The Profit Motive

[The Wizard Joseph]

Option 9 sounds legit.

This. But it's nice to see the other options available!   

[ChaosAdvocate]

I'm by no means an expert on warfare, but, regardless if the argument of "WWII was won by nukes" is true or false, it doesnt have a direct translation to present day tactics and strategy.

1. Nowadays theres are dozens of countermeasures to nullify nuclear weapons, reducing their efficiency.

2. Tactics and Strategy doesnt seem to revolve around large concentrations of units and resources on a clearly defined battlefront, but rather large ammounts of small separated groups that are highly communicated and coordinated.

Theres tons of other reasons im sure, but why bother researching them if you force analogies and examples comparing ficticious scenarios to real life.

When there's enough people will probably no longer be afraid to fight WW3, unmanned warfare and all that. WW1 was fought to expand foreign markets + territory in practice, they had a very complex network of alliances just like in today's times and a recession called "the panic" before it happened. Many superpowers got extinguished. WW3 will most likely be fought for the exact same intentions as WW1 in mind but different tech. What will the next game of super-powers be like and outcome?

In WW1 they invented landships(Tanks) against machine guns. In WW3 they will have unmanned warfare against any nukes.

[ChaosAdvocate]

Option 1: The United States makes good on its threat and obliterates all who oppose it. They then have to move in and secure the (surviving) resources with their conventional military, against a surviving population which views them as horrific monsters on a scale unrealized in human history. How has that worked out for them in comparable situations today?

Option 2: The United States doesn't make good on its threat and looks weak on the international stage. It is forced to come to the bargaining table, humiliated, to secure the resources it needs to continue running its economy. At best, it gets a less favourable deal than it would if it didn't threaten to murder millions of people and alienates its allies for even contemplating it out loud. At worst, no deal is reached and a long, protracted and brutal guerilla campaign to take those resources by force without the use of nuclear weapons is launched, resulting in a situation much like option 1 but with less radiation (and thus, more usable resources)

Option 3: The United States doesn't act like a complete fucking idiot and realizes it needs the cooperation of the people on the ground - or at the least, the elites who rule them - in order to sustain itself in the long term. Negotiations are made which put the interests of the elites of all sides at the forefront - that is, the profit motive - and we wind up in a situation much like we have today anyway.

Which one of these three options seems most likely to you?

Would be more fun if it fell as a power, what is going to take its place? Since China and it are dependent on each other? The United States' corporations have caused millions to die from famine and preventable diseases in third/second world countries through corporate globalization aka cheap labour, cheap food production and resource allocation. They have bad conditions and lower minimum wages so people in it and the countries similar will not care about freedom or revolt, they are pacified cause of it. It is keeping order through giving people sheep mentality.

[ChaosAdvocate]

Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under  communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA

Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?

I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.

I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.

There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because  Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)

EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.

Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.

The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.

[Doktor Howl]

If there weren't any other major Nuclear powers we'd have unrestricted power to do whatever we wanted to. Who could stop us?

Remember the Star Trek episode with the evil alternate universe version of the federation threatening to wipe out the Halkans unless handed over all their dilithium crystals, we could be them if there were no other Nuclear powers.

Star Trek is a great place to learn geopolitics.

[Cain]

Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under  communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA

Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?

I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.

I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.

There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because  Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)

EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.

Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.

The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.

I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.

[LMNO]

[ChaosAdvocate]

Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under  communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA

Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?

I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.

I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.

There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because  Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)

EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.

Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.

The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.

I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.

I mean in simplified terms. One wants to abolish the state by having civilization evolve through Socialism(Primitive statelessness/communism > slavery/aristocracy > feudalism > capitalism > mutation into corporate feudalism/crony-system then revolution eventually > socialism > communism). The other wants to do it right on the spot.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

In any case the communist version is just stupid.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under  communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA

Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?

I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.

I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.

There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because  Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)

EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.

Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.

The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.

I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.

I mean in simplified terms.

Well if that's the only shoe you can fit to...
I mean that's not backtracking at all, clearly.   

[ChaosAdvocate]

In any case the communist version is just stupid.

It was apparently built on the premise that the Paris Commune in 1871's attempts to abolish the state on the spot did not work out(They lost and got massacred).

Many of their movements did believe though that the old must be demolished to be replaced by something new.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]