3 ms·

If that indeed was a master plan then Id argue it backfired massively, that information is not worth the losses and the risks, and is exactly why modern armies

by dreen 5y ago

If that indeed was a master plan then Id argue it backfired massively, that information is not worth the losses and the risks, and is exactly why modern armies don't deploy biological or chemical weapons or zeppelins (because they are hard to control and are not effective against armies).

PartiallyTyped 5y ago
Could you expand why it backfired massively?
- dreen 5y ago
  I did in the next part of the sentence, because the cost of that information was too big, even for China
  - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
    Could you elaborate exactly on what that cost was? Credibility? Deaths? Economic?
    - dreen 5y ago
      What I'm saying is I think the risk itself is cost enough for them not to do it. Add whatever the losses are or we believe they are on top of that.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    I disagree; although I have no reason to assume that this was intentional, I can certainly imagine that looking back at what happened, many military planners would consider the current cost of Covid-19 to China as completely reasonable if it meaningfully changes e.g. ww3. Taking their stats at face value, <5000 deaths in China is something appropriate for a small conflict, and the economic cost from a country-leader perspective is effectively zero if your competitors bear the same cost or even a benefit if your competitors fare worse, which arguably happened. It would take some years until we properly see all the consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if afterwards historians would note Covid-19 as a factor that benefited China in their long term competition w. "the west", not as a cost. Like, 5k deaths is something that I wouldn't approve of for almost any reason, but looking back at documented 20th century history, planners (both in China and elsewhere) were clearly willing to pay such and even much higher costs for reasons of global politics/power play, so the mere existence of such a cost by itself certainly does not mean that it's implausible that someone would intentionally order a thing like that.

by dreen 5y ago

PartiallyTyped 5y ago

Could you expand why it backfired massively?

dreen 5y ago
I did in the next part of the sentence, because the cost of that information was too big, even for China
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  Could you elaborate exactly on what that cost was? Credibility? Deaths? Economic?
  - dreen 5y ago
    What I'm saying is I think the risk itself is cost enough for them not to do it. Add whatever the losses are or we believe they are on top of that.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  I disagree; although I have no reason to assume that this was intentional, I can certainly imagine that looking back at what happened, many military planners would consider the current cost of Covid-19 to China as completely reasonable if it meaningfully changes e.g. ww3. Taking their stats at face value, <5000 deaths in China is something appropriate for a small conflict, and the economic cost from a country-leader perspective is effectively zero if your competitors bear the same cost or even a benefit if your competitors fare worse, which arguably happened. It would take some years until we properly see all the consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if afterwards historians would note Covid-19 as a factor that benefited China in their long term competition w. "the west", not as a cost. Like, 5k deaths is something that I wouldn't approve of for almost any reason, but looking back at documented 20th century history, planners (both in China and elsewhere) were clearly willing to pay such and even much higher costs for reasons of global politics/power play, so the mere existence of such a cost by itself certainly does not mean that it's implausible that someone would intentionally order a thing like that.