|
Yossarian-22 posted:Russia's government is more democratic than China. Therefore, it must be a better government because the degree to which you can vote for your own oppression correlates 1-1 with good governance. Sounds legit! Is there a capitalist party you can vote for? Is there a fascist party you can vote for? If not, then it's not free!
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Okay, so in modern-day Russia, the government does clearly have popular support, but because its elections are not fair, it is the right of a country with a moderately better electoral system to invade it and then hold new elections and if the public actually still supported the old government then too bad? How do you gauge public support of the government in a country with no institutions capable of accurately gauging it, to say nothing of the fact that popular support is meaningless if any attempt at organized opposition is murdered out of the picture. quote:This reminds me of the Harry Turtledove novel The Man With The Iron Hearts where the obvious end result is the USSR being able to extend its occupation zone to cover a West Germany now abandoned by the Allies as a failed state. The occupation of Germany worked out, but the occupation only ultimately happened because Germany attacked Poland dragging the world into world war. The holocaust was not stopped because Democracies decided to intervene, they were attacked. None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand, namely the moral rights that democracies have that autocracies don't. quote:So is your position, that as long as any democracy, could claim for a discrete value of democracy, that any other nation's government is less democratic in someway, then any democracy can intervene and topple the government, even a democratically elected one, and install a new democratically elected government if it can do so successfully? This is a democracy versus democracy argument, which while fascinating, also isn't the topic at hand. But no, democracies do not have the right to directly intervene in other democracies, and doing so would be antithetical to the very values that a democracy represents. Forcing people to vote a certain way is the same as taking away their right to vote at all. This philosophy extends to the internal affairs of democracies as well. Large-scale voter disenfranchisement is illiberal and anti-democratic even if some people in the system have full voting rights. It's why the naked attempts by the GOP at taking away the basic freedom to vote from felons and minorities in the USA are so offensive. And to head off the inevitable followup question, if other democracies were capable of intervening in the USA's internal affairs without causing more harm then good, they would have a moral prerogative to ensure full voting rights in the USA, including via force.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Is there a capitalist party you can vote for? Is there a fascist party you can vote for? If not, then it's not free! you can vote for both at the same time in china
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Direct voting is not necessarily the best system to represent the will of the people. It hasn't worked out so well for countries with high illiteracy. Even the United States didn't have direct vote for the senators (and president I believe) when it was found.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Direct voting is not necessarily the best system to represent the will of the people. It hasn't worked out so well for countries with high illiteracy. Even the United States didn't have direct vote for the senators (and president I believe) when it was found. It still doesn’t have direct votes for the president in 2018
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It still doesn’t have direct votes for the president in 2018 Yeah I forgot the "each conservative redneck vote carry more weight" stuff. Japanese politic has the same bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:How do you gauge public support of the government in a country with no institutions capable of accurately gauging it, to say nothing of the fact that popular support is meaningless if any attempt at organized opposition is murdered out of the picture. There is independent polling in Russia and even then it shows broad support. I doubt public support for foreign intervention would amount more than a round error. Nemtsov had been an around while before he was murdered. The irony was he was a relative nobody (a city councilman in a third-tier city) at that point. If anything you are trying to create standards where the Russian public can't have a voice until you say they can have one. Let's be honest, a certain point your entire theory rests of essentially speaking for the population of countries and therefore taking away their agency. A country can be an autocracy and the majority of the population can support the government or at very least not want active outside intervention. There is also the argument that a "democracy" that is formed from intervention is probably going to be pretty flawed if not catastrophically so by the sheer fact you are essentially picking winners and losers from the get-go and adding even more distortion. Also there is the entire other argument that the US specifically very may pushing the growth of paranoid autocracies through interventionism itself.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Yeah I forgot the "each conservative redneck vote carry more weight" stuff. Japanese politic has the same bullshit. Japan's malapportionment isn't as bad as it's often made out to be, it probably kept the LDP in power through the 1970s when the left got inches away from winning a majority in the Diet, but since then the old standby combo of the opposition being lovely and incompetent and the Japanese public not voting have been more important Although you also have to pay like a $15,000 deposit to even run for a Diet seat which you don't get back if you don't get like 15% of the vote, and you have to write the kanji name of the candidate, which of course in Japanese can be basically random and has no necessary connection to the pronunciation, on a blank paper and put it in the ballot box, no checkmarks or preprinted ballots, so it's literally like a literacy test built into all elections in Japan. Fun stuff icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:40 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There is independent polling in Russia and even then it shows broad support. Independent polling is not possible in a country where saying the wrong thing carries severe personal risk. If Putin's popularity were sinking do you think that these polls would actually show it? And if you believe so, if there were actually an organized opposition in Russia do you think Putin would still be racking up 80% approval ratings? The only reason that the polls don't show 100% approval rating for Putin is because 70-80% is more plausible but still in the realm of overwhelming public mandate. quote:Let's be honest, a certain point your entire theory rests of essentially speaking for the population of countries and therefore taking away their agency. If they live in an autocracy they have no agency to be taken away. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that autocrats can rule by the consent of the governed when that is literally the opposite of autocracy. quote:There is also the argument that a "democracy" that is formed from intervention is probably going to be pretty flawed if not catastrophically so by the sheer fact you are essentially picking winners and losers from the get-go Only if you half-rear end it by installing some dudes and then leaving. Ideally the Germany/Japan approach would be taken where elections and constitutional rule are essentially forced by strength of arms to have legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:If they live in an autocracy they have no agency to be taken away. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that autocrats can rule by the consent of the governed when that is literally the opposite of autocracy. This is entirely not true though. If they lose popular support they rebel, or there's a coup, or any number of ways in which the "keys to the power" decide to transfer power to a different figure head. You have related concepts throughout history, such as, as appropriate for this thread, 'the mandate of heaven'; concepts in which autocracies claim legitimacy and popular support; the loss of which supports revolution and a changing of the deck chairs. As Ardennes is saying though even in the worst and most oppressive regimes the population are far more likely to rally around their autocrat than to support foreign intervention; we've seen this multiple times play out historically; a number of Democracies intervened in the Russian Civil War and the Reds won. quote:This is a democracy versus democracy argument, which while fascinating, also isn't the topic at hand. It is directly related to the topic at hand, you're claiming that Autocracies don't have national sovereignty to inherently protect them from attack from another nation so long as (a) That nation is more democratic and (b) that nation intends to use the 'change government' CB. If so, then logically speaking there isn't a reason why this couldn't cover situations of democracies intervening in the affairs of other less discretely democratic democracies. quote:And to head off the inevitable followup question, if other democracies were capable of intervening in the USA's internal affairs without causing more harm then good, they would have a moral prerogative to ensure full voting rights in the USA, including via force. And there we have it. If we followed your initial position to its logical conclusion then basically no nation has any kind of national sovereignty and there is no workable international system that can function from that. It makes far more sense to assume that all nations equally have national sovereignty; because then you only need to accept the current rational that the international community as a whole can decide to infringe on that national sovereignty when the actions not the form of government, of a particular member-state are too onerous for the community to abide it any further. This way there is no imperative to act except in the worst excesses as codified in the UN Charter. Since you've used utilitarianism to justify your axiom, then according to utilitarianism there's more good, and more value, to be achieved with the status quo, than by assuming your axiom is true and abiding by its imperatives. There's so many qualifiers you've added, about if we can insure only Germany's and Japans and no Iraqs or Afghanistans, and only if the net good outweighs the destruction and instability, that how can any reasonable person conclude that "Nations that are represented by autocracies lack national sovereignty (iff a democracy aims to topple them and replace them with another democracy)" is reasonable if it is carried out to its logical conclusion?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
In lighter news not related to debates about national sovereignty, a town in Shandong Province has implemented virtual communism:quote:A township in eastern China claims to be the first in the country to use virtual reality (VR) technology to reinforce cadres’ allegiance to the Communist Party. http://m.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2144871/chinese-town-pioneering-virtual-reality-stiffen-communist-party
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
this woman in seinfeld is culturally appropriating 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:In lighter news not related to debates about national sovereignty, a town in Shandong Province has implemented virtual communism: I'm going to assume they wanted funding for VR stuff and this was how they justified it for budgetary reasons. As though some sort of modern day Stakhanovite.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
I'm not exactly sure how China's Civil Aviation Administration would be responsible for monitoring foreign company's websites, but the ongoing demands, which Qantas recently acceded to, have resulted in push-back from the White House.SCMP posted:The White House on Saturday condemned China’s Civil Aviation Administration for ordering 36 foreign carriers, including US airlines, to remove references on their websites or in other material that suggested Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau were part of countries independent from China. The idea of Taiwan being a "bargaining chip" for Trump, would be one that I'd be extremely uncomfortable with, if I were Taiwanese. Still, the very idea of using it would be sure to get the nationalists frothing at the mouth.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Independent polling is not possible in a country where saying the wrong thing carries severe personal risk. If Putin's popularity were sinking do you think that these polls would actually show it? And if you believe so, if there were actually an organized opposition in Russia do you think Putin would still be racking up 80% approval ratings? Russians by and large are not afraid to admit they don't like Putin, and there has been organized liberals in Russia in a while...it is just only really Muscovites that vote in serious numbers for them. If there was a left-wing nationalist opposition they could do pretty well, but at the same time, it probably wouldn't be a government the US would support. Also, I am explicitly talking about independent (and fairly critical of the regime) pollsters. China is perhaps more unclear, but I have heard the central government itself has support and most Chinese probably wouldn't want it replaced without their consent. If anything the growth of Chinese national pride would probably mean they would fight tooth and nail to stop an invader from dictating essentially who should govern them. Popular support can exist in an autocracy, and humans have agency even if their government is not representative. Autocrats don't necessarily need popular support, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. If anything pretending the populations of autocrats have no agency or really free will, seems like a very transparent way to take them out of the equation when you are arguing for regime change. (Also, since the US is really the only "democracy" that has the capacity for serious regime change, it is an even more ridiculous assertion....because honestly the US is one of those countries that really shouldn't be interfering with the affairs of others.) I don't know if it was worth the effort, but man oh man.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
To add and to also eliminate whataboutism concerns about making it a US centric question or loaded with excess baggage, what if we pretend the US as a hyperpower does not exist and we do not live in an de facto unipolar world. Without a nation as powerful of the United States than regime change for nations like China or even North Korea but particularly Iran; even if you also disregarded nuclear weapons, isn't that essentially impossible? Then you're stuck needing a coalition of democracies to implement regime change and good luck with that, because you'd need to convince them that really the proper lesson learned from the 30 Years War was that they really should have doubled down harder on interfering in the internal affairs of various states because they had heretical religions.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:
No. This is trivially obvious. In fact it's probably more likely to have Japan taking wild swings or whatever with no restraining power to hand. Or some large EMEA power going after Iran.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Okay to clarify, my point wasn't to suggest a speculative alt-history where the US never stops Japan during WWII or to imagine the cold war never happening, or a nearly infinite number of gay black hitler butterflies and whether this results in a world where Great Powers are capable of regime changing another great power. But rather to mean if in todays current geopolitical context, what if we assumed that the US as a hyperpower did not exist* or was an irrelevant non-factor; could any of the top 20 nations in military GDP spending successfully individually succeed at regime changing any of the autocracies in that list without a massive coalition effort? The answer is no. *If it helps make it more clear my intention and meaning, you can suitable pretend what if tomorrow the US just unilaterally withdraws from all military treaties, it's UNSC seat, the UN, NATO/SEATO, etc, disbands its military and drops it's GDP military spending to 0.5%, closes all overseas military bases and withdraws all troops. The point is to avoid the negative undertones and baggage mentioning the US as the regime-changer prompts for some people to create a more clean argument devoid of certain amounts of bias. Edit: I am assuming you mean "No it is not impossible".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Please stop
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
i bet you spoke too much in grad school classes
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
Sorry I'm a little lost here. I actually deleted my post twice about regime change and foreign intervention. I think the biggest problem with foreign intervention is that states have multiple agendas - the humanitarian one where people care about giving and aid relieving suffering. And then there's the dark shadow of geopolitical interest where democratic governments are agents of lobbyists and corporate interests. Some interesting historical tidbits about regime change: Nakayama Sun was actually kicked out of Hong Kong multiple times at the request of the Qing government but he also got saved by the British when got kidnapped in London by the Manchus. It's too bad that people in China don't talk about the positive influence the Japanese had on modern China - then again it's also too bad that crazy right wingers still have a big influence in modern Japanese politics. Nakayama Sun also relied on his brother for sending him money all the time to support his adventures where ever he went. It's a giant miracle that 1911 happened and he was recognised as the father of both Chinese nations. Foreign intervention didn't help the Beiyang government much when they got shafted by the treaty of Versailles. That treaty and giving the Japanese control over Shandong basically birthed the May 4 Movement and the subsequent CCP in Shanghai 1921. Great Job Western Powers, not only you gave Uncle Ho the cold shoulder you also hosed over the development of liberalism in China. I'm still baffled over Whampoa military academy and how officers there waged war on each other - fighting your classmate to the death who you used to have a grudge is just surreal.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
caberham posted:Nakayama Sun 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
caberham posted:I'm still baffled over Whampoa military academy and how officers there waged war on each other - fighting your classmate to the death who you used to have a grudge is just surreal. Japan did the same thing in the 30s. All you have to do is say you're a more loyal subject of the emperor than the other guy is
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
Whampoa fratricide?! I know nothing of this, where can I find info?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:
The answer is yes. This is like, really trivial. What magical force do you think would prevent it?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Neighboring countries always influence each other politically. That's how revolution spread. Modern Chinese language borrowed plenty of political words from Japan. And ho chi minh used to be a Chinese Communist Party member. What's so special about fighting your classmate? Didn't civil war generals all went to West Point? whatever7 fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The answer is yes. This is like, really trivial. What magical force do you think would prevent it? That they have superior regional militaries than any individual non US member of NATO. This is clearest with Iran which fended off Iraq which had access to Soviet and American arms and had a large standing military relative to individual NATO members.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Nakayama Sun has redeemed the thread. Beloved of both tongzhis and zougous.
hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:08 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That they have superior regional militaries than any individual non US member of NATO. This is clearest with Iran which fended off Iraq which had access to Soviet and American arms and had a large standing military relative to individual NATO members. Iraq also had pretty boneheaded leadership and just dumping a bunch of arms and conscripts into a military is no guarantee of success. Iran was also getting outside arms too. But more importantly, France can blast Iran with 50 nukes by tomorrow morning and still have 250 nukes left over and ready to use, decapitating the entire economy and government of the country and driving the survivors into complete disarray unable to put up armed resistance. You made your terms regime change - all you need to change the gently caress out of a regime is one good hit from a modern nuke. When you deign to waltz in and start mopping up the mess you made to build a colonial state you can extract resources out of, you need much less troops and can probably use the combination of fear and outside cash to buy off enough warlords et al to keep your new regime going on terms acceptable to you. You might protest this is needlessly destructive, but that's basically how the US "regime changed" Iraq.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Iraq also had pretty boneheaded leadership and just dumping a bunch of arms and conscripts into a military is no guarantee of success. Iran was also getting outside arms too. So you're arguing something completely irrelevant and worthless to the discussion between me and Fojar that doesn't even try to engage with the constraints and considerations we've established? What you've shat out there would never in a million years result in a functional stable democracy and you know it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So you're arguing something completely irrelevant and worthless to the discussion between me and Fojar that doesn't even try to engage with the constraints and considerations we've established? What you've shat out there would never in a million years result in a functional stable democracy and you know it. What, exactly, is irrelevant to "can countries that aren't the US do regime change with military force if the US no longer participates/no longer can participate" about pointing out precisely the way France could do regime change in the American style? You really are not thinking your arguments through and just taking it as a given that only America can do regime change to large states. The fact is anyone with a lot of nukes to hand can do it by that alone, especially since regime change is rarely done in a neat and clean way. Again, like sure, Iraq's "democratic" now and the regime has had the hell changed out of it, but you can't ignore that this was done in a horrible way that destroyed tons of stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Okay I think you're just ignoring what was discussed and I don't see a point to continuing this since we're having completely different discussions.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Haha you got fishmeched. Sure you can say world wide destruction is regime change, and on a smaller scale that's how Laos got destabilized by constant US bombings during the Vietnam war. But I don't think that was what Raenir was focusing on. In fact, I'm still kind of lost can someone recap for me thanks whatever7 posted:Neighboring countries always influence each other politically. That's how revolution spread. Modern Chinese language borrowed plenty of political words from Japan. And ho chi minh used to be a Chinese Communist Party member. Never thought about the Civil War  Influencing politically by being themselves is one thing, but actively funding and sabotaging other states is an entirely different realm.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
in a raenir v fojar fight, the thread is the biggest loser makes u think
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Okay I think you're just ignoring what was discussed and I don't see a point to continuing this since we're having completely different discussions. I'm not ignoring it, I'm engaging it directly. You want to ignore the hard truths that break your argument apart. There's a specific reason I brought up the French - they are actively interventionist to this day, often handling things on their own or with only minimal coalition effort. Drop America out of international politics altogether, or even just isolate America to the Americas, and the French are an extremely strong candidate to go around trying to be "world police", they already consider themselves Africa Police. And they have the nuclear muscle to make things stick, and hell, they've had recent strength in conservative hawkish movement too. They're also the original exporters of regime change in the name of "republics" and "liberty" and "democracy", as anyone who's paid attention to the French Revolution and after knows, even as Napoleon had near-fully eclipsed real democracy he was still smashing down monarchies he didn't like and setting up "freer" Republics and constitutional monarchies to serve French interests.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
So fishmech can you bring back your arguments to this China and elaborate? So raenir is saying that foreign intervention for the sake of spreading democracy is moral judgement which trumps over national sovereignty and the last thing we need is countries exerting their moral views over other sovereign states. Some goons chime in you can’t have sovereignty when the nation is an autocracy. Fojar is being fojar - PRC is always bad so dealing with them is enabling them. Even when there’s a lot of chaos after regime change it’s a lot better than sticking with the authoritarian status quo - so do what it takes to topple down the PRC without destroying the world. It’s not 2020 anymore and they are no big super power. And fojar gives no poo poo about poor people and mega infrastructure transportation projects because they bleed money - all that spending is just a way to shift surplus production to keep the economy from dying too fast. Fart - USA is just straight out bad and you feel way more free in China instead of Amerikkka. gently caress USA and all. Great autismo - china is a giant joke lolololol. It’s always a joke. Always. But abandons wife and kid in japan even though he is very much capable of being a loving father. Destroyer of house parties. Bloodnose - ex state department goon evil evil man denounced by Pevan Stan who knows secrets about China. Brings a burner phone to the country and avoids going there. Whatever - sitting in the sidelines reading about silly internet people debating about china, sympathetic to the PRC imp dog - living under the death grip of the hksar government and getting really bitter yelling at the news channel whenever it’s on. Have family ties to China so for better or worse will live in China for a long time. Caberham - mistaken for being a white sexpat living in Asia at first and then denounced as an uncle Wong. Had sexuality issues involving white women but goons found out he became a rent boy in Vancouver
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
@Fishmech You're still not addressing my point, as others have also pointed out. Which is why I'm not interested in continuing the discussion, if you want I can attempt to take the time to correct your misunderstanding via pms.stone cold posted:in a raenir v fojar fight, the thread is the biggest loser This is my heart, you have stabbed it.  edit: @caberham close enough. I think in the end I'm just trying to say that if you wished on a monkey's paw for fojar's position to be true with all the ramifications it entails no sane person would want to live in that world as it would spiral uncontrollably into chaos and this contradicts his claim that his position is the one that according to Utilitarianism results in the greatest amount of good. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 06:17 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
I actually liked the OP and reading about the more informative posts with background information. China right now is a lot more different than before 8 years ago when I stated going there more often. Sure 20 years the country was even poorer and had higher economic growth. But the last 20 to 10 years was in rapid build mode where everything just came in a blink of an eye. There was a lot less disposable income back then and most goods were still imported or lacking. I’m certainly biased but I find the high speed rail and cashless payments changed the dynamics of everyday life. Now it’s time to feel the effects bolder social experiments. Hope I don’t die so soon
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
stone cold posted:in a raenir v fojar fight, the thread is the biggest loser I mean, raenir’s posts read like a 23 year old philosophy student who’s tearing pages out of his Critique of Pure Reason to roll blunts, but he’s still arguing against someone who’s head is so far up his interventionist rear end that he thinks that in 2018 regime change by force is likely to produce a good outcome anywhere. There’s a clear “good guy” in this argument. The notion that autocratic governments can’t be taken to represent the interests of the people is dangerously naive, and the idea that foreign intervention is not only likely to improve the lives of people under an autocratic regime but that it’s the moral obligation of liberal democracies to intervene betrays the sort of fanatical hubris only available to those who have never authentically been pushed out of the safety of their own cultural bubble. I, too, believe western liberalism still has a lot important contributions to make to the world and autocratic regimes thwart themselves in many cases by ignoring its principles. But the belief that you can determine by some utilitarian calculus that its forced adoption will result in the greater good for China or anywhere else shares more in common with the principles of the Spanish Inquisition than the doctrine of the enlightenment fojar claims to uphold. Imagine what would happen to ethnic minorities in Xinjiang if the CPC were replaced with a democratically elected government tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:@Fishmech You're still not addressing my point, as others have also pointed out. Which is why I'm not interested in continuing the discussion, if you want I can attempt to take the time to correct your misunderstanding via pms. Your point relies on ignoring massive problems in your argument, as such I am short circuiting to the heart of the matter: most large rich countries out there are fully capable of wiping out existing regimes even in powerful countries, it is merely a matter of it not currently being useful to do so. Any of the longstanding nuclear powers can of course do it. For those that are not themselves nuclear yet, they'd need to be more careful to try to avoid nuclear retaliation from the potential targets but simultaneously many of the potential targets can't threaten them. And this is true with countries on their own, with not even one friendly country actively joining in coalition. PS quit trying to be a coward about this. This is debate and discussion so do that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 06:35
|
|