5 ms·

> We would have a hard time bombing China if our bomber aircraft were manufactured there... You say that like it would a bad thing if we "had a hard time" bomb

by glenra 13y ago

> We would have a hard time bombing China if our bomber aircraft were manufactured there... You say that like it would a bad thing if we "had a hard time" bombing specific other countries. :-)

rayiner 13y ago
As an American, yes, I think it would be. I like the current status quo, where we consume 10x as many resources per capita as the Chinese. Eliminating the ability to bomb specific other countries would curtail our ability to maintain that margin.
- glenra 13y ago
  Um, we can consume 10x as much per capita as the Chinese because we produce 10x as much per capita as the Chinese. And we could produce (and hence, consume) even more if we wasted less effort on making war and propping up inefficient old industries.
- etherael 13y ago
  Hearing someone bluntly say this made my skin crawl, you're okay with enormous economic imbalance in your favor backed up with no greater justification than the collective willingness of the society to which you belong to engage in mass murder against the members of societies to which you do not. That really has no ethical implications for you at all, personally?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Well reading your post rather bothers me because you automatically assume murder. Attempting to maintain the 'status quo' via military sounds like a default defensive action to me, fending off the attacks of others.
    - etherael 13y ago
      "The ability to bomb specific other countries" sounds like the default go to defensive action to take in the event of external attack? I know a supranational fanatical religious terrorist organisation that happens to agree with you.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        That's how modern warfare between major powers works. You don't drive off a land invasion, you bomb each others' cities until someone cries uncle.
        etherael 13y ago
        Actually I'd dispute that; modern warfare between major powers can only waged by proxy wars between lesser powers who do not have recourse to nuclear options. In the future as the destructive potential of smaller and smaller actors increases over time, humanity will have to get used to the idea that it can't go around just acting like a pack of spoiled murdering bastards with an entitlement complex, or it will end up destroying itself as the power threshold of the disenfranchised actors approaches mutually assured destruction scenarios. So perhaps in light of this it might be a good idea being practical to get used to that fact and stop acting like endless bullying war is a realistic long term foreign policy?
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        You quoted the wrong half of the sentence. It's maintaining the status quo that sounds defensive. And apparently I used the word 'default' in a confusing way. I did not mean 'default go to'. I meant that maintaining the status quo is by default a defensive thing. On top of that, it's not actual 'bombing' that you use most of the time to do that, but the 'ability to bomb'. Nobody actually has to get blown up.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
Dylan16807 13y ago
It's very much a bad thing if the bomber-making country starts using them, and nobody can fight back effectively.
tptacek 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

by glenra 13y ago

> We would have a hard time bombing China if our bomber aircraft were manufactured there... You say that like it would a bad thing if we "had a hard time" bombing specific other countries. :-)

rayiner 13y ago

As an American, yes, I think it would be. I like the current status quo, where we consume 10x as many resources per capita as the Chinese. Eliminating the ability to bomb specific other countries would curtail our ability to maintain that margin.

glenra 13y ago
Um, we can consume 10x as much per capita as the Chinese because we produce 10x as much per capita as the Chinese. And we could produce (and hence, consume) even more if we wasted less effort on making war and propping up inefficient old industries.
etherael 13y ago
Hearing someone bluntly say this made my skin crawl, you're okay with enormous economic imbalance in your favor backed up with no greater justification than the collective willingness of the society to which you belong to engage in mass murder against the members of societies to which you do not. That really has no ethical implications for you at all, personally?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Well reading your post rather bothers me because you automatically assume murder. Attempting to maintain the 'status quo' via military sounds like a default defensive action to me, fending off the attacks of others.
  - etherael 13y ago
    "The ability to bomb specific other countries" sounds like the default go to defensive action to take in the event of external attack? I know a supranational fanatical religious terrorist organisation that happens to agree with you.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      That's how modern warfare between major powers works. You don't drive off a land invasion, you bomb each others' cities until someone cries uncle.
      - etherael 13y ago
        Actually I'd dispute that; modern warfare between major powers can only waged by proxy wars between lesser powers who do not have recourse to nuclear options. In the future as the destructive potential of smaller and smaller actors increases over time, humanity will have to get used to the idea that it can't go around just acting like a pack of spoiled murdering bastards with an entitlement complex, or it will end up destroying itself as the power threshold of the disenfranchised actors approaches mutually assured destruction scenarios. So perhaps in light of this it might be a good idea being practical to get used to that fact and stop acting like endless bullying war is a realistic long term foreign policy?
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      You quoted the wrong half of the sentence. It's maintaining the status quo that sounds defensive. And apparently I used the word 'default' in a confusing way. I did not mean 'default go to'. I meant that maintaining the status quo is by default a defensive thing. On top of that, it's not actual 'bombing' that you use most of the time to do that, but the 'ability to bomb'. Nobody actually has to get blown up.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Dylan16807 13y ago

It's very much a bad thing if the bomber-making country starts using them, and nobody can fight back effectively.

tptacek 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana