Replacing the UN with a new sans-China organization

[Vistulange]

A threat is meaningless if the other side knows it's not practically possible to carry it out, however.

The US acted in a very, very, very smart way in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, considering its position as a superpower, and perhaps the hegemon of the new world order. Had it acted in a manner hostile to its Western Allies - making unreasonable demands counts towards this, yes - it could have driven them out of the Western sphere and into the arms of the Soviets, just like Cuba went after the Bay of Pigs invasion. Despite the distaste for the communism of the sort the Soviets practiced, again, 1945 wasn't precisely the year Joseph Stalin was "the big bad empire", he was rather "Uncle Joe". He would become the villain - along with the USSR - more towards 1947-ish. It would not be wholly odd to think that countries such as the UK and France gravitating away from the US and veering closer to the USSR, if they were threatened with the usage of US atomic weapons, out of the blue, just because the US could. By this, I'm not asserting that suddenly, the UK and France would have become founding members of the Warsaw Pact, but the US would have certainly lost its allies in Europe. The argument could be made that the US could keep them on its side by force, but I honestly don't think that would have been realistically possible, especially considering the extreme distance between the US and its hypothetical satellite states. If the USSR had to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia from half a world away, it probably couldn't have, and the same goes for the US. To make such a thing possible, one would need to keep those satellites militarily weak, so that they cannot resist a US invasion from overseas, but that just makes them ripe targets for the Soviets.

Anyway, I've rambled. Tl;dr: Hindsight is perfect, but it would be unreasonable to expect the US decision-makers at the time to suddenly start bullying everybody, especially people they had just fought a long war with, simply because it had atomic bombs.

Except it wouldn't be impossible. The US had nukes. Not many of them, but enough to be able to fulfill a threat. The Chinese Civil War didn't end until 5 years after ww2 ended, meaning it could produce more far before the Soviets developed their own. It also occupied Okinawa, giving it a perfect airbase to organize nuclear bombings from. And demanding its allies not do anything while it was dealing with a rebel threat endangering the stability of one of the four Victorious Powers is not hostile.

Refer to my prior post.

The US acted in a very, very, very smart way in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, considering its position as a superpower,

Stopped reading there.

Nope, screwed it up massively. Should've nuked the Russians and the Chinese immediately, and then everything else, until there was nothing left but NATO and its protectorates.

Flushed the opportunity down the drain and no one will ever get it again, now we have to put up with all these dysfunctional people, forever. It would have been easier to just glass them.

Yes, it's obvious you stopped reading there. At least don't admit it like this, it looks bad.

Also, there was no "NATO" in 1945. If you're going to stop reading, at least get your history right.

[Novus America]

Both China and America have deeply vested interests in Taiwan, as China wants to reintegrate it, while the US wants to maintain it.

And no, I don’t think Taiwan will ho towards China that easily. The Taiwanese have rather strong anti-PRC sentiments and are basically free. It’s honestly petty that China won’t recognize the independence of the Taiwanese because there is almost nothing important China can do there asides from establish dominance I guess.

Sure, they're just plucky-eyed, democracy-loving freedom fighters, or whatever they said about ISIS when they were still getting American money and material!

I don't care!

You shouldn't care, unless your nation title indicates that you're filipino, in which case, maybe you should, but the Americans shouldn't. The Chinese are not invading the island, they are playing the long game by assuming that they will be the more attractive partner in 30 years, and the way things are going, they are making a safe bet.

What do we even get from Taiwan? South Korea makes the K-pop, Japan makes the anime - what does Taiwan give America? That's right - nothing!

See this is why countries work together, because you can be stronger that way. The US and Philippines are much stronger work together than separately.

Not everyone thinks the same as you either. Not everyone has a sociopathic view of foreign policy.
But Supporting Taiwan is in the US interests, it is a rational policy decisions from a realpolitik standpoint anyway.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

It may not be appropriate to discuss the Taiwan issue here. I decided to stop it.In conclusion, this is a problem within our country, which is also recognized by the Taiwan government. At least before this administration, they were open to recognition. If they declare independence, first of all, they violate the constitution.If protecting the integrity of your country means being against the world, come on. It's not something we haven't experienced in our history

It is not something you have ever experienced. I presume you are not a poor factory worker, but probably middle class enjoying all the benefits you reaped from exploiting Western neoliberalism.
You younger generation does not know such conditions. And I doubt most willing to give up their jobs with western companies to do.

I think it topical as the subject of the thread pertains to recognizing the PRC over the ROC.
So until a Mod says no I think it fair to discuss. If you attack Taiwan you very well might be expelled from many international organizations.

You can not violate a Constitution that never applied to you.
The US Constitution does not allow states to unilaterally declared independence but that does not apply to Canada. Because although we claimed Canada they never joined it.
So we cannot use it as good justification to attack them today. We would become a widely hated pariah and lose our allies.
(We did try to invade Canada BTW, twice but failed like you did so we decided it better to recognize them and make friends than keep trying to invade, also in the the early1800s you could still get away the seizing places by force shit, before you say “but Iraq” we never tried to annex Iraq, and Iraq seriously harmed our economy and international standing, it was a bad idea after all and not worth it).

Now if the ROC had agreed to your constitution, been given a fair say in the system, and had its rights respected and it tried to declare independence that would be another matter.
But see that did not happen.

That is the problem you have. Invading by force would completely disrupt and probably collapse an order you have hugely benefited from.
See Italy might agree to be Belted and Railroaded right now, but actually attack Taiwan an all but a handful of dictatorships drop you like it’s hot.

Besides you might not even win. The PRC has no experience in such an operation, Taiwan has ways to sink a lot of ships, and the US might intervene.

So what is more important? Your economy? Your international standing? Or attacking Taiwan (and maybe losing)?”
You might be willing to sacrifice the first two, but your leaders are not.

Which is why the PRC will bitch, moan, scream and threaten, but not be able to do anything, at least while the situation is a it is now. Maybe it will change enough in the future that you can, but for now you will not. Why do you think your leaders have not done it?

And if you think they should do it now, you must acknowledge your dear leader is wrong, because he will not pull the pin.
Because right now you are stuck in a trap. To get what you want on one thing you have to give up what you want on the others.

I'm talking about the constitution of the Republic of China.POC.not PRC.
Let me tell you why China hasn't acted yet.Congratulations.American.We have to admit that it's not the time before we can completely surpass the whole west.Taiwan's problem is the United States.
Yes, it's not the time.As long as Taiwan doesn't cause trouble, we won't attack.But what can you do with us?Even if we attack Taiwan now, what can you do?All four U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean can't be deployed. The U.S. and the West are in a mess, and only China can produce the goods they depend on.Do you really have the energy to care about China?
International organizations?Even the WTO is dissatisfied with the United States.Please appease your allies before that.You can't beat us in Asia and the Pacific. Africa is not on your side either.European allies are very dissatisfied with the United States, because several economic crises you have passed on to Europe.What you do to non European countries is just economic colonization.They believe that the United States will protect their security, but they don't know what will happen if they disobey the United States.

They're going against you. Thank you really, Mr. trump.Old man, We've been dealing with you for so long.From the moment the US forces withdrew from Taiwan, the US never wanted to guarantee Taiwan.Taiwan is just a tool used by the United States to restrict China.If you were really concerned about democracy and freedom, US wouldn't have worked with us against the Soviet Union 30 years ago.You're just like us. You're all in the interests first.American arrogance is almost the same as my compatriots.Do you feel that you have the right to dictate to all countries?We also think we should be stronger than the rest of the world combined.

I don't want to gloat, but US in a lot of trouble.That's why there's this post. You all want to forget your troubles and find a vent.But venting your malice and keeping your prejudice will not help your reality.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Both China and America have deeply vested interests in Taiwan, as China wants to reintegrate it, while the US wants to maintain it.

And no, I don’t think Taiwan will ho towards China that easily. The Taiwanese have rather strong anti-PRC sentiments and are basically free. It’s honestly petty that China won’t recognize the independence of the Taiwanese because there is almost nothing important China can do there asides from establish dominance I guess.

Sure, they're just plucky-eyed, democracy-loving freedom fighters, or whatever they said about ISIS when they were still getting American money and material!

I don't care!

You shouldn't care, unless your nation title indicates that you're filipino, in which case, maybe you should, but the Americans shouldn't. The Chinese are not invading the island, they are playing the long game by assuming that they will be the more attractive partner in 30 years, and the way things are going, they are making a safe bet.

What do we even get from Taiwan? South Korea makes the K-pop, Japan makes the anime - what does Taiwan give America? That's right - nothing!

But Taiwan has already fully established their sovereignty. And of course America has a stake in this, given how a potential occupation of Taiwan risk the geopolitical equilibrium being upset in both the South China Sea because China takes out another contender and Japan/Korea, with the hypothetical Taiwanese occupation placing the Okinawa Islands, which mind you, house a US military base, even closer to China.

About the Marianas, they’re not just a couple of islands. They’re UNITED STATES SOIL. Threats to the Marianas are direct threats to America.

About the environment, it’s pretty clear that everyone should care, because we’ll lose a few cities in the future to the seas, a bunch of arable land would dry up, crippling economies of agricultural nations. And if we ignore this, the future would look bleak for humans, Earth and the ecosystem alike. Never has giving a shit about the environment been more important than it is now, before we hit the point of irreversible damage.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The US acted in a very, very, very smart way in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, considering its position as a superpower,

Stopped reading there.

Nope, screwed it up massively. Should've nuked the Russians and the Chinese immediately, and then everything else, until there was nothing left but NATO and its protectorates.

Flushed the opportunity down the drain and no one will ever get it again, now we have to put up with all these dysfunctional people, forever. It would have been easier to just glass them.

Lost the opportunity to commit genocide on a scale never seen before. Boo hoo.

Edit: Also, not reading an argument to its conclusion is no sign of strength, it betrays a lack of nuance, so I don't understand why you would brag about that.

[Novus America]

No the environment is shit, and outsourcing is making it shittier. They will not stop at some islands in the Philippines. They want to dominant the whole Pacific and even make occasion threats towards the Marianas and Hawaii.

You don't care about the environment, neither do I, and even if you did, what are you going to do about it? That's right - nothing!

Marianas? Who cares? What do you get from these islands? That's right - nothing!
What are they going to do to Hawaii? Tweet at it? Surprise bombing? Oh, they just remembered - they have nukes! They don't want to play that game, because no one can win it! We had an entire cold war about that subject! The lesson was learned by everyone - but you!

I have never called for attacking the PRC militarily. If every country can advance their power, why do you scream it is so evil for the US to want to advance ours then?

My problem with the Americans funding and organizing ISIS to try to topple the Syrian government, and watching them get wrecked by the Russians, was that it was it did not provide any material benefit to America or Americans. It was a waste of money, which is the only kind of evil I recognize for the purposes of this discussion.

Every possible line of thinking that stems from "hurr China is adversary" is essentially meaningless spiel that stems from an apparently cavemanlike desire to relive the glorious images of WW2 propaganda, and a failure to understand that the nature of war and adversarial relationships has fundamentally changed, to where they are now a waste of time and money for a country in your position.

Actually I do care, and I am going to advocate policies the help the environment, I have also reduced my personal environmental foot print too. Now sure my advocacy might not do much, but if everyone had your doomer attitude nothing will get done. If enough people had my attitude things would get done.

Anyways you are the one that failed to learn from the Cold War. The Soviets were our adversary, so we treated them like one. Both of us having nukes did not stop us from being adversaries. Again nukes only protect you against a loss so bad you are effectively willing to murder suicide over it, if the other side has large enough numbers of nukes too.

Also the people of the Marianas are US citizens. So yes I care about my fellow citizens.

The simple thing is you are being quite hypocritical. You say ever other country should be able to advance their interests but the US should not, because you disagree over Syria or something. It is completely incoherent.

[Novus America]

It is not something you have ever experienced. I presume you are not a poor factory worker, but probably middle class enjoying all the benefits you reaped from exploiting Western neoliberalism.
You younger generation does not know such conditions. And I doubt most willing to give up their jobs with western companies to do.

I think it topical as the subject of the thread pertains to recognizing the PRC over the ROC.
So until a Mod says no I think it fair to discuss. If you attack Taiwan you very well might be expelled from many international organizations.

You can not violate a Constitution that never applied to you.
The US Constitution does not allow states to unilaterally declared independence but that does not apply to Canada. Because although we claimed Canada they never joined it.
So we cannot use it as good justification to attack them today. We would become a widely hated pariah and lose our allies.
(We did try to invade Canada BTW, twice but failed like you did so we decided it better to recognize them and make friends than keep trying to invade, also in the the early1800s you could still get away the seizing places by force shit, before you say “but Iraq” we never tried to annex Iraq, and Iraq seriously harmed our economy and international standing, it was a bad idea after all and not worth it).

Now if the ROC had agreed to your constitution, been given a fair say in the system, and had its rights respected and it tried to declare independence that would be another matter.
But see that did not happen.

That is the problem you have. Invading by force would completely disrupt and probably collapse an order you have hugely benefited from.
See Italy might agree to be Belted and Railroaded right now, but actually attack Taiwan an all but a handful of dictatorships drop you like it’s hot.

Besides you might not even win. The PRC has no experience in such an operation, Taiwan has ways to sink a lot of ships, and the US might intervene.

So what is more important? Your economy? Your international standing? Or attacking Taiwan (and maybe losing)?”
You might be willing to sacrifice the first two, but your leaders are not.

Which is why the PRC will bitch, moan, scream and threaten, but not be able to do anything, at least while the situation is a it is now. Maybe it will change enough in the future that you can, but for now you will not. Why do you think your leaders have not done it?

And if you think they should do it now, you must acknowledge your dear leader is wrong, because he will not pull the pin.
Because right now you are stuck in a trap. To get what you want on one thing you have to give up what you want on the others.

I'm talking about the constitution of the Republic of China.POC.not PRC.
Let me tell you why China hasn't acted yet.Congratulations.American.We have to admit that it's not the time before we can completely surpass the whole west.Taiwan's problem is the United States.
Yes, it's not the time.As long as Taiwan doesn't cause trouble, we won't attack.But what can you do with us?Even if we attack Taiwan now, what can you do?All four U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean can't be deployed. The U.S. and the West are in a mess, and only China can produce the goods they depend on.Do you really have the energy to care about China?
International organizations?Even the WTO is dissatisfied with the United States.Please appease your allies before that.You can't beat us in Asia and the Pacific. Africa is not on your side either.European allies are very dissatisfied with the United States, because several economic crises you have passed on to Europe.
They're going against you. Thank you really, Mr. trump.Old man, We've been dealing with you for so long.From the moment the US forces withdrew from Taiwan, the US never wanted to guarantee Taiwan.Taiwan is just a tool used by the United States to restrict China.If you were really concerned about democracy and freedom, US wouldn't have worked with us against the Soviet Union 30 years ago.You're just like us. You're all in the interests first.American arrogance is almost the same as my compatriots.Do you feel that you have the right to dictate to all countries?We also think we should be stronger than the rest of the world combined.

I don't want to gloat, but US in a lot of trouble.That's why there's this post. You all want to forget your troubles and find a vent.But venting your malice and keeping your prejudice will not help your reality.

The people of the ROC can change the Constitution of the ROC. Which you know, they already have. Sure legally without Constitutional Change the ROC president cannot unilateral end the ROC. No shit. And she does not want to because she will follow the law.

Ah so you admit you cannot really do anything about Taiwan but accept the status quo and their de facto independence, for now at least. So attacking now is NOT an option,

Besides you and Xi should learn something. Triumphalism is the surest route to failure. Do not count your chickens before they hatch.

See the US felt we were invincible in the 90s just like you do now.
And that was our biggest mistake.

See the future is not written, not determined. Maybe you will get all you want, eventually. But probably not. Must likely you get some but not all.

And the US still has plenty of cards left to play. We have oil, you do not have nearly enough. In a war what happens to you oil supply? Actually our economy is more independent and self sufficient than yours!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... -GDP_ratio

How about that. Did not see that coming eh?

Now I am not denying we have many major problems. I am not engaging in triumphalism. I am not saying we will win. We might not. My whole thing here is about fixing our problems. Doing our best, saying what outcome we should aim to achieve, not what it will be.

But you maybe should be a bit more like me in that regard. The PRC has many glaring weaknesses and massive problems too. It is not time for you to take the victory lap, the race is just beginning.

[Vistulange]

I'm talking about the constitution of the Republic of China.POC.not PRC.
Let me tell you why China hasn't acted yet.Congratulations.American.We have to admit that it's not the time before we can completely surpass the whole west.Taiwan's problem is the United States.
Yes, it's not the time.As long as Taiwan doesn't cause trouble, we won't attack.But what can you do with us?Even if we attack Taiwan now, what can you do?All four U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean can't be deployed. The U.S. and the West are in a mess, and only China can produce the goods they depend on.Do you really have the energy to care about China?
International organizations?Even the WTO is dissatisfied with the United States.Please appease your allies before that.You can't beat us in Asia and the Pacific. Africa is not on your side either.European allies are very dissatisfied with the United States, because several economic crises you have passed on to Europe.
They're going against you. Thank you really, Mr. trump.Old man, We've been dealing with you for so long.From the moment the US forces withdrew from Taiwan, the US never wanted to guarantee Taiwan.Taiwan is just a tool used by the United States to restrict China.If you were really concerned about democracy and freedom, US wouldn't have worked with us against the Soviet Union 30 years ago.You're just like us. You're all in the interests first.American arrogance is almost the same as my compatriots.Do you feel that you have the right to dictate to all countries?We also think we should be stronger than the rest of the world combined.

I don't want to gloat, but US in a lot of trouble.That's why there's this post. You all want to forget your troubles and find a vent.But venting your malice and keeping your prejudice will not help your reality.

The people of the ROC can change the Constitution of the ROC. Which you know, they already have. Sure legally without Constitutional Change the ROC president cannot unilateral end the ROC. No shit. And she does not want to because she will follow the law.

Ah so you admit you cannot really do anything about Taiwan but accept the status quo and their de facto independence, for now at least. So attacking now is NOT an option,

Besides you and Xi should learn something. Triumphalism is the surest route to failure. Do not count your chickens before they hatch.

See the US felt we were invincible in the 90s just like you do now.
And that was our biggest mistake.

See the future is not written, not determined. Maybe you will get all you want, eventually. But probably not. Must likely you get some but not all.

And the US still has plenty of cards left to play. We have oil, you do not have nearly enough. In a war what happens to you oil supply? Actually our economy is more independent and self sufficient than yours!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... -GDP_ratio

How about that. Did not see that coming eh?

Now I am not denying we have many major problems. I am not engaging in triumphalism. I am not saying we will win. We might not. My whole thing here is about fixing our problems. Doing our best, saying what outcome we should aim to achieve, not what it will be.

But you maybe should be a bit more like me in that regard. The PRC has many glaring weaknesses and massive problems too. It is not time for you to take the victory lap, the race is just beginning.

You do realise it's kind of pointless to argue with him, yes?

[Ankenland]

Lost the opportunity to commit genocide on a scale never seen before. Boo hoo.

Edit: Also, not reading an argument to its conclusion is no sign of strength, it betrays a lack of nuance, so I don't understand why you would brag about that.

Well, at that time, the Americans had already seized upon the opportunity to commit genocide on a scale never before seen - but there was an entirely new order of magnitude they failed to achieve.

Not reading an argument for why something that I already knew happened was a good idea actually shows the ability to economize my own time.

The moment that that technology hit the field, it created an unacceptable risk that someone else would develop it, and use it against the Americans. This is actually what nearly happened, and the fact that Russia did not nuke the United States was dumb luck or divine intervention, and neither of these form a good basis for foreign policy. There were two specific incidents where it came down to nothing more than random number generation of "who was in the radar room when it malfunctioned" and "who was on board the submarine when it was being depth charged in the Caribbean" for why the Russians did not nuke the United States, and have you living in the Fallout universe instead of the one you are living in presently. You should read about this if you don't already know, this is not an exhaustive list of "times when nuclear war was decided on an essentially random basis."

This risk was knowable beforehand, the Americans chose to ignore it, and what came out of this was basically the policy equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with three or four bullets in a six-shooter, surviving, and then declaring, triumphantly: "That was a great idea!"

The logical decision was to prevent this risk, by immediately, preemptively nuking all opposing players, and continuing to nuke them until they surrender unconditionally.

If you cannot deal with this psychologically, if you cannot do war games without spontaneously clenching up, woe-is-me-ing and saying "b-b-but war kills people!" then you just shouldn't play war games. I recommend the feminist discussion thread instead.

The only humanitarian argument to make is to ask whether or not, after the unconditional surrender, the Americans should have just kept on nuking them. That might have been the best strategy, but it's a secondary consideration, compared to the retrospectively obvious risk-reductive strategy, which was to nuke them all at least to that point.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Lost the opportunity to commit genocide on a scale never seen before. Boo hoo.

Edit: Also, not reading an argument to its conclusion is no sign of strength, it betrays a lack of nuance, so I don't understand why you would brag about that.

Well, at that time, the Americans had already seized upon the opportunity to commit genocide on a scale never before seen - but there was an entirely new order of magnitude they failed to achieve.

Not reading an argument for why something that I already knew happened was a good idea actually shows the ability to economize my own time.

The moment that that technology hit the field, it created an unacceptable risk that someone else would develop it, and use it against the Americans. This is actually what nearly happened, and the fact that Russia did not nuke the United States was dumb luck or divine intervention, and neither of these form a good basis for foreign policy. There were two specific incidents where it came down to nothing more than random number generation of "who was in the radar room when it malfunctioned" and "who was on board the submarine when it was being depth charged in the Caribbean" for why the Russians did not nuke the United States, and have you living in the Fallout universe instead of the one you are living in presently. You should read about this if you don't already know, this is not an exhaustive list of "times when nuclear war was decided on an essentially random basis."

This risk was knowable beforehand, the Americans chose to ignore it, and what came out of this was basically the policy equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with three or four bullets in a six-shooter, surviving, and then declaring, triumphantly: "That was a great idea!"

The logical decision was to prevent this risk, by immediately, preemptively nuking all opposing players, and continuing to nuke them until they surrender unconditionally.

If you cannot deal with this psychologically, if you cannot do war games without spontaneously clenching up, woe-is-me-ing and saying "b-b-but war kills people!" then you just shouldn't play war games. I recommend the feminist discussion thread instead.

So... your plan to prevent a nuclear holocaust is committing a nuclear holocaust?

Not shuddering at the thought of the death of millions does not make you a better debater, in case you were living under that delusion. Some people react to nuclear weapons with calls for non-proliferation. Others call for nuclear genocide. You wanted a genocide.

EDIT: Never mind, I read your edit. You are not worth talking to in a million years. You have an ideology so vile that there is no sense in even debating it.

[Ankenland]

So... your plan to prevent a nuclear holocaust is committing a nuclear holocaust?

Not shuddering at the thought of the death of millions does not make you a better debater, in case you were living under that delusion. Some people react to nuclear weapons with calls for non-proliferation. Others call for nuclear genocide. You wanted a genocide.

Yes, the correct way to minimize the risk of a nuclear holocaust was to preemptively nuclear holocaust all other players.

On the other hand, shuddering at the thought of the death of millions makes you a worse debater, and makes us wonder why you even want to play war games.

It doesn't even matter what "I wanted." There was one correct strategy for risk reduction to America, which was to transition immediately from nuking the Japanese, to nuking the Soviets. The wrong decision was made, and the fact that America survived is essentially random.

EDIT: Never mind, I read your edit. You are not worth talking to in a million years. You have an ideology so vile that there is no sense in even debating it.

Edit: My ideology is logic and game theory, war is a kill-or-be-killed game, and actually, making the wrong decision and nearly getting killed as a result is pretty vile. To yourself.

Most people who think that they don't need to make an argument actually don't have an argument to make, and if you will take the time to educate yourself on cold war near-disasters, you will understand the logic. You are demonstrating a basic fallacy, which is that you would not kill one person to prevent a 50% of three people dying, because you cannot see the three people dying and you are irrationally optimistic. This is normal, but it is not logical, and has no place in war gaming.

The feminist thread is there, waiting for you.

[Vistulange]

So... your plan to prevent a nuclear holocaust is committing a nuclear holocaust?

Not shuddering at the thought of the death of millions does not make you a better debater, in case you were living under that delusion. Some people react to nuclear weapons with calls for non-proliferation. Others call for nuclear genocide. You wanted a genocide.

Yes, the correct way to minimize the risk of a nuclear holocaust was to preemptively nuclear holocaust all other players.

On the other hand, shuddering at the thought of the death of millions makes you a worse debater, and makes us wonder why you even want to play war games.

It doesn't even matter what "I wanted." There was one correct strategy for risk reduction to America, which was to transition immediately from nuking the Japanese, to nuking the Soviets. The wrong decision was made, and the fact that America survived is essentially random.

EDIT: Never mind, I read your edit. You are not worth talking to in a million years. You have an ideology so vile that there is no sense in even debating it.

Edit: My ideology is logic and game theory, war is a kill-or-be-killed game, and actually, making the wrong decision and nearly getting killed as a result is pretty vile. To yourself.

Most people who think that they don't need to make an argument actually don't have an argument to make, and if you will take the time to educate yourself on cold war near-disasters, you will understand the logic. You are demonstrating a basic fallacy, which is that you would not kill one person to prevent a 50% of three people dying, because you cannot see the three people dying and you are irrationally optimistic. This is normal, but it is not logical, and has no place in war gaming.

The feminist thread is there, waiting for you.

Stating that "game theory" is your "ideology" when people who have actually read realist literature in political science and international relations that actually involve game-theoretic thinking are around, is not going to score you points.

You don't sound logical, rational, or smart. You sound like a try-hard edgelord who is being edgy to look smart. It's not working.

[Kowani]

So... your plan to prevent a nuclear holocaust is committing a nuclear holocaust?

Not shuddering at the thought of the death of millions does not make you a better debater, in case you were living under that delusion. Some people react to nuclear weapons with calls for non-proliferation. Others call for nuclear genocide. You wanted a genocide.

Yes, the correct way to minimize the risk of a nuclear holocaust was to preemptively nuclear holocaust all other players.

On the other hand, shuddering at the thought of the death of millions makes you a worse debater, and makes us wonder why you even want to play war games.

It doesn't even matter what "I wanted." There was one correct strategy for risk reduction to America, which was to transition immediately from nuking the Japanese, to nuking the Soviets. The wrong decision was made, and the fact that America survived is essentially random.

EDIT: Never mind, I read your edit. You are not worth talking to in a million years. You have an ideology so vile that there is no sense in even debating it.

Edit: My ideology is logic and game theory, war is a kill-or-be-killed game, and actually, making the wrong decision and nearly getting killed as a result is pretty vile. To yourself.

Most people who think that they don't need to make an argument actually don't have an argument to make, and if you will take the time to educate yourself on cold war near-disasters, you will understand the logic. You are demonstrating a basic fallacy, which is that you would not kill one person to prevent a 50% of three people dying, because you cannot see the three people dying and you are irrationally optimistic. This is normal, but it is not logical, and has no place in war gaming.

The feminist thread is there, waiting for you.

Did this “logic and game theory” ideology include things like reality when you were developing it?

[Novus America]

Yes, the correct way to minimize the risk of a nuclear holocaust was to preemptively nuclear holocaust all other players.

On the other hand, shuddering at the thought of the death of millions makes you a worse debater, and makes us wonder why you even want to play war games.

It doesn't even matter what "I wanted." There was one correct strategy for risk reduction to America, which was to transition immediately from nuking the Japanese, to nuking the Soviets. The wrong decision was made, and the fact that America survived is essentially random.



Edit: My ideology is logic and game theory, war is a kill-or-be-killed game, and actually, making the wrong decision and nearly getting killed as a result is pretty vile. To yourself.

Most people who think that they don't need to make an argument actually don't have an argument to make, and if you will take the time to educate yourself on cold war near-disasters, you will understand the logic. You are demonstrating a basic fallacy, which is that you would not kill one person to prevent a 50% of three people dying, because you cannot see the three people dying and you are irrationally optimistic. This is normal, but it is not logical, and has no place in war gaming.

The feminist thread is there, waiting for you.

Stating that "game theory" is your "ideology" when people who have actually read realist literature in political science and international relations that actually involve game-theoretic thinking are around, is not going to score you points.

You don't sound logical, rational, or smart. You sound like a try-hard edgelord who is being edgy to look smart. It's not working.

Yeah, game theory is not kill everyone because they might kill you.
In fact game theory indicates against nuclear holocaust because neither side benefits more than they lose.

Also he grossly exaggerated those two incidents. Ironically thy are exaggerated by people who are against nuclear weapons, to argue complete nuclear disarmament under the argument there is no safe way to have nuclear weapons.

If one uses and ideology based on complete edgelord sociopathy plus believes the arguments that nuclear holocaust is inevitable if people have nuclear weapons then the outcome is that. But of course we need to accept both premises for it to follow, which we have no reason to do.

Of course by that premise we should start any nuclear war we think we could win too.
Which is also crazy. I mean if we just suddenly without warning nuked the PRC we would “win” inasmuch thy would be destroyed and we would survive but it is still completely crazy.

[Vistulange]

Stating that "game theory" is your "ideology" when people who have actually read realist literature in political science and international relations that actually involve game-theoretic thinking are around, is not going to score you points.

You don't sound logical, rational, or smart. You sound like a try-hard edgelord who is being edgy to look smart. It's not working.

Yeah, game theory is not kill everyone because they might kill you.
In fact game theory indicates against nuclear holocaust because neither side benefits more than they lose.

Also he grossly exaggerated those two incidents. Ironically thy are exaggerated by people who are against nuclear weapons, to argue completely nuclear disarmament under the argument there is no safe way to have nuclear weapons.

If one uses and ideology based on complete edgelord sociopathy plus believes the arguments that nuclear holocaust is inevitable if people have nuclear weapons then the outcome is that. But of course we need to accept either premise.

Of course by that premise we should start any nuclear war we think we could win too.
Which is also crazy. I mean if we just suddenly without warning nuked the PRC we would “win” inasmuch thy would be destroyed and we would survive but it is still completely crazy.

The choice is not binary, unlike what some "realists" would claim. Hell, even Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer, and so on wouldn't claim the choice is binary. None of those names, literally none of those, wrote about annihilating the other side thoroughly with nuclear weapons. Granted, their works are more on the theoretical side, and don't deal as much with real-life examples per se, but you'd think that if it was actually "realist" and "game-theoretic", those fellows would have been onto it.

So yeah. "Nuclear holocaust for survival" isn't realist, it's just...crap.

[Novus America]

Yeah, game theory is not kill everyone because they might kill you.
In fact game theory indicates against nuclear holocaust because neither side benefits more than they lose.

Also he grossly exaggerated those two incidents. Ironically thy are exaggerated by people who are against nuclear weapons, to argue completely nuclear disarmament under the argument there is no safe way to have nuclear weapons.

If one uses and ideology based on complete edgelord sociopathy plus believes the arguments that nuclear holocaust is inevitable if people have nuclear weapons then the outcome is that. But of course we need to accept either premise.

Of course by that premise we should start any nuclear war we think we could win too.
Which is also crazy. I mean if we just suddenly without warning nuked the PRC we would “win” inasmuch thy would be destroyed and we would survive but it is still completely crazy.

The choice is not binary, unlike what some "realists" would claim. Hell, even Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer, and so on wouldn't claim the choice is binary. None of those names, literally none of those, wrote about annihilating the other side thoroughly with nuclear weapons. Granted, their works are more on the theoretical side, and don't deal as much with real-life examples per se, but you'd think that if it was actually "realist" and "game-theoretic", those fellows would have been onto it.

So yeah. "Nuclear holocaust for survival" isn't realist, it's just...crap.

Yeah, I mean this is one of the most bizarre and edgy arguments I have ever heard. That we should never try containment but rather kill everyone before they kill us or do nothing.
There is a middle ground between do nothing and kill everyone via nuclear holocaust.

His binary is definitely edgy to the max. But good thing we do not use the logic that we should base our foreign policy on being edgy and sociopathic as possible in our stances. We do not have to make that choice.

[Senkaku]

So why not abolish the UN; and in turn, its sub-branch of the W.H.O.; and replace them with a new organization beholden to everyone but the Chinese government, such that it could represent the world's interests more, and the Chinese government's interests less?

i've heard a lot of stupid ideas for how we should approach china but this is far and away the absolute fucking dumbest thing i've read anywhere on the internet about ANYTHING, not just china strategy, in like... at least three days

[Ankenland]

Scrolling through the ad-hominems, no arguments in sight... oh, here's one.

Of course by that premise we should start any nuclear war we think we could win too. Which is also crazy. I mean if we just suddenly without warning nuked the PRC we would “win” inasmuch thy would be destroyed and we would survive but it is still completely crazy.

No, this is no longer the case. Mutually assured destruction has been achieved, and most importantly, it has been realized by all players, appropriate fail-safe mechanisms have been installed on all sides, and nuclear proliferation has been contained.

(Except for Iran, which should be weaponized in a few years, but they will just behave like North Korea, they also understand the game and they don't want to play. Israel is also nuclear and at a higher order of magnitude, so Iran will just enter into the same kind of disadvantaged stalemate it is already in. It's not ideal, it could be a flash point, but it's what you get. It will actually, probably, stabilize the region, in that will take bombing Iran further off the table, when it was very much on the table as late as 2008)

The original risk to the Americans is that the Soviets could have achieved mutually assured destruction, not realized it, and thought that they could win with a first strike, or thought that they could win with the Cuban missile strategy, which came pretty close to causing war. Or, what actually happened, which is that they had inadequate fail-safe mechanisms, and could have started a war accidentally, which they nearly did two times, that we know of, and that I can mention off the top of my head. Additionally, any new player could enter the game at any time and present all these risks.

If the Americans could nuke China today, it would be a waste of money. The danger was when this was a new game, the other players did not necessarily know what game they were playing, or how to play it. This threat has passed, and the current nuclear strategy is not only the correct one, but it will most likely survive the inevitable future mutually assured destruction disequilibrium that will be reached when one player achieves anti-ICBM weapons technology, because it will not be fully reliable for the disequilibrium period, and so present a risk to the first striking player that is greater than the risk of waiting for this technology to be adapted by the other players and for equilibrium to be restored.

Given their recent advances in hypersonic missile technology, the player most likely to achieve this anti-missile disequilibrium is Russia, who has been taking this game much more seriously over the last decade, while the Americans have been slacking off and building casinos. Still, the Russians will either decide based on risk weight comparison or "oh the humanity" logic, probably a mix, and both will tell them to continue the current policy of nuclear peace until their interception systems are copied by other players.

As for the rest of you... I mean, if you don't give me a computable input, deciding how to respond to you is a sandbox creative task. Even naturally intelligent people, who have not considered the formalities of games, tend to discount genocide already done, such as the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the original nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they can't do anything about them, and they tend to discount genocides that could have happened but didn't, for reasons they can't control, because they can't see them - like a potential US-Soviet ICBM exchange, while over-weighting genocides that could have happened, but didn't, for reasons that were controlled, like a preemptive strike in 1946 or 1947.

This owes essentially to a lack of imagination, in which a possible, uncontrollable genocide seems less real than a possible, controllable genocide, because in one case, you have to decide, and in the other case, you just play Russian roulette and see what happens. Rationally, responsibility for either decision must be taken in ways that are concretely death-probability quantifiable. There is no option without "sociopathic" consequences.

But good thing we do not use the logic that we should base our foreign policy on being edgy and sociopathic as possible in our stances. We do not have to make that choice.

More broadly, most people resist imagining a situation where the best possible outcome is not the result of the best possible strategy. If we play a game where you spin one bullet into a revolver with six chambers, and if you pull the trigger at your head and survive, you win a thousand dollars, the best possible outcome is to play and win, but the best possible strategy is to not play. For the cold war game, what we got was the best possible outcome, but it was not the result of the best possible strategy. Or, for a closer example, there is the game where a police officer has to decide whether to shoot someone who is potentially drawing a weapon, holding a weapon, or pointing / charging with the weapon. The best possible outcome is to not shoot and for the other person to run away or be subdued with less injury, but the best possible strategy is to shoot upon pointing / charging, if not before.

Since the rest of you haven't really said anything, though it's curious to imagine how you subjectively think you have said something and perhaps cannot tell the difference between meaningful and meaningless statements, I invite you to explore the life and work of this fellow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

who developed the equilibrium strategy of mutually assured destruction, and was probably the most significant logician to work on this problem for the Americans. He was quoted in 1950 as saying,

"If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

and there was some very hard logic behind this, with which you should educate yourselves until you learn to make meaningful logical statements.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Blah blah blah, we should have killed hundreds millions of people, blah blah, otherwise they would have killed us, blah blah, but they didn’t.

Not many people have the guts to call for a genocide to prevent something that did not happen. It’s literally killing hundreds of millions of people so the relatively peaceful world we live in cannot exist.

Calling for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people does not make you objective or logical. The logic behind committing genocide is not hard, it’s non-existent. What you’re basically doing is not caring about something that a lot of people rightly care about, then claim those people are needlessly emotional and attached to something you and your big brain have detached yourselves from.

Caring about human life as a human does not make needlessly emotional, however. It’s extremely logical.

Your own argument depends on you caring about America’s strategical position. About America winning. Now, as I say, my cold hard logic does not take into account your puny patriotism. Your patriotism slows you down, while me and my big brain are detached from such silly notions. If one country has to make sacrifices for the happiness of all, so be it.

[Proctopeo]

It may have been a wiser move to assist the KMT more against the CPC (than we already did); while China may have become a hostile power either way, it might've turned out a bit less shit for the people of China.

Blah blah blah, we should have killed hundreds millions of people, blah blah, otherwise they would have killed us, blah blah, but they didn’t.

Not many people have the guts to call for a genocide to prevent something that did not happen. It’s literally killing hundreds of millions of people so the relatively peaceful world we live in cannot exist.

Calling for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people does not make you objective or logical. The logic behind committing genocide is not hard, it’s non-existent. What you’re basically doing is not caring about something that a lot of people rightly care about, then claim those people are needlessly emotional and attached to something you and your big brain have detached yourselves from.

Caring about human life as a human does not make needlessly emotional, however. It’s extremely logical.

Your own argument depends on you caring about America’s strategical position. About America winning. Now, as I say, my cold hard logic does not take into account your puny patriotism. Your patriotism slows you down, while me and my big brain are detached from such silly notions. If one country has to make sacrifices for the happiness of all, so be it.

r/iamverysmart

[Nakena]

It may have been a wiser move to assist the KMT more against the CPC (than we already did); while China may have become a hostile power either way, it might've turned out a bit less shit for the people of China.

Mistakes were made. It could have worked out as late as during the korean war, by attacking the communist mainland with a two front assault from Korea AND from the south by Vietnam.

[Proctopeo]

It may have been a wiser move to assist the KMT more against the CPC (than we already did); while China may have become a hostile power either way, it might've turned out a bit less shit for the people of China.

Mistakes were made. It could have worked out as late as during the korean war, by attacking the communist mainland with a two front assault from Korea AND from the south by Vietnam.

Perhaps. That would've been real bloody, even if the Chinese troops only had sheer numbers going for them.

Preventing the issue in the first place is still a superior outcome.

[Novus America]

You make several mistakes in your claims. Biggest is the claim that the PRC has achieved mutually assured destruction. It has not. The PRC nuclear forces are more based on minimum credible deterrence, not MAD. With less than 1/10th our stockpile and only a handful of delivery systems that can hit the US.
And actually the US has the most extensive strategic missile defense network.

Their strategy relies more on hiring nearby areas with short and medium range missiles.

In a PRC nuclear attack, the vast majority killed would be in Korea, Japan, the Marianas etc.

But it seems that would not bother you. Because if we launched a sudden first strike, we could easily inflict far more damage on them then we would suffer, by your logic we should do it.

Also again you grossly exaggerate the risk of the two incidents you cite.
In the 1962 submarine example, besides the fact only one of the three individual involved claim it can close to shooting (the other two deny it) in 1962 mutually assured destruction did not exist, the US having overwhelming nuclear superiority.
The US would have actually achieved the outcome to you advocate, destroying the Soviets with relatively much less damage in return.

The 1983 incident is better because MAD has been reached by that point, but the assumption that had it been reported the Soviet command structure would try to fire as much as they could with no further confirmation is doubtful.

Actually the Soviets were so afraid they could not pull the trigger they created the Dead Hand system to make the deciding for them.

But anyways what one guy suggested we do in 1950 is merely academic.

Right now our policies towards the PRC should be focused on containment, political and economic actions, not destroying them via nuclear weapons obviously, even though we COULD, does not mean we SHOULD.

[Senkaku]

It may have been a wiser move to assist the KMT more against the CPC (than we already did); while China may have become a hostile power either way, it might've turned out a bit less shit for the people of China.

I doubt it. The White Terror on Taiwan wasn't pretty; imagine that being scaled up after the defeat of the Communists.

As for assisting the KMT- I think at the time, the correct assessment was made, frankly, given the KMT's intransigence on reforms necessary to preserve their rule, that they were going down and helping them would've been a waste. No one back then could've predicted the CPC would eventually oversee an economic miracle and turn China into a global competitor to the US, and fighting a land war in China (concurrently with Korea and Vietnam, no less) against a movement with significant popular support, supporting a government that was probably even more hated than Ngo Dinh Diem... probably would not have gone well for us, especially if it had led the Soviets to double down.

Japan couldn't win a land war in China against a bunch of warlords, even mobilized for total war and being much closer. I don't think the US and its proxies would've had more success.

[Nova Cosky]

Seriously?
Your comparison is so wrong

Gun can't kill Ebola, but Nukes can.
Gun can't kill China, but Nukes can.

At the end of the day, Nukes save/destroy the day.
Therefore, the USA is still the biggest threat as the most militarized nation on Earth.
On the apocalypse scale, China still pales in comparison.

Unless your Nukes are like your 3M N95 and Hazmat - all smoke and mirrors but never real?
If so, then everyone with real nukes would be your threats.
Even your so-called allies, they might nuke you just for fun or revenge for all those years of duping them you know.

Don't ever take your eyes off China.
But stop playing the "human rights" drama, we all know how "humane" the USA is with all the niceness it had done unto all those countries caught in its amorous glances.

So that is why we nuked Ebola during the last outbreak?
When have nukes ever stopped disease? You clearly do not understand how nuclear deterrence works. If the enemy had nukes and you do to, neither will use them except as a desperate last resort. So as long as you can avoid pushing your opponent to such a point where they are so desperate and have no other way you can do whatever you want to harm them short of that and their nukes cannot do anything about it.

Nukes do not stop great power competitions.

You clearly didn’t understand my logic and you mistook (possibly purposely) my point for a different point just to falsely affirm your argument. This right there was Smoke and Mirrors, the tool you Americans like to use so very often (your current president is probably the most excellent practitioner at using this tool).

First, the point that I raised was about your silly comparison, not the concept of nuclear deterrence - which you might think that it is probably too difficult for anyone but you who can understand, I’m sorry but you’re so wrong about your own intellectual capacity, most people gets this concept, it ain’t hard mate, so save your mansplaining and shove it.

Secondly, if you don’t get how Nukes can eradicate Ebola then I have nothing to say because you can’t use imagination at all. Of course people don’t use Nukes to destroy Ebola in the real world, I was being silly because your comparison was silly, and I thought you would understand if I was as silly you know.

Thirdly, you misplaced and confused “threats” and “fears”. I think the truth that you and many of your camp couldn’t bear to admit is that you guys simply fear the successes and strivings of China. You can’t bear to lose your first seat. What’s more, you can’t bear to admit that you fear them. Thus, you use “threats” to justify your thinly veiled ‘hate’ and rationalize your fear. You use the word “threat” to demonize them, like you always did to wage all your countless wars against all those other countries before; countries which were laughingly pitiful against the might of America and yet were still ”threats”. Tally up all the lives that lost under all the wars of America, and see how ’threatening’ it all meant. China do not threaten you, you fear them, and so you want to destroy them if you could, all the while wearing a mask of justice. Get real! As long as your numerous nukes work, they can’t threaten your existence, they may win against you, their people may win against you (politically, economically, ideologically), but they can’t threaten your existence or your people existence. While with all that nukes, America could surely destroy this world (itself included) if it chose to. So as far as threatening goes, you guys got first place.

Nukes don’t stop competition.
Just don’t use it when you found out that you would lose the competition if you didn't.

I’m sure that you guys are sensible enough not to, right?
You guys surely won’t, right?

Only time will tell.
Only action shows, not Smoke and Mirros.