[ckaihatsu]

The US and its westernised allies is demonstrating far too much trust to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. Western Europe showed far too much trust to Putin in running down its militaries. Its important to start dealing with these people in the language they can understand.

Fixed:

[Trump] and [his] westernised allies [were] demonstrating far too much trust to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. Western Europe showed far too much trust to Putin in running down its militaries. Its important to start dealing with these people in the language they can understand.

[ckaihatsu]

That will mean a lot of us have to face what Ukrainians are facing right now.

So much for 'anti-Putin'.


x D

I do think it's necessary (and I will probably be among the first ones to die), but I don't think PoFo'ers are prepared for that.

We've got to start building defenses *now* -- !


= D

[Patrickov]

So much for 'anti-Putin'.

In this sense Putin is just a figurehead.

What I am against is something much, much bigger. Including you, no less.

[ckaihatsu]

[EDITED]

In this sense Putin is just a figurehead.

Well, things are already Orwellian enough, around Syria (with Turkey, Israel, Russia, and the U.S.), and also with the European energy crisis (Germany, Russia, the UK, and the U.S.), so, yeah, I didn't think that Putin was the be-all end-all of the Eastern Hemisphere.

What I am against is something much, much bigger. Including you, no less.

Did they already tell you that I can be seen from outer space -- ?


= D

[wat0n]

Arms races are dangerous by definition.

Sure, but they don't always lead to war.

Furthermore, plenty of cool civilian tech came out from military-oriented R&D.

A single conflict fifty years ago, compared to US foreign policy within the past fifty years.

50 years ago is the blink of an eye for states (especially China).

Chinese missiles are literally disassembled, as confirmed by US sources. The warhead, the missile, and the nuclear core are all maintained in separate facilities. To assemble them would not be instantaneous. Adopting and exercising an NFU policy would help prevent nuclear war just because of that additional action required prior to being able to activate a nuclear strike.

Sure, but it's not something that takes so long either. Get real.

My entire point is that the US, as the premier power, should make the first move.

This is a minimal amount of risk. You can't build trust without assuming risk, and this is a minimal amount of risk for the US to take on in the interest of building trust.

If the US is unwilling to assume risk, it is not demonstrating trust.

I don't see why, as the premier power, should the US take the initiative.

The US is the dominant power. Yes, the US should take the first step. It should put its money where its mouth is. It is the one that built this world order, and which expects other nations to abide by its rules - it should demonstrate its willingness to do so itself. Why propose the ICJ and other similar institutions at all, why endorse it, if it was unwilling to be constrained by it?

Why should other powers trust that the US, which has already proposed the creation of these institutions and then refused to abide by them, would abide by them following their assent?

The US broke international trust in these institutions when it pulled out of the ICJ after Nicaragua v United States, after it demonstrated an unwillingness to be constrained by the very institutions that should constrain ALL actors. The onus is on the US to act "first", as a result.

I agree the US should have compensated Nicaragua in the 1990s, but let's not pretend this is something that started with the US or that it will end with it.

China won't stop building artificial islands just because the US decides to end its missile program. That's a ridiculous proposition.

If the US has no ill-intent, why won't the US sign UNCLOS and respect its rulings?

If China has no ill-intent, why doesn't it respect UNCLOS given though it is part of it? If they don't like it, they can always quit.

We have very different definitions of trust if a Mexican stand-off comes anywhere to meaning 'trust' to you.

It's exactly as far as trust gets in international relations. Furthermore, it's far from impossible for two heavily armed states to enjoy close relations.

[QatzelOk]

Furthermore, plenty of cool civilian tech came out from military-oriented R&D.

For example, the concentration camp:

U.S. Civil War (1861–1865)
Boer War in South Africa (1900–1902)
Herero and Namaqua genocide (1904–1907)
Concentration of Armenians during the Armenian Genocide (1915–1916)
Finnish Civil War (1918)
Italian concentration camps in Africa and Europe (1930–1944)

I had previously thought that is was the Boer War that "perfected" this important technology. But according to wiki, the concentration camp was invented by Uncle Sam. I'm not surprised.

[Patrickov]

A single conflict fifty years ago, compared to US foreign policy within the past fifty years.

The fallacy here is that, you have to have someone to fight out there to protect others.
When people only care about their own asses the structure is bound to fall.

I rather have one country fighting here and there than having everyone suffering what Ukrainians (and Burmese, Middle Easterns, etc.) now suffer.

[wat0n]

For example, the concentration camp:



I had previously thought that is was the Boer War that "perfected" this important technology. But according to wiki, the concentration camp was invented by Uncle Sam. I'm not surprised.

1) There are older concentration camps from outside the US, e.g.

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

2) The first American concentration camp was set up in 1838 during the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population from Georgia. Note the Paraguayan camp above is still older.

3) I was thinking about the internet. It's pretty cool.

[AFAIK]

International law increases the sovereignty of small countries and reduces the sovereignty of large ones by giving them equal footing in front of neutral third party. I'm surprised to see so many apologists for US hypocrisy in this thread since equality before the eyes of the law is considered a highly valued maxim in the Anglosphere.

[wat0n]

Equality before the law only makes sense when you are ruled by a sovereign. There is no such a thing as a world government (for now).

Also, the true great equalizer in international relations is having nuclear weapons, not international law.

[Fasces]

There is no such a thing as a world government (for now).

There can still be voluntary compliance. The problem, fundamentally, is this expectation of "you first, no you first."

The three policies mentioned provide a minimal risk to the US as a price of building trust, and yet even that tiniest of risk is one you're unwilling to take. It's sad.

[Unthinking Majority]

Chinese missiles are literally disassembled, as confirmed by US sources. The warhead, the missile, and the nuclear core are all maintained in separate facilities. To assemble them would not be instantaneous. Adopting and exercising an NFU policy would help prevent nuclear war just because of that additional action required prior to being able to activate a nuclear strike.

How would this be low risk for the US to do this? They would be giving a significant nuclear advantage to opposing states like Russia. Putin would be as likely to exploit this weakness as he would be to buy in and follow suit. He's a dick. This is why the US would propose to negotiate an agreement for all parties before doing that. Everyone wins. No country is going to do much of anything if it isn't in their interests. WWII was in nobody's interests, that's why they all agreed after to cede some power to the UN/UNSC. A nuclear pact, like a trade pact, is mutually beneficial. China didn't disassemble their nukes to be nice.

Trust is also believing someone will do something when they say they will. When you do that consistently you build trust.

[wat0n]

There can still be voluntary compliance. The problem, fundamentally, is this expectation of "you first, no you first."

The three policies mentioned provide a minimal risk to the US as a price of building trust, and yet even that tiniest of risk is one you're unwilling to take. It's sad.

They don't provide a minimal risk in the long run.

Stopping military R&D definitely does not.

[Fasces]

Stopping military R&D definitely does not.

Who on earth said anything about that?

Trust is also believing someone will do something when they say they will. When you do that consistently you build trust.

The US has lost all credibility that it views the international institutions it has advocated for as constraining to all parties, including itself. For the US to rebuild trust with rational powers (not Putin), it needs to demonstrate a willingness to act first.

As the hegemonic power, the hegemon needs to demonstrate a willingness to be constrained if it expects other nations to constrain themselves. It sets the rules of the game.

China didn't disassemble their nukes to be nice.

Who cares? The US should follow suit.

Again, not decommission. Not get rid of. Not end R&D research, as @wat0n put it. Simply put them into a peacetime mode, as China has.

[AFAIK]

International governance is a collaborative affair conducted through multilateral institutions such as the UN and policed via bodies like ICC and WTO. If anyone is unwilling to go first they can pass legislation that will only come into affect once certain thresholds have been crossed (such as waiting for at least 100 countries representing 66% of world population and 66% of world GDP to ratify the same agreement). The USA uses similar thresholds to ratify changes to its constitution.

[Fasces]

International governance is a collaborative affair

Exactly this. The mindset of 'you first' makes collaboration impossible from the start.

[wat0n]

Who on earth said anything about that?

Oh, sorry, then let's leave it at "stopping missile R&D" then.

Who cares? The US should follow suit.

Again, not decommission. Not get rid of. Not end R&D research, as @wat0n put it. Simply put them into a peacetime mode, as China has.

Si vis pacem, para bellum is a peacetime strategy by definition. And the US is currently (since 2021) in peacetime.

@AFAIK that already exists, it's how (theoretically binding) international legal customs are established - once 2/3 of (UN member) states ratify some international convention, it is said to become customary international law and binding. Even then, it STILL makes little sense for the US (and pretty much any other country, including those who aren't even regional powers) to pretend it is truly binding.

There is still no systematic enforcement mechanism of many of these norms, including those related to things like genocide (let alone conventions dealing with more mundane topics), simply because there is currently no world government. So why would the Great Powers suddenly be truly bound by them?

You could say breaking these norms may entail a big political cost (domestic and diplomatic), but if the matter is serious enough it may be worth it. It's the kind of dilemma Russia might be facing right now regarding using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, doing so would be extremely costly politically both domestically (many Russians don't regard Ukrainians as aliens) and abroad (with likely deep diplomatic consequences such as turning Russia into a pariah, economic sanctions, perhaps even NATO military action) yet if Russia's military situation truly becomes untenable, such as Ukraine occupying Crimea or parts of Russia proper, Putin may still decide to go for it.

If China or Russia want to stop a possible arms race, they are free to step up and offer a tripartite deal to that effect. I suspect that, even then, it would not stop but only be put it under some measure of control (e.g. like nuclear test bans). What I don't understand is why would the US do so (let alone act unilaterally to that effect) when it doesn't seem like it is the actor that would need it the most - even financially it doesn't seem to be that big of a factor and military spending is definitely not the biggest threat to the US' government finances in the long run.

[Fasces]

Oh, sorry, then let's leave it at "stopping missile R&D" then.

Again, what? Which of the three points I mentioned had anything to do with stopping missile R&D?

There is still no systematic enforcement mechanism of many of these norms

The first step is to build the capacity for voluntary participation. Once enough trust is established, only then nations may consent to constructing third party enforcers.

You're starting to strike me as the type of person that believes punishment is the only mechanism by which humans act morally.

[Rich]

OK what about this for a bold move for peace.

Russia stops the war in Ukraine, accepts the complete sovereignty of Ukraine within its current occupied territory and their right to join the EU and NATO.

The United States recognises Crimea and the other captured territory as Sovereign Russia. lifts the sanctions against Russia and China and withdraws from its bases in Cuba and Bahrain.

China withdraws from Tibet.

[wat0n]

Again, what? Which of the three points I mentioned had anything to do with stopping missile R&D?

The video does.

The first step is to build the capacity for voluntary participation. Once enough trust is established, only then nations may consent to constructing third party enforcers.

You're starting to strike me as the type of person that believes punishment is the only mechanism by which humans act morally.

No, it certainly is not. Yet as you are obviously aware of, there is little other stable option when humans feel threatened. It's precisely why states themselves exist.