The end of mutual assured destruction

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.
User avatar
Freightdog
Expatriate
Posts: 4351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
Reputation: 3446
Location: Attached to a suitcase between realities
Ireland

Re: The end of mutual assured destruction

Post by Freightdog »

Rules and laws are generally only respected by those most likely not to be constrained by rules and laws, by virtue of respecting other people.
Those 'outlaws' are named because they operate outside of the law. Creating a new law is unlikely to have any impact where no respect for others exists, unless the new law is 'do whatever you want'.
User avatar
IraHayes
Expatriate
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 7:38 am
Reputation: 2030
Marshall Islands

Re: The end of mutual assured destruction

Post by IraHayes »

xandreu wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 6:08 pm You can't un-invent something. The only way we will ever get rid of nuclear weapons is if we can come up with something even deadlier to replace them with.

It's difficult to say whether they've been responsible for keeping world peace. I think they've played their part but so have other things such as globalisation. When nations trade with each other and have active investments in each others territories, they are less inclined to go to war with each other.

I don't think a UN resolution will have any impact on the number of nuclear arms to be fair.
I agree with your first and last points but with regards to trade preventing war I think that may not be as important as you think.
Countries go through cycles of conflict and stability and they have done for centuries and during times of peace they trade but they also conquered countries for their resources.
And then there's the simple fact that stability and peace never last.

From John J. Xenakis at Generational Dynamics.com
Generational Dynamics is based on a simple idea: That societies and nations make mistakes and then learn lessons from those mistakes. But generations grow older, retire and die, and are replaced by new generations who are too young to remember those mistakes and those lessons. When that happens, the mistakes are repeated.
........
........
Today, those risk-aversive leaders are gone, retired or dead. Today's leaders are from the "Baby Boomer generation," born after World War II with no personal memory of that war. The people in this generation are not risk-aversive. The people in this generation are more likely to be risk-seeking, arrogant, hubristic, narcissistic, and self-assured. That's why America's attitudes have changed so much in the last ten years.
User avatar
newkidontheblock
Expatriate
Posts: 4424
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 3:51 am
Reputation: 1545

Re: The end of mutual assured destruction

Post by newkidontheblock »

Like it or not, the UN has been a big factor in keeping the world peace since World War 2. One of the biggest failings of the League of Nations was that not every country was given a seat at the table. Now, every country (except Taiwan) has a seat on the UN.

More importantly, every country believed in the UN. Even the US and USSR at the height of the Cold War.
Every country has their say. UN decisions have always been backed by force (usually the US, sometimes the USSR). It’s the force that kept everyone following the rules and allowed an overall global prosperity to flourish.

Now PRC China is using the old idea of Hitler. Destroy democracy using their own rules. China has influenced the WHO and almost all other bodies in the UN. It doesn’t pay the majority of the UN costs, either, but is grabbing the majority of the control. And liberally uses the UN as a tool of the PRC government. Holds other nations to UN laws, and always plays the developing third world country card on itself. Finally, major rulings it doesn’t like, it ignores. Like the Philippines dispute.

In short, President Xi and the PRC doesn’t believe in the UN.

Similar to Germany and Japan withdrawing from the League of Nations.

Before the world war started.

BTW, PRC China is not afraid to use nuclear weapons. Even Mao welcomed a nuclear war. In his opinion, China would absolutely win, due to having much more people.

Those that had fear and caution have been sacked by Xi and replaced by ‘yes’ men.

I’ll put my tin foil hat back on, now.
techietraveller84
Expatriate
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:04 pm
Reputation: 167
United States of America

Re: The end of mutual assured destruction

Post by techietraveller84 »

From phrases like "deep frying rabid wildlife" to "I'll put my tin foil hat back on," I really got a kick out of this particular thread.

I guess humanity is worth saving, after all.
User avatar
SternAAlbifrons
Expatriate
Posts: 5752
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:31 am
Reputation: 3424
Location: Gilligan's Island
Pitcairn Island

Re: The end of mutual assured destruction

Post by SternAAlbifrons »

Well, the only two countries that have nuclear bombed my backyard repeatedly, the Pacific, seemed to have stopped.
So that's a good thing.

Whoever was silly enough to think that was a good idea?
Certainly not the UN.
Nor every single other country in the region that desperately tried to stop the bastards.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: angsta, Art, barang_TK, IraHayes, John Bingham, Ozinasia, Province, Spigzy, xandreu and 491 guests