4 ms·

> Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? Nonetheless: 1. South Korea, and Taiwan right now are d

by gwd 2y ago

> Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? Nonetheless: 1. South Korea, and Taiwan right now are democracies (though flawed to varying degrees), and enjoy a higher standard of living and more freedoms than the neighbor who wants to "unify" with them; and that was true of the Ukraine before Russia invaded. (War tends to reduce your standard of living somewhat.) 2. If every competent engineer in "the West" (including the US, Canada, and Europe) suddenly left the defense sector, those countries would soon be invaded by their neighbors, significantly reducing their standard of living and their freedoms. > Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. Not sure what this has to do with the proposition that "Preparing for war is necessary to achieve peace". > I am very much a pro-capitalist person Personally I think capitalism is pretty terrible: there are constant forces pushing power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, leaving more and more people wage slaves, and it takes Sisyphean effort and vigilance to prevent it. But so far everything else has been worse.

somenameforme 2y ago
"Right now" came decades after the "defense" industry was brought to these countries. So associating one with the other is not reasonable, even though that's what everybody does. What followed the "defense" interventions of these countries was decades of dictatorships, repressions, and purges. Of course you'd argue that the same is still happening in North Korea and I'd agree. But why? What is different in those countries? I think one interesting nuance is that the US has spent decades essentially trying to destroy North Korea, but all these decades of sanctions and economic/diplomatic warfare have done is weaken the people of North Korea. At some point I'm sure the idea was that suffering people would then revolt, but it should be obvious by now that instead suffering people tend to be more focused on just feeding themselves, and are far more inclined to rally around their government rather than side with the group working to starve them. Bringing wealth to North Korea would probably do far more to end the tyranny there than another century of sanctions would. And no, the idea that the "West" is going to be invaded is absurd. There's a reason since 1945 there's been zero major unrestrained wars between nuclear powers. As that era passes beyond conscious memory of our society, I think people forget how truly awful nuclear weapons are. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands - instantly. And that was a tiny little bomb - 16kt. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civilizations) go into the thousands of kt. The strongest weapon ever tested being "Tsar Bomba" which had a yield of 55,000kt. You can't fight a war against an enemy with such weapons at their disposal. It simply doesn't work. For some modern contrast the "Mother of All Bombs / MOAB / GBU-43" that we detonated in Afghanistan was the largest conventional weapon ever fielded, weighed more than 20,000lbs and was 30+ft long. It had a yield of 0.01kt. Here [1] is what that looked like. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg --- The point of the fertility comments was about the fate of nations. Nations with catastrophically low fertility rates are dying and will die unless something changes, fast. So speaking of the health, or desirability of these nations, is inappropriate. It's akin to speaking positively of the health of somebody who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

by gwd 2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

"Right now" came decades after the "defense" industry was brought to these countries. So associating one with the other is not reasonable, even though that's what everybody does. What followed the "defense" interventions of these countries was decades of dictatorships, repressions, and purges. Of course you'd argue that the same is still happening in North Korea and I'd agree. But why? What is different in those countries? I think one interesting nuance is that the US has spent decades essentially trying to destroy North Korea, but all these decades of sanctions and economic/diplomatic warfare have done is weaken the people of North Korea. At some point I'm sure the idea was that suffering people would then revolt, but it should be obvious by now that instead suffering people tend to be more focused on just feeding themselves, and are far more inclined to rally around their government rather than side with the group working to starve them. Bringing wealth to North Korea would probably do far more to end the tyranny there than another century of sanctions would. And no, the idea that the "West" is going to be invaded is absurd. There's a reason since 1945 there's been zero major unrestrained wars between nuclear powers. As that era passes beyond conscious memory of our society, I think people forget how truly awful nuclear weapons are. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands - instantly. And that was a tiny little bomb - 16kt. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civilizations) go into the thousands of kt. The strongest weapon ever tested being "Tsar Bomba" which had a yield of 55,000kt. You can't fight a war against an enemy with such weapons at their disposal. It simply doesn't work. For some modern contrast the "Mother of All Bombs / MOAB / GBU-43" that we detonated in Afghanistan was the largest conventional weapon ever fielded, weighed more than 20,000lbs and was 30+ft long. It had a yield of 0.01kt. Here [1] is what that looked like. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg --- The point of the fertility comments was about the fate of nations. Nations with catastrophically low fertility rates are dying and will die unless something changes, fast. So speaking of the health, or desirability of these nations, is inappropriate. It's akin to speaking positively of the health of somebody who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.