|
Brainiac Five posted:gently caress yes, I can use nukes during a war of conquest, and it's totally moral!! You didn't say moral, you said acceptable. And I'm still not sure what this has to do with a hypothetical refugee crisis. Are you arguing that the US would nuke refugees? And that there is no difference between, say, a Soviet invasion of Europe (where nukes would be justified) and a North Korean collapse (where they wouldn't be?)
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Too bad the US doesn't solely endorse equal retaliation, then! Not totally sure what this has to do with capitalism vs. socialism at this juncture, but you're wrong. U.S. nuclear weapons policy has disavowed nuclear first strikes against nations without WMD. Counterforce first strikes (as opposed to countervalue targeting, which is what you're referring to) are acceptable if a WMD attack is about to be launched. The closest the U.S. has come to what you're talking about is a willingness until the 70's or 80's to use tactical neutron bombs on Soviet tank formations in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:22
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
It's pretty disgusting that the LF refugees infesting this thread can in one breath call for a society with no discrimination, and then in that very same breath defend North Korea's intentional mass starvation and torture of their citizens. Not part of the ruling class? Not part of the most elite military units? Tough poo poo, you get to starve to death, if you arn't instead shipped off to a death camp along with your entire extended family because a tiny bit of dust got on the mandatory picture of whichever fat vicious Caligula wannabe is the current ruler. The only reason the DPRK hasn't been crushed and forcibly integrated into it's neighbours yet is SK and China not wanting to spend blood, money, and treasure to deal with it, but I'd argue that doing so is definitely the correct moral choice, regardless of how much it would make people whine about imperialism on the internet. The longer the world waits to deal with the problem, the worse it will be when North Korea eventually crashes on it's own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:swampman, Homework Explainer, I have a small question for you two, if you don't mind. Do you believe that Pol Pot holds responsibility for the massacres perpetrated by the communist Khmer Rouge regime from 1975-1979? For that matter, do you believe that those massacres occurred? talk about your derails. in any case, pol pot was only as "communist" as he felt he needed to be to attempt to get aid from the soviet union, much like idi amin. the khmer rouge did nothing to put economic power in the hands of the working class. as for the killing fields, loving duh. ps forgive me marjorian for asking you to clarify an incredibly vague post. how thoughtless of me
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You didn't say moral, you said acceptable. Oh my, so immoral things are sometimes acceptable. Well, I don't dare to speculate what horrors you are thinking about. No, I'm arguing that the US military is totally fine with murdering civilians, as evidenced from their nuclear policy, and that therefore if the refugee crisis from a North Korean collapse really is the sort of apocalyptic threat youse guys keep saying it is, it would be entirely reasonable to suspect massacres would happen in lieu of the alternative. DeusExMachinima posted:Not totally sure what this has to do with capitalism vs. socialism at this juncture, but you're wrong. U.S. nuclear weapons policy has disavowed nuclear first strikes against nations without WMD. Counterforce first strikes (as opposed to countervalue targeting, which is what you're referring to) are acceptable if a WMD attack is about to be launched. This thread isn't about capitalism vs. socialism, and you'll need lawyers, guns, and money (or moderator intervention) to make it so. Funnily enough, dude, counterforce strikes aren't immune to causing civilian casualties through fallout injection into the atmosphere, or, for that matter, nuclear autumn/winter in the event of a full nuclear war. I suppose it's just possible that everyone in a position of power is like a significantly dumber Herman Kahn, but I don't find it credible. Do you? -Troika- posted:It's pretty disgusting that the LF refugees infesting this thread can in one breath call for a society with no discrimination, and then in that very same breath defend North Korea's intentional mass starvation and torture of their citizens. Not part of the ruling class? Not part of the most elite military units? Did you get a chub when you were writing this post?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This thread isn't about capitalism vs. socialism, and you'll need lawyers, guns, and money (or moderator intervention) to make it so. Fair enough. I guess this just seems like a random rabbit trail. quote:Funnily enough, dude, counterforce strikes aren't immune to causing civilian casualties through fallout injection into the atmosphere, or, for that matter, nuclear autumn/winter in the event of a full nuclear war. I suppose it's just possible that everyone in a position of power is like a significantly dumber Herman Kahn, but I don't find it credible. Do you? Every type of military strike is not immune to causing collateral damage so short of a totally pacifist perspective, being able to cause collateral damage doesn't automatically turn use of a particular weapon into murder, much less genocide. International treaty requires collateral damage be proportional to the military objectives being achieved. Thousands of potential cancer deaths from radioactivity in order to knock out a WMD launcher that's taking aim at a city with millions in it would pass that test. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Fair enough. I guess this just seems like a random rabbit trail. Legal definitions were hashed out by the people with the nukes, buddy. I don't think that anyone can, with a straight face, claim that nuclear weapons can reasonably be used without knowing they'll cause a whole lot of noncombatant deaths as a consequence, and if we start down the road where that doesn't constitute an intent to kill people then we have to assume that it's impossible to prove murder because the defendant can plead he was ignorant that shooting bullets into people would hurt and/or kill them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh my, so immoral things are sometimes acceptable. Yep. That's the kind of world we live in. quote:No, I'm arguing that the US military is totally fine with murdering civilians, as evidenced from their nuclear policy, and that therefore if the refugee crisis from a North Korean collapse really is the sort of apocalyptic threat youse guys keep saying it is, it would be entirely reasonable to suspect massacres would happen in lieu of the alternative. I certainly don't think it would be an apocalyptic threat, certainly not in the same sense that a nuclear war would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Legal definitions were hashed out by the people with the nukes, buddy. I don't think that anyone can, with a straight face, claim that nuclear weapons can reasonably be used without knowing they'll cause a whole lot of noncombatant deaths as a consequence, and if we start down the road where that doesn't constitute an intent to kill people then we have to assume that it's impossible to prove murder because the defendant can plead he was ignorant that shooting bullets into people would hurt and/or kill them. Except I didn't claim nukes can be used without causing collateral damage. A counterforce first strike against imminent nuclear attack is proportionate even though it'll eventually kill somebody with radioactive fallout, if nothing else. Genocide with nukes would be glassing cities even when you know there's no threat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yep. That's the kind of world we live in. Okay, I do want to know what immoral acts are acceptable. Can I steal people's wallets because this world is poo poo? Can I commit securities fraud, justifiably? Where does it begin and end, genius? DeusExMachinima posted:Except I didn't claim nukes can be used without causing collateral damage. A counterforce first strike against imminent nuclear attack is proportionate even though it'll eventually kill somebody with radioactive fallout, if nothing else. Genocide with nukes would be glassing cities even when you know there's no threat. Uh uh, nothing in any common definition of genocide says that it has to be disproportionate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, I do want to know what immoral acts are acceptable. Can I steal people's wallets because this world is poo poo? Can I commit securities fraud, justifiably? Where does it begin and end, genius? Surely this question that ethicists and philosophers have been grappling with since ancient times will be resolved here, in this thread, by forums poster Fojar38 What I do know is that there are circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons on civilians are acceptable, even if they aren't moral. Among them, if it is the only way of stopping an autocratic empire from conquering vast swathes of the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
I imagine stealing someone's wallet would be ok if it was your enemy's during a war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Surely this question that ethicists and philosophers have been grappling with since ancient times will be resolved here, in this thread, by forums poster Fojar38 Okay, so immoral activities are acceptable, you presume, but only in hypothetical situations that conveniently do not actually urge us to action (after all, how do you know that it's the "only way" in real life)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Fair enough. I guess this just seems like a random rabbit trail. It really is a huge distance from trying to convince people that Timothy Snyder is a liar. But overall, here is the connecting current. America has been by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history. It is important to synthesize this point into any serious discussion of modern history. Narratives that cast America as the "good guy" in any given situation need to be examined critically, and almost cynically. We have a responsibility to challenge pro-Western narratives, because of the profound political and ethical implications of complacently living by murder and slavery. Even narratives about the villains on America's enemies list need to be examined. Really, it does no harm to check the basis of orthodoxy now and then (except to fascists) swampman fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so immoral activities are acceptable, you presume, but only in hypothetical situations that conveniently do not actually urge us to action (after all, how do you know that it's the "only way" in real life)? You do know that it was very recently where that "hypothetical situation" was a very real possibility that people were preparing for every day, right? Andorra posted:I imagine stealing someone's wallet would be ok if it was your enemy's during a war. What if you aren't at war, but it's Stalin's wallet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
swampman posted:It really is a huge distance from trying to convince people that Timothy Snyder is a liar. But overall, here is the connecting current. America has been by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history. It is important to synthesize this point into any serious discussion of modern history. Narratives that cast America as the "good guy" in any given situation need to be examined critically, and almost cynically. We have a responsibility to challenge pro-Western narratives, because of the profound political and ethical implications of complacently living by murder and slavery. Noam Chomsky, is that you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
swampman posted:It really is a huge distance from trying to convince people that Timothy Snyder is a liar. But overall, here is the connecting current. America has been by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history. It is important to synthesize this point into any serious discussion of modern history. Narratives that cast America as the "good guy" in any given situation need to be examined critically, and almost cynically. We have a responsibility to challenge pro-Western narratives, because of the profound political and ethical implications of complacently living by murder and slavery. Are you engaging in Rape of Nanking et. al. denial on the part of the Japanese too now? quote:Uh uh, nothing in any common definition of genocide says that it has to be disproportionate. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 quote:[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group If your intent is to stop a WMD attack on your country that's coming right now, it's something else. I mentioned proportionality only to note that it's not murder under the Geneva Convention either. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You do know that it was very recently where that "hypothetical situation" was a very real possibility that people were preparing for every day, right? No, I don't think that anyone ever thought that global thermonuclear warfare would be the only way to stop NATO and the Warsaw Pact from invading one another. I imagine for most of it they thought that since the other guy was obviously preparing to kill them all, they needed nukes to deter them. Maybe you, Fojar38 the great, know otherwise. DeusExMachinima posted:Are you engaging in Rape of Nanking et. al. denial on the part of the Japanese too now? The gently caress is this poo poo? The Nanking Massacre was committed almost entirely against the Chinese population of the city, and it was the relative reluctance of the IJA to attack Europeans and Americans that allowed many of them to help Chinese people escape the massacres.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Are you engaging in Rape of Nanking et. al. denial on the part of the Japanese too now? He probably thinks that it was the Soviets who defeated Japan. Brainiac Five posted:No, I don't think that anyone ever thought that global thermonuclear warfare would be the only way to stop NATO and the Warsaw Pact from invading one another. I imagine for most of it they thought that since the other guy was obviously preparing to kill them all, they needed nukes to deter them. Maybe you, Fojar38 the great, know otherwise. The perceived willingness to engage in a global thermonuclear war was actually the key to avoiding that very hypothetical scenario.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What if you aren't at war, but it's Stalin's wallet? It would be extra immoral to steal his wallet, because well you see America once did something and if you discount the bad parts of Stalin (and for that matter North Korea) they aren't actually that bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:He probably thinks that it was the Soviets who defeated Japan. Let me read this back out to you: "The perceived willingness to engage in a global thermonuclear war was actually the key to avoiding a situation in which an autocratic empire invaded the rest of the world and nukes were the only way to stop them." Erudite. Intellectual. Sensible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
swampman posted:It really is a huge distance from trying to convince people that Timothy Snyder is a liar. But overall, here is the connecting current. America has been by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history. It is important to synthesize this point into any serious discussion of modern history. Narratives that cast America as the "good guy" in any given situation need to be examined critically, and almost cynically. We have a responsibility to challenge pro-Western narratives, because of the profound political and ethical implications of complacently living by murder and slavery. Even narratives about the villains on America's enemies list need to be examined. Really, it does no harm to check the basis of orthodoxy now and then (except to fascists)  check yourself critically for once Replacing one orthodoxy for another isn't how this works Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Let me read this back out to you: "The perceived willingness to engage in a global thermonuclear war was actually the key to avoiding a situation in which an autocratic empire invaded the rest of the world and nukes were the only way to stop them." Uh, yeah? Mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War from going hot. That means that neither side was willing to go directly to war with the other because if they did it would be sealing their own absolute destruction. This was kept afloat by both the United States and the Soviet Union making sure that they were always perceived as being willing to push the button. This was even recognized as a really important method of keeping war at bay, to the point where treaties were signed limiting the degree to which either country was allowed to install missile defenses. This is really basic Cold War history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Uh, yeah? Mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War from going hot. That means that neither side was willing to go directly to war with the other because if they did it would be sealing their own absolute destruction. This was kept afloat by both the United States and the Soviet Union making sure that they were always perceived as being willing to push the button. Whoa, I wouldn't call the US "autocratic". See, you're engaging in a paradox where nukes are necessary to prevent nukes being necessary, because you don't appear to consider what your words mean, at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:
What exactly do you disagree with? I suppose it might seem like I'm implying that non-Americans are never wrong - ??? Obviously I don't believe that. It is just plain healthy to ask of stories we tell ourselves about the past that make us feel like good people: Does the story stand up to scrutiny? If so, great. If not, we need to re-evaluate the way we're living.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The gently caress is this poo poo? The Nanking Massacre was committed almost entirely against the Chinese population of the city, and it was the relative reluctance of the IJA to attack Europeans and Americans that allowed many of them to help Chinese people escape the massacres. It's merely one possible counterexample to swampman's claim that the United States is "by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history." There are others also.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
swampman posted:What exactly do you disagree with? I suppose it might seem like I'm implying that non-Americans are never wrong - ??? Obviously I don't believe that. It is just plain healthy to ask of stories we tell ourselves about the past that make us feel like good people: Does the story stand up to scrutiny? If so, great. If not, we need to re-evaluate the way we're living. I don't disagree, but you have done little to engage with evidence that Grover Furr is full of poo poo, disingenuous, and doing his best to muddy the waters of Stalin's crimes. Scrutinize yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:See, you're engaging in a paradox where nukes are necessary to prevent nukes being necessary, because you don't appear to consider what your words mean, at all. No, the willingness to use nukes is necessary to prevent them from actually being used. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. To bring it back to my original statement, if the Soviet Union had actually gone out and invaded Western Europe, it would absolutely have been acceptable for the United States to nuke Moscow and kill everyone there, civilian and military. I am hesitant to grant the same thing to the Soviet Union, because I believe that the Soviet Union was a bad country with bad foreign policy goals, but an LF refugee/foreign policy "realist" would disagree, and say that it would totally be acceptable for the Soviets to glass New York if NATO invaded Poland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Whoa, I wouldn't call the US "autocratic". There'd be a paradox if, like, both parties could 100% believe that the other side was trustworthy enough to disarm voluntarily at the same time and never try anything sneaky. That wasn't the case though. You could ask the same question about why anyone ever has a military at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
swampman posted:We have a responsibility to challenge pro-Western narratives, because of the profound political and ethical implications of complacently living by murder and slavery. This may be true, but this: swampman posted:But overall, here is the connecting current. America has been by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history. is a really, really weighty claim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It's merely one possible counterexample to swampman's claim that the United States is "by far the most ruthless and genocidal nation in modern history." There are others also. By number of separate genocides or genocide attempts, pretty sure we're on top, champ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Actually the title would probably go to whichever nation has been around the longest, unless we're going to be incredibly selective and inconsistent in applying the word "nation."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:By number of separate genocides or genocide attempts, pretty sure we're on top, champ. The last few pages have proven that nobody can actually agree what a genocide is, much less an attempt at one, so there's no point flailing at windmills trying to prove or disprove this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, the willingness to use nukes is necessary to prevent them from actually being used. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. So, in order to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we need to have them and be willing to use them, and this is the only way to do so. Nuclear disarmament would guarantee a nuclear war, ha ha ha. Okay, so you're in favor of killing civilians so long as the stakes are high enough. So what if I declare war on racism, and through the power of hypothetical scenarios to fulfill a point, nuke New York City to kill all the racists there. Is this acceptable? After all, I am engaging in a good set of policy goals, and you can replace me with a hypothetical absolutely good golem if you like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Actually the title would probably go to whichever nation has been around the longest, unless we're going to be incredibly selective and inconsistent in applying the word "nation." Genocides are historically somewhat rare, Fojar, though this belief explains a lot about you. StandardVC10 posted:The last few pages have proven that nobody can actually agree what a genocide is, much less an attempt at one, so there's no point flailing at windmills trying to prove or disprove this. Well, I mean, dude, we've wiped out a whole fuckload of Native American societies. That's a lot of genocides, even if in total they're on the smaller end as far as genocides go. But if that's the case, why are you flailing at people making unprovable statements by screaming about how the evil Nihongo are so much worse than the USA?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, in order to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we need to have them and be willing to use them, and this is the only way to do so. Nuclear disarmament would guarantee a nuclear war, ha ha ha. Unilateral nuclear disarmament with another bad faith party in the mix enables a consequence-free, one-sided nuclear exchange on the part of the guy pressing the "betray" button. This what both sides thought of each other in the Cold War, JFYI. If you could trust the other guy to follow through then it'd be dumb, but if both sides trusted each other why would they have built nukes in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But if that's the case, why are you flailing at people making unprovable statements by screaming about how the evil Nihongo are so much worse than the USA? You seemed puzzled as to why the matter had been brought up to begin with, so I explained.  Who's screaming?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Unilateral nuclear disarmament with another bad faith party in the mix enables a consequence-free, one-sided nuclear exchange on the part of the guy pressing the "betray" button. This what both sides thought of each other in the Cold War, JFYI. Hold on, though, that's not what brain trustee Fojar wrote, so this is irrelevant. StandardVC10 posted:You seemed puzzled as to why the matter had been brought up to begin with, so I explained. Everyone is constantly screaming and enraged and furious, duh. Otherwise people would be bad-faith actors when they started saying people are mad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, in order to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we need to have them and be willing to use them, and this is the only way to do so. Nuclear disarmament would guarantee a nuclear war, ha ha ha. Unilateral nuclear disarmament does nothing aside from leave you vulnerable. At this point you might as well just say "Everyone should fully disarm all their militaries. That way there will never be a war!" This is grade school levels of naivete. quote:Okay, so you're in favor of killing civilians so long as the stakes are high enough. So what if I declare war on racism, and through the power of hypothetical scenarios to fulfill a point, nuke New York City to kill all the racists there. Is this acceptable? After all, I am engaging in a good set of policy goals, and you can replace me with a hypothetical absolutely good golem if you like. You're still conflating what's "good" with what's "acceptable." I'm sorry, but the world isn't a place that's universally "good" and doing things that are good can often lead to things that are bad. quote:Genocides are historically somewhat rare, Fojar, though this belief explains a lot about you. Depends on your definition of "genocide" which nobody has been able to agree on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, in order to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we need to have them and be willing to use them, and this is the only way to do so. Nuclear disarmament would guarantee a nuclear war, ha ha ha. Let's run through some pretty basic Cold War history. For the vast much of the Cold War, both the USSR and the United States positioned military forces adjacent each other, engaged in numerous proxy wars, conducted tremendous amounts of espionage, and generally regarded each other as fundamental enemies. Yet, despite these factors, neither side ever engaged in outright combat, because both sides knew the other possessed nuclear weapons capable of destroying them, and there was no way of defending against all the nukes. This is MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. It was generally regarded as insane, but it was a policy that in the end proved dangerous enough to create enough equilibrium that the US and USSR would do everything in their power to avoid an outright confrontation, even while plotting and scheming and generally hating the others' guts. And yes, because the policy depends on a nuclear war being unwinable, that means convincing the other side that any potentially hostile action they take could lead to atomic annihilation. It's also why both sides negotiated not only to limit the number of nuclear weapons, but the number of nuclear weapon defenses-because if somebody got the idea in their head they might actually be able to win a nuclear war, it could get everybody killed. Edit: This is also why unilateral disarmament is generally seen as potentially destablising-because someone might get the idea that if they stash a few nukes, they can win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:50
|
|
