3 ms·

>The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The eco

by tsotha 11y ago

>The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The economic side would be devastating for the US economy. Many US citizens would get some pretty horrible content in their correspondence with family and friends. None of that constitutes a reason for the US to get involved militarily. The idea we should put ourselves in the position of going to war with China because "the tech industry is fucked" is daft, in my opinion. The Japanese are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and they're quite capable of entering into regional security agreements. >I sincerely hope that, should push come to tactical shove, your group (the people that feel as you do) would be drastically outnumbered by the people who give a fuck about oaths, alliances, and friends. I sincerely hope we outnumber the people who think the US should be the guarantor of everyone else's peace and freedom. We should not be getting into other peoples' wars without a clear national interest of corresponding importance. In terms of "oaths, alliances, and friends", well, countries do not take oaths and do not have friends. We do have alliances, but there's no dishonor in dissolving alliances as long as the other party has sufficient time to adjust. EDIT: >You seem to have a very limited understanding of the interconnected nature of global economy, ruling regimes, and scattered family groups. You seem to have a bad habit in which you assume people who don't agree with you are either ignorant or stupid. I understand these things perfectly well. Probably better than you. I just don't think they're worth going to war over.

iofj 11y ago
But you must realize that during such a war, the maximum economy possible in the US would be whatever can work without international trade, which would be comparable to 1900 or so. S&P down 99+% would be a start. I don't think it matters much what job you have, if it's not farming you lose it. The dollar loses its value for paying for anything not locally produced. We lose any tmechnology that depends on overseas resources, meaning all of them. Meaning with the dollar seriously down, laptops, phones, ipads, tvs, cars, all would massively increase in price on top of that. And then there's oil ... This wouldn't be a guarantee, but if history is a guide ...
- tsotha 11y ago
  >But you must realize that during such a war, the maximum economy possible in the US would be whatever can work without international trade, which would be comparable to 1900 or so. So every country except the US is involved in this hypothetical war? Really? If China attacks Japan, even assuming that drags in Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia that still leaves a whole lot of countries for us to trade with. The idea the S&P would drop by 99% is just daft. Beyond that it's not like we can't get involved in a war once it starts if we decide it's in our interest to do so. War isn't like a comedy club where they shut the door once the act starts.
  - iofj 11y ago
    > So every country except the US is involved in this hypothetical war? Really? Happened twice in the last century. Even South America was the least affected, but it wasn't unaffected, and it's not like they'd generate a huge amount of trade (compared to EU/Asia who would definitely be involved). > If China attacks Japan, even assuming that drags in Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia that still leaves a whole lot of countries for us to trade with. The idea the S&P would drop by 99% is just daft. Out of the 10 worst stock market crashes, 8 happened during WW2, 7 during the period where the US wasn't actively involved in the war. Depending on the date range you pick you could say it dropped 50% in absolute value, or you could say it stayed about constant. This was during a period with >10% average inflation ratio, so that's pretty fucking bad. "Real value" of the S&P500 (meaning "how many big macs you could buy" for index shares 1935 to 1950) dropped ~74%. And that's still ignoring the fact that many products simply became unavailable, because there was no way to safely acquire them from US soil, at which point price becomes a moot point. This agrees with anecdotal evidence I heard from my grandfather : the beginning of WW2 (I think he means 1938-1939 onwards, when you could still delude yourself there was peace), there was no violence, there was simply a hell of a lot of people going unemployed very fast, shortages of all sorts of stuff, and a lot of rich people suddenly looking for jobs. > Beyond that it's not like we can't get involved in a war once it starts if we decide it's in our interest to do so. War isn't like a comedy club where they shut the door once the act starts. True, but at that point the consequences are a "fait accompli", history, and unchangeable. You don't ever want to get to that point if you can avoid it at all.
classicsnoot 11y ago
No, i honestly believe you are being willfully ignorant; specifically in this situation precisely because i assume everyone on here has a relatively high baseline of knowledge and experience. Question: what is worth going to war over? EDIT: more thoughts came to me. I get the feeling, from rereading your posts, that you may be of the thought group that thinks war is never necessary and always avoidable. I must say that i find this line of thinking (whether you are a part of that group or not) is dangerously naive. The title Warmonger gets thrown at the US constantly. This makes the rash assumption that if any other nation were in the US's position they would comport themselves differently. The Chinese government loves that we cannot agree on the blueness of the sky or the wetness of water. They absolutely do want to take our place, and they are very comfortable with using 'appropriate' aggression. Their actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrate their intentions and resolve. Having combat units stationed in strategic countries is a small price to pay for avoiding global conflicts. Due to the nature of the global economy, any shooting war between or among the Big 10 means a global crash. I know this will be frowned upon, but in ASoIaF by J.R.R.Martin, the Night's Watch and The Wall serve as great metaphors for the necessity of vigilance.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >No, i honestly believe you are being willfully ignorant; specifically in this situation precisely because i assume everyone on here has a relatively high baseline of knowledge and experience. Which is pretty much what I was thinking about you. >Question: what is worth going to war over? That's very situational. Obviously an attack on the US itself or US forces is something we would go to war over. We might reasonably go to war over a blockade. It was perfectly reasonable to go to war against Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. What we should not do is get involved in other peoples' wars. We should not have been involved in Serbia, say, or Iraq. We should not get involved in Ukraine, or Estonia, or Poland or wherever else the Russians think they have casus belli. >I get the feeling, from rereading your posts, that you may be of the thought group that thinks war is never necessary and always avoidable. You should pay more attention to what you read and less to how you feel. >Having combat units stationed in strategic countries is a small price to pay for avoiding global conflicts. Due to the nature of the global economy, any shooting war between or among the Big 10 means a global crash. No. We should not be going to war over the economic byproduct of other peoples' wars. What's the justification? China attacks Japan, which makes anime more expensive, and therefor we're willing to go to war with China? Go ahead, connect the dots. Incidentally, having combat units stationed around the world doesn't do much to avoid global conflicts. It just means we'll be involved. >I know this will be frowned upon, but in ASoIaF by J.R.R.Martin, the Night's Watch and The Wall serve as great metaphors for the necessity of vigilance. Isn't the man's first name "George"? This is me frowning upon the use of fiction to support a logical argument.

by tsotha 11y ago

iofj 11y ago

But you must realize that during such a war, the maximum economy possible in the US would be whatever can work without international trade, which would be comparable to 1900 or so. S&P down 99+% would be a start. I don't think it matters much what job you have, if it's not farming you lose it. The dollar loses its value for paying for anything not locally produced. We lose any tmechnology that depends on overseas resources, meaning all of them. Meaning with the dollar seriously down, laptops, phones, ipads, tvs, cars, all would massively increase in price on top of that. And then there's oil ... This wouldn't be a guarantee, but if history is a guide ...

tsotha 11y ago
>But you must realize that during such a war, the maximum economy possible in the US would be whatever can work without international trade, which would be comparable to 1900 or so. So every country except the US is involved in this hypothetical war? Really? If China attacks Japan, even assuming that drags in Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia that still leaves a whole lot of countries for us to trade with. The idea the S&P would drop by 99% is just daft. Beyond that it's not like we can't get involved in a war once it starts if we decide it's in our interest to do so. War isn't like a comedy club where they shut the door once the act starts.
- iofj 11y ago
  > So every country except the US is involved in this hypothetical war? Really? Happened twice in the last century. Even South America was the least affected, but it wasn't unaffected, and it's not like they'd generate a huge amount of trade (compared to EU/Asia who would definitely be involved). > If China attacks Japan, even assuming that drags in Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia that still leaves a whole lot of countries for us to trade with. The idea the S&P would drop by 99% is just daft. Out of the 10 worst stock market crashes, 8 happened during WW2, 7 during the period where the US wasn't actively involved in the war. Depending on the date range you pick you could say it dropped 50% in absolute value, or you could say it stayed about constant. This was during a period with >10% average inflation ratio, so that's pretty fucking bad. "Real value" of the S&P500 (meaning "how many big macs you could buy" for index shares 1935 to 1950) dropped ~74%. And that's still ignoring the fact that many products simply became unavailable, because there was no way to safely acquire them from US soil, at which point price becomes a moot point. This agrees with anecdotal evidence I heard from my grandfather : the beginning of WW2 (I think he means 1938-1939 onwards, when you could still delude yourself there was peace), there was no violence, there was simply a hell of a lot of people going unemployed very fast, shortages of all sorts of stuff, and a lot of rich people suddenly looking for jobs. > Beyond that it's not like we can't get involved in a war once it starts if we decide it's in our interest to do so. War isn't like a comedy club where they shut the door once the act starts. True, but at that point the consequences are a "fait accompli", history, and unchangeable. You don't ever want to get to that point if you can avoid it at all.

classicsnoot 11y ago

No, i honestly believe you are being willfully ignorant; specifically in this situation precisely because i assume everyone on here has a relatively high baseline of knowledge and experience. Question: what is worth going to war over? EDIT: more thoughts came to me. I get the feeling, from rereading your posts, that you may be of the thought group that thinks war is never necessary and always avoidable. I must say that i find this line of thinking (whether you are a part of that group or not) is dangerously naive. The title Warmonger gets thrown at the US constantly. This makes the rash assumption that if any other nation were in the US's position they would comport themselves differently. The Chinese government loves that we cannot agree on the blueness of the sky or the wetness of water. They absolutely do want to take our place, and they are very comfortable with using 'appropriate' aggression. Their actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrate their intentions and resolve. Having combat units stationed in strategic countries is a small price to pay for avoiding global conflicts. Due to the nature of the global economy, any shooting war between or among the Big 10 means a global crash. I know this will be frowned upon, but in ASoIaF by J.R.R.Martin, the Night's Watch and The Wall serve as great metaphors for the necessity of vigilance.

tsotha 11y ago
>No, i honestly believe you are being willfully ignorant; specifically in this situation precisely because i assume everyone on here has a relatively high baseline of knowledge and experience. Which is pretty much what I was thinking about you. >Question: what is worth going to war over? That's very situational. Obviously an attack on the US itself or US forces is something we would go to war over. We might reasonably go to war over a blockade. It was perfectly reasonable to go to war against Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. What we should not do is get involved in other peoples' wars. We should not have been involved in Serbia, say, or Iraq. We should not get involved in Ukraine, or Estonia, or Poland or wherever else the Russians think they have casus belli. >I get the feeling, from rereading your posts, that you may be of the thought group that thinks war is never necessary and always avoidable. You should pay more attention to what you read and less to how you feel. >Having combat units stationed in strategic countries is a small price to pay for avoiding global conflicts. Due to the nature of the global economy, any shooting war between or among the Big 10 means a global crash. No. We should not be going to war over the economic byproduct of other peoples' wars. What's the justification? China attacks Japan, which makes anime more expensive, and therefor we're willing to go to war with China? Go ahead, connect the dots. Incidentally, having combat units stationed around the world doesn't do much to avoid global conflicts. It just means we'll be involved. >I know this will be frowned upon, but in ASoIaF by J.R.R.Martin, the Night's Watch and The Wall serve as great metaphors for the necessity of vigilance. Isn't the man's first name "George"? This is me frowning upon the use of fiction to support a logical argument.