7 ms·

Not to mention, the next war will be the last one ever. It would be an extinction level event. That choice wouldn't be rational.

davrosthedalek 6y ago
Well, world war yes, but we just saw Russia annex a part of a different country by force. So China could say: Taiwan is Chinese, we belong together. And would the rest of the world not say: Well, we can't start a world war, because it's an extinction level event, so let's just condemn China in a very strongly worded letter?
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >by force It was so forceful, that it was effectively bloodless and an overwhelming portion of the "annexed" populace has actively supported it. Meanwhile situation in Taiwan is drastically different. Pro-mainland faction is really weak and can not be used to provide sufficient support for quiet absorption. And since Taiwan has deep military connections with USA for many decades, any military intervention will inevitably escalate into a major military conflict. The only scenario in which something like that can happen is civil-war-level turmoil in USA. Probability of which, worryingly, is noticeably bigger than zero.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    > It was so forceful, that it was effectively bloodless and an overwhelming portion of the "annexed" populace has actively supported it. That seems like an unusual perspective. If by "bloodless" you mean "lots of people died, but nowhere near as many as a world war" though, then sure. For the "actively supported", where are you getting that information? My impression (from friends in Kiev) is that it's universally condemned.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      By it I mean that only total 6 people have died from both sides, of which only 2 can be attributed to direct actions of Russian armed forces (well, if you trust Ukrainian version of events, which should be taken with a lot of salt, same as with the Russian one). Now compare it with number of deaths in Kiev, Odessa or Donbas. (note that majority of deaths in the latter case are Ukrainian citizens killed directly by Ukrainian army, so much for "war with Russia") >For the "actively supported", where are you getting that information? Directly from Crimeans. I have visited Crimea last year as a tourist and talked with them personally (in Massandra and Alushta, btw the wine is really great, recommend trying it). Try watching 2014 videos, for example this one is before Russian forces have became active: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atm0W5wA2y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atm0W5wA2y4 If you don't trust my anecdotal experience, then how about "The Crimea conundrum: legitimacy and public opinion after annexation" published in the Eurasian Geography and Economics journal? Or how about "To Russia With Love" article published in Foreign Affairs? They both confirm strong local support in favor of the transfer. >My impression (from friends in Kiev) is that it's universally condemned. I hope you understand that your friend quite probably is really biased regarding this issue, right? Always try looking outside of the media narrative (one may call it soft propaganda), usually world issues are far more complex than the version painted by media.
      - yclept 6y ago
        I think you are purposely narrowly referring to 1 action of many in a crisis that has had >10,000 deaths.
        fuoqi 6y ago
        Wat? We are discussing the "annexation of Crimea", not the larger context. I just provided examples for comparison to show that the "annexation" itself is indeed can be called "effectively bloodless".
      - kjs3 6y ago
        I hope you understand that your friend quite probably is really biased regarding this issue, right? The irony is strong with this one.
    - kjs3 6y ago
      "Effectively bloodless" and "actively supported" are missing the "as reported in Russian media" and "by the people left". The UN reports something like 13,000 people died and between the UNHCR and the IDMC says there's something like 1.5-2 million people internally displaced by the Crimean annexation. That's in a region with a 2014 population of around 2.3m.
      - fuoqi 6y ago
        Are you serious? Crimean population difference between 2001 and 2014 censuses is less than 5%. And considering that population was slowly dwindling since 90s, number of people who left from Crimea to Ukraine is even less than that. Can you provide any sources claiming that more than 6 people have died in Crimea during 2014 events? I think you are trying to confuse others with numbers describing the Donbas conflict, not the "annexation" as implied in your message. A really low effort fallacy I must say.
        remarkEon 6y ago
        I think you're being downvoted for tone, but skimming wikipedia ... to my surprise it looks like you're right. 3 soldiers died (1 on the Russian side, 2 on the pro-Ukraine side) and 3 civilians were killed (2 pro-Russian, 1 pro-Ukrainian). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
        justinclift 6y ago
        > Can you provide any sources claiming that more than 6 people have died in Crimea during 2014 events? Wow. So, you going to claim this isn't relevant or somehow correct then either? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
    - Udik 6y ago
      > lots of people died First time I hear this. Source?
    - puppymaster 6y ago
      Correct me if I am wrong but OP was referring to actively supported by more than half of the population in Crimea (pro-russian) but widely condemned outside. I remember reading the same when the war broke out and was used by Russian as justification to invade. Whereas in Taiwan, recent survey shows only 4% identified as Chinese and 90% are willing to defend Taiwan if "China uses force against Taiwan for unification"
      - fuoqi 6y ago
        >I remember reading the same when the war broke out and was used by Russian as justification to invade. Small nitpick: has US invaded Syria in your opinion? Yes, Russia obviously supports Donbas republics, but most of those republics military consists of Ukrainian citizens. In a way it's similar to how US supports Kurds and "moderate opposition". Such situation is really common for civil wars, but I don't think "invasion" is a correct word to use here.
        justinclift 6y ago
        > I don't think "invasion" is a correct word to use here. Russia literally claimed Ukrainian territory. How is "invasion" in any way the wrong word?
  - theflyinghorse 6y ago
    Crimean population is overwhelmingly Russian so that played a massive role ("These aren't invaders, these are our people" sort of take). I wonder if Taiwanese population identifies as strongly with China as Crimeans do with Russia
    - tartoran 6y ago
      They don’t but in an event of forceful takeover the PRC propaganda machine could make it look like TW are are willingly joining the larger China.
    - riku_iki 6y ago
      > Crimean population is overwhelmingly Russian so that played a massive role Per latest census not under Russia control, it was 60% for Russians, and rest were Ukranians and Tatars. It is not overwhelmingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_and_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
      - fuoqi 6y ago
        "Russian" is not only an ethnicity, but also a language (which is a proxy to culture and society values). According to the same Ukrainian census for 77% of Crimeans Russian was a native language. Rejection of forceful ukrainazization was one of the major driving forces behind protests in Crimea and Donbas. I am more than certain that if Russian language was a second official language in Ukraine and rights of minorities were properly respected, then Crimea would have been still part of Ukraine and war in Donbas wouldn't have happened. Plus note, that a significant number of people in Crimea (and in Ukraine) are of mixed blood, so they can easily change their ethnicity based on the current political situation.
        riku_iki 6y ago
        Russian language had status of official regional language in Crimea by the law: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B_%C2%AB%D0%9E%D0%B1_%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%C2%BB https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD... I think protests and exodus were result of TV propaganda, amount of disinformation was tremendeus, though Crimeans probably got better life within richer Russia.
  - iorrus 6y ago
    I don’t see a war effort supporting Taiwan playing well in the US domestically. It would be very bloody.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > And would the rest of the world not say: Well, we can't start a world war, because it's an extinction level event, so let's just condemn China in a very strongly worded letter? There are repercussions within the spectrum between hand wringing and nuclear war. Severe economic sanctions come to mind. And from a realist perspective, the rest of the world is more likely to care about Taiwan than Crimea.
loulouxiv 6y ago
Why would any political leader go to the extent of "an extinction level event" ?
- retrac 6y ago
  Wars have a way of getting out of hand. A nation may go to war over a fairly realistic goal, only to find itself mired in a conflict it cannot exit that is being escalated by forces beyond its control.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Indeed. This may possibly include trade wars, such as the one taking place now.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Because they refuse to believe that it is an extinction level event (“project fear”); or they think the threat of damage will force their opponent to surrender (“they need us more than we need them”). It would hardly be the first time that a government failed to understand the situation they found themselves in.
  - nitrobeast 6y ago
    Totally this. Covid-19 really opened my eye on how all governments basically lie to avoid “fear” in public.
PeterisP 6y ago
The only way how a WW3 could become an exinction level would be full Warsaw Pact - NATO war during the peak of the cold war; and even then it would be expected to be a horrible disaster, but not really an extinction level (e.g. killing 80% of population is a catastrophe, but far from extinction). But now both USA and Russia have far less nukes (and with smaller yields) so now the effect of a full USA-Russia nuclear exchange would be much smaller - but we are not even talking about that; we're talking about China, which has something like 250 warheads (contrast to ~45000 warheads that USSR used to have, it's more than a hundredfold difference) - it's a sizeable deterrent, but it's not mutually assured destruction. MAD was the doctrine between USA and USSR or Russia; MAD does not apply for any other nuclear powers - China, France, UK, India, etc. A nuclear exchange with them is "only" mass murder, but nowhere close to an extinction level event.
remarkEon 6y ago
I'm not really sure about that. Maybe I've watched Dr. Strangelove too many times, but everyone knows that flinging all of your nukes at someone kills you too (the "Doomsday Device"), so what I'd expect to see in WWIII is two things: 1) the clash of a ton of new technologies where we have really no idea what beats what, and 2) strategic, low-yield nukes used against blue-water navies and ports.
wtracy 6y ago
The next globe-spanning total war in the style of World War II will be, yes. But that's not the only kind of war. There's proxy wars like we saw in Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War. There's cyber attacks and other acts of sabotage carefully cloaked in plausible deniability (for example the 1982 Siberian pipeline explosion, Stuxnet, the attacks on Sony attributed to North Korea). There's limited wars where there's actual open fighting, but neither side is prepared to escalate further (think of the Falklands War, the War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt, or any number of peacekeeping actions by the UN or NATO). Total war between major powers has gone away, but war is here to stay.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565102)

davrosthedalek 6y ago

Well, world war yes, but we just saw Russia annex a part of a different country by force. So China could say: Taiwan is Chinese, we belong together. And would the rest of the world not say: Well, we can't start a world war, because it's an extinction level event, so let's just condemn China in a very strongly worded letter?

fuoqi 6y ago
>by force It was so forceful, that it was effectively bloodless and an overwhelming portion of the "annexed" populace has actively supported it. Meanwhile situation in Taiwan is drastically different. Pro-mainland faction is really weak and can not be used to provide sufficient support for quiet absorption. And since Taiwan has deep military connections with USA for many decades, any military intervention will inevitably escalate into a major military conflict. The only scenario in which something like that can happen is civil-war-level turmoil in USA. Probability of which, worryingly, is noticeably bigger than zero.
- justinclift 6y ago
  > It was so forceful, that it was effectively bloodless and an overwhelming portion of the "annexed" populace has actively supported it. That seems like an unusual perspective. If by "bloodless" you mean "lots of people died, but nowhere near as many as a world war" though, then sure. For the "actively supported", where are you getting that information? My impression (from friends in Kiev) is that it's universally condemned.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    By it I mean that only total 6 people have died from both sides, of which only 2 can be attributed to direct actions of Russian armed forces (well, if you trust Ukrainian version of events, which should be taken with a lot of salt, same as with the Russian one). Now compare it with number of deaths in Kiev, Odessa or Donbas. (note that majority of deaths in the latter case are Ukrainian citizens killed directly by Ukrainian army, so much for "war with Russia") >For the "actively supported", where are you getting that information? Directly from Crimeans. I have visited Crimea last year as a tourist and talked with them personally (in Massandra and Alushta, btw the wine is really great, recommend trying it). Try watching 2014 videos, for example this one is before Russian forces have became active: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atm0W5wA2y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atm0W5wA2y4 If you don't trust my anecdotal experience, then how about "The Crimea conundrum: legitimacy and public opinion after annexation" published in the Eurasian Geography and Economics journal? Or how about "To Russia With Love" article published in Foreign Affairs? They both confirm strong local support in favor of the transfer. >My impression (from friends in Kiev) is that it's universally condemned. I hope you understand that your friend quite probably is really biased regarding this issue, right? Always try looking outside of the media narrative (one may call it soft propaganda), usually world issues are far more complex than the version painted by media.
    - yclept 6y ago
      I think you are purposely narrowly referring to 1 action of many in a crisis that has had >10,000 deaths.
      - fuoqi 6y ago
        Wat? We are discussing the "annexation of Crimea", not the larger context. I just provided examples for comparison to show that the "annexation" itself is indeed can be called "effectively bloodless".
    - kjs3 6y ago
      I hope you understand that your friend quite probably is really biased regarding this issue, right? The irony is strong with this one.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    "Effectively bloodless" and "actively supported" are missing the "as reported in Russian media" and "by the people left". The UN reports something like 13,000 people died and between the UNHCR and the IDMC says there's something like 1.5-2 million people internally displaced by the Crimean annexation. That's in a region with a 2014 population of around 2.3m.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      Are you serious? Crimean population difference between 2001 and 2014 censuses is less than 5%. And considering that population was slowly dwindling since 90s, number of people who left from Crimea to Ukraine is even less than that. Can you provide any sources claiming that more than 6 people have died in Crimea during 2014 events? I think you are trying to confuse others with numbers describing the Donbas conflict, not the "annexation" as implied in your message. A really low effort fallacy I must say.
      - remarkEon 6y ago
        I think you're being downvoted for tone, but skimming wikipedia ... to my surprise it looks like you're right. 3 soldiers died (1 on the Russian side, 2 on the pro-Ukraine side) and 3 civilians were killed (2 pro-Russian, 1 pro-Ukrainian). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
      - justinclift 6y ago
        > Can you provide any sources claiming that more than 6 people have died in Crimea during 2014 events? Wow. So, you going to claim this isn't relevant or somehow correct then either? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
  - Udik 6y ago
    > lots of people died First time I hear this. Source?
  - puppymaster 6y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong but OP was referring to actively supported by more than half of the population in Crimea (pro-russian) but widely condemned outside. I remember reading the same when the war broke out and was used by Russian as justification to invade. Whereas in Taiwan, recent survey shows only 4% identified as Chinese and 90% are willing to defend Taiwan if "China uses force against Taiwan for unification"
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      >I remember reading the same when the war broke out and was used by Russian as justification to invade. Small nitpick: has US invaded Syria in your opinion? Yes, Russia obviously supports Donbas republics, but most of those republics military consists of Ukrainian citizens. In a way it's similar to how US supports Kurds and "moderate opposition". Such situation is really common for civil wars, but I don't think "invasion" is a correct word to use here.
      - justinclift 6y ago
        > I don't think "invasion" is a correct word to use here. Russia literally claimed Ukrainian territory. How is "invasion" in any way the wrong word?
- theflyinghorse 6y ago
  Crimean population is overwhelmingly Russian so that played a massive role ("These aren't invaders, these are our people" sort of take). I wonder if Taiwanese population identifies as strongly with China as Crimeans do with Russia
  - tartoran 6y ago
    They don’t but in an event of forceful takeover the PRC propaganda machine could make it look like TW are are willingly joining the larger China.
  - riku_iki 6y ago
    > Crimean population is overwhelmingly Russian so that played a massive role Per latest census not under Russia control, it was 60% for Russians, and rest were Ukranians and Tatars. It is not overwhelmingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_and_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      "Russian" is not only an ethnicity, but also a language (which is a proxy to culture and society values). According to the same Ukrainian census for 77% of Crimeans Russian was a native language. Rejection of forceful ukrainazization was one of the major driving forces behind protests in Crimea and Donbas. I am more than certain that if Russian language was a second official language in Ukraine and rights of minorities were properly respected, then Crimea would have been still part of Ukraine and war in Donbas wouldn't have happened. Plus note, that a significant number of people in Crimea (and in Ukraine) are of mixed blood, so they can easily change their ethnicity based on the current political situation.
      - riku_iki 6y ago
        Russian language had status of official regional language in Crimea by the law: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B_%C2%AB%D0%9E%D0%B1_%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%C2%BB https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD... I think protests and exodus were result of TV propaganda, amount of disinformation was tremendeus, though Crimeans probably got better life within richer Russia.
- iorrus 6y ago
  I don’t see a war effort supporting Taiwan playing well in the US domestically. It would be very bloody.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> And would the rest of the world not say: Well, we can't start a world war, because it's an extinction level event, so let's just condemn China in a very strongly worded letter? There are repercussions within the spectrum between hand wringing and nuclear war. Severe economic sanctions come to mind. And from a realist perspective, the rest of the world is more likely to care about Taiwan than Crimea.

loulouxiv 6y ago

Why would any political leader go to the extent of "an extinction level event" ?

retrac 6y ago
Wars have a way of getting out of hand. A nation may go to war over a fairly realistic goal, only to find itself mired in a conflict it cannot exit that is being escalated by forces beyond its control.
- jlokier 6y ago
  Indeed. This may possibly include trade wars, such as the one taking place now.
ben_w 6y ago
Because they refuse to believe that it is an extinction level event (“project fear”); or they think the threat of damage will force their opponent to surrender (“they need us more than we need them”). It would hardly be the first time that a government failed to understand the situation they found themselves in.
- nitrobeast 6y ago
  Totally this. Covid-19 really opened my eye on how all governments basically lie to avoid “fear” in public.

PeterisP 6y ago

The only way how a WW3 could become an exinction level would be full Warsaw Pact - NATO war during the peak of the cold war; and even then it would be expected to be a horrible disaster, but not really an extinction level (e.g. killing 80% of population is a catastrophe, but far from extinction). But now both USA and Russia have far less nukes (and with smaller yields) so now the effect of a full USA-Russia nuclear exchange would be much smaller - but we are not even talking about that; we're talking about China, which has something like 250 warheads (contrast to ~45000 warheads that USSR used to have, it's more than a hundredfold difference) - it's a sizeable deterrent, but it's not mutually assured destruction. MAD was the doctrine between USA and USSR or Russia; MAD does not apply for any other nuclear powers - China, France, UK, India, etc. A nuclear exchange with them is "only" mass murder, but nowhere close to an extinction level event.

remarkEon 6y ago

I'm not really sure about that. Maybe I've watched Dr. Strangelove too many times, but everyone knows that flinging all of your nukes at someone kills you too (the "Doomsday Device"), so what I'd expect to see in WWIII is two things: 1) the clash of a ton of new technologies where we have really no idea what beats what, and 2) strategic, low-yield nukes used against blue-water navies and ports.

wtracy 6y ago

The next globe-spanning total war in the style of World War II will be, yes. But that's not the only kind of war. There's proxy wars like we saw in Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War. There's cyber attacks and other acts of sabotage carefully cloaked in plausible deniability (for example the 1982 Siberian pipeline explosion, Stuxnet, the attacks on Sony attributed to North Korea). There's limited wars where there's actual open fighting, but neither side is prepared to escalate further (think of the Falklands War, the War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt, or any number of peacekeeping actions by the UN or NATO). Total war between major powers has gone away, but war is here to stay.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dang 6y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565102)