02-07-2017, 08:12 AM
(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I don't know what your definition of "planning war" is; that's why
> I'm asking for a clarification. You say that the only use for
> China having "thousands of missiles targeting the US and Russia"
> is that they're "planning war"; by that logic, it seems to me that
> the US and Russia are also "planning war", since we both have
> thousands of missiles targeting each other and China as well.
> I feel reasonably confident that I understand what the US is
> planning. We have contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios in
> which war could occur; in that sense we are "planning war". We
> may well be planning conventional strikes in Syrian territory, and
> keeping our nukes in reserve as a deterrent against unwanted
> escalation; in that sense also we may be "planning war", or at
> least we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, we
> aren't likely to attack China or Russia in an unprovoked war of
> aggression; in that sense, we are not "planning war".
> I'm trying to get a feel for which of these senses you are using
> when you say China is "planning war". If it's in the contingency
> plan sense, I'd agree; I think all nations with significant
> military power "plan war" in that sense. If you're talking about
> use as a deterrent against escalation while they wage a limited
> conventional war, I'd be interested in what limited conventional
> war you think is planned. If you think they are planning an
> unprovoked war of aggression against the US in the sense that we
> are not planning an unprovoked war of aggression against China,
> I'd want to know why you think the situation is not symmetric. And
> if you think the US is planning an unprovoked war of aggression
> against China, I'd be interested in that too.
> So, can you clarify in which of those senses you are using
> "planning war", and in particular, do you see the US and Russia
> fitting that sense as well?
Well, you're right, I suppose every country is always "planning
war" in the sense of preparing to defend itself in case of war.
In the case of China, it's a lot more than just building one weapons
system after another whose only purpose is to destroy American cities,
military bases, and aircraft carriers. It's the series of aggressive
actions that China is taking on all its borders, similar to Hitler's
actions in the late 1930s. I think that with some thought, one could
distinguish between defensively or offensively "planning for war."
(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Except in the deterministic sense that what happened is obviously
> what happened, yes, I think there are scenarios where the US could
> have sided with Nazi Germany in WWII. If the Great Depression had
> hit France harder, causing the centrist French government to be
> replaced by a militant Communist government strongly allied with
> the Soviet Union, for example, I can see Churchill and the US
> intervening to help Nazi Germany survive to prevent Communist
> hegemony over the continent. I can think of other scenarios too,
> up until 1938 or 1939. I'm not sure what relevance that has,
> though.
That's an interesting answer, not one that I was expecting. You're
saying that if a communist Hitler had risen in France who was
worse than Germany's Hitler, then we would have sided with France.
The reason that I asked the question was to show that the choice
of sides in a generational crisis war is pretty much
predetermined. If we assume that there was no such French
communist Hitler, then I would say that the choice of France
our ally was predetermined.
But if you're going to make that kind of assumption, then you
could also have assumed that America's leader could have become
another Hitler, and sided with the Nazis.
So I would say two things. I think that if you look back in history
and analyze the 100 years war, the 30 years war, the war of the
Spanish succession, the French Revolution, the American Civil war, WW
I -- then Hitler could not have arisen in America, Britain or France,
and only Germany has the history and geography that would have
permitted the rise of Hitler. And second, under those circumstances,
we could never have sided with the Nazis.
So maybe I asked the question the wrong way. I should have asked: Is
there any scenario where we would have sided with Britain's enemy,
whether Germany or France, assuming that Britain maintained it's
historic government (and that there was no British Hitler). I would
argue that we would have chosen whatever side Britain was on, and that
there were no circumstances where we would be joining some other
country in bombing London.
The same kind of reasoning could be used today. Could we side with
China and Pakistan against India? I don't believe so. Could Russia
join China and Pakistan in war against India and Iran? Once again, I
don't see any reasonable scenario where that's possible. I believe
that the alignments that I've been describing for ten years -- the US,
India, Russia and Iran versus China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim
countries -- are pre-determined and will not change.
