At 11:32 AM 6/20/2007, Dr. Core wrote:
Chris Campbell wrote:
I think they are, because...well, there's just no point to fighting
that way anymore. Our tech is sufficiently advanced that we do battle
now in courts and the marketplace, leaving armed conflicts
Gosh Chris, when you were disagreeing with me, I found only
insignificant differences and semantics. Now it looks like you are
trying to agree with me, but I find nearly nothing agreeable in your
post.
And from where I sit you're just arguing semantics.
(nope, no
comment on the current U.S. administration here, nosiree...). The use
Why are there still people who seem to think Bush is an aberration?
Because he is. Not in kind, mind you, but in scale. We have never had
a president who so thoroughly fractured his own party. We have never
had a president so hated by the American people. We have never had a
president who so adroitly managed to squander the good will of the
ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD over the span of a single year. We have never
had a president who was so manifestly and obviously incompetant, who
routinely undermines himself and his administration in public, and
who makes decisions so very much at odds with reality.
None of these things are unique per se, but we've never had all of
them in a single president before. He is, indeed, an aberration.
why? Why would we ever go to war with China? There's just no point.
Oh... if I weren't Chinese, I could come up with many huge reasons why
US should preemptively and comprehensively nuke both Russia and China
now. The more you wait the more you lose your advantage. In fact the
optimal window was 2002, likewise late 40s was a missed opportunity.
But honestly, why bother? These huge reasons you speak of just aren't
apparent to me.
How does that jive with my original point? Well now is an opportunity
because there is currently no parity between US and RU/CN. And the
disparity is shrinking (quickly or slowly? that's up to debate), so
the more you wait the less likely it could happen.
That makes war less likely, not more.
Why do nations with high tech weapons and professional armies shy away
from straight-up classical wars?
Because there's no profit in it, and because the kings and queens of
old who could make such decisions without justification no longer
have any power. That's it.
Well same old point: people don't enjoy dying. While that point is
universally true, only high-tech nations are practically "affected" by
fear of death. My argument is that there is a "universal" connection
between classical wars == heavy casualties; and high tech nations ==
aversion to casualties. Note particularly I make no moral or value
judgment. The same rule applies to USA, USSR, W. Europe, post-Deng
China, India and even Pakistan. Bush is getting hammered over a
measly 3000 deaths and similarly CCP won't survive a "disastrous
success" on a military victory over Taiwan. My estimate is if a
victory over Taiwan costs more than 10,000 PLA soldiers, CCP will
collapse. And next time you run into a Taiwanese espousing Taiwan
nationalism, ask him/her "why aren't you in the army defending your
own independence?"
Pretty much, yeah. As I said, there's no profit in it (and by
"profit" I don't just mean cold hard cash -- I mean benefit in general).
The real shock to me personally, is that even Israel has become unable
to stomach 100+ casualties.
That's because they've been at war for 40+ years and they're sick of
it. Go figure. No, the real shock is that the extremists still want
to fight even when the Israelis start making noises about peace.
Hamas and its ilk are the mystery here, not Israel.
--------------------------------------------------
The Gundam Mailing List MK-II list@gundam.com
Archives: http://www.gundam.com/gml
Help: Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this in
the BODY: help list
