US Politics - or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Don

[Savannah]

16 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Trump has a strong case for the obsolescence from the US point of view. NATO was designed to prevent the domination of Europe by the USSR and thus to halt the spread of communism. In addition, in the immediate post-1945 climate it removed the need for European countries to have a security competition with each other. These two conditions are no longer met though. Why should the USA now risk nuclear war over Latvia/Estonia?

 

edit: I believe Trump has also floated the idea, in the past, that Japan should get its own nukes. I think this is something definitely worth considering.

Estonia certainly meets the NATO spending requirements. 

And still they most likely would not. Would Russia? Not likely. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Trump has a strong case for the obsolescence of NATO from the US point of view. NATO was designed to prevent the domination of Europe by the USSR and thus to halt the spread of communism. In addition, in the immediate post-1945 climate it removed the need for European countries to have a security competition with each other. These two conditions are no longer met though. Why should the USA now risk nuclear war over Latvia/Estonia?

 

edit: I believe Trump has also floated the idea, in the past, that Japan should get its own nukes. I think this is something definitely worth considering.

So, let's just go to Mutally Assured Destruction ("MAD") on a global level?  As to Japan, it is far too small a State to create a credible MAD threat.  It cannot possibly absorb a nuclear attack the way China, Russia, or the US can (and even that is questionable).

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because some of us think the preservation of an liberal international order is important. I would not like to see a world where authoritarian governments become the norm and where there is little international cooperation.

The United  States, Nato, and I'd say India now form the backbone of that international liberal order. I think it's extremely important that the liberal democracies of the world stick together.

NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. It is not there to uphold the liberal international order more generally. The US and UK backed European dictators who were reliably anti-communist, like America's good friend Franco.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. It is not there to uphold the liberal international order more generally. The US and UK backed European dictators who were reliably anti-communist, like America's good friend Franco.

So, its not possible for NATO to do anything but act as deterance mechnism to Russia?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, let's just go to Mutally Assured Destruction ("MAD") on a global level?  As to Japan, it is far too small a State to create a credible MAD threat.  It cannot possibly absorb a nuclear attack the way China, Russia, or the US can.

That's not how it works. If Japan had a number of ballistic missile submarines constantly on patrol throughout the oceans, those could surface and retaliate regardless of if their home islands have already been wiped out by a nuclear attack or not. Japan should thus definitely be able to achieve second strike capability, which is really the most important one to get anyway. 

That said, I really don't think promoting nuclear proliferation sounds like a particularly good idea. The more countries that get nukes, the more likely it becomes that some of them eventually end up in the hands of crazy governments that actually want to use them. 

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, its not possible for NATO to do anything but act as deterance mechnism to Russia?

How has NATO upheld the 'liberal internationalist' order in Turkey?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. It is not there to uphold the liberal international order more generally. The US and UK backed European dictators who were reliably anti-communist, like America's good friend Franco.

Hey, man I can't stand Franco or people like Pinochet. But, despite what the US did with regard to Franco, it doesn't follow that the US has no interest in defending the Baltic States.

Ultimately, I'd like to have peace with Russia. But, the fact is that Putin simply can't have the Baltic States.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

How has NATO upheld the 'liberal internationalist' order in Turkey?

Is any international alliance a perfect representation of idealistic principles?  They are all architectures of realpolitik.  That doesn't mean they can't serve multiple purposes.  Are you saying NATO actions in Bosnia and Kosovo were efforts to oppose Russia?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

How has NATO upheld the 'liberal internationalist' order in Turkey?

So, you think any attempt at cooperation between liberal democratic societies is just a joke?

Look, I understand the US's past foreign policy sins. But, that isn't a good reason, for the democratic societies of the world to stop trying to cooperate with each other.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

So, you think any attempt at cooperation between liberal democratic societies is just a joke?

Look, I understand the US's past foreign policy sins. But, that isn't a good reason, for the democratic societies of the world to stop trying to cooperate together.

Not trying to say that. Not sure what sins I'm referring to: Turkey is Erdogan's doing.

I'm just saying I think it is factually inaccurate to describe the purpose of NATO as you did.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

Not trying to say that. Not sure what sins I'm referring to: Turkey is Erdogan's doing.

I'm just saying I think it is factually inaccurate to describe the purpose of NATO as you did.

Actually it isn't.The idea of the liberal international order has been part of the American Foreign Policy Establishment's thinking since World War 2. And NATO was a key part of that idea. As well as the creation of the UN.

You can say that Nato was mainly an anti-Soviet alliance. But, lets not act like that Stalin was a great guy that could be trusted and didn't pose any threat to Europe.

It's true the United State's has often acted poorly in the conduct of its foreign policy. There is much of it I dislike.

But, that doesn't mean everything should just be tossed out or abandoned.

[Dr. Pepper]

10 hours ago, Yukle said:

I really really really don't get the American hatred of universal healthcare.

Even the arguments that it costs money are alien to me. I am perfectly happy to spend money on my health. It's the second-most important reason that I get money, after immediate sustenance.

And even then, universal healthcare is cheaper, as demonstrated by literally every country that has it.

I think it has to do with the worst part of American culture - bootstrap culture.  To be considered a good person, you have to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, not expect your neighbor to help you do it.  Being poor is a personal failure rather than a societal one.  It's probably also all wrapped up in extreme bigotry.  You often hear people say "I don't want to have to pay for the consequences of that group of peoples poor lifestyle choices."  It's almost always a white person who says this about the minority group most prevalent in their area.  You can point out that these "lifestyle choices" they are talking about are often wrapped up in being poor and that improved economic opportunities on top of greater access to healthcare especially preventative care would help to address these "concerns, but then you get back to the bootstrap culture.  "Well that's all well and good but we can't just give handouts to everyone, I had to work for what I have, why shouldn't they?"  You can try logic, facts and reasoning with this, but the bootstrap mentality is so ingrained that it makes people cruel and stupid.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Which only goes to show that Trump doesn't understand what NATO defends against. Not every threat stems from terror attacks.

Let's be clear, Trump doesn't understand much of anything, especially when it comes to public policy and foreign affairs. He's a master showman and manipulator, but after that there isn't much there.

52 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

edit: I believe Trump has also floated the idea, in the past, that Japan should get its own nukes. I think this is something definitely worth considering.

Expanding nuclear armaments while international relations deteriorate, what could go wrong? 

4 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

 If you have read about how he conducts business, then making threats like these comes off as a version of his usual negotiation tactics. 

That works at times in a board room, but can lead to unintentional wars if done between states. I fear Trump is playing a dangerous game that he fundamentally does not understand.

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Actually it isn't.The idea of the liberal international order has been part of the American Foreign Policies thinking since World War 2. And NATO was a key part of that idea. As well as the creation of the UN.

You can say that Nato was mainly an anti-Soviet alliance. But, lets not act like that Stalin was a great guy that could be trusted and didn't pose any threat to Europe..

I don't want to be a bore and repeat myself ad nauseam but I think it is obvious NATO was an alliance designed, primarily, to defend western Europe from the USSR. But the USSR collapsed and there is now no longer any danger that the red army will incorporate the Ruhr Valley into a soviet satellite state. Hence the view, expressed by Trump, that NATO is obsolete. Based on the original geostrategic logic of the alliance the claim is true.

And there is a strong case that American and European encroachments on Russia's traditional borders, for the cause of expanding the liberal international order, have actually caused this current mess in the first place.

On the bolded: Stalin was leader of the USSR, as you know.

[Savannah]

3 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I don't want to be a bore and repeat myself ad nauseam but I think it is obvious NATO was an alliance designed, primarily, to defend western Europe from the USSR. But the USSR collapsed and there is now no longer any danger that the red army will incorporate the Ruhr Valley into a soviet satellite state. Hence the view, expressed by Trump, that NATO is obsolete. Based on the original geostrategic logic of the alliance the claim is true.

And there is a strong case that American and European encroachments on Russia's traditional borders, for the cause of expanding the liberal international order, have actually caused this current mess in the first place.

On the bolded: Stalin was leader of the USSR, as you know.

Russia's traditional borders? What might those be? 

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, Savannah said:

Russia's traditional borders? What might those be? 

Very poor phrase, meant areas Russia thinks it has a vital strategic interest in.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I don't want to be a bore and repeat myself ad nauseam but I think it is obvious NATO was an alliance designed, primarily, to defend western Europe from the USSR. But the USSR collapsed and there is now no longer any danger that the red army will incorporate the Ruhr Valley into a soviet satellite state. Hence the view, expressed by Trump, that NATO is obsolete. Based on the original geostrategic logic of the alliance the claim is true.

And there is a strong case that American and European encroachments on Russia's traditional borders, for the cause of expanding the liberal international order, have actually caused this current mess in the first place.

On the bolded: Stalin was leader of the USSR, as you know.

How is allowing Nation-states that are not part of Russia control of their foreign policy "encroaching upon Russia's traditional borders"?  Is Russia entitled to control the Baltics, Ukraine, Poland, and Finland because they were once part of Russia?  By that logic shouldn't Russia have a say over Alaska?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

I don't want to be a bore and repeat myself ad nauseam but I think it is obvious NATO was an alliance designed, primarily, to defend western Europe from the USSR. But the USSR collapsed and there is now no longer any danger that the red army will incorporate the Ruhr Valley into a soviet satellite state. Hence the view, expressed by Trump, that NATO is obsolete. Based on the original geostrategic logic of the alliance the claim is true.

And there is a strong case that American and European encroachments on Russia's traditional borders, for the cause of expanding the liberal international order, have actually caused this current mess in the first place.

On the bolded: Stalin was leader of the USSR, as you know.

So Putin isn't a threat to the Baltic States or Eastern Europe? Somehow, I don't find such an assertion credible.

And I'm pretty sure Russia itself recognized the independence of those Baltic States and the people in those countries asked for NATO support. Now that have have been given it, I don't think we can walk away from them.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is allowing Nation-states that are not part of Russia "encroaching upon Russia's traditional borders"?  Is Russia entitled to control the Baltics, Ukraine, Poland, and Finland because they were once part of Russia?  By that logic shouldn't Russia have a say over Alaska?

Yeah, so like the people of the Baltic State's shouldn't have any leeway to decide their own fates?

[Savannah]

13 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Very poor phrase, meant areas Russia thinks it has a vital strategic interest in.

What are those areas according to Russia, what do you think?