This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
World War 3, the way of downfall?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
I for one would welcome a war with China, for several reasons. Firstly, war has had a historic ability to boost the US economy, ala WWII getting us out the Great Depression. It creates jobs, builds infrastructure, funds research.
This is the broken window fallacy. I don't think any right or left economist holds this view (perhaps Lockheed Martin funds education programs though, I don't know). The Chicago/Austrian school may attribute it to something else, but Roosevelt appropriated taxes, set up social programs and increased regulation of banks and the depression was over before the US entered the war.
Not to mention that huge costs of the second world war meant that the population lived in strict austerity for the duration, with the government monitoring individual's fuel consumption in order to preserve tires (as they had no access to Japanese rubber and attempts to recycle rubber were ineffective). While some of the costs were paid by the vanquished, much of the costs were also paid by the highest tax bracket, with income tax rising to 94% under Eisenhower (and corresponding GDP growth).
Second, and here's the flammable bit, remember the link, is a war with a high population country, such as China, would reduce the global environmental impact by reducing overpopulation.
It's not flammable, it's an eternal canard. The primary problem with it is that population theories from Malthus onwards were dead in the water and we can acknowledge that in retrospect. The same language used by reactionaries about Africa being overpopulated with barbaric savages that couldn't sustain the amount of children they had was said about Ireland. Luckily with retrospective data we can be almost certain that this is false, the population of Ireland is approximately the same now, but with superior systems of distribution and less accumulation of capital.
The secondary problem with it is that much of the environmental harm the Chinese are held accountable for is at the behest of US capital, which exports its manufacturing jobs due to the superior Chinese exploitation of labour (their most effective form of protest being suicide, as was the case a the Foxconn plant where iPhones, Wiis and PS3s are made).
The tertiary problem is that you think that bombing a country will somehow eliminate debt. Assuming (and this is very unrealistic, as China is a nuclear power full out war would likely lead to human extinction) a scenario where America is still a civilisation, avoiding debt obligations by nuclear annihilation would lead to investor flight and the devaluation of the currency to be practically useless.
The quaternary problem is that you somehow fail to identify the "foreign imports" being sold at Walmart are usually American designs: the capitalist model of "rational actors" holds that customers are only worthy of products that a child lacking a decent education could make in a sweatshop.
I won't say that's an exhaustive list of all the problems with your assumptions because I'm sure people could find many more. I hope it will suffice though.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I didn't get very far into the article, but Blair had made at least one speech providing the grounds for invading Iraq in the '90s.
Also, if the media were to cover Iran, they'd be accused of cheerleading - quite rightly, the news coverage in the lead up to the Iraq war in the UK was tangibly propaganda.
Post by
MyTie
I for one would welcome a war with China, for several reasons. Firstly, war has had a historic ability to boost the US economy, ala WWII getting us out the Great Depression. It creates jobs, builds infrastructure, funds research.I would not welcome war with china because people would die. I don't want people to die, regardless of how much it would help the economy.
Post by
OverZealous
I for one would welcome a war with China, for several reasons. Firstly, war has had a historic ability to boost the US economy, ala WWII getting us out the Great Depression. It creates jobs, builds infrastructure, funds research.I would not welcome war with china because people would die. I don't want people to die, regardless of how much it would help the economy.
I agree. It shocks me that anyone would consider Good Economy > Lives.
Post by
Morec0
I for one would welcome a war with China, for several reasons. Firstly, war has had a historic ability to boost the US economy, ala WWII getting us out the Great Depression. It creates jobs, builds infrastructure, funds research.I would not welcome war with china because people would die. I don't want people to die, regardless of how much it would help the economy.
I agree. It shocks me that anyone would consider Good Economy > Lives.
I hate to make anyone thing I'm a sociopath this early, but I kinda agree. Not to mention war would also have the increased bonus of lowering the population of all the countries involved. Lower population = more food and job oppertunities (more importantly the former of those two, of course) for the survivors. Depending on which countries are affected it could have a great impact on the world hunger crisis.
As for how the war happens: I doubt we'll ever see the nuclear armageddon so many people predict. When it boils right down to it we're not stupid enough to think such a tactic is actually viable on that kind of scale, and, all in all, we're just terrifed of nuclear weapons. While I'm sure there will be talk about using them and maybe even a nuclear launch scare or two, any attempts to launch the bombs will be aborted before they have a chance to get off the ground.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
When it boils right down to it we're not stupid enough to think such a tactic is actually viable on that kind of scale, and, all in all, we're just terrifed of nuclear weapons. While I'm sure there will be talk about using them and maybe even a nuclear launch scare or two, any attempts to launch the bombs will be aborted before they have a chance to get off the ground.I don't know about that Morec, look at all of the retreating armies who intently destroy their own lands so that the invaders can't make use of them for themselves. If some fanatics had hold of nukes, and wanted to do nothing more then just make the other side suffer and die, I could see them using them.
Had more countries had nukes in WW2, we'd probably have a vastly changed landscape now.
Post by
MyTie
As for how the war happens: I doubt we'll ever see the nuclear armageddon so many people predict. When it boils right down to it we're not stupid enough to think such a tactic is actually viable on that kind of scale, and, all in all, we're just terrifed of nuclear weapons. While I'm sure there will be talk about using them and maybe even a nuclear launch scare or two, any attempts to launch the bombs will be aborted before they have a chance to get off the ground.
Your supporting arguments are flawless. Humans don't do stupid stuff. I'm so comforted. Now I'm going to go have a cigarette, snort some crack, watch a boxing match, and bungee jump.
Post by
gamerunknown
Lower population = more food and job oppertunities
It... doesn't work like that. More jobs doesn't entail a better economy either, at least in the view of the capitalist. Marx writes in capital that in Eastern India (I think) there were trees that could be cut down that provided between 300-400 pounds of edible material and that the male population there could work for 12 days a week each until the country was colonised and they were put to work "productively" (i.e. their surplus labour was utilised by the capitalist).
There tends to be a view that when corporations enter third world countries and provide people with a better wage than they could get elsewhere that they're providing some sort of immense social service: but think about it, there were jobs before and there will be jobs after they leave. The population supports itself and the corporation is not providing a charity, they are operating on profit margins.
If it were the case that killing people would solve starvation, there would be an entirely natural way of accomplishing it: letting them starve.
Honestly, I really wish people would read either right (Hazlitt) or left wing economic books (apart from Friedman, who advocates the "shock doctrine" propounded here). For example, Marx spends a great deal of time propounding the gold standard, arguing against child labour, arguing against feudalism and against the notion of "population".
Post by
Morec0
When it boils right down to it we're not stupid enough to think such a tactic is actually viable on that kind of scale, and, all in all, we're just terrifed of nuclear weapons. While I'm sure there will be talk about using them and maybe even a nuclear launch scare or two, any attempts to launch the bombs will be aborted before they have a chance to get off the ground.I don't know about that Morec, look at all of the retreating armies who intently destroy their own lands so that the invaders can't make use of them for themselves. If some fanatics had hold of nukes, and wanted to do nothing more then just make the other side suffer and die, I could see them using them.
Had more countries had nukes in WW2, we'd probably have a vastly changed landscape now.
As for how the war happens: I doubt we'll ever see the nuclear armageddon so many people predict. When it boils right down to it we're not stupid enough to think such a tactic is actually viable on that kind of scale, and, all in all, we're just terrifed of nuclear weapons. While I'm sure there will be talk about using them and maybe even a nuclear launch scare or two, any attempts to launch the bombs will be aborted before they have a chance to get off the ground.
Your supporting arguments are flawless. Humans don't do stupid stuff. I'm so comforted. Now I'm going to go have a cigarette, snort some crack, watch a boxing match, and bungee jump.
To quote Lord of the Rings: "crops can be replanted, homes can be rebuilt."
But maybe your right, maybe your wrong. I'm just personally convinced that, for the mostpart, humans are just so freaking terrified of the damn things we would never use them in the style of end-game scenario that would bring about a nuclear apocolypse. But that's just me, its just a personal opinion, I just thought I'd voice those views.
Post by
Monday
"crops can be replanted
Unless your fields were salted.
Post by
Adamsm
To quote Lord of the Rings: "crops can be replanted, homes can be rebuilt."
But maybe your right, maybe your wrong. I'm just personally convinced that, for the mostpart, humans are just so freaking terrified of the damn things we would never use them in the style of end-game scenario that would bring about a nuclear apocolypse. But that's just me, its just a personal opinion, I just thought I'd voice those views.
And for everyone who's afraid of them, there are also those who foam at the mouth wanting them to be used on the 'enemies' of the country; just needs one fanatic with his hand on that button to start a chain reaction of death that could not just end said war, but also destroy the ecosystems and all the rest of that area to make sure no one will ever use it again.
Post by
Levarus
To quote Lord of the Rings: "crops can be replanted, homes can be rebuilt."
But maybe your right, maybe your wrong. I'm just personally convinced that, for the mostpart, humans are just so freaking terrified of the damn things we would never use them in the style of end-game scenario that would bring about a nuclear apocolypse. But that's just me, its just a personal opinion, I just thought I'd voice those views.
And for everyone who's afraid of them, there are also those who foam at the mouth wanting them to be used on the 'enemies' of the country; just needs one fanatic with his hand on that button to start a chain reaction of death that could not just end said war, but also destroy the ecosystems and all the rest of that area to make sure no one will ever use it again.
dinosaurs died, we will die 2. imo.
Post by
Adamsm
Dinosaurs were wiped out by natural disasters; we're gonna end up killing ourselves.
Post by
MyTie
And for everyone who's afraid of them, there are also those who foam at the mouth wanting them to be used on the 'enemies' of the country; just needs one fanatic with his hand on that button to start a chain reaction of death that could not just end said war, but also destroy the ecosystems and all the rest of that area to make sure no one will ever use it again.
dinosaurs died, we will die 2. imo.
To quote Lord of the Rings: "crops can be replanted, homes can be rebuilt."
I came up with a new word for this sort of argument. Gentlemen, I am unveiling a new term: "shruggery". It's what someone does when they can't come up with a legitimate argument, so they shrug off the counter argument, as if "it's all pointless anyway so why bother". It's actually worse than not posting an argument at all, because it presents some pointless bit of information, which obviously stands against common sense, and all logic, and is presented as some sort of absolute. Here are some excellent examples of shruggery:
My pants get dirty eventually anyway, so I might as well %^&* them, and save the time of walking to the bathroom.
Everyone dies eventually, so I might as well take up smoking.
It doesn't matter if your food gets mixed up with other food, because it all ends up in the same place anyway.
It makes me want to shave my debate opponent's head, and then tell them it won't matter because it will all grow back anyway. I despise shruggery.
Post by
Morec0
And for everyone who's afraid of them, there are also those who foam at the mouth wanting them to be used on the 'enemies' of the country; just needs one fanatic with his hand on that button to start a chain reaction of death that could not just end said war, but also destroy the ecosystems and all the rest of that area to make sure no one will ever use it again.
dinosaurs died, we will die 2. imo.
To quote Lord of the Rings: "crops can be replanted, homes can be rebuilt."
I came up with a new word for this sort of argument. Gentlemen, I am unveiling a new term: "shruggery". It's what someone does when they can't come up with a legitimate argument, so they shrug off the counter argument, as if "it's all pointless anyway so why bother". It's actually worse than not posting an argument at all, because it presents some pointless bit of information, which obviously stands against common sense, and all logic, and is presented as some sort of absolute. Here are some excellent examples of shruggery:
My pants get dirty eventually anyway, so I might as well %^&* them, and save the time of walking to the bathroom.
Everyone dies eventually, so I might as well take up smoking.
It doesn't matter if your food gets mixed up with other food, because it all ends up in the same place anyway.
It makes me want to shave my debate opponent's head, and then tell them it won't matter because it will all grow back anyway. I despise shruggery.
Despite what you may think: I had no intention of trolling.
And if that idea catches on, I demand royalties as the source of inspiration.
EDIT: I don't defend my opinion with fact because I honestly don't have any facts to back it up. Adams and everyone else is very much right in their thinking we will blow each other up if the right people get their hands on those weapons. I just think that if it comes down to a "you launch yours and we'll launch ours" argument, and the nukes actually do get launched, soon after that (or just before they actually give the order) the leaders in charge of the launch will have "my god... what have I done/am I about to do?" moment and abort the idea.
Post by
MyTie
I demand royalties as the source of inspiration.A lot of good that will do you when:everyone else is very much right in their thinking we will blow each other upDo you have any logic at all to back up your idea? I know you don't have facts, but at least some logic would be nice.
Post by
Levarus
And for everyone who's afraid of them, there are also those who foam at the mouth wanting them to be used on the 'enemies' of the country; just needs one fanatic with his hand on that button to start a chain reaction of death that could not just end said war, but also destroy the ecosystems and all the rest of that area to make sure no one will ever use it again.
dinosaurs died, we will die 2. imo.
To quote Lord of the Rings: "crops can be replanted, homes can be rebuilt."
I came up with a new word for this sort of argument. Gentlemen, I am unveiling a new term: "shruggery". It's what someone does when they can't come up with a legitimate argument, so they shrug off the counter argument, as if "it's all pointless anyway so why bother". It's actually worse than not posting an argument at all, because it presents some pointless bit of information, which obviously stands against common sense, and all logic, and is presented as some sort of absolute. Here are some excellent examples of shruggery:
My pants get dirty eventually anyway, so I might as well %^&* them, and save the time of walking to the bathroom.
Everyone dies eventually, so I might as well take up smoking.
It doesn't matter if your food gets mixed up with other food, because it all ends up in the same place anyway.
It makes me want to shave my debate opponent's head, and then tell them it won't matter because it will all grow back anyway. I despise shruggery.
ouch that hurts MyTie. :*(
dinosaurs probably had a world war, like a land vs. sea and air type thing going on. that's why u still see birds and alligators but not t-rex's and raptors and all that good stuff. imo. wait, see that connection i just made with world war?
Post by
MyTie
dinosaurs probably had a world war, like a land vs. sea and air type thing going on. that's why u still see birds and alligators but not t-rex's and raptors and all that good stuff. imo. wait, see that connection i just made with world war?
Yeah, I see a connection all right. A connection between your mind and total insanity
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.