4 ms·

> Another mechanism that causes warfare is a lack of flexibility, a lack of options. Popular takes on IR love to urge that a 'line in the sand' or 'redline' sho

by maeil 3y ago

> Another mechanism that causes warfare is a lack of flexibility, a lack of options. Popular takes on IR love to urge that a 'line in the sand' or 'redline' should be drawn - another tough, angry way to feel powerful and safe. You don't see professionals say it however. One of the two biggest global superpowers, the PRC, bombastically announces a dozen or so redlines per year.

wolverine876 3y ago
Yes, it's troubling. Also, nationalism might be the leading political mechanism that results in warfare; many blamed it for WWII. China was, at least for years, fanning its flames. It makes me wonder what they are up to, or who is making decisions. Other countries world-wide, especially right-wing movements in them, have also been fanning nationalist flames. We know well what the outcome often is.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  > We know well what the outcome often is. Well, we are about 50 years overdue for a large scale conflict? Thanks nukes. There’s something to be said for nobody wanting to open pandora’s box.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Why do you say that? To me, it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world. That would be a threat to reactionaryism. Those institutions, including the UN and the rules-based international order, were built by the people who fought WWI and WWII, specifically to prevent future war. We can say that they got the outcome they aimed at, an historic acheivement. We live at the most peaceful time in history, including for non-nuclear states. They built that - at the end of WWII when many despaired of humanity - and we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      > Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? What actions do you consider productive contributions to peace and preventing war? What aren't we doing, that was done before. What does quitting look like? > it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world. Maybe you are right and it is the institutions that changed the world, but I find it odd that you attribute causality to actions following the war, and not the war itself. What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        What if we are powerless? If we are doomed to warfare and hatred? That is what quitting looks like.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Thats not what I am saying. Im asking what you are advocating for and against? Are you saying we need more wars to prevent wars? Economic solidarity in sanctions against bad actors? It is easy to say "wars bad, peace good", but more difficult to articulate an actual plan for preventing them and promoting peace.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        You are saying that; as just one example: > What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff. War is peace - right out of 1984!
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think it would be delusional the think that war never results in peace. History is full of countless violent conflicts, revolutions, separations that were followed by relative peace. Of course that doesn't mean that going to war is a good thing. >we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that? It seems like you think there are clear and obvious solutions to conflict. Im asking what those are? Do you think they are working? why or why not? What is the obvious playbook solution for resolving Ukraine or Gaza conflicts that we threw away instead of following?
fancl20 3y ago
It’s a little funny but redlines / final warnings have a “different meaning” in PRC’s diplomatic language e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning The actual diplomatic language for war is “勿谓言之不预” (from official diplomatic channels) and they use “core interests” for a vaguely defined redlines: https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/core-interests https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/core-interests So yes, cross “redlines” won’t trigger a war with PRC. And ignoring final warning is also fine.

by maeil 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

Yes, it's troubling. Also, nationalism might be the leading political mechanism that results in warfare; many blamed it for WWII. China was, at least for years, fanning its flames. It makes me wonder what they are up to, or who is making decisions. Other countries world-wide, especially right-wing movements in them, have also been fanning nationalist flames. We know well what the outcome often is.

Aeolun 3y ago
> We know well what the outcome often is. Well, we are about 50 years overdue for a large scale conflict? Thanks nukes. There’s something to be said for nobody wanting to open pandora’s box.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Why do you say that? To me, it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world. That would be a threat to reactionaryism. Those institutions, including the UN and the rules-based international order, were built by the people who fought WWI and WWII, specifically to prevent future war. We can say that they got the outcome they aimed at, an historic acheivement. We live at the most peaceful time in history, including for non-nuclear states. They built that - at the end of WWII when many despaired of humanity - and we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    > Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? What actions do you consider productive contributions to peace and preventing war? What aren't we doing, that was done before. What does quitting look like? > it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world. Maybe you are right and it is the institutions that changed the world, but I find it odd that you attribute causality to actions following the war, and not the war itself. What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      What if we are powerless? If we are doomed to warfare and hatred? That is what quitting looks like.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Thats not what I am saying. Im asking what you are advocating for and against? Are you saying we need more wars to prevent wars? Economic solidarity in sanctions against bad actors? It is easy to say "wars bad, peace good", but more difficult to articulate an actual plan for preventing them and promoting peace.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        You are saying that; as just one example: > What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff. War is peace - right out of 1984!
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think it would be delusional the think that war never results in peace. History is full of countless violent conflicts, revolutions, separations that were followed by relative peace. Of course that doesn't mean that going to war is a good thing. >we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that? It seems like you think there are clear and obvious solutions to conflict. Im asking what those are? Do you think they are working? why or why not? What is the obvious playbook solution for resolving Ukraine or Gaza conflicts that we threw away instead of following?

fancl20 3y ago

It’s a little funny but redlines / final warnings have a “different meaning” in PRC’s diplomatic language e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning The actual diplomatic language for war is “勿谓言之不预” (from official diplomatic channels) and they use “core interests” for a vaguely defined redlines: https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/core-interests https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/core-interests So yes, cross “redlines” won’t trigger a war with PRC. And ignoring final warning is also fine.