My biggest worry right now is getting a proper job and trying not to be replaced by AI.
I recall that there were some of the largest protests ever, and we got Free Speech Zones and nothing changed.
The recurring theme of the 21st century.
Eh. Look at all of the wars between major powers since 1945. Have nukes been thrown around? Not in any sort of world-ending way. A limited conventional war seems far more likely. Taiwan wouldn't appreciate it at all, but it's far more likely that the US and China would keep all the fighting on or around the island, as it's not a war of survival for either country. What would slinging nukes actually do to get either country closer to achieving their geopolitical goals?
One thing I would add is that the the leading nuclear usage theory is no longer MAD as is often described in history books, but NUTS. That is to say, even if the nukes were to be flung, it is unlikely that response would be to commence all-out nuclear war, but a targeted response of similar magnitude.
By what metric is this the leading theory? Genuinely curious. I try to stay up to date with nuclear security and policy and this is the first time I’m seeing this be discussed.
According to the linked wikipedia article:
Right, but just from that article its not clear to me the scope nor longevity of that endorsement. Recent policy positions seem to indicate to me a return to MAD, with claims that a nuclear war cannot be won. See for example: Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races. The nuclear doctrine in the US still seems to me to be based off of MAD.
I would not agree that document suggests an approach of MAD over NUTS, rather the reverse. “Cannot be won” and “far reaching consequences” recognize the destructive force of nukes but do not assert that both sides would certainly be obliterated and leaves open the door for small scale and tactical uses.
I believe it’s also a better deterrent. If i can persuade you that i might drop a tactical nuke under certain circumstances, you are leas likely to help bring about those certain circumstances. Which Putin and kim jong il have both presented as having that degree of bravado; not sure about nato.
I appreciate the fact that us gov acronyms try to keep to a theme.
Check out this masterpiece: Separation Technology of On-Orbit Liquid and Excrement, or STOOLE. Proposal by a contractor to NASA.