5 ms·

Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. As the roman saying goes. Si

Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. As the roman saying goes. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

bovermyer 2y ago
And if the USA becomes one of those authoritarian regimes?
- krapp 2y ago
  It is, and has been for a long time.
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - krapp 2y ago
      A nation can be authoritarian while being less authoritarian in degree than other nations. The US runs a global cultural and economic empire based on the threat of overwhelming military force and nuclear war - a threat every other power (including China and Russia) acts in response to, because the only credible threat of WW3 comes from the US either starting it, or escalating it. The US isn't "worried" about conflict with China and Russia, the US is planning for those conflicts because the American military industrial complex requires endless war to satiate itself. From my point of view, the US (which just happens to be funding a genocide through a nuclear armed puppet state at the moment) looks no better than Russia and far better than China which at least tends to keep its authoritarianism to itself (harassment of Japanese fishing boats notwithstanding.) China today looks like what American domestic policy is becoming, and Russia today looks like American foreign policy in general. And the political and cultural climate in the US has been creeping in an authoritarian direction for at least a decade. The US has a deeper and more invasive surveillance network than the Gestapo could ever have dreamed of. The US runs torture sites and a concentration camp where it detains enemies of the state under arbitrary duress without rights. American rights are nullified, arbitrarily, by an unelected and unaccountable panel of judges, and laws are arbitrarily enforced by a brutal militarized police force and government wholly insulated from consequence and the "will of the people." Americans clutch their pearls over TikTok and Chinese influence while literally every form of media they consume is propaganda, much of it being openly fascist, designed to confuse, distract and scare them with fears of enemies within and without, or indoctrinate them into a pro-militarist ideology based on a corrupted and twisted view of the world and their own place in it. The US is objectively authoritarian. You don't get to run the racket of Pax Americana without being an authoritarian regime, willing and able to commit violence abroad and able to quell any possible threat to the agenda at home.
      - vasco 2y ago
        Thank you for your service!
- clarionbell 2y ago
  So you'd rather if they didn't prepare? I'm sorry I don't understand the point of your comment. If USA turns to authoritarian principles, then it won't really matter what Space force does at this point.
  - bovermyer 2y ago
    The point of my comment was just to address the original poster's assumption that the USA would remain anti-authoritarian. I'm not saying the USA should demilitarize or that the Space Force shouldn't prepare for cataclysmic interstellar warfare.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  In my techo-anarchist headcanon freedom loving hackers will take down the bad guys.
- badpun 2y ago
  It’s two different dimensions. A country can be democratic or authoritarian, and also a country can be driven by conquest or not. For example, USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire. While Russia is an authoritarian, conquest-driven empire. Living in democratic empires is usually nice for citizens in the metropolis (the USA), while it can be absolutely miserable for the conquered parts (millions killed in SE Asia in countries attacked by USA and its cronies, in Iraq etc.). While, in Russia’s case, life in the metropolis is only somewhat less miserable than in the conquered non-Russian-majority regions.
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    > USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire I disagree - in the details, at least :). "Conquest" requires overwhelming military force, which of course the US has. What it lacks is the desire to annex "conquered" territory or to directly subjugate competitor nations. I'd consider the US more of a modernized colonial power. The institutional goal of the US federal government seems to be to remake the world in its image, but to do so in a way that requires as little ongoing investment by them as possible. An example of this would be the concept of "regime change". The US sees nations with incompatible types of political organization as almost defective. It believes that those nations would obviously organize as a representative republic if only given the chance to do so - in fact, it believes that representative republicanism is the only natural form of governance, which by extension means that any nation with an incompatible political structure is a nation that has been subjugated by outside forces. That's why we do things like invade Afghanistan, hang around for a decade or two, set up elections that mirror ours, and then leave... only for the Taliban to come right back, take power, and ultimately benefit from our involvement. The older I get, the more I come to believe that some forms of governance - including representative republicanism - require a relatively well-educated populace that supports the concept. Lacking that, they revert to their previous state once US involvement withdraws. That's good news for me, as I ultimately want to see my descendants living in a world without governments with a monopoly of the legitimization of violence. If countries that lean toward authoritarianism can be "transformed" into other forms only temporarily, that means the driving force behind a sustainable governance is ultimately not force, but culture. "Political change" must be a consequence of social/cultural change to be long-lived.
mistrial9 2y ago
[flagged]
- bookofjoe 2y ago
  "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed) "...a Latin oratorical phrase pronounced by Cato the Elder, a politician of the Roman Republic. The phrase originates from debates held in the Roman Senate prior to the Third Punic War (149–146 BC) between Rome and Carthage. Cato is said to have used the phrase as the conclusion to all his speeches, to push for the war." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
somenameforme 2y ago
This is what America thought all the way up until 1983. That was the year we ran one of the most elaborated and sophisticated war games to date, Proud Prophet. [1] US military policy to date at that point had been trying to compel cooperation through force and displays of strength. So the wargames were to simulate what might happen if this strategy reached its logical conclusion and the Cold War turned hot. In literally every single scenario that was trialed, you ended up with a rapid escalation to nuclear war, and the complete extermination of the Northern Hemisphere. About half a billion died from the immediate nukes, the rest from starvation and nuclear fallout. These wargames are what caused US military policy with regards to the USSR to take a sharp turn towards de-escalation, and within a decade there'd be McDonalds and Donald Duck in the USSR, and the entire nation would collapse. By contrast we went for force in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and so on endlessly. And all outcomes have been catastrophic from not only a humanitarian point of view, but even from a morality-free geopolitical point of view. And those were conflicts with nations who were ostensibly incapable of fighting back. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
ChumpGPT 2y ago
>Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. Problem is the USA doesn't. You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. Unfortunately the USA has no one who can project strength and decisiveness. Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. We're screwed until someone comes along that is right for the job ahead and unfortunately there are no good candidates currently.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  > You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. This is my favorite post in this thread so far, because I don't know which party you're assigning to which side! I by no means intend that as a slight, by the way. It's striking to me how easily statements with clear meaning to one person can be viewed in with completely opposite meaning by the "other" faction. > Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. I'll be a bit more specific about my own views for this part. It seems to me that the Democratic Party vocally and fairly consistently supports Ukraine, but that their measured approach and desire not to escalate is only extending the conflict. Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems split on the issue, and their Presidential candidate rather milquetoast when it comes to setting a clear policy proposal in this specific case. So, yeah - I'm about 70% sure you and I are on opposite sides politically for most issues, but if we constrain the topic to the Russo-Ukrainian war, there really isn't a clear preference for either party. The choices seem to be "incur significant additional debt to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to end the war" and "hope Trump chooses to fully support Ukraine if elected, but not be sure if he will or not". US politics have been depressing my entire life, but this election seems to be particularly unsatisfactory for everyone involved, regardless of faction.

Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. As the roman saying goes. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

bovermyer 2y ago

And if the USA becomes one of those authoritarian regimes?

krapp 2y ago
It is, and has been for a long time.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - krapp 2y ago
    A nation can be authoritarian while being less authoritarian in degree than other nations. The US runs a global cultural and economic empire based on the threat of overwhelming military force and nuclear war - a threat every other power (including China and Russia) acts in response to, because the only credible threat of WW3 comes from the US either starting it, or escalating it. The US isn't "worried" about conflict with China and Russia, the US is planning for those conflicts because the American military industrial complex requires endless war to satiate itself. From my point of view, the US (which just happens to be funding a genocide through a nuclear armed puppet state at the moment) looks no better than Russia and far better than China which at least tends to keep its authoritarianism to itself (harassment of Japanese fishing boats notwithstanding.) China today looks like what American domestic policy is becoming, and Russia today looks like American foreign policy in general. And the political and cultural climate in the US has been creeping in an authoritarian direction for at least a decade. The US has a deeper and more invasive surveillance network than the Gestapo could ever have dreamed of. The US runs torture sites and a concentration camp where it detains enemies of the state under arbitrary duress without rights. American rights are nullified, arbitrarily, by an unelected and unaccountable panel of judges, and laws are arbitrarily enforced by a brutal militarized police force and government wholly insulated from consequence and the "will of the people." Americans clutch their pearls over TikTok and Chinese influence while literally every form of media they consume is propaganda, much of it being openly fascist, designed to confuse, distract and scare them with fears of enemies within and without, or indoctrinate them into a pro-militarist ideology based on a corrupted and twisted view of the world and their own place in it. The US is objectively authoritarian. You don't get to run the racket of Pax Americana without being an authoritarian regime, willing and able to commit violence abroad and able to quell any possible threat to the agenda at home.
    - vasco 2y ago
      Thank you for your service!
clarionbell 2y ago
So you'd rather if they didn't prepare? I'm sorry I don't understand the point of your comment. If USA turns to authoritarian principles, then it won't really matter what Space force does at this point.
- bovermyer 2y ago
  The point of my comment was just to address the original poster's assumption that the USA would remain anti-authoritarian. I'm not saying the USA should demilitarize or that the Space Force shouldn't prepare for cataclysmic interstellar warfare.
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
In my techo-anarchist headcanon freedom loving hackers will take down the bad guys.
badpun 2y ago
It’s two different dimensions. A country can be democratic or authoritarian, and also a country can be driven by conquest or not. For example, USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire. While Russia is an authoritarian, conquest-driven empire. Living in democratic empires is usually nice for citizens in the metropolis (the USA), while it can be absolutely miserable for the conquered parts (millions killed in SE Asia in countries attacked by USA and its cronies, in Iraq etc.). While, in Russia’s case, life in the metropolis is only somewhat less miserable than in the conquered non-Russian-majority regions.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  > USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire I disagree - in the details, at least :). "Conquest" requires overwhelming military force, which of course the US has. What it lacks is the desire to annex "conquered" territory or to directly subjugate competitor nations. I'd consider the US more of a modernized colonial power. The institutional goal of the US federal government seems to be to remake the world in its image, but to do so in a way that requires as little ongoing investment by them as possible. An example of this would be the concept of "regime change". The US sees nations with incompatible types of political organization as almost defective. It believes that those nations would obviously organize as a representative republic if only given the chance to do so - in fact, it believes that representative republicanism is the only natural form of governance, which by extension means that any nation with an incompatible political structure is a nation that has been subjugated by outside forces. That's why we do things like invade Afghanistan, hang around for a decade or two, set up elections that mirror ours, and then leave... only for the Taliban to come right back, take power, and ultimately benefit from our involvement. The older I get, the more I come to believe that some forms of governance - including representative republicanism - require a relatively well-educated populace that supports the concept. Lacking that, they revert to their previous state once US involvement withdraws. That's good news for me, as I ultimately want to see my descendants living in a world without governments with a monopoly of the legitimization of violence. If countries that lean toward authoritarianism can be "transformed" into other forms only temporarily, that means the driving force behind a sustainable governance is ultimately not force, but culture. "Political change" must be a consequence of social/cultural change to be long-lived.

mistrial9 2y ago

[flagged]

bookofjoe 2y ago
"Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed) "...a Latin oratorical phrase pronounced by Cato the Elder, a politician of the Roman Republic. The phrase originates from debates held in the Roman Senate prior to the Third Punic War (149–146 BC) between Rome and Carthage. Cato is said to have used the phrase as the conclusion to all his speeches, to push for the war." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

somenameforme 2y ago

This is what America thought all the way up until 1983. That was the year we ran one of the most elaborated and sophisticated war games to date, Proud Prophet. [1] US military policy to date at that point had been trying to compel cooperation through force and displays of strength. So the wargames were to simulate what might happen if this strategy reached its logical conclusion and the Cold War turned hot. In literally every single scenario that was trialed, you ended up with a rapid escalation to nuclear war, and the complete extermination of the Northern Hemisphere. About half a billion died from the immediate nukes, the rest from starvation and nuclear fallout. These wargames are what caused US military policy with regards to the USSR to take a sharp turn towards de-escalation, and within a decade there'd be McDonalds and Donald Duck in the USSR, and the entire nation would collapse. By contrast we went for force in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and so on endlessly. And all outcomes have been catastrophic from not only a humanitarian point of view, but even from a morality-free geopolitical point of view. And those were conflicts with nations who were ostensibly incapable of fighting back. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet

ChumpGPT 2y ago

>Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. Problem is the USA doesn't. You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. Unfortunately the USA has no one who can project strength and decisiveness. Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. We're screwed until someone comes along that is right for the job ahead and unfortunately there are no good candidates currently.

Ancapistani 2y ago
> You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. This is my favorite post in this thread so far, because I don't know which party you're assigning to which side! I by no means intend that as a slight, by the way. It's striking to me how easily statements with clear meaning to one person can be viewed in with completely opposite meaning by the "other" faction. > Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. I'll be a bit more specific about my own views for this part. It seems to me that the Democratic Party vocally and fairly consistently supports Ukraine, but that their measured approach and desire not to escalate is only extending the conflict. Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems split on the issue, and their Presidential candidate rather milquetoast when it comes to setting a clear policy proposal in this specific case. So, yeah - I'm about 70% sure you and I are on opposite sides politically for most issues, but if we constrain the topic to the Russo-Ukrainian war, there really isn't a clear preference for either party. The choices seem to be "incur significant additional debt to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to end the war" and "hope Trump chooses to fully support Ukraine if elected, but not be sure if he will or not". US politics have been depressing my entire life, but this election seems to be particularly unsatisfactory for everyone involved, regardless of faction.