Who Will be First to Go Nuclear

[arthwollipot]

I get a sick feeling you are not joking.

You really think I have any influence whatsoever on ANZUS? That I, an unemployed alcoholic slob, could have any remote chance of doing anything about ANZUS?

Australia is the fat kid who sucks up to the school bully. When the bully says "I'm going to beat you up after school." Australia is the one who says "yeah, after school!"

When America says jump, Australia doesn't stop to ask how high.

 

[Roboramma]

Right, so clearly we’re on the same page on everything we’ve talked about in our recent posts, except for this one disagreement, which is no more than an incidental question of semantics. Which is cool, the agreement part I mean to say. That’s by far the main thing.

We probably shouldn't overplay the agreement either. I agree about the importance of context, and that some factual statements can be misleading. So far I haven't expressed too strong an opinion about whether the actual statement under discussion is misleading. I don't actually think it is because I think everyone already knows the context. I don't think it's all that enlightening either, because I think a differently stated version of it would be more meaningful. So I think we have some good agreement about the meta-issues, but maybe not too many about the specific statement. But that's good because we've actually been discussing the meta-issues.

There is this thing in law, in court proceedings, where you say, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, right? Well, that is the difference I’m highlighting. The difference between “the truth” and “the whole truth”. Sometimes it takes “the whole truth” to actually bring out factuality, as opposed to merely “the truth” (which can end up actually misrepresenting facts, and therefore end up being the exact opposite of “factual”, even as it remains “technically” true).

I think this is wrong. Yes, there's a difference between the truth and "the whole truth". This is exactly the reason why I think context matters and have said so multiple times. But the whole truth is made up of component parts which are themselves separately true. You admit this by calling them "the truth" in contrast with the "whole truth". They are just facts. And facts are still true even if they can sometimes be misleading in isolation.

In general one need not really make a song and dance about this, obviously. However, where someone’s intent in saying something is essentially disingenuous --- when someone, for whatever reason, refrains from descending to direct outright lies, but nevertheless tries their very best to do the exact same thing, and misrepresent facts, under cover of technically being truthful but factually misleading --- then insisting on highlighting this semantic thing can help easily expose that disingenuity.

It's easy enough to say something is true but misleading. You don't need to go from there to claiming that a true thing is false.

An analogy, if I may. (I’ll keep the analogy short this time, I swear. And hopefully make it kind of entertaining, as well.)

There are several problems with you analogy. The first is that you take a real world false statement and then say "if that statement were technically true...". Why? Why use this analogy? You're leveraging the fact that we know this is a false statement. That just seems... dishonest to me.

But okay, let's assume for a moment that it turned out that people were eating pets. Then, yes, the statement that people were eating pets would be true. It could also very plausibly be a misleading statement and objecting that there's important context to consider when stating this fact would be reasonable. I have never objected to applying context. Which gets to the biggest problem I have with you analogy which is that you assume that there's someone there stopping you from adding context when asked the question. "Is this statement true?" "Look-" you want to respond, but are cut off. Who is cutting you off? Not me. You're entirely free to say "yes, but..." and continue with a long explanation for why context matters and you find this true statement to be misleading in isolation. Just don't claim that true things are false.

This is actually the reason I replied to your post. You added in this person cutting you and preventing you from adding context to the analogy, but there is no one doing that. You're free to add all the context you want. Adding context doesn't require you to claim that true things are false.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Why would they want to nuke us? Everybody loves Australia.

What about your noisy neighbours from over the edge of the world?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Military analyst Perun regularly illustrates strategy from the example of the enteral conflict between Kiwiland and Emutopia.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Besides China does not want to Nuke Australia, they want to make it a puppet nation.
A lot of lefties, franky, hate the US and want it to vanish from World Affairs.
Problem is international politics are like nature, they abhor a vacumm, and something will move in to fill the vacumm left by the US.
and n the Pacific it is pretty clear who that will be.

I don't hate America (not yet anyway - might have reevaluate that stance after November), but I am a realist. China is the future.

Yesterday I ordered some electronic parts from Digikey in the US. They wanted to know what I would be using them for. Of course I told the truth and said it was to 'wire pagers for sound' lied and said it was for 'audio-visual applications'. Luckily I don't have an Arab-sounding name so they believed me. Yesterday I also ordered electronic parts from several Chinese vendors. Low wholesale prices for small quantities and really low freight charges too - no questions asked.

Last week my boss went on a business trip to China. He was very impressed with the level of technology over there. EVs have green number plates. He says half the cars on the road had them. Meanwhile Biden slapped a 100% tariff on 'Chinese' EVs (including cars made in China by US companies).

In 2023 26% of our exports went to China. Australia was second at 12.8%, and the US third at 12%. America is obviously important to us, but China is more important. They want our dairy products, we need their tech.

I'm really hoping Democrats get the upper hand in the up-coming US election, but I'm also hoping they get more friendly with China. If Trump wins I hate to think what might happen. For a start he'll probably slap even more tariffs on Chinese imports (except Tesla?). I can imagine him telling Putin the US doesn't care what Russia does in Ukraine, like it told Saddam when he was looking at invading Kuwait.

Trump might even suggest to Putin that a few tactical nukes would finish the war sooner. This isn't a wild speculation. In the past Trump three times asked a foreign policy adviser "If we have them why can’t we use them?", and also suggested nuking hurricanes to reduce their intensity.

 

[Chanakya]

We probably shouldn't overplay the agreement either. I agree about the importance of context, and that some factual statements can be misleading. So far I haven't expressed too strong an opinion about whether the actual statement under discussion is misleading. I don't actually think it is because I think everyone already knows the context. I don't think it's all that enlightening either, because I think a differently stated version of it would be more meaningful. So I think we have some good agreement about the meta-issues, but maybe not too many about the specific statement. But that's good because we've actually been discussing the meta-issues.

I think this is wrong. Yes, there's a difference between the truth and "the whole truth". This is exactly the reason why I think context matters and have said so multiple times. But the whole truth is made up of component parts which are themselves separately true. You admit this by calling them "the truth" in contrast with the "whole truth". They are just facts. And facts are still true even if they can sometimes be misleading in isolation.


It's easy enough to say something is true but misleading. You don't need to go from there to claiming that a true thing is false.




There are several problems with you analogy. The first is that you take a real world false statement and then say "if that statement were technically true...". Why? Why use this analogy? You're leveraging the fact that we know this is a false statement. That just seems... dishonest to me.

But okay, let's assume for a moment that it turned out that people were eating pets. Then, yes, the statement that people were eating pets would be true. It could also very plausibly be a misleading statement and objecting that there's important context to consider when stating this fact would be reasonable. I have never objected to applying context. Which gets to the biggest problem I have with you analogy which is that you assume that there's someone there stopping you from adding context when asked the question. "Is this statement true?" "Look-" you want to respond, but are cut off. Who is cutting you off? Not me. You're entirely free to say "yes, but..." and continue with a long explanation for why context matters and you find this true statement to be misleading in isolation. Just don't claim that true things are false.

This is actually the reason I replied to your post. You added in this person cutting you and preventing you from adding context to the analogy, but there is no one doing that. You're free to add all the context you want. Adding context doesn't require you to claim that true things are false.

Ah, my mistake, then, in thinking we'd agreed over anything at all. Fair enough, then, your disagreement noted. And my own complete disagreement with you reiterated.

Just one clarification. That analogy? Because the fish were eaten, and the fish were technically pets, therefore he's claiming that pets were eaten. Which is technically true. Even though it distorts the facts, and so is factually untrue (as I see it, but not you.). And he's insisting on having you answer whether that question is factually true.

Just like here, it's claimed the US has gone longest without nuking anyone, which is technically true, but factually false because it distorts the fact which is that the US is the only one that's used nukes. Technically true but factually false by my lights, but not yours.

(And yes, it was you that insisted I answer whether this original claim is true or not. Which is what started the meta discussion. I continue to hold that it's technically true, but, in terms of fact only a half-truth. But I note that by your standards of truth, it's the truth factually as well. So again, your disagreement noted, and my disagreement reiterated. Both on the analogy, and on the original subject of discussion.)

So, well, cool. We disagree over this. No big deal. Just wanted to correct how you read the analogy. The pets that were eaten are the fish. So what he's saying is technically true. Factually true as well, by your standards of truth, but not mine.

 

[Roboramma]

(And yes, it was you that insisted I answer whether this original claim is true or not. Which is what started the meta discussion.

Yes, I insisted that you answer the question, but not that you don't fill in context related to the question. Unlike the person in your analogy, I'm not cutting you off and preventing you from saying more than yes or no. I've said repeatedly that "yes, but..." would be an entirely reasonable answer, and the [...] can be as long as you want.

My bad on the fish thing, I replied to your post a day or so after reading it and should have reread it before writing the reply.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, and for this:

So, well, cool. We disagree over this. No big deal.

And this last sentence is fair:

Just wanted to correct how you read the analogy.

 

[Chanakya]

Ditto, enjoyed the exchange, the disagreement notwithstanding. Cheers.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, my mistake, then, in thinking we'd agreed over anything at all. Fair enough, then, your disagreement noted. And my own complete disagreement with you reiterated.

Just one clarification. That analogy? Because the fish were eaten, and the fish were technically pets, therefore he's claiming that pets were eaten. Which is technically true. Even though it distorts the facts, and so is factually untrue (as I see it, but not you.). And he's insisting on having you answer whether that question is factually true.

Just like here, it's claimed the US has gone longest without nuking anyone, which is technically true, but factually false because it distorts the fact which is that the US is the only one that's used nukes. Technically true but factually false by my lights, but not yours.

(And yes, it was you that insisted I answer whether this original claim is true or not. Which is what started the meta discussion. I continue to hold that it's technically true, but, in terms of fact only a half-truth. But I note that by your standards of truth, it's the truth factually as well. So again, your disagreement noted, and my disagreement reiterated. Both on the analogy, and on the original subject of discussion.)

So, well, cool. We disagree over this. No big deal. Just wanted to correct how you read the analogy. The pets that were eaten are the fish. So what he's saying is technically true. Factually true as well, by your standards of truth, but not mine.

You're missing the point. Everybody knows the part about the use. That's the only part everyone thinks about. That the only part everyone is thinks matters. That's the part that goes without saying.

But that's the only part you want to talk about. That's the only part you want to consider. That's the part you want to make sure we acknowledge, even though it's totally unnecessary.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I don't hate America (not yet anyway - might have reevaluate that stance after November), but I am a realist. China is the future.

Yesterday I ordered some electronic parts from Digikey in the US. They wanted to know what I would be using them for. Of course I told the truth and said it was to 'wire pagers for sound' lied and said it was for 'audio-visual applications'. Luckily I don't have an Arab-sounding name so they believed me. Yesterday I also ordered electronic parts from several Chinese vendors. Low wholesale prices for small quantities and really low freight charges too - no questions asked.

Last week my boss went on a business trip to China. He was very impressed with the level of technology over there. EVs have green number plates. He says half the cars on the road had them. Meanwhile Biden slapped a 100% tariff on 'Chinese' EVs (including cars made in China by US companies).

In 2023 26% of our exports went to China. Australia was second at 12.8%, and the US third at 12%. America is obviously important to us, but China is more important. They want our dairy products, we need their tech.

I'm really hoping Democrats get the upper hand in the up-coming US election, but I'm also hoping they get more friendly with China. If Trump wins I hate to think what might happen. For a start he'll probably slap even more tariffs on Chinese imports (except Tesla?). I can imagine him telling Putin the US doesn't care what Russia does in Ukraine, like it told Saddam when he was looking at invading Kuwait.

Trump might even suggest to Putin that a few tactical nukes would finish the war sooner. This isn't a wild speculation. In the past Trump three times asked a foreign policy adviser "If we have them why can’t we use them?", and also suggested nuking hurricanes to reduce their intensity.

China ain't the future. They've got the same demographic problems the west does, compounded by the one child policy. On top of that, outside od a few favoured families, they've got a deeply ignorant and poorly educated population who live on the edge of the 19th century tecnologically and and an economy that would have fallen over dead a few years ago only for the state propping up the worst offenders. Graft and misreporting are both off the scale too, just to ensure that no figure from the country can be believed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

China is not the Future, it is the Presence.

The most transformational technologies right now, cheap Electric Vehicles and solar panels, are sold by China globally so much more than all other countries can do together.
China has grabbed the resources of Africa while the US is still fighting about the Middle East Oil what is becoming less important every day.

Countries are looking to China as an economic and diplomatic counterweight to the US.

Sure China has problems now and on the horizon. But Today, innovation is coming from China, not the US.

 

[Roboramma]

The demographic problems are certainly real and even more severe than in the west. China faces a major challenges and current leadership shows no signs of taking the right path. Instead, they seem to be leading the country to disaster.

However, "a poorly educated population"? Maybe in the countryside. If you're talking about Chinese farmers, sure. But the massive urban population of China has a strong education. And "live on the edge of the 19th century technologically"? You've clearly never been to China. I've traveled all over the country and it is anything but technologically backward.

China has very serious problems, and I certainly don't want to downplay them. And I agree that the country is currently on the wrong path in a way that's very worrying. But that's no excuse for ridiculous statements like "they've got a deeply ignorant and poorly educated population who live on the edge of the 19th century technologically".

 

[dudalb]

I find the love of China expressed by a few people here to be distrubing. what part of CHina is a ruthless dictatorship don/t they get?
One guy statres I don't hate the United States, but I call BS on that. His post have shown a constant contempt for the United States and a real fondness for CHina.
If China is the wave of the future, then Democracy world wide is doomed.
But I should not be surprised, many on the hard left have always has s "Mickey Mao" love for the CCP.

 

[arthwollipot]

I find the love of China expressed by a few people here to be distrubing. what part of CHina is a ruthless dictatorship don/t they get?
One guy statres I don't hate the United States, but I call BS on that. His post have shown a constant contempt for the United States and a real fondness for CHina.
If China is the wave of the future, then Democracy world wide is doomed.
But I should not be surprised, many on the hard left have always has s "Mickey Mao" love for the CCP.

Are you reading the same thread we are?

 

[alfaniner]

Going nuclear on someone that pronounces it "noo-kyoo-ler" is OK in my book.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I find the love of China expressed by a few people here to be distrubing. what part of CHina is a ruthless dictatorship don/t they get?
One guy statres I don't hate the United States, but I call BS on that. His post have shown a constant contempt for the United States and a real fondness for CHina.
If China is the wave of the future, then Democracy world wide is doomed.
But I should not be surprised, many on the hard left have always has s "Mickey Mao" love for the CCP.

In the next few days we may see that democracy is doomed anyway. And I dispute your claim that China is a ruthless dictatorship. It has its problems for sure, but the biggest problem is that our views are being manipulated by those who need China to be the bad guy.

I am not in any way 'hard left', but I am a realist. History has shown that prosperity leads to greater economic and political freedom. China is headed in that direction, whereas many western nations are going the other way - heading towards more fascism, racism and general anti democratic feelings as people become worse off. I expect China to become more free in the future, while the US continues to become less free. At some point in the future they will probably cross over - if the 'united' states don't break up before then.

 

[LiteBright]

In the next few days we may see that democracy is doomed anyway. And I dispute your claim that China is a ruthless dictatorship. It has its problems for sure, but the biggest problem is that our views are being manipulated by those who need China to be the bad guy.

I am not in any way 'hard left', but I am a realist. History has shown that prosperity leads to greater economic and political freedom. China is headed in that direction, whereas many western nations are going the other way - heading towards more fascism, racism and general anti democratic feelings as people become worse off. I expect China to become more free in the future, while the US continues to become less free. At some point in the future they will probably cross over - if the 'united' states don't break up before then.

Really? While there certainly are examples in history where economic prosperity has lead to greater freedoms, there are also examples of the opposite. China is a perfect current poster child for this. It has simultaneously become more economically prosperous while clamping down on individual rights and freedoms in a way not seen in decades. From forced reeducation camps for the Uighers of Xinjiang to the repression of the Tibetans to the morality police who have the authority to literally move into your family's home for a time to ensure you are complying with the way the CCP wants you to live. This is a brutally repressive regime that has become far worse under Xi. And given that he has now made himself president for life, what on earth do you see that leads you to the conclusion that China is going to become more free in the future?

Considering that elsewhere on this forum you have voiced full-throated support for more government surveillance of people in western nations, are you sure you just don't like the repressive Chinese model better? Perhaps you should consider moving there.

 

[mumblethrax]

If journalists, human rights lawyers, and reformers (not to mention disfavored minorities) are routinely disappeared in a country, I think it's fair to call that country a ruthless dictatorship.

The idea that economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization was wishful (if commonly stated) thinking 30 years ago, when China was given access to the financial institutions of the liberal world order. Today, it's just plain wrong.

 

[Norman Alexander]

If Trump was elected, they would give him a joke "big red button" and some fake codes to use. So when he decided he wanted to nuke somewhere, all those in his periphery would know to initiate Operation Hamburgler. This is the CGI-based animated program on the Situation Room TV screen just for Donald which shows missiles going BING! and targets going BONG! and Rambo "coming in hot" to eradicate various US enemies. While this is going on, the real hard diplomacy is being done by nameless, intelligent minions outside of Trumpy's view.

 

[dellarte]

Fun fact: The US has possessed a nuclear arsenal, without using it, longer than any other nation on earth.

Anyway, it's good we've addressed these tangential points.

The US has possessd a nuclear arsenal and used it shorter than any other nation on earth.