homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » No Whisky Priests here (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: No Whisky Priests here
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you want to challenge my initial assumption then that's fine, but have you got anything better than "wouldn't it be nice if we all got along" to do it with?

Generally, we do all get along. Most of the wars we involve ourselves in are pretty much self-starters that we wouldn't have got involved in if we didn't have a crap-tonne of shiny weapons and people trained to use them.

The last war the UK fought that was an actual 'defence' was the Falklands, which is 35 years ago now. And we were very nearly undone because of weapons our allies had sold the Argentinians.

So you see where I'm going with this, right? Your plan makes war not just likely, but inevitable. It sucks resources away from civil peacemaking into military warmaking. It's not a question of me wanting us to get along better, it's a question of whether we can afford, both in terms of blood and treasure, and in the existential threat that war presents, to have a standing army at all.

The weapons the UK (and Australia) export make war a preferred option to those who make money selling weapons. The UK is a beneficiary (our politicians specifically) of those who make money selling weapons. It affects our foreign policy enormously, who we consider enemies and who we consider allies.

I'd like to see less war and more peace. Selling weapons makes that unlikely.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And your second is absolutely a slippery slope, because you are suggesting an extreme consequence of what I'm proposing rather than dealing with it on its own merits.

Your proposal is that nobody sell arms to anyone outside their own country. Is that right? If so, it follows as night follows day that every country will have to research, develop and manufacture its own weapons if it doesn't want to either be in the pocket of a bigger country or without viable armed forces.

That's not an extreme consequence, it's the most realistic outcome of your proposal. In the real world, anyway - in some fantasy world where everyone automatically becomes friends if they don't have anything to fight each other with the results may be different.

No, it really doesn't follow "as night follows day." You seem to be speaking to me from a universe in which there isn't currently an enormous amount being spent on weapons technology. In this one, if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.

Your suggestion is a possibility, and not the most likely one. It certainly doesn't directly follow, as you claim.

[ 02. February 2018, 02:27: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

--------------------
Wronger than a drooling idiot on stupid juice - but I understand his argument.
mousethief (paraphrase)
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2955 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So you think you might encounter a situation like this one?
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not a question of me wanting us to get along better, it's a question of whether we can afford, both in terms of blood and treasure, and in the existential threat that war presents, to have a standing army at all.

As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.

quote:
I'd like to see less war and more peace. Selling weapons makes that unlikely.
The arms trade as we're discussing it has only existed for a couple of hundred years at most - before then any country could create and manufacture cutting-edge military technology for itself with relative ease. If, therefore, selling weapons makes war more likely we'd expect to have seen a massive rise in their number in the last 200 years or so. I don't think that's been the case.

And interestingly, the two biggest wars there have been in that period were between nations that built all their own weapons anyway.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.

Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.

Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.

Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.

Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.

TBF you can use that argument to defend supplying hit men.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17929 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not a question of me wanting us to get along better, it's a question of whether we can afford, both in terms of blood and treasure, and in the existential threat that war presents, to have a standing army at all.

As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.
Citation needed
quote:
quote:
I'd like to see less war and more peace. Selling weapons makes that unlikely.
The arms trade as we're discussing it has only existed for a couple of hundred years at most - before then any country could create and manufacture cutting-edge military technology for itself with relative ease. If, therefore, selling weapons makes war more likely we'd expect to have seen a massive rise in their number in the last 200 years or so. I don't think that's been the case.

And interestingly, the two biggest wars there have been in that period were between nations that built all their own weapons anyway.

'Built all their own weapons'. So you've missed the comments about how we were arming the Japanese right up to the moment they declared war on us, and somehow escaped all the history lessons where the US manufactured crap-tonnes of weapons for the Russians and the British, the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia for the Skoda works, the way they rebranded captured French warships as German ones...

I simply don't agree with you. Making and selling arms to send abroad is nothing to do with 'defence'. It's about profit. The idea that we somehow need these weapons in the modern era is unproven.

If you want to look at the data, this is a fairly comprehensive round up. That bit where you said 'wars would be more likely if we sold weapons'. Have a look at the first graph. Each red circle is a separate conflict. There are a lot of red circles in the last two hundred years, more than in the preceding 400. Correlation is not causation, but I don't think you can argue that the arms trade has diminished conflict.

[ 02. February 2018, 11:34: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.

Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.

Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.

The problem is that you were talking about research and development of arms increasing, not black markets for arms themselves. They are two discrete things. Companies tend to be resonsible for research (for better or worse), and tend to only carry out research into stuff they can profit from. If there are fewer legal avenues for them to make those profits, they will rearrange their priorities. That is the market logic we live in. Again, for better or worse.

Black markets for arms is something you didn't initially argue. Yes, restricting arms sales may lead to black markets. Are you still arguing that doing the ethical thing is a bad idea because of consequences that might occur? What ARE you arguing?

ETF spelling and grammar

[ 03. February 2018, 01:37: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

--------------------
Wronger than a drooling idiot on stupid juice - but I understand his argument.
mousethief (paraphrase)
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2955 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*responsible for research

Mortifying when you edit your own post and still mess things up. [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Wronger than a drooling idiot on stupid juice - but I understand his argument.
mousethief (paraphrase)
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2955 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why is it morally licit for BAE (for example) to sell weapons to the UK government but not to a foreign government? In both cases you are making money out of killing devices.

(I agree it's morally questionable to sell weapons to somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but then the moral distinction is between democratic / oppressive rather than domestic / foreign.)

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7244 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As you suggest, it's a question of degrees of morality.

But BAE don't actually give a shit who they sell to, as long as they sell. They most likely prefer to sell to both sides in a conflict.

The Boy, when he was choosing his engineering degree course, deliberately chose a 'less warry' course, rather than the ones with strong links to arms manufacturers. Because he doesn't see much of a distinction, and increasingly, neither do I.

[ 03. February 2018, 16:53: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096

 - Posted      Profile for simontoad   Email simontoad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you didn't see Insiders this morning (not up yet on youtube and would probably be geoblocked), the Talking Pictures segment was set in an empty warehouse ready to be filled with arms to ship overseas and Mike Bowers and his mate were dressed up to the nines in anticipation of all the money they were going to make selling lil Mal's wares. Droll, very droll, and the appropriate response to an announcement about the arms industry made in South Australia with a looming election in that state.

--------------------
Human

Posts: 1565 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is death a product? Do they rate the cost effectiveness of killing machines and bombs by cost per kill?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11472 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I reckon they probably do, np. No doubt there is an algorithm for it, as these given every aspect of our lives now.

--------------------
Wronger than a drooling idiot on stupid juice - but I understand his argument.
mousethief (paraphrase)
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2955 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is death a product? Do they rate the cost effectiveness of killing machines and bombs by cost per kill?

Money back if not entirely satisfied.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3197 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.

Citation needed
A nation is less able to defend against an attack if it doesn't have viable and effective armed forces than if it does. You need a citation for that?

quote:
I simply don't agree with you. Making and selling arms to send abroad is nothing to do with 'defence'. It's about profit. The idea that we somehow need these weapons in the modern era is unproven.
OK, so we get rid of our armed forces. And then if Putin or ISIS decide that they want to annex or destroy us what do we do?

What's your non-military solution to that scenario, other than some vague hope that it will never happen?

quote:
If you want to look at the data, this is a fairly comprehensive round up. That bit where you said 'wars would be more likely if we sold weapons'. Have a look at the first graph. Each red circle is a separate conflict. There are a lot of red circles in the last two hundred years, more than in the preceding 400. Correlation is not causation, but I don't think you can argue that the arms trade has diminished conflict.
I'm not convinced about the methodology behind that chart. For one thing, it's counting things such as the Night of the Long Knives or Idi Amin's murder of political opponents as conflicts, when few would count them as wars in the sense that we're talking about.

For another thing, even the site itself states that historical conflict numbers may be underreported.

And finally, that chart shows that deaths in conflicts are decreasing quite a bit, even with considerably more dots on the chart. I would imagine that some of that will be due to technological advances such as guided missiles and drones and some will be due to increasing automation meaning fewer people are needed to operate machines of war (and yes, some is due to the world wars no longer being counted in the rolling averages). It's quite logical really - you don't need to spend dozens or hundreds of lives to eliminate an enemy strongpoint if you can do the same thing with a predator drone or a few tomahawk missiles.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem with your way of thinking, MtM, is that is perpetuates the cycle whilst pretending to be sensible.
Obviously, nations need military in the current world situation. But working to reduce that need is the better strategy. Not easy, not guaranteed. But the current practice of selling arms willy-nilly is fucking stupid.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.

Citation needed
A nation is less able to defend against an attack if it doesn't have viable and effective armed forces than if it does. You need a citation for that?
Yes. This gets to the heart of the matter.

If you want to argue that a householder without a gun is more likely to be burgled, then yes: show me some statistics on that. If you want to argue that a nation with say, only civilian law enforcement, is more likely to be invaded by a superiorly armed aggressor nation state, then yes: show me some statistics on that.

Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.

Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.

The problem is that you were talking about research and development of arms increasing, not black markets for arms themselves. They are two discrete things. Companies tend to be resonsible for research (for better or worse), and tend to only carry out research into stuff they can profit from. If there are fewer legal avenues for them to make those profits, they will rearrange their priorities. That is the market logic we live in. Again, for better or worse.
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.

My underlying assumption is that one way or another governments will get the most advanced weapons they can possibly get. Currently the R&D part of that equation is effectively being outsourced to a few companies by a much greater number of governments, but if the companies stop providing that service then all those governments will simply bring it back in house. You'd have the same outcome, but in a far less efficient way meaning that globally a considerably greater amount of resources would be spent on weapons than is currently the case.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you want to argue that a nation with say, only civilian law enforcement, is more likely to be invaded by a superiorly armed aggressor nation state, then yes: show me some statistics on that.

American military history 1950 - 2018. Fierce rivalries and/or outright enmities with nations that have good armed forces = uneasy truce, but no direct aggression. Slight tiffs with nations that have poor or no armed forces = invasion and regime change. It's why Saddam Hussein is dead and Kim Jong Un lives on.

And if Ukraine had a better military they'd still have Crimea.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.

Governement actually do R&D now. Who do you think pays for private companies to develop weapons?
The current strategy makes the world less safe. The focus should be on reducing tensions, not preparing for them.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes. You're right. But you also need to explain why it doesn't happen to all those countries it doesn't happen to.

The US are by far (3X) the largest spender on military hardware. Are you suggesting every country needs to spend that much? Or are you suggesting that every country needs nuclear weapons to fend off the threat of US invasion? Ukraine spends $4bn. Russia $44bn. Should Ukraine have bankrupted itself and fronted up to a nuclear power over Crimea?

Lots of countries down the bottom of the list have never been invaded in recent history. Countries at the top of the list haven't either (with the exception of WWI/WWII, and that's no longer recent history).

Almost as if correlation isn't causation. As if there might be another model of international relations we might promote other than arming ourselves to the teeth.

(xposted with lB - reply is to Marvin)

[ 06. February 2018, 17:16: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I strongly suspect Ukraine's best chance of not losing Crimea would have been to join NATO.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7244 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So do I. And I can understand such pooling of resources and, to some extent, sovereignty. If NATO allies only sold to each other and no one else, that would be far preferable than the free-for-all we have now.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686

 - Posted      Profile for Pangolin Guerre   Email Pangolin Guerre   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I strongly suspect Ukraine's best chance of not losing Crimea would have been to join NATO.

I think that NATO is properly reluctant to admit anymore 'frontline' states. Crimea is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier, in the view of Brussels. Bad enough that they're now stationing troops in Poland and the Baltic republics. Except for the host countries, no one is really happy about that.
Posts: 757 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.

Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.

The problem is that you were talking about research and development of arms increasing, not black markets for arms themselves. They are two discrete things. Companies tend to be resonsible for research (for better or worse), and tend to only carry out research into stuff they can profit from. If there are fewer legal avenues for them to make those profits, they will rearrange their priorities. That is the market logic we live in. Again, for better or worse.
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.

My underlying assumption is that one way or another governments will get the most advanced weapons they can possibly get. Currently the R&D part of that equation is effectively being outsourced to a few companies by a much greater number of governments, but if the companies stop providing that service then all those governments will simply bring it back in house. You'd have the same outcome, but in a far less efficient way meaning that globally a considerably greater amount of resources would be spent on weapons than is currently the case.

Indeed. The slippery slope involves a lot of assumptions and contingencies.

--------------------
Wronger than a drooling idiot on stupid juice - but I understand his argument.
mousethief (paraphrase)
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2955 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.

Governement actually do R&D now. Who do you think pays for private companies to develop weapons?
As I said, it's currently outsourced by a lot of governments to a few companies. Remove the companies, and the governments will all have to do it themselves. Which leads to inefficiency in the system.

quote:
The current strategy makes the world less safe. The focus should be on reducing tensions, not preparing for them.
Reducing tensions requires both sides to back down. When one of the sides is unwilling to back down then the other side can either stand up against them or get rolled over.

How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Or are you suggesting that every country needs nuclear weapons to fend off the threat of US invasion?

History would suggest so, yes.

quote:
Ukraine spends $4bn. Russia $44bn. Should Ukraine have bankrupted itself and fronted up to a nuclear power over Crimea?
Given that Russia wanted Crimea and was willing to invade to get it, what alternative option do you think would have enabled Ukraine to keep it? Or do you think that the top military spenders should be able to grab any bit of land they want from any other country?

quote:
Lots of countries down the bottom of the list have never been invaded in recent history.
Very few of them have anything worth invading for. Or if they do, it's only something that another nation with low military spending wants which puts them on a relatively even playing field.

Some of them, of course, are allied to nations that spend big on their military. Which is basically another way of having a viable defensive force, albeit one that is dependent on your relationship to the bigger power.

quote:
Almost as if correlation isn't causation. As if there might be another model of international relations we might promote other than arming ourselves to the teeth.
Other than some vague notion of "can't we all just get along", what do you have in mind?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I strongly suspect Ukraine's best chance of not losing Crimea would have been to join NATO.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So do I. And I can understand such pooling of resources and, to some extent, sovereignty. If NATO allies only sold to each other and no one else, that would be far preferable than the free-for-all we have now.

So, what? It's OK to sell arms to your allies, but only if they're the right allies?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's less wrong, which you would have understood if you'd read my post.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?

It would have been better not to have created those tensions in the first. And that is the point you are missing.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?

It would have been better not to have created those tensions in the first. And that is the point you are missing.
We didn’t create them, Hitler did. That’s my point. It only needs one side to be assholes to start a war, and when that happens the pacifists and appeasers will find out that wishful thinking and offers of friendship won’t stop the occupying forces from taking over.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?

It would have been better not to have created those tensions in the first. And that is the point you are missing.
We didn’t create them, Hitler did. That’s my point. It only needs one side to be assholes to start a war, and when that happens the pacifists and appeasers will find out that wishful thinking and offers of friendship won’t stop the occupying forces from taking over.
There's a pretty sound argument that the terms of the Versailles Treaty, following the Armistice, set Germany on the road to totalitarianism, which could have gone one way or the other. Western Europe, unsurprisingly, preferred Nazism to Marxist-Leninism.

And then during the war the western allies had a policy of appeasing Stalin, eg, the hapless Dieppe raid, area bombing (eg, the Hamburg firestorm, 1,000 bomber raids and the bombing of Dresden), leaving most of Germany open to the Soviets in 1945 and (believe it or not) handing German PoWs to the Soviets at the end of the war "as a geture of friendship". All this while ignoring the evils perpetrated by Stalin & co in conducting the war.

That worked out well didn't it?

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24263 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And still nobody can provide a reasonable alternative means of national and international defence.

How do we stop ISIS? How do we keep Putin from world dominance? What about North Korea, or China, or Iran? What about Boko Haram? How are we supposed to respond to those threats if military means are off the table?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30077 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And still nobody can provide a reasonable alternative means of national and international defence.

How do we stop ISIS? How do we keep Putin from world dominance? What about North Korea, or China, or Iran? What about Boko Haram? How are we supposed to respond to those threats if military means are off the table?

Stop invading Middle East countries would be a good start. Stop treating terrorists like an army and more like the criminals they are. Putin is a difficult call, but I'd still suggest that soft power would be a far more effective way of countering him than military might - it's worked pretty well for him so far. North Korea is as North Korea does: sanctions and isolation. China's territorial claims are worrying, but we had the opportunity to do something when they invaded Tibet and didn't, Boko Haram isn't a sophisticated modern army with tanks and fighter aircraft last time I looked, why do they need opposing with the same? Iran? Diplomacy.

I'm sure there's a certain glory in raising your tattered flag over the remains of your civilisation and shouting defiantly "At least we had a strong military!" moments before you succumb to the toxins in your blood stream, but it's not one I'd vote for.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QBWe didn’t create them, Hitler did. [/QB]

Incorrect. Hitler exploited the situation we created, as Sioni outlines.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hitler's national socialists exploited a situation Germany had created for itself by losing a war it started in 1914.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3197 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hitler's national socialists exploited a situation Germany had created for itself by losing a war it started in 1914.

Double fail. The causes of WWI were multiple, none of the principle nations avoid fault there.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good luck with your rewriting of the History books.

Germany, war-prepared, crossing borders with 4.5 million troops counts as starting a war in my book. Having the remains of that Army close to mutiny 4 yrs later, looking to cut it's loses for Peace, counts as losing it.
If you want to play what ifs, then at the very least the Great War might not have involved Britain thus changing the course of Human history.

The free World did lose the Peace forged in 1919, most observers accept that. That still does not make the rise of AH our FUCKIN FAULT !
(A tragedy of shared responsibility if I wanted to get unhellish about it)

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3197 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good luck with your rewriting of the History books.

You'd better tell John Keegan he's got it wrong all these years, because he agrees with lB (and pretty much every single historian).

But go you. I'm sure you'll tell us how it really was.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9114 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good luck with your rewriting of the History books.

Germany, war-prepared, crossing borders with 4.5 million troops counts as starting a war in my book.

There is no doubt who started the fighting in WWI. That is not what is being discussed. It is who causes wars. And that is typically not the person who swung first, or not only them.

quote:

The free World did lose the Peace forged in 1919, most observers accept that. That still does not make the rise of AH our FUCKIN FAULT !
(A tragedy of shared responsibility if I wanted to get unhellish about it)

That shared responsibility is exactly what we are talking about. Hitler is Hitler's fault. But the circumstances which allowed him to flourish and take root are, in large part, ours.
It is a blinkered, and ridiculous, notion that fault or cause is zero-sum. Hitler is 100% responsible for the path he took. That doesn't mean no one else can be responsible for why he was able to do so.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am willing to concede that the cause of WW1 was murky and long held enigma, of which the general arms race was but a factor.
It is recent thinking which has tended towards deliberate intent on the part of Germany. In many ways it was Russia, on the edge of revolt, which had most to gain from a speedy and glorious victory. The Great War will probably remain as one of the most horrific, yet most avoidable conflicts in modern history.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3197 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I am willing to concede that the cause of WW1 was murky and long held enigma, of which the general arms race was but a factor.

It isn't murky nor ever an enigma. It just isn't as clear as who pulled the trigger.
quote:

It is recent thinking which has tended towards deliberate intent on the part of Germany.

One typically paints oneself as the goodun. This involves a lot of whitewash, and there are very many old coats under the current one.
quote:

The Great War will probably remain as one of the most horrific, yet most avoidable conflicts in modern history.

Unnecessary? Yes. Unavoidable? That is far from clear. Just how inevitable actual war was is debated amongst historians, but that there was a building of factors into the tensions that eventually exploded, isn't.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17603 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't murky nor ever an enigma. It just isn't as clear as who pulled the trigger.

Well yeah, which is exactly the reason for frigging puzzlement.

Who had what to gain from turning a terrorist assassination, (which at worst would have caused yet another Balkan war), into full blown military mobilzation across two Continents?
Britain certainly didn’t want it, no more than the repeat performance 22 years later. It had a tentative hold on a fifth of the World land mass and wasn’t looking to jepordise that in a hurry.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3197 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools