America's Dangerous Obsession With Invincibility - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15257320
Rich wrote:OK what about this for a bold move for peace.

China withdraws from Tibet.



Tibet (or East-Turkestan) is never the powder keg pseudo-Hippies claim to be. Taiwan is.
#15257321
wat0n wrote: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.


Can you think about the ways that the military could use the Internet to kill millions of people in order to appropriate resources for the 1%?

If so, they could probably use you in one of their think tanks.
#15257370
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not that I recall.


Yes, it does. It says the US missile program may actually be counterproductive because it encourages China to have its own missile program, and that missile defense is hard and unlikely to be useful in case of a nuclear war anyway.

Where it fails is in explaining why would China halt its own program just because the US did. It doesn't really make sense.
#15257373
There are a handful of suicidaly stupid ideas, moving war into Space may be the dumbest of the lot.

There has been a lot of blah, blah, blah.

Someone might find a way to sneak a few nukes into orbit. It's just a few minutes from launch to detonation. China has it's nukes apart because it knows they won't be needed quickly. We've had the ability to nuke China into the stone age since the country went Commie, or close to it. They know we won't attack, and they can count on it.

We don't feel the same about Putin.

We have come close to nuclear war a number of times, because both sides were basically on a hair trigger. It's often come down to some mid level officer understanding that the threat isn't real, that there's been some mistake. Putin should take that as a hint that he needs a truly professional officer corp.

In any case, of you're asking me, we are nowhere near the point where we could trust Russia and disassemble our nuclear weapons. If you take that a step further, our boomers are our best deterrence. It wouldn't take more than 2 or 3 to end Russia as a country. So even a surprise attack that neutralises our bombers and rockets leaves us with more than enough to send Russia back to the Stone Age, or something close to it. It's very cold with an extremely short growing season, lots of transport problems. We would have a lot more stuff to rebuild with. It's not a situation anyone is going to contemplate for long. It's just too terrible.

But it does tell us that we still dance on a knife's edge. I grew up here, when we had a lot more nukes, and they were much bigger and dirtier than what we have now.

This is better. But if you haven't spent much time thinking about it, welcome to the unthinkable.
#15257375
late wrote:
There are a handful of suicidaly stupid ideas, moving war into Space may be the dumbest of the lot.

There has been a lot of blah, blah, blah.

Someone might find a way to sneak a few nukes into orbit. It's just a few minutes from launch to detonation. China has it's nukes apart because it knows they won't be needed quickly. We've had the ability to nuke China into the stone age since the country went Commie, or close to it. They know we won't attack, and they can count on it.

We don't feel the same about Putin.

We have come close to nuclear war a number of times, because both sides were basically on a hair trigger. It's often come down to some mid level officer understanding that the threat isn't real, that there's been some mistake. Putin should take that as a hint that he needs a truly professional officer corp.

In any case, of you're asking me, we are nowhere near the point where we could trust Russia and disassemble our nuclear weapons. If you take that a step further, our boomers are our best deterrence. It wouldn't take more than 2 or 3 to end Russia as a country. So even a surprise attack that neutralises our bombers and rockets leaves us with more than enough to send Russia back to the Stone Age, or something close to it. It's very cold with an extremely short growing season, lots of transport problems. We would have a lot more stuff to rebuild with. It's not a situation anyone is going to contemplate for long. It's just too terrible.

But it does tell us that we still dance on a knife's edge. I grew up here, when we had a lot more nukes, and they were much bigger and dirtier than what we have now.

This is better. But if you haven't spent much time thinking about it, welcome to the unthinkable.



Fun, late -- what the regular person would call 'Nukes 3.0'.
#15257389
wat0n wrote:The video does.


So your response to "these three points* don't endanger American security" is a complete nonsequitor response to a different point made by a different person?

*NFU (1), sign international agreements approved by the UN (2), end Two War doctrine (3)
wat0n wrote:when humans feel threatened.


The amount of threat being perceived by the American State Department doesn't exist, and their policy manufactures potential threats that also do not exist to justify the insanity. It's a completely irrational setup that fuels arms races.

wat0n wrote:It says the US missile program may actually be counterproductive because it encourages China to have its own missile program,


No, it says that about the US missile defense program. :roll:

It specifically argues that MAD is enough of a deterrence, and that US efforts trying to undermine MAD by trying to build effective missile defense programs is driving military R&D in other nations, making the world more dangerous. It argues that the US should accept, at the least, the principles of MAD and stop developing defense systems that make it immune to the missiles of other powers.

Nowhere does the video argue the US should stop developing missiles and I have no idea why you're trying so hard to insinuate it does.
#15257394
Fasces wrote:So your response to "these three points* don't endanger American security" is a complete nonsequitor response to a different point made by a different person?

*NFU (1), sign international agreements approved by the UN (2), end Two War doctrine (3)


Reality shows they do, in fact, endanger US national security.

(1) NFU: When a lesser power aiming to compete directly with the US doesn't have one, American deterrence is clearly eroded.

(2) International agreements: Which ones?

(3) The fact that there could be a NATO war in Europe and an invasion of Taiwan at the same time shows it's the correct approach.

Fasces wrote:The amount of threat being perceived by the American State Department doesn't exist, and their policy manufactures potential threats that also do not exist to justify the insanity. It's a completely irrational setup that fuels arms races.


Oh but it does exist, if anything it's everyone else in the West that is reassessing the threat levels posed by actors like Putin's Russia and leaning towards a stance a lot closer to the American one.

Fasces wrote:No, it says that about the US missile defense program. :roll:

It specifically argues that MAD is enough of a deterrence, and that US efforts trying to undermine MAD by trying to build effective missile defense programs is driving military R&D in other nations, making the world more dangerous. It argues that the US should accept, at the least, the principles of MAD and stop developing defense systems that make it immune to the missiles of other powers.

Nowhere does the video argue the US should stop developing missiles and I have no idea why you're trying so hard to insinuate it does.


Oh so the US should now develop its offensive missile capabilities? I bet China and Russia will regard it as a trust building gesture.
#15257395
wat0n wrote:Yes, it does. It says the US missile program may actually be counterproductive because it encourages China to have its own missile program, and that missile defense is hard and unlikely to be useful in case of a nuclear war anyway.


This does not mention stopping missile R&D.

Correctly pointing out that Reagan’s Star Wars defence program was never effective is not the same as saying no one should spend money on missile R&D.
#15257397
wat0n wrote: NFU: When a lesser power aiming to compete directly with the US doesn't have one, American deterrence is clearly eroded.


But not eliminated. Trust requires assuming risk.

NFU is not an existential threat to US security, or to its empire, frankly.

wat0n wrote:International agreements: Which ones?


You've already asked, and I've already answered.

wat0n wrote:The fact that there could be a NATO war in Europe and an invasion of Taiwan at the same time shows it's the correct approach.


Both a consequence of an aggressive and hegemonic American imperial foreign policy to which I am opposed.

wat0n wrote:Oh but it does exist, if anything it's everyone else in the West that is reassessing the threat levels posed by actors like Putin's Russia and leaning towards a stance a lot closer to the American one.


Putin's Russia is insane, but is not an existential threat to the United States at this time or in the near future. The EU should absolutely militarize more to be more able to pursue an independent foreign policy, but we're talking about the US.

wat0n wrote:so the US should now develop its offensive missile capabilities


I am not advocating that the US disarm, at this time. Your attempts to extrapolate into absurdity won't work. :roll:

In the short-term, I am advocating that the US do these three specific things, as a means of starting to build trust. What happens next is not up to the US, but whether their rivals reciprocate.

I am not saying these policies represent no risk, either. You can't build trust without assuming some risk. They represent a very minimal diminishment of US capabilities and a very minimal risk, but a positive first step nonetheless. If you want to have an honest discussion, I'm happy to have it, but don't misrepresent my position just because you have internalized the US obsession with invincibility.
#15257400
Fasces wrote:But not eliminated. Trust requires assuming risk.

NFU is not an existential threat to US security, or to its empire, frankly.


I'd say eroding MAD - which is what would happen if the US declared a NFU policy while Russia didn't - definitely fits the bill.

Fasces wrote:You've already asked, and I've already answered.


So you want the US to ratify UNCLOS? Fine, but China should abide by it as well. If China doesn't, why would ratifying UNCLOS signal anything?

And if you want the US to enter the Rome Statute, I'd say it would also need to be reciprocal.

Fasces wrote:Both a consequence of an aggressive and hegemonic American imperial foreign policy to which I am opposed.


Not really. Even Putin himself has made it clear Ukraine is about more than just security, and if China hasn't invaded Taiwan it's precisely because of successful American deterrence.

Fasces wrote:Putin's Russia is insane, but is not an existential threat to the United States at this time or in the near future. The EU should absolutely militarize more to be more able to pursue an independent foreign policy, but we're talking about the US.


When NATO exists, it does become an actual threat to the US. Existential? No, the US could always chose to dump Poland or Estonia by not respecting the NATO Treaty to avoid an existential risk, but dealing with slightly lesser threats is completely legitimate.

Fasces wrote:I am not advocating that the US disarm, at this time. Your attempts to extrapolate into absurdity won't work. :roll:

In the short-term, I am advocating that the US do these three specific things, as a means of starting to build trust. What happens next is not up to the US, but whether their rivals reciprocate.

I am not saying these policies represent no risk, either. You can't build trust without assuming some risk. They represent a very minimal diminishment of US capabilities and a very minimal risk, but a positive first step nonetheless. If you want to have an honest discussion, I'm happy to have it, but don't misrepresent my position just because you have internalized the US obsession with invincibility.


You seem to be getting it backwards, it is the weaker parties who have to make this trust building effort, don't you think? It would of course need to be reciprocal, I don't disagree with that, but there is no incentive for the US to move first.

Doing so unilaterally would definitely weaken the US military edge over the long term.

@Pants-of-dog it's quite clear they want the US to stop its missile defense efforts. A ridiculous ask, at that, given there are literally zero guarantees it would encourage a positive change in Chinese or Russian policy. If anything, I'd say it would encourage hastening their own missile efforts to catch up to the US (whose edge is far from being overwhelming either).
#15257434
late wrote:China has it's nukes apart because it knows they won't be needed quickly. We've had the ability to nuke China into the stone age since the country went Commie, or close to it. They know we won't attack, and they can count on it.

We don't feel the same about Putin.


I like how the bolded part of this quote demonstrates two things.

1. We **feel** things about foreign leaders. (not the same as thinking things)

2. That Russian leaders (and Russia itself) is particularly hated by our media. The one that fabricates many of our feelings.

Image

Why is "our" media always manipulating its audience (us) into hating Russia so much?

Is that really the function of the fourth estate? To make people hate particular targets?

Is this useful in any way to the collective?
#15257441
QatzelOk wrote:
I like how the bolded part of this quote demonstrates two things.

1. We **feel** things about foreign leaders. (not the same as thinking things)

2. That Russian leaders (and Russia itself) is particularly hated by our media. The one that fabricates many of our feelings.


Why is "our" media always manipulating its audience (us) into hating Russia so much?

Is that really the function of the fourth estate? To make people hate particular targets?

Is this useful in any way to the collective?



After the collapse of the USSR, American leaders bent over backwards to be nice to Russia. They were rewarded with war and cyber attacks. Most of Europe has cyber defenses now because they had to defend against the attacks.

Ignoring someone attacking you would be batsh*t crazy...
#15257448
late wrote:After the collapse of the USSR, American leaders bent over backwards to be nice to Russia.


You mean by supporting Boris Yeltsin and the oligarchs who looted the country after the collapse?

"Bending over backwards to help oligarchs loot a country" is the kind of love that leads to major wars and collective poverty. UNLESS you've got superpowers.
#15257461
QatzelOk wrote:
You mean by supporting Boris Yeltsin and the oligarchs who looted the country after the collapse?

"Bending over backwards to help oligarchs loot a country" is the kind of love that leads to major wars and collective poverty. UNLESS you've got superpowers.



The reality is we had no authority. There was no way for us to change what they were doing. Unless we forcibly took control of the country. Nobody wanted that, esp. not you...

And since we were going to send money and people to help their transition, we would be supporting what was there...

You are asking for the impossible. Sorry, our magic wand is in the shop...
#15257466

Shock waves from the collapse

The crisis in the Eastern bloc was part of a much wider crisis affecting all sorts of countries which had adopted the state capitalist model. Nowhere did it seem capable of providing the high growth rates of earlier periods. At the same time it cut off national industries from the new industrial innovations—especially those connected with microchip technology and computer software—being pioneered, on the basis of enormous investment, by the industrial giants of the US and Japan.

Across Asia, Africa and Latin America, bureaucrats and politicians who had made their careers sponsoring versions of state capitalism switched over to praise ‘free’ markets and make deals with Western multinationals. Congress governments in India, the former Maoist movement which won a civil war in Ethiopia, the Algerian regime and the successors to Nasser in Egypt all followed this path to a greater or lesser degree. In the vanguard of the new approach was Deng Xiaoping’s China, where adoration of the market and profit-making went hand in hand with formal adherence to the cult of Mao.

Most Third World governments showed their commitment to the new approach by signing up to the ‘structural adjustment programmes’ of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). There is little evidence that these could overcome the problems of low growth rates and poverty. Some 76 countries implemented adjustment programmes designed by the World Bank on ‘free market’ criteria in the 1980s. Only a handful recorded better growth or inflation rates than in previous decades. Of 19 countries which carried through ‘intense adjustment’, only four ‘consistently improved their performance in the 1980s’.301 In 1990 some 44 percent of Latin America’s population was living below the poverty line according to the United Nations economic commission for the region, which concluded there had been ‘a tremendous step backwards in the material standard of living of the Latin American and Caribbean population in the 1980s’.302 In Africa more than 55 percent of the rural population was considered to be living in absolute poverty by 1987.303

What happened in Eastern Europe and the former USSR in the 1990s was just as devastating. The ‘economic miracles’ promised by the reformers did not take place. In 1999 only two countries, Poland and Slovenia, had a higher output than in 1989. The Czech Republic and Hungary were both slightly poorer than ten years before. The economies of Bulgaria, Lithuania and Russia had shrunk by 40 percent or more.303a

The cold statistics translated into the destruction of the hopes of millions. Most people in the major Russian cities like Moscow and St Petersburg became dependent on what they could grow on small allotments and preserve to supplement meagre supplies of bread and potatoes. Whole communities in arctic regions lived in fear of the power failing each winter. Miners and steel workers were not paid for months at a time, health services fell apart, diseases like tuberculosis became common and life expectancy fell.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 593-595
#15257469

251. The International Committee insisted that the complete transition by the Stalinist bureaucracy into the camp of imperialism held universal significance. The phenomenon of renunciationism found expression in the transformation of the trade unions into direct appendages of management and the disavowal by the social democratic parties of their previous commitment to social reforms. To define them any longer as workers’ organisations was to blind the working class to reality:

“What has occurred in the former Soviet Union is a manifestation of an international phenomenon. All over the world the working class is confronted with the fact that the trade unions, parties and even states, which they created in an earlier period, have been transformed into the direct instruments of imperialism. The days are over when the labour bureaucracies ‘mediated’ the class struggle and played the role of buffer between the classes. Though the bureaucracies generally betrayed the historical interests of the working class, they still, in a limited sense, served its daily practical needs; and, to that extent, ‘justified’ their existence as leaders of the working class organisations. That period is over. The bureaucracy cannot play any such independent role in the present period”.[1]



https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library ... uk/45.html
#15257473
ckaihatsu wrote:

The cold destruction of hopes...




Soap opera...

The reality sucked before the governments collapsed. The reality is there is no magic. If you look at earlier instances of countries becoming capitalist, they all went through a rough time.

In effect, you're expecting a bumper harvest before you've even bought the farm.
#15257477
late wrote:Soap opera...

The reality sucked before the governments collapsed. The reality is there is no magic. If you look at earlier instances of countries becoming capitalist, they all went through a rough time.

In effect, you're expecting a bumper harvest before you've even bought the farm.

"Life may be hard now, comrades, but the socialist capitalist utopia is just around the corner. Your grandchildren will live like princes and will bless your name!" :excited:
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14

@Tainari88 Puerto Rico doesn't have much politic[…]

Yes, and this is because the cops who killed Mr. […]

Greece & Turkey revive earthquake diplomacy […]

Exit Brexit, Part Deux

Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit is a major coup for Br[…]