Wargaming Scenarios

[yavuzovic]

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

[orathaic]

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It is only a pity then that the one global super power never learned this..

[Octavious]

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It would be nice if it were true. However Azerbaijan just had a rather good war, and you could argue that Russia's act of aggression in Crimea was overwhelmingly positive for them. Syria's civil war is perhaps the most grim of all recent conflicts, but even then it's possible to argue that not fighting it would have been worse for the Syrian leadership.

[flash2015]

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It is only a pity then that the one global super power never learned this..

I think we can all agree that many of the US interventions have been awful (e.g. Second Iraq War, Vietnam and many others).

Do you ever see a case where intervention is right...or are all overseas military interventions bad?

I really would like an intervention in Burma, I would see that as a good thing (I hear about the suffering every day from my wife)...though I understand the political realities make it extraordinarily unlikely.

[orathaic]

In an ideal world, no. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I think French assistance to former colonies fighting Islamic forces is an interest G example.

France wants to use it's military projection to gain influence over former colonies, those countries want to enhanced their own security. So far so mutually beneficial.

At which point you can begin to question the legitimacy of state violence. But given the common narrative of these Islamic groups being terrorists fighting them seems justified. They are choosing to use violence, so it seems justified.

How and ever, perhaps in the absence of French support these countries would find a peaceful solution (assuming neither side was able to gain an unbeatable advantage). The absence of an incentive to even try is something French intervention brings to the situation.

Assuming you disagree with the Islamic a terrorism narrative, you have to look deeper at Islamophobia, and how colonial and imperialistic influences have driven militant Islam to develop as a philosophy of violence tooppose the (mostly US driven) western imperialism.

Would the US be justified in intervening in China to end violence against Tibetans and/or Uyghurs populations? Almost certainly not. The reason isn't because these people's don't deserve protection, but because the US would only ever intervene be ause it is in the own interests.

Would Islamic terrorists be justified in fighting to ending Chinese genocide against the Uyghurs? Probably. But they have spent far too much time opposing other Imperial powers, and it seems unlikely to be an effective approach to ending the Chinese actions.

To look at the specifics of Taiwan and China. There is no reason to assume China needs or wants to invade. As Taiwan loses influence and falls behind China can simply apply political pressure to bring about unification. Using force seems completely unnecessary when they could just wait like they did with Hong Kong. I hope they have this much wisdom.

Russia on the other hand has demonstrated aggression against its neighbours used primarily to increase domestic popularity of the ruling party and secondarily to oppose expanding EU/US and NATO expansion. They are in a delicate position, declining population, combined with a weak opposition, and it is unclear that Putin has any plan for a successor to take over, if oil/gas revenues dry up they will be in trouble. Would US intervention be justified? I think it is pretty clear my answer will be no to this as well.

[yavuzovic]

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It is only a pity then that the one global super power never learned this..

Powerful people are not the ones who should worry about that. Those who gain behind the government would want chauvinistic nations so they can obtain even more power. I'm not against the idea that money can effect nation's democratic choices but the nation's mustn't lose their democratic power over the state tradition.

[yavuzovic]

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It would be nice if it were true. However Azerbaijan just had a rather good war, and you could argue that Russia's act of aggression in Crimea was overwhelmingly positive for them. Syria's civil war is perhaps the most grim of all recent conflicts, but even then it's possible to argue that not fighting it would have been worse for the Syrian leadership.

I mostly meant the overall world because many developing countries are increasing their life conditions and civil wars aren't as common as before. Apparently the world has been in a constant state of war but there could be more hope if states didn't start a new invasion era. I don't think nation's really want invading foreign lands if asked democratically, their fault is supporting a government that wants it.

[orathaic]

I mostly meant the overall world because many developing countries are increasing their life conditions and civil wars aren't as common as before. Apparently the world has been in a constant state of war but there could be more hope if states didn't start a new invasion era. I don't think nation's really want invading foreign lands if asked democratically, their fault is supporting a government that wants it.

Have you read Steven Pinker's "Angels of our Better Natures"?

[yavuzovic]

[quote=orathaic post_id=233172 time=1618599183 user_id=64]
[quote=yavuzovic post_id=233113 time=1618528319 user_id=95]

I mostly meant the overall world because many developing countries are increasing their life conditions and civil wars aren't as common as before. Apparently the world has been in a constant state of war but there could be more hope if states didn't start a new invasion era. I don't think nation's really want invading foreign lands if asked democratically, their fault is supporting a government that wants it.
[/quote]

Have you read Steven Pinker's "Angels of our Better Natures"?
[/quote]

No but its Wikipedia page is interesting. I also got the main idea.
The fact is that people can now learn about what's going on in the world better than anytime in the history and at least 95% of people don't want to support violence regardless what it brings. Both in the history and today, people can support extreme views as long as they don't see its results. I haven't read "Men Against Fire" by S.L.A. Marshall but I read a summary of the idea he presented. Clearly people tend to respect other human beings which gives hope.

Edit: I tried but quote doesn't work?

[orathaic]

That's weird, when I quote your last post and preview,it looks fine.