 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Like last time when we barely escaped global destruction on more than one occassion, and that was a bipolar world? You want to try it multipolar and wait for some grand duke to get shot, like say, Taiwan? |
The reason why there wasn't a nuclear annihilation last time was because nobody expected he could win a nuclear war (unlike WW1 after the assassination of the Grand Duke, where every country that jumped the gun expected a quick victory and a considerable political gain out of it). Unlike any other kind of warfare, the pols are terrified with nuclear warfare, and act sensibly about it.
This will change only if a madman gets at the helm of a nuclear power (which may be the case in North Korea at the current time), or only if a country develops a technology that makes nuclear war looks winnable (that would be the US).
quote:
We're talking about China as a country that is willing to tear up the entente by invading a democracy. |
Err, yes, we're talking about China, a country that is hellbent of affirming its international power, and will begin with annexing Taiwan. China is a likely future rival of the US (And Europe will probably team up with the US once China becomes a threat). How does it make it worse than any other country wrt nukes, and being terrified by nukes?
quote:
You think the rest of the democratic world should shrug and say, oh well? Why, so that some French poll can take a contract back for a few airbuses? |
I, Spiffor, don't. I think France is actively participating in the destabilization of the region, only to scrap a few Euros from it. There seems to be a mounting domestic opposition to the current European policy of lifiting the embargo, which is excellent news (I am part of the domestic opposition).
However, you seem to believe that the US would be willing to let its cities glow in the dark for Taiwan's sake. I think it's mightily stupid, as the US has shown that its allies' welfare is not as important as its own welfare (which is only normal). The US might threaten to use nuclear power, but unless they think they can escape unscathed, they won't commit nuclear suicide over Taiwan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
2 or 3 CVBGs may sink because of French weapons supplied to China, but there is no way in hell that Washington is ever going to accept it. |
Make it "because China has always wanted Taiwan back, because the US has always denied it to China, and because China will do so the day it can afford it".
Or if the weapon embargo continues, you perhaps think that China's eventual invasion of Taiwan will be Israel's fault? 
Don't get me wrong: the opportunism of my government, and the fact that it takes part in the destabilization of the region is something I'm ashamed of. However, the belief that the situation you describe will be France's fault is completely stupid. Because in any case, there is a serious continued rivalry between China and the US on Taiwan, and China will do something about it as soon as it can.
The gnomes sitting on the fence selling weapons (Russia, Israel, and maybe soon the EU) are behaving in a despicable fashion, but the shitknot is China's and the US' making.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
Complete non sequitur. Thank you for not bothering to reply to my arguments, and for using WW2 prejudices instead of reasoning.
Colour me shocked, and stunned by deja vu.
Edit: I still don't know why I continue to argue with you in diplo threads, considering that your worldview consists of countries only using war as international political tool. Your view of the world strikes me as pre-1945, to the point that it's fairly amazing.
The only thing you seem to have learned from the cold war is that everybody was afraid, without noticing that no direct confrontation happened between the two powers, even suring a crisis that would have sparked a war in any other point in history.
Besides, because of my nationality, you always show your bigoted self when talking to me in diplo threads. No matter how many times I explicitely state my disgust of the current actions, I'm basically a "Munichois". No matter how many times I state that the French diplomacy is doing something bad, you are talking to me like you'd talk to Chirac.
Last edited by Spiffor on 22-04-2005 at 14:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I think you are sorely lacking in any sort of understanding of what the US is capable of doing, or saying it will do, in a cause. |
True. The fight against communism was a cause completely unimportant for the Americans.
quote:
Additionally, the only people in any position to impose mutual destruction on the US, Russia, are very unlikely to go to war for China in this day and age. |
Heck, the US is afraid of North Korea's sole nuke, fearing it might make Los Angeles / San Francisco / Seattle glow in the dark. And North Korea is one of the few countries against whom nuclear war would definitely be winnable, as the US would "only" lose one metropolis.
It's fortunate you're not in command, if you're the kind who believes that a nuclear war is winnable: "We outnumber your nukes 300 to 1!  ! Never mind that your nukes may kill 150 millions of our population, cause we'll be able to kill even more! Yay!".
It's people like you who'll start WW3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
True. The fight against communism was a cause completely unimportant for the Americans. |
What exactly are you on about here?
quote:
Heck, the US is afraid of North Korea's sole nuke, fearing it might make Los Angeles / San Francisco / Seattle glow in the dark. And North Korea is one of the few countries against whom nuclear war would definitely be winnable, as the US would "only" lose one metropolis. |
In peacetime, yes. NK is a pissant country who want to ride their missiles to greatness. Not doing them much good, is it?
Now, China crossing those straights, over the dead bodies of thousands of American servicemen is another matter entirely.
quote:
It's fortunate you're not in command, if you're the kind who believes that a nuclear war is winnable: "We outnumber your nukes 300 to 1! ! Never mind that your nukes may kill 150 millions of our population, cause we'll be able to kill even more! Yay!".
It's people like you who'll start WW3. |
Chinese nukes would be challenged to find the US, let alone kill 150 million Americans.
In the meantime, China would be wiped off the map.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
We should just accept that Ger, oops, China is going to misbehave a little bit on it's way into it's proper place in the world? |
We should try to prevent China from misbehaving, which is why the lift of the weapon embargo is an extremely bad idea. It's also why Raffarin is despicable when he encourages China with the dreadful law it recently passed 
This is why the US is right when it defends Taiwan, as well.
However, there'll be one day where China won't be forced to do as the US pleases anymore, because China will have the means to back its claims. We should stall about it for as long as possible, because China may see its institutions evolve, and they may end up having the same regard for their citizens' lives as do the western countries. Such countries are much less prone to useless wars.
When the day happens, though, what do you think the US will do? Sever all ties with China? Threaten to nuke it if it steps one inch out of the line? The US won't be able to, unless it has the missile shield. Otherwise, the US (and Europe, cause I expect the EU to be on the US' side at the time) will have to be diplomatic, letting China a share of the pie.
However, the situation won't be a WW2 one, for simple reasons: China's current territorial claims are mostly Taiwan and Tibet, and these calims come from the old paradigm (the one you're stuck in), where countries make war for territory. I expect China to be indeed willing to wage war against local populations for these territories.
OTOH, in today's world, international power is much less a question of territory than a question of influence (through economic and diplomatic means). Did the US wage war on the entire world to dominate it the way it does today? No, the US' power over the world isn't due to military prowess during the cold war (the most important place over which the US successfully fought for domination is South Korea), but its enormous economic and diplomatic power. The American military is a huge threat, but better left unused (as Iraq is showing), and it's not the most important instrument of domination: you'll see many more rogue countries if the US' domination was only due to its military.
Besides, I think the main reason why the Cold war granted such importance to territory is because of ideologic polarization. A socialist country wouldn't be in the American camp. A capitalist country wouldn't be in the Soviet camp. As such, in order to gain a vassal, you needed a huge change in domestic policies, making it impossible to do it through more painless diplomatic and bribery channels. I don't see such happening during the China/US rivalry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
It's not entirely ridiculous, because should China have an adequate weaponry, the US won't want to fight a conventional war against them. And at the same time, the US can't let China use force against Taiwan, as they'd be acknowledging the end of their status as sole hyperpower (at the time, it would be a big duh, but one that cannot be acknowledged).
So a defensive alliance that uses all means avalable may indeed become an option. |
I still don't think the US will ever defend Taiwan if a war breaks out across the Strait. Maintaining the sole hyperpower status is one thing, facing an enormous economic loss is another. It's not just the Chinese market, mind you, but the PRC has been propping up the US dollar.
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Another option is that the US develops a sensible opinion of its place in the world, and acknowledges that it has rivals that can match its power. But I don't see the US doing so without a major diplomatic defeat. |
I consider the "coalition of the willing" a major diplomatic defeat for the US, because most countries went along with UN instead of the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I still don't think the US will ever defend Taiwan if a war breaks out across the Strait. Maintaining the sole hyperpower status is one thing, facing an enormous economic loss is another. It's not just the Chinese market, mind you, but the PRC has been propping up the US dollar. |
Yup, but with an admin similar to the Bushies, it might happen nonetheless. They clearly have shown they weren't the most responsible bunch, especially when it comes to economic policy 
quote:
I consider the "coalition of the willing" a major diplomatic defeat for the US, because most countries went along with UN instead of the US. |
It was an important diplomatic defeat, in that the US has understood it can't simply boss the other countries around (hence the reason why the US is now, gasp, *negociating* with European countries on diplomatic matters). However, it was also a diplomatic failure on Chirac's side, in that Chirac has shown there is no new "bloc" facing the US, as the "coalition of the unwilling" was an alliance of circumstance, rather than of common interest. It has seriously suffered with the Ukraine bone of contention, btw.
Edit: as such, the US cannot do whatever it pleases, but it still has no rival that can seriously oppose its interests, and thus challenge its hyperpower status. As of today, the US remains the sole hyperpower, wants to remain so, and must deal with a new difficulty. Little more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
It was an important diplomatic defeat, in that the US has understood it can't simply boss the other countries around (hence the reason why the US is now, gasp, *negociating* with European countries on diplomatic matters). However, it was also a diplomatic failure on Chirac's side, in that Chirac has shown there is no new "bloc" facing the US, as the "coalition of the unwilling" was an alliance of circumstance, rather than of common interest. It has seriously suffered with the Ukraine bone of contention, btw.
Edit: as such, the US cannot do whatever it pleases, but it still has no rival that can seriously oppose its interests. |
I posit that is going to happen in the short term as multi-lateral diplomacy arises. The US is still the most important player, but any ad hoc bloc of sufficient size can face it down.
In the middle to long term though both the EU and ASEAN may consolidate enough to become permanent blocs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I didn't presume you were so ignorant. Have you ever heard of a gent by the name of Kennedy and a certain crisis over missiles in Cuba? |
Yes. And apparently, unlike you, I've heard that WW3 didn't happen.
And apparently, unlike you, I've heard that Kennedy did make concessions, just like Khrushtshev, to avoid WW3 (like, say, stop using force against the Castrist regime, which has held even after the SU's collapse). I know the legend looks much better: that Kennedy stood up for his principles, and Khrushtshev backed off like a weasel, but it is only a legend 
I also think that a crisis like the Cuba missile crisis, had it happened in a non nuclear world, would have sparked war between the US and the USSR. The main reason why WW3 didn't break on that crisis is because everybody was scared to death, including the pols.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2005 13:39
|