Theoretical Question - Taiwan, and YOU as U.S President

[Paladin Solo]

The thing is, China cant invade US mainland, simply because US navy is too strong.

Even if they could, it would be suicide, and would just escalate into a global, nuclear conflict.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Nobody in this thread has suggested that, I am not sure what you are referring to here.

"China invades Taiwan. U.S does not intervene. Taiwan and China reunite syombolicaly ending the 1949 civil war. The U.S has to all intents and purposes ceded regional hegemony to China. China amasses a fleet of equal capabilities as to the U.S. A pacific war begins and the U.S is defeated. Chinese orchestrate invasion of U.S homeland. With a massively bigger military aparatus and human resources, invasion and subjugation is easy. China becomes global hegemon. U.S humiliated, becomes semi-communist. Eventually, the Chinese empire begins to desintegrate. U.S resistance and independence movements gain ground. China forced to leave U.S. Regime change at home means China in political turmoil and in no position to be a hegemon no longer. U.S declares independence and begins to regain its former glory. "

This scenario dictates the US restrains its own nuclear arsenal, but in a reverse scenario of the US invading China, the Chinese let loose theirs? The above scenario suggests that the US will simply forfeit its positions like clockwork, and yet, it seems absurd to you to think the same of China in a similiar scenario?

No you have missed my point entirely. That is a theoretical scenario aimed at showing how avoiding a nuclear war is better for all parties in the long term. I agree with you the U.S would NEVER do that, and neither would China. But what I aimed to show was that by restraining nuclear power, any invasion, change of regime and change of principles/values (think of capitalism/communism) can be reversed. Extinction however, cannot.

Thats tha point I was trying to prove there. We should abandon nuclear weapons and wage war the conventional way.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Thats tha point I was trying to prove there. We should abandon nuclear weapons and wage war the conventional way.

What are your feelings on chemical weapons?

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Thats tha point I was trying to prove there. We should abandon nuclear weapons and wage war the conventional way.

What are your feelings on chemical weapons?

Although I think they pose less of a long term threat than nuclear weapons, I believe they and biological weapons, or any other aerosol, should be banned altogether. WWI showed they could be used (although to a small extent), and were not particularly effective after their use and effects were discovered and soldiers began wearing gas masks.

WWII further showed wars can be waged and won without the need for such weapons.

What are your views on them?

 

[aronsearle]

and were not particularly effective after their use and effects were discovered and soldiers began wearing gas masks.

They didnt have the strains/chemicals and delivery systems that we have today.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

and were not particularly effective after their use and effects were discovered and soldiers began wearing gas masks.

They didnt have the strains/chemicals and delivery systems that we have today.

They also didn't have the standard NBC suits handed out to troops we have today either. This is besides the point though.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

What are your views on them?

They scare the shit out of me to be perfectly honest. I would rather face bullets than something I cannot see,taste, or feel until I am already throwing up blood. Biological weapons disturb me more than chemical to say the least.

I would rate it Nuclear>Bio>Chemical.

They do not get enough attention in my opinion as most jump right on Nuclear weapons as the huge threat. Bio-weapons are some seriously scary shit.

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

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


I will never officially say I am 100% against the use of either. I do believe it should be avoided at all possible cost however. Biological in particular.

 

[Ozymandias]

- Military simulations in high tech computers have shown victories for the ROC (Republic of China - Taiwan) without U.S support.

You don't need a "high tech computer" to know that china would kick taiwan's ass. They have about a billion people and the near-limitless resources such a society provides.

I say leave Taiwan to China and handle China diplomatically later at a more feasible time. I doubt that even the US could handle China in a war on their own turf... unless we massacred their civilian population with a tremendous bombing campaign... and what would be the point of killing a hundred million to save a million?

 

[Paladin Solo]

and what would be the point of killing a hundred million to save a million?

To many, it's enough. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't make it illogical. If I find more worth in the one million over the hundred million, it wold make plenty of sense to me to kill the hundred to save the one.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

and what would be the point of killing a hundred million to save a million?

To many, it's enough. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't make it illogical. If I find more worth in the one million over the hundred million, it wold make plenty of sense to me to kill the hundred to save the one.

If you or anybody else sees it that ways, you are seriously flawed human beings. Its that kind of attitude thats behind every major genocide, massacre and extermination in the history of mankind.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

and what would be the point of killing a hundred million to save a million?

To many, it's enough. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't make it illogical. If I find more worth in the one million over the hundred million, it wold make plenty of sense to me to kill the hundred to save the one.

We think alike.

 

[Paladin Solo]

If you or anybody else sees it that ways, you are seriously flawed human beings. Its that kind of attitude thats behind every major genocide, massacre and extermination in the history of mankind.

It's funny that it's flawed thinking when you don't agree. So because it's 100:1 ratio, you'd be against the killing, because it's genocide to you? Well, now you're just placing a value on human life based on your perceptions. So by your analogy, it's okay to let 1 million perish because to save the 100 million of those responsible just because they outnumber them?

Indifference that results in slavery and *gasp* genocide is such a terrible attitude when compared to vigilance that results in the same thing. Where's your precious compassionate attitude towards the 1 million? Are they not human just because they're outnumbered?

If it came down to it, I wouldn't waste time on petty philosophical bullshit if I was required to make a decision on what to let happen- 1 million of my allies become enslaved, or 100 million of my enemies to reap what they've sewn. What if there was only one Chinese loss compared to the one-million? Would it be okay then since he's no longer human and has no life-value just because he's so overwhelmingly outnumbered?

Please, don't play the humanist card here, you'll just come off as pig-ignorant.

We think alike.

Not really. I just don't think human life can be valued based on arithmetic. I'll support the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if it brings about an unconditional end to the Japanese empire, or the bombing of German cities if it means less production-capacity for the Nazis to make weapons of war with, but I'm not lining up 100 million Chinese to face the firing wall just because I don't like products made in China.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Not really. I just don't think human life can be valued based on arithmetic. I'll support the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if it brings about an unconditional end to the Japanese empire, or the bombing of German cities if it means less production-capacity for the Nazis to make weapons of war with, but I'm not lining up 100 million Chinese to face the firing wall just because I don't like products made in China.

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

It just does not sound very pleasant to most people without writing it out like that. For some reason I still get nasty comments when I defend the use of the atomic bombs in WW2.

 

[Patton89]

Well seems that this is again in this. "killing 100 million is okay, if it saves 1 million"

So, HOW CAN YOU determine value of human life, based ON YOUR PERCEPTIONS ?


You consider people to have a value that is determined on their usefullness to you nation. That is disturbing. Reminds of certain political movements.

Are the 100 million civilians ANY MORE responsible than the 1 million civilians ?

I couldnt make a decision like that. Kill 100 million to save 1 million. Kill 100 to save 1.
Call me soft, call me coward, call me a fool, but i cant start claiming that some people would somehow have less value then others. I cant even say that i have more value than someone else, be that a person who i am supposed to consider an "enemy".

You two apparently have some "divine" clarvoyance that allows you to determine value of someones life.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

No one is going to call you a coward or a fool, I for one do not think you a lesser person because you do not want to make that decision.

My view on it is really quite simple. In my mind the lives of my countrymen are worth more than a foreign foes.

As many are aware by now however I am in an extreme Nationalist/Jingoist mindset. So most will probably just write me off as a filthy warmonger.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Well seems that this is again in this. "killing 100 million is okay, if it saves 1 million"

So, HOW CAN YOU determine value of human life, based ON YOUR PERCEPTIONS ?

What if it was 100 million soldiers dying to defend 1 million civilians, or 1 million soldiers killing off 100 million civilians?

Hey, if all you care about is numbers, then that's your problem. I, being human and therefore capable of abstract thought tend to look a bit deeper into the matter other than "oh NUMBAZ!" But, uh, go you.

You consider people to have a value that is determined on their usefullness to you nation. That is disturbing. Reminds of certain political movements.

It reminds me of life, actually. Or do you think species survive by being not useful? Honestly, you're the one jizzing your pants prematurely here. I stated that if I find more worth in either, I'll support the destruction of the other (now pay attention to the big, bolded word) IF it is necessary to save the one. Just because you equate "worth" with "OMFG NAZIS" doesn't mean you're the better.

Are the 100 million civilians ANY MORE responsible than the 1 million civilians ?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! What do we have for, Johnny?!

Seriously, congratulations. You now realise it's not simply about a fucking equation. I'm glad I was able to help you out.

I couldnt make a decision like that. Kill 100 million to save 1 million. Kill 100 to save 1.

Who asked you to? If you can't, you can't. But please move aside so someone can, lives are at stake.

Call me soft, call me coward, call me a fool, but i cant start claiming that some people would somehow have less value then others. I cant even say that i have more value than someone else, be that a person who i am supposed to consider an "enemy".

Call me fascist, call me evil, call me a warmonger, but I can't advocate indifference in our species. Better to act on your best interests, than to sit and do nothing because you think the luxury of not having to makes you better.

You two apparently have some "divine" clarvoyance that allows you to determine value of someones life.

You seem to think someone's life is not worth acting for. Congratulations, you're doing your part, so don't whine when others do theirs.

To me, human life, including yours is worth dying and killing for if I find it reasonable to defend and fight for. But you presume that if I wouldn't, I would advocate the wholesale slaughter of millions. Jump the gun much? I think maybe you should read what is said, instead of visualizing an orgy of Nazis slapping dicks.

 

[Patton89]

Nice way of responding.

Insults.

I am trying to show to you that you cant claim that some people are somehow less valuable, JUST because you say so.

Oh well.

1. you didnt anwser. How can you determine it ? With arbituary alliances ? And why arent the number relevant ?

2. That is your opinion. Smells of Social Darwinism to be honest.
Nationalist. not a nazi.

3.Again, i knew already that it wasnt a simple equation. Please refrain from trying to insult me. But you cant claim that it isnt even worth considering that there might be apoint in not killing 100 million to save 1 million. I cant say that it would be the "right" thing to do. I know that i am thinking that people are equal. That is why i cant suddenly condemn 100 million people to die.

4. How would anyone have the right to make a decision like that ? How would you claim that not killing 100 million isnt an action in itself. If i had to choose between 1 million of my country men,lost in an invasion, or kill 100 million "enemy" civilians, who would choose to kill 100 million civilians ? You are talking about preventing a war crime WITH a war crime of larger magnitude.

5.There are other ways then just outright killing and acting mindlessly, and claiming it to be the necessary thing, and the only way to do it.

6.It is worth acting for, it just seems that you are bit too eager to use "final" measures, measures which effects are irreversable.
And i didnt say your a nazi. You are a nationalist.

This isnt going to lead to anything though.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Nice way of responding.

Insults.

No, no. Please, keep calling me a divine Nazi.

I am trying to show to you that you cant claim that some people are somehow less valuable, JUST because you say so.

So they're more valuable based on numbers? Well then, let's get us 'ere some posse so we can hang us dem der niggras like the good ol' days! Eh boys?!

Oh well.

No, you're right. Blindly assuming 100 deserve to live more than 1 is so much more civil, humane, loving, compassionate, uh... cool, divine, peaceful, right, better, considerate, and all that shit. Now let's go kill us some Jews and Muslims. All we need for a war these days is to say "but we outnumber them!" I'm all with you, brother.

1. you didnt anwser. How can you determine it ? With arbituary alliances ?

I answered it clearly and was rather descript, actually. You just assume I'm only talking about obligations to some random alliance, which was rather annoying. Also having said that, I'm wondering if you're suggesting that allies aren't expected to fight for eachother.

2. That is your opinion. Smells of Social Darwinism to be honest.

What's my opinion? That people should be useful? I had a lot of opinions, you're going to have to be specific.

3.Again, i knew already that it wasnt a simple equation. Please refrain from trying to insult me. But you cant claim that it isnt even worth considering that there might be apoint in not killing 100 million to save 1 million. I cant say that it would be the "right" thing to do. I know that i am thinking that people are equal. That is why i cant suddenly condemn 100 million people to die.

But you'd be willing to condemn 1 million based on a ratio? In that case, let China subjugate everyone with a lesser population than them as long as they don't do it all at once so as to even the ratio out to a collective 1:1, and the US being justified in conquering any country based on the "they have a smaller population" argument.

4. How would anyone have the right to make a decision like that ? How would you claim that not killing 100 million isnt an action in itself. If i had to choose between 1 million of my country men,lost in an invasion, or kill 100 million "enemy" civilians, who would choose to kill 100 million civilians ?

I see what you did there. You completely rejected the entire point and instead inserted one of your own. Classy.

I said "100 million killed to save 1 million can be worth it" and from that you gathered "war is only worth it if 100 million civilians die." I thought I clarified this in my previous post. But here it goes again.

If killing 100 million civilians of an enemy country (unnecessary description follows, should anyone STILL be confused of what a country is:

Country: A state or nation
State: a politcally unified people occupying a definite territory; nation
Nation: the territory or country itself

/(hopeful) confusions about what the people belonging to an enemy state is) saves 1 million civilians of your own or your allies, but NOT killing the 100 million condemns the 1 million, then by logic, the 1 million of my own countrymen or that of my allies has more worth to me! Why is that so hard to understand? Why does something having worth to someone HAVE to be a divine definiton of the value of life? Why the fuck should I have to bow to someone else's definition of the value of human life when they get so pissy over my placement of value? Does that not seem hypocritical?

And thus, we come to my other argument. Why do people prioritize the value of human life based on a ratio? Why do people pretend to be humanists and argue the value of human life but deny that 1 human life can be worth 100 million.

Is a human only human if the odds are fair?

Do the 100 million deserve to live more than the 1 million?

I argue that the 1 million can deserve to live more than the 100 million, but you don't think so? Why? Because it's a 100:1 ratio? So the 1 million lose their humanity based on math?

5.There are other ways then just outright killing and acting mindlessly, and claiming it to be the necessary thing, and the only way to do it.

Another "I reject everything you said and instead assume a bunch of my own shit"

I don't want to insult you, but this attitude of ignoring what the fuck I'm saying is pissing me off. Read more, assume less.

We're talking IF (REPEAT: IF IF IF IF IF IF, CAN YOU SEE ME NOW?) killing 100 million WILL save 1 million, is it worth it?- to me yes; and then people now come in and say "how dare you, my way is more right!"- hypocracy will doom us all.

6.It is worth acting for, it just seems that you are bit too eager to use "final" measures, measures which effects are irreversable.
And i didnt say your a nazi.

But you tell me that my sort of thinking reminds you of certain political movements, and how my divine clarvoyance justifies my reasoning.

What I'm saying is that 1 of my friends is worth more than 100 of my enemy to me. This makes you demand my definition of the value of human life? Why? Do you find that you have to define the value of human life everytime you choose to side with your friend or family member over someone else?

 

[Patton89]

I think i might have misunderstod something back there, so sorry if i did.

You were talking about killing 100 million soldiers to save 1 million innocents.

I cant define the value of life.
But i would have to choose.

How can i say that i must kill 100 million to save 1 million.
From logical standpoint it makes no sense. Even if those 1 million were my own people.



100 "enemies" to save a friend ? No. I would have to choose the 100.
I cant claim that this would be easy, but i cant claim that those hundred would have any reason to die or somehow so unworthy that they deserve to die. I cant claim that this would be the right choice. I still would have caused a death. And i would be a murderer.



I wasnt calling you divine nazi. i was merely trying to tell you that claiming to know that you can sacrifice 100 lives to save 1 is putting a lot of value on the 1 life, and noone can determine that. Best to assume its equal in 1 and 1 ratio. 100>1.

I am not soft. Maybe i am just calculative.

Okay. Sorry about possible misunderstandings. English isnt my first language, it is my third language.
Having slept 0 hours for 2 days , i am also slow today.

 

[Paladin Solo]

On a personal level, I can define the value of someone's life to myself. I think everyone can, actually. They just might not choose to.