5 ms·

Maybe unpopular opinion: Its actually good that we may not have the industrial capacity to supply large scale conflicts for great lengths of time. There’s a si

by pm90 4y ago

Maybe unpopular opinion: Its actually good that we may not have the industrial capacity to supply large scale conflicts for great lengths of time. There’s a simple solution to prevent conflicts like the one in Ukraine: expand NATO membership. It has turned out to be a n effective tool at preventing land wars in Europe.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
There’s a simple solution to prevent conflicts like the one in Ukraine: expand NATO membership I agree, but it is too late to do any good for Ukraine now. We need to industrially produce an end to the conflict, or give it over to Russia.
negus 4y ago
Did this simple solution prevent a war between two NATO members (Greece and Turkey) in past?
- gambiting 4y ago
  No, but it has prevented anyone attacking NATO countries from outside. It is not a solution for NATO countries fighting each other, however.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
But that would undermine Russia’s security to invade neighbouring countries, install kleptocrats and subjugate the population! You can’t just have a unified bloc of prosperous, (mostly) democratic countries right there; how scandalous! /s
bell-cot 4y ago
Lowest-cost scenario: No capacity to fight a large-scale war; no need to fight a large-scale war. Lower-middle-cost scenario: Capacity to fight a large-scale war; no need to fight a large-scale war. Upper-middle-cost scenario: Capacity to fight a large-scale war; a need to fight a large-scale war. Highest-cost scenario: No capacity to fight a large-scale war; a need to fight a large-scale war. (It'd be nice if NATO memberships were magical anti-war talismans. The reality is far more complex.)
omginternets 4y ago
It’s only a good thing if nobody develops these capabilities unilaterally.
- pm90 4y ago
  Right, but only regional powers have a real chance of doing that. Before you have a military industrial complex, you need the industrial complex, or at least the capacity to develop one. Smaller countries with scant resources are vulnerable to sanctions so they generally don’t have this capability. The bigger countries try and get nukes. Who’s left?
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Your reasoning doesn’t hold. Bigger countries don’t “try to get nukes” at the expense of an industrialized military. They can, and do, get both.
barry-cotter 4y ago
> Its actually good that we may not have the industrial capacity to supply large scale conflicts for great lengths of time. If WW1 Germany and France had the industrial capacity then any modern developed country does. The dislocation will just be more wrenching. Dislocation can include losing the war.
pessimizer 4y ago
> expand NATO membership How could the cause of a conflict be the solution to preventing that conflict? Doing almost anything except attempting to expand NATO membership would have prevented the conflict in Ukraine.
- wbl 4y ago
  No it would not have. Ukrainian protest in 2014 was driven by wanting EU membership and trade ties. Russia responded with an invasion.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    Russia responded with an invasion because an EU state on their border would be like Mexico being an ally of China on the border of the US. Not saying Russian actions in the war haven't been despicable but if this happened to the US they would invade too. I think the most likely outcome of this war is Ukraine gets split into 2 buffer states, one as a client to Russia and the other as a client to the EU/US. US can't afford to spend the hundreds of billions it would take for Ukraine to win (1000's of tanks, artillery pieces, IFVs, etc) and Putin can't back down now or he'll lose face and be toppled from leadership.
    - spamizbad 4y ago
      I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the current political situation in Mexico but AMLO has no problem strengthening ties to various countries that "threaten" US interests. And he's free to do so! Mexico is a sovereign country and is allowed to build diplomatic bridges to any nation it chooses. It would be completely inappropriate for the US try an annex Baja California or something in retaliation. Just imagine if the international community took a firmer line on the US during GWOT - half a million lives could've been saved. Edit: Was the US justified in fomenting death squads Latin America because those countries embraced socialism against the wishes of the United States? No? Then why is Russia entitled to a full-scale invasion over Ukraine's western aspirations?
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
corrral 4y ago
- Expanding membership of a mutual-defense alliance is risky. If you let someone in who's good at picking fights, you can end up in a situation that you really didn't want to, and that may not have happened in the first place if they hadn't had the treaty to make them feel more secure with e.g. brinksmanship. - Shifts in political alignment of members can, similarly, do strange things and lead to bad situations. Take Hungary—right now they just look maybe just a tad down the path toward authoritarianism, but what if that turned into a civil war? What if the government that you're allied with gets into a bit of the good ol' genocide? Serb/albanian type situation, or maybe just your run of the mill widespread political purges? On the one hand there's some moral obligation to intervene, plus the legitimate interests of neighboring states in countering severe violence and instability in their vicinity; on the other hand now you and anyone else who's considering intervention, in the alliance or not, has a bit of a dilemma on their hands. It complicates an already complicated situation. - As an alliance grows stronger it invites reaction from opponents. This doesn't make those reactions "right" (I'm very aware that this is one argument for why Russia invaded) but it's a fact. The reaction needn't be war, but might be creation or expansion of opposing alliances. Larger alliances, more shared borders in more places... that's a recipe for world war. Every member you add is, in a sense, a long-term liability and threat to the stability of the alliance. These arrangements are not purely beneficial, in practice, including for members.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
If you put on your realist hat, there are two options. One is for NATO (or another European military alliance) to be so powerful and cohesive in their relations to Russia, that Russia have no choice but to deal with it. This was presumably the false assumption that lead to the current war. (I really, really hope it was a false assumption). The other option would have been to thaw relations, perhaps acquiescing to a few demands and showing more compromise. Say what you want about Russia - and there's a lot bad to say. But much worse actors have received much nicer treatment by the west. Think about everything that's been done to accommodate China since the end of the cold war, to say nothing of the likes of Saudi Arabia. Instead a middle path was picked, and now we have war.

by pm90 4y ago

WillPostForFood 4y ago

There’s a simple solution to prevent conflicts like the one in Ukraine: expand NATO membership I agree, but it is too late to do any good for Ukraine now. We need to industrially produce an end to the conflict, or give it over to Russia.

negus 4y ago

Did this simple solution prevent a war between two NATO members (Greece and Turkey) in past?

gambiting 4y ago
No, but it has prevented anyone attacking NATO countries from outside. It is not a solution for NATO countries fighting each other, however.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

gunfighthacksaw 4y ago

But that would undermine Russia’s security to invade neighbouring countries, install kleptocrats and subjugate the population! You can’t just have a unified bloc of prosperous, (mostly) democratic countries right there; how scandalous! /s

bell-cot 4y ago

Lowest-cost scenario: No capacity to fight a large-scale war; no need to fight a large-scale war. Lower-middle-cost scenario: Capacity to fight a large-scale war; no need to fight a large-scale war. Upper-middle-cost scenario: Capacity to fight a large-scale war; a need to fight a large-scale war. Highest-cost scenario: No capacity to fight a large-scale war; a need to fight a large-scale war. (It'd be nice if NATO memberships were magical anti-war talismans. The reality is far more complex.)

omginternets 4y ago

It’s only a good thing if nobody develops these capabilities unilaterally.

pm90 4y ago
Right, but only regional powers have a real chance of doing that. Before you have a military industrial complex, you need the industrial complex, or at least the capacity to develop one. Smaller countries with scant resources are vulnerable to sanctions so they generally don’t have this capability. The bigger countries try and get nukes. Who’s left?
- omginternets 4y ago
  Your reasoning doesn’t hold. Bigger countries don’t “try to get nukes” at the expense of an industrialized military. They can, and do, get both.

barry-cotter 4y ago

> Its actually good that we may not have the industrial capacity to supply large scale conflicts for great lengths of time. If WW1 Germany and France had the industrial capacity then any modern developed country does. The dislocation will just be more wrenching. Dislocation can include losing the war.

pessimizer 4y ago

> expand NATO membership How could the cause of a conflict be the solution to preventing that conflict? Doing almost anything except attempting to expand NATO membership would have prevented the conflict in Ukraine.

wbl 4y ago
No it would not have. Ukrainian protest in 2014 was driven by wanting EU membership and trade ties. Russia responded with an invasion.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Russia responded with an invasion because an EU state on their border would be like Mexico being an ally of China on the border of the US. Not saying Russian actions in the war haven't been despicable but if this happened to the US they would invade too. I think the most likely outcome of this war is Ukraine gets split into 2 buffer states, one as a client to Russia and the other as a client to the EU/US. US can't afford to spend the hundreds of billions it would take for Ukraine to win (1000's of tanks, artillery pieces, IFVs, etc) and Putin can't back down now or he'll lose face and be toppled from leadership.
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the current political situation in Mexico but AMLO has no problem strengthening ties to various countries that "threaten" US interests. And he's free to do so! Mexico is a sovereign country and is allowed to build diplomatic bridges to any nation it chooses. It would be completely inappropriate for the US try an annex Baja California or something in retaliation. Just imagine if the international community took a firmer line on the US during GWOT - half a million lives could've been saved. Edit: Was the US justified in fomenting death squads Latin America because those countries embraced socialism against the wishes of the United States? No? Then why is Russia entitled to a full-scale invasion over Ukraine's western aspirations?
  - jonnybgood 4y ago

corrral 4y ago

- Expanding membership of a mutual-defense alliance is risky. If you let someone in who's good at picking fights, you can end up in a situation that you really didn't want to, and that may not have happened in the first place if they hadn't had the treaty to make them feel more secure with e.g. brinksmanship. - Shifts in political alignment of members can, similarly, do strange things and lead to bad situations. Take Hungary—right now they just look maybe just a tad down the path toward authoritarianism, but what if that turned into a civil war? What if the government that you're allied with gets into a bit of the good ol' genocide? Serb/albanian type situation, or maybe just your run of the mill widespread political purges? On the one hand there's some moral obligation to intervene, plus the legitimate interests of neighboring states in countering severe violence and instability in their vicinity; on the other hand now you and anyone else who's considering intervention, in the alliance or not, has a bit of a dilemma on their hands. It complicates an already complicated situation. - As an alliance grows stronger it invites reaction from opponents. This doesn't make those reactions "right" (I'm very aware that this is one argument for why Russia invaded) but it's a fact. The reaction needn't be war, but might be creation or expansion of opposing alliances. Larger alliances, more shared borders in more places... that's a recipe for world war. Every member you add is, in a sense, a long-term liability and threat to the stability of the alliance. These arrangements are not purely beneficial, in practice, including for members.

LAC-Tech 4y ago

If you put on your realist hat, there are two options. One is for NATO (or another European military alliance) to be so powerful and cohesive in their relations to Russia, that Russia have no choice but to deal with it. This was presumably the false assumption that lead to the current war. (I really, really hope it was a false assumption). The other option would have been to thaw relations, perhaps acquiescing to a few demands and showing more compromise. Say what you want about Russia - and there's a lot bad to say. But much worse actors have received much nicer treatment by the west. Think about everything that's been done to accommodate China since the end of the cold war, to say nothing of the likes of Saudi Arabia. Instead a middle path was picked, and now we have war.