7 ms·

I think that this reasoning is completely flawed. Reading this article, I understand that the author's definition of threat is quite extreme. A threat is not s

by r0naa 11y ago

I think that this reasoning is completely flawed. Reading this article, I understand that the author's definition of threat is quite extreme. A threat is not something that "has the potential to annihilate" but is rather "a thing that has the potential to inflict damages". Dismissing any threats that has not a fully destructive potential as "not important" is sloppy, dangerous thinking. There is two extremes to this spectrum, you will notice that both have a characteristic in common, they fail to differentiate and nuance threats. From this fallacy, we can classify the two end of the spectrum as: - The "paranoid", who genuinely end-up thinking that "the end justify the means" and propagate their hysteria to the rest of the group, effectively becoming the biggest threat to what they were trying protect. - The "naive", who dismiss anything that has no fully destructive power as "trivial", effectively allowing threats to turn into actual damages, grow to become "fully destructive" (at which point it is too late) or cause a chain of events leading to destruction of what they were effectively trying to protect as well. Let's not be fooled for a second by the "alliances" and "historical relationships" between the US and its allies. Nation-States are engaged in a game for survival which is directly linked to growth and domination. A game-theoretic analogy would be the "non-cooperative" game, defined as "a game where players play independently and where any cooperation must be self-reinforcing". There is exceptions to that rule but they are such of limited scope and impact that we can safely consider them negligible. Since "Nation-States" lack a system of belief, they are free from the constraints that Humans self-impose onto themselves. A Nation-State will do anything to further its own interest, they are in essence, cold-blooded machines. The author of this article is forgetting about the 195 other countries in the world who are also playing this game. Obviously not all of them have credible chances to become big players but you can bet on the fact that all of them will fight tooth and nail for their part of the pie, no matter what it takes.

Zirro 11y ago
"Saying that the US has no threats is forgetting about the 195 other countries in the world who are aspiring to be as much powerful as possible." I believe that this is exactly the way of thinking that is being criticized in the article. Very few of those 195 nations dream of removing the US from the position of world power, and even fewer are capable of it.
- classicsnoot 11y ago
  So are you of the opinion that if the US made an exit from the world stage today, there would be no power struggle?
  - Zirro 11y ago
    It is hard to tell what you mean by "making an exit", but if it means that the US were to reduce its military spending to a tenth of its current amount for the foreseeable future - yes, I don't think it would hurt the US very much at all. In fact, the money gained from such an action could be used to strengthen the nation against economic threats which currently are far greater than any military ones.
    - classicsnoot 11y ago
      The point i was making is that the US, for all of its abundant faults, is not exceptional. Sitting on top of the pile does not make the pile disappear.
      - zanny 11y ago
        If the US withdrew as global police, I would hope the UN would step up the peacekeepers to fill that role. Thats what they are supposed to do at least. Yes, I know they suck and are incompetent. They only get away with it because they have big brother US to back them up. If they actually had to do their job they might get their act together. Or maybe not? I still don't see, in the absence of grotesque military spending, anyone going batshit insane with conquest. We still have the nuclear threat to keep people in line. Russia, for example, almost certainly does not fear a ground incursion from any European power or the US for aggressively annexing Ukraine / Georgia. Why would you waste money on that? You can economically cripple them. If they went insane and attacked a first world power they would see the immediate return of the nuclear threat. And really, total annihilation and mutually assured destruction should be deterrents enough to stop anything radical, while our globalized economic system has bound everyone so much together that you do not need the threat of soldiers to wreck a country. Consider how China is being kept out of all these secret trade agreements because they have "overstepped their bounds" of those with the money and power to influence these negotiations. That doesn't mean you don't have any military, but you don't need to spend the GDP of Turkey or Saudi Arabia every year on it, or try spreading ideology through imperialism, or have military bases in almost every country on Earth.
vdaniuk 11y ago
>"In the Nation-States Game, you either win or die", it is a non-cooperative game By definition of non-cooperative and cooperative[0] game, nation-states are playing cooperative game. Also, nation-states are not atomic entities that can be considered "players". Also, world is too complex to be described by rule-based model. [0] In game theory, a cooperative game is a game where groups of players ("coalitions") may enforce cooperative behaviour, hence the game is a competition between coalitions of players, rather than between individual players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game
- r0naa 11y ago
  > By definition of non-cooperative and cooperative[0] game, nation-states are playing cooperative game. I pondered using either of those concepts. The reason behind my choice is that while there is indeed a multi-level struggle for power where we have coalitions playing against coalitions, there is also some inter-nation rivalries that highlight the fundamentally non-cooperative nature of the "game". The US weakening the influence of the French leader Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s for example is an example of such tension between members of a same "coalition". The US will first and foremost (legitimately) defend its own interests over those of its allies. > Also, nation-states are not atomic entities who can be considered "players". I disagree. The decision-making apparatus whether democratic or dictatorial of nation-states is similar to the brain of a player. See my third point. > Also, world is too complex to be described by rule-based model. I agree and it was not my intent to describe the world using a single rule-based model. That being said "non-cooperative games" fully capture, what is perhaps the most important property of our world's geopolitics.c
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    >The decision-making apparatus whether democratic or dictatorial of nation-states is similar to the brain of a player. See my third point. Nation A is able to bribe government(decision-making apparatus) of Nation B to implement such measures that will reduce competitive advantage of Nation B. This scenario is possible, happened multiple times throughout the history and undermines the "brain" model. Also this scenario violates assumed rationality of players in game theory. Do you agree?
makeitsuckless 11y ago
This kind of thinking scares the crap out of me. There's not even any point in arguing with it: you see me and mine as a threat because I exists. Or in your words: we "are also playing this game". That's terrifying way of looking at the world. I know people that have survived wars and oppression that aren't anywhere near this paranoid, not even towards their former enemies.
- ende 11y ago
  You're projecting this on the mentality of individuals, I don't believe that's what is being referred to but rather nation states as agents on the international stage. It's not a comment on how people think but rather the behavior of states.
- r0naa 11y ago
  I think you got me wrong. I was referring to the dynamics of power between states not people. They are fundamentally different entities, and I agree that it would be quite a horrible society to live in.
rakoo 11y ago
Interestingly, I just watched an analysis [0] of foreign policies, and the speaker makes an excellent point: the USA is a privileged country in that it only had few "conflicts" on its soil: - Independence War - The war of 1812 - The Civil War And then 9/11 happens, giving Americans this new feeling of being vulnerable, that threats to the USA are a real thing. But if you actually take a look at the US presence in the world and at how even physically isolated from potential threats it is, you quickly understand how overrated the threats are. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk369bmw4o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk369bmw4o8

by r0naa 11y ago

Zirro 11y ago

"Saying that the US has no threats is forgetting about the 195 other countries in the world who are aspiring to be as much powerful as possible." I believe that this is exactly the way of thinking that is being criticized in the article. Very few of those 195 nations dream of removing the US from the position of world power, and even fewer are capable of it.

classicsnoot 11y ago
So are you of the opinion that if the US made an exit from the world stage today, there would be no power struggle?
- Zirro 11y ago
  It is hard to tell what you mean by "making an exit", but if it means that the US were to reduce its military spending to a tenth of its current amount for the foreseeable future - yes, I don't think it would hurt the US very much at all. In fact, the money gained from such an action could be used to strengthen the nation against economic threats which currently are far greater than any military ones.
  - classicsnoot 11y ago
    The point i was making is that the US, for all of its abundant faults, is not exceptional. Sitting on top of the pile does not make the pile disappear.
    - zanny 11y ago
      If the US withdrew as global police, I would hope the UN would step up the peacekeepers to fill that role. Thats what they are supposed to do at least. Yes, I know they suck and are incompetent. They only get away with it because they have big brother US to back them up. If they actually had to do their job they might get their act together. Or maybe not? I still don't see, in the absence of grotesque military spending, anyone going batshit insane with conquest. We still have the nuclear threat to keep people in line. Russia, for example, almost certainly does not fear a ground incursion from any European power or the US for aggressively annexing Ukraine / Georgia. Why would you waste money on that? You can economically cripple them. If they went insane and attacked a first world power they would see the immediate return of the nuclear threat. And really, total annihilation and mutually assured destruction should be deterrents enough to stop anything radical, while our globalized economic system has bound everyone so much together that you do not need the threat of soldiers to wreck a country. Consider how China is being kept out of all these secret trade agreements because they have "overstepped their bounds" of those with the money and power to influence these negotiations. That doesn't mean you don't have any military, but you don't need to spend the GDP of Turkey or Saudi Arabia every year on it, or try spreading ideology through imperialism, or have military bases in almost every country on Earth.

vdaniuk 11y ago

>"In the Nation-States Game, you either win or die", it is a non-cooperative game By definition of non-cooperative and cooperative[0] game, nation-states are playing cooperative game. Also, nation-states are not atomic entities that can be considered "players". Also, world is too complex to be described by rule-based model. [0] In game theory, a cooperative game is a game where groups of players ("coalitions") may enforce cooperative behaviour, hence the game is a competition between coalitions of players, rather than between individual players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game

r0naa 11y ago
> By definition of non-cooperative and cooperative[0] game, nation-states are playing cooperative game. I pondered using either of those concepts. The reason behind my choice is that while there is indeed a multi-level struggle for power where we have coalitions playing against coalitions, there is also some inter-nation rivalries that highlight the fundamentally non-cooperative nature of the "game". The US weakening the influence of the French leader Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s for example is an example of such tension between members of a same "coalition". The US will first and foremost (legitimately) defend its own interests over those of its allies. > Also, nation-states are not atomic entities who can be considered "players". I disagree. The decision-making apparatus whether democratic or dictatorial of nation-states is similar to the brain of a player. See my third point. > Also, world is too complex to be described by rule-based model. I agree and it was not my intent to describe the world using a single rule-based model. That being said "non-cooperative games" fully capture, what is perhaps the most important property of our world's geopolitics.c
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  >The decision-making apparatus whether democratic or dictatorial of nation-states is similar to the brain of a player. See my third point. Nation A is able to bribe government(decision-making apparatus) of Nation B to implement such measures that will reduce competitive advantage of Nation B. This scenario is possible, happened multiple times throughout the history and undermines the "brain" model. Also this scenario violates assumed rationality of players in game theory. Do you agree?

makeitsuckless 11y ago

This kind of thinking scares the crap out of me. There's not even any point in arguing with it: you see me and mine as a threat because I exists. Or in your words: we "are also playing this game". That's terrifying way of looking at the world. I know people that have survived wars and oppression that aren't anywhere near this paranoid, not even towards their former enemies.

ende 11y ago
You're projecting this on the mentality of individuals, I don't believe that's what is being referred to but rather nation states as agents on the international stage. It's not a comment on how people think but rather the behavior of states.
r0naa 11y ago
I think you got me wrong. I was referring to the dynamics of power between states not people. They are fundamentally different entities, and I agree that it would be quite a horrible society to live in.

rakoo 11y ago

Interestingly, I just watched an analysis [0] of foreign policies, and the speaker makes an excellent point: the USA is a privileged country in that it only had few "conflicts" on its soil: - Independence War - The war of 1812 - The Civil War And then 9/11 happens, giving Americans this new feeling of being vulnerable, that threats to the USA are a real thing. But if you actually take a look at the US presence in the world and at how even physically isolated from potential threats it is, you quickly understand how overrated the threats are. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk369bmw4o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk369bmw4o8