4 ms·

I had to look up the difference, and I don't think that distinction is something most people are aware of. I've only ever known "nation state" to mean "country"

I had to look up the difference, and I don't think that distinction is something most people are aware of. I've only ever known "nation state" to mean "country", and suspect I'm in the majority. I don't think most people use that term intentionally, because few countries would qualify. That list gets even shorter when you limit it to countries that might be antagonistic to the US, and even shorter when you get to those that are threats. In addition to your two examples, China certainly doesn't qualify either, which basically just leaves North Korea.

dionian 6y ago
Nation-state: a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.
jjeaff 6y ago
Ya, I think I consume far beyond the average for political news and had never heard of that distinction until now. I just always equated nation-state to country.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Why do you think people said 'nation-state' if you thought it meant the same as the shorter and simpler word 'country'?
  - dnhz 6y ago
    To sound geopolitically sophisticated. To pretend at the language of statecraft.
  - delecti 6y ago
    I always assumed it was a way to sidestep discussing whether certain contested territories were legitimately "countries" in their own right. By which I mean places like Palestine, Taiwan, and the way North and South Korea each kinda claim the other as part of their territory.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Because there are lots of synonyms. But I could have been more specific that nation state tends to imply government of a country. Whereas country might include all citizens.
bigbubba 6y ago
I think it's a mistake to limit the scope of consideration to countries that are antagonist to America. I doubt it was them, but at least in theory, might not Canada have an interest in having advanced knowledge of things the US Treasury might decide? Certainly the US economy impacts Canada as well, as it does nearly any other country to one degree or another.
- na85 6y ago
  Hahaha our military can't even figure out boots for the troops, you think we can hack the US Government? As much as Canadians like to shit on America, one thing they gave going for them south of the border is that "Fuck yeah America" attitude that leads people to pursue excellence. We don't have that in our public sector. We just have passive aggression, mediocrity and memes about being polite.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Well, maybe Canada is pretty unlikely I concede. But it seems possible that it might be some other first world nation that has friendly relations with America. I mean, America spied on Germany, right? Maybe Germany spies on America. I really haven't the foggiest clue who did it, but I wouldn't limit consideration to overtly adversarial countries.
  - pbourke 6y ago
    You may not be aware, but Canada does have a sophisticated organization dedicated to electronic security: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Establishment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Esta...
    - na85 6y ago
      I'm Canadian and am well aware of CSE's existence. Do you think a Wiki article can capture the staggering incompetence that's endemic within the Canadian public sector?
      - 6y ago
azernik 6y ago
Copying my reply to GP: This is a US-vs-everyone-else terminology difference. In most of the world "state" refers to a sovereign entity, "nation" refers to an ethnic group, and "nation-state" is a state identified with an ethnic nation. But all of that terminology solidified in the 19th century, so outside of academic political science the US uses "state" to refer to individual entities in a federation (e.g. translating German "Bundesland" as "state"), "nation" to refer to non-ethnic bodies politick, and "nation-state" to specify "what we call a nation, what the Old World calls a state". Which of course leads to a lot of confusion about the connotations of "EU member state", which in European discourse implies real sovereignty, but in US discourse implies a federalist Europe.
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  This confusion is easily avoided by saying “country,” or if you still want your writing to be verbose you could say “government” or “government-backed actor.”
  - azernik 6y ago
    "Country" is also ambiguous. Lots of "countries" are not independent, e.g. the UK is made up of four "countries" - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Similarly, the "Land" example I used above for the German federal subjects literally means "country". "Governmental actor" would be a better international-friendly term for use in computer security, outside of the parochial world of US national security discourse.
- azernik 6y ago
  Having done a quick search for fun: US law actually uses "state" in a sense closer to the European and broader international sense. e.g. a "state actor" includes both the states and the federal government, and is used to describe any entity bound by the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. (e.g. state actors are bound by the First Amendment, whereas private actors can restrict speech all they want)

dionian 6y ago

Nation-state: a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

jjeaff 6y ago

Ya, I think I consume far beyond the average for political news and had never heard of that distinction until now. I just always equated nation-state to country.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Why do you think people said 'nation-state' if you thought it meant the same as the shorter and simpler word 'country'?
- dnhz 6y ago
  To sound geopolitically sophisticated. To pretend at the language of statecraft.
- delecti 6y ago
  I always assumed it was a way to sidestep discussing whether certain contested territories were legitimately "countries" in their own right. By which I mean places like Palestine, Taiwan, and the way North and South Korea each kinda claim the other as part of their territory.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Because there are lots of synonyms. But I could have been more specific that nation state tends to imply government of a country. Whereas country might include all citizens.

bigbubba 6y ago

I think it's a mistake to limit the scope of consideration to countries that are antagonist to America. I doubt it was them, but at least in theory, might not Canada have an interest in having advanced knowledge of things the US Treasury might decide? Certainly the US economy impacts Canada as well, as it does nearly any other country to one degree or another.

na85 6y ago
Hahaha our military can't even figure out boots for the troops, you think we can hack the US Government? As much as Canadians like to shit on America, one thing they gave going for them south of the border is that "Fuck yeah America" attitude that leads people to pursue excellence. We don't have that in our public sector. We just have passive aggression, mediocrity and memes about being polite.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Well, maybe Canada is pretty unlikely I concede. But it seems possible that it might be some other first world nation that has friendly relations with America. I mean, America spied on Germany, right? Maybe Germany spies on America. I really haven't the foggiest clue who did it, but I wouldn't limit consideration to overtly adversarial countries.
- pbourke 6y ago
  You may not be aware, but Canada does have a sophisticated organization dedicated to electronic security: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Establishment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Esta...
  - na85 6y ago
    I'm Canadian and am well aware of CSE's existence. Do you think a Wiki article can capture the staggering incompetence that's endemic within the Canadian public sector?
    - 6y ago

azernik 6y ago

Copying my reply to GP: This is a US-vs-everyone-else terminology difference. In most of the world "state" refers to a sovereign entity, "nation" refers to an ethnic group, and "nation-state" is a state identified with an ethnic nation. But all of that terminology solidified in the 19th century, so outside of academic political science the US uses "state" to refer to individual entities in a federation (e.g. translating German "Bundesland" as "state"), "nation" to refer to non-ethnic bodies politick, and "nation-state" to specify "what we call a nation, what the Old World calls a state". Which of course leads to a lot of confusion about the connotations of "EU member state", which in European discourse implies real sovereignty, but in US discourse implies a federalist Europe.

dan-robertson 6y ago
This confusion is easily avoided by saying “country,” or if you still want your writing to be verbose you could say “government” or “government-backed actor.”
- azernik 6y ago
  "Country" is also ambiguous. Lots of "countries" are not independent, e.g. the UK is made up of four "countries" - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Similarly, the "Land" example I used above for the German federal subjects literally means "country". "Governmental actor" would be a better international-friendly term for use in computer security, outside of the parochial world of US national security discourse.
azernik 6y ago
Having done a quick search for fun: US law actually uses "state" in a sense closer to the European and broader international sense. e.g. a "state actor" includes both the states and the federal government, and is used to describe any entity bound by the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. (e.g. state actors are bound by the First Amendment, whereas private actors can restrict speech all they want)