War

[Corrie]

If WW3 happens then it won't be a war as either WW1 or WW2 were - the world has changed so much since then. The initial fighting would be confined to the relevant geographical location for as long as outside forces can manage, but the nature of war - particularly in this modern age with conflict in so much of the world - means the fighting would spread out from there sooner or later.

Best case scenario for either a Russian or Chinese conflict with the US (no, very recent history does not rule these out as being serious possibilities) :

- http://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/

But really, it's not (just) the actual fighting to worry about :




https://www.businessinsider.com.au/president-nuke-option-requires-no-permission-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

- - - Post Merge - - -



Unfortunately that is not the case. Even if the main conflict occurs elsewhere, there would be continued attempts to bring the conflict to the west, particularly to the US. It would not be an actual war otherwise.

Furthermore, the rate and scale of terror attacks (from all sources) would almost certainly increase. Terror thrives in chaos, and nothing is so chaotic as the threat of war.

I want to end on a more positive note but.. I'm at a bit of a loss for an upside at the moment.

With the fact that the world has evolved so much since the first world wars, wouldn't you think that there would be no point to a nuclear war? Wouldn't it just basically destroy everything and nobody would win? Why can't these leaders see that?

 

[-Apples-]

I wonder what would John F Kennedy say about our relations with Russia right now.

 

[moonford]

I wonder what would John F Kennedy say about our relations with Russia right now.

"Oh dear god, why?"

 

[LambdaDelta]

Why can't these leaders see that?

people are insignificant to them is why

 

[Corrie]

people are insignificant to them is why

That pisses me off so much. It's so unfair that the public is being put at risk for death and the leaders just sit back and twiddle their thumbs, even though they are the ones who started the stupid war in the first place. Unfair.

 

[Red Cat]

That pisses me off so much. It's so unfair that the public is being put at risk for death and the leaders just sit back and twiddle their thumbs, even though they are the ones who started the stupid war in the first place. Unfair.

In most cases, the public is culpable for choosing those leaders. Also, those leaders are usually just men in business suits who are incapable of actually doing anything themselves, so they need a lot of help to wage war and those people who are "just taking orders" are also responsible for their own actions. The reason these kinds of situations happen is because most of the public in a lot of countries lack courage and/or the ability to think for themselves and do not want to accept responsibility for their own choices.

 

[amanda1983]

With the fact that the world has evolved so much since the first world wars, wouldn't you think that there would be no point to a nuclear war? Wouldn't it just basically destroy everything and nobody would win? Why can't these leaders see that?

Yes, yes, and "human nature" are my answers. It seems we're at a point when some key people in authority around the world lack some essential common sense and comprehension skills.

Nuclear proliferation = bad, for everyone. Nuclear war = very bad, for everyone. Being seen to be picking fights internationally in a world with multiple volatile, nuclear-capable countries that follow different rules to you = so monumentally bad - for everyone - that the mere suggestion is abhorrent.

Yet here we are.

In the future, I recommend we all, in our various countries, try and elect people who a) demonstrate appropriate understanding of both domestic and global laws, b) demonstrate appropriate understanding of WHY those laws are in place (whether they agree with them or not, it's important to understand something you want to change *before* you start making changes...), c) yeah I think I've made my point by now.

Finally : no democracy should let the power to launch a nuclear attack reside in one person with absolutely NO official way to counter that order. That is the kind of power dictators have.

 

[Corrie]

Yes, yes, and "human nature" are my answers. It seems we're at a point when some key people in authority around the world lack some essential common sense and comprehension skills.

Nuclear proliferation = bad, for everyone. Nuclear war = very bad, for everyone. Being seen to be picking fights internationally in a world with multiple volatile, nuclear-capable countries that follow different rules to you = so monumentally bad - for everyone - that the mere suggestion is abhorrent.

Yet here we are.

In the future, I recommend we all, in our various countries, try and elect people who a) demonstrate appropriate understanding of both domestic and global laws, b) demonstrate appropriate understanding of WHY those laws are in place (whether they agree with them or not, it's important to understand something you want to change *before* you start making changes...), c) yeah I think I've made my point by now.

Finally : no democracy should let the power to launch a nuclear attack reside in one person with absolutely NO official way to counter that order. That is the kind of power dictators have.

For whatever reason, it seems like trump is doing whatever he wants without anyone else's opinions. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that way cause really, whoever assumed just randomly shooting missiles to another country randomly is a good idea is so foolish that I doubt congress agreed to it. I mean, it's possible they did but I have no clue. It seems that trump is just doing whatever he wants while in power and we all just have to sit back and watch and be a part of it. I mean, I think Hillary would have started a war with Syria anyway, so they say, so we probably would have been in the same situation anyway. It's just sad that we get idiots to choose from to lead our country. It sucks we don't get people with their head on straight and who knows/has experience in politics.

Edit: Ill go as far to say that it seems like trump is becoming a dictator if he isn't one already. It seems that no laws can stop his foolishly harmful actions and that is definitely wrong.

 

[amanda1983]

For whatever reason, it seems like trump is doing whatever he wants without anyone else's opinions. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that way cause really, whoever assumed just randomly shooting missiles to another country randomly is a good idea is so foolish that I doubt congress agreed to it. I mean, it's possible they did but I have no clue. It seems that trump is just doing whatever he wants while in power and we all just have to sit back and watch and be a part of it. I mean, I think Hillary would have started a war with Syria anyway, so they say, so we probably would have been in the same situation anyway. It's just sad that we get idiots to choose from to lead our country. It sucks we don't get people with their head on straight and who knows/has experience in politics.

Edit: Ill go as far to say that it seems like trump is becoming a dictator if he isn't one already. It seems that no laws can stop his foolishly harmful actions and that is definitely wrong.

The strike itself, to my knowledge (and I'm no military expert, nor am I a geopolitical one) was reasonably sound as a tactic in and of itself - the point being political impact rather than an attempt to instigate or escalate conflict. The problems I have with *this* strike and it's circumstances are
- there is no recognisable plan for what to do *next*. An international missile strike is the equivalent of jumping up and down and shouting "hey! Look at me! I want to talk! I have things to say! Listen to me!" - it's an attention-getter. Which is not a bad thing - so long as noone is injured in the process - but it does require that one actually has something reasonable to do with the attention once it is gained. It is glaringly apparent that has either not been thought through, or - most likely - that Trump is disregarding the strategy advice from his military and political experts in this case.

- by acting in this way in this conflict, there is no going back. Since there is also no apparent strategy for going forward, that leaves us in a tricky mess.

- Trump ran on a strong platform of US isolationism. No more "helping" other countries before the US. No more money spent to help the world's poor instead of those in America. No more getting drawn into international conflicts at the cost of US money, effort, and lives. None of those things are compatible with his action in this instance.

- he may have acted illegally according to US and international law :

In fairness, a President's authority to fire some cruise missiles into another country without checking with Congress has become a hazy area of Constitutional law in modern times. It's true that under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war, tax and spend for defense, and provide for our armed forces.
On the executive side, however, the Constitution simultaneously names the President as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," who must, to the best of his ability "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

While a "humanitarian" reason for attacks certainly seems like a laudable moral objective, this might not be a valid reason to attack under domestic law. Internationally, the UN Charter appears to explicitly prohibit all foreign military intervention without Security Council authorization, unless taken in self-defense. The President has an easy way around these legal constraints, however.
He can just do whatever he wants.
If he insists that he has the authority, then Congress will either back him up, or at least not argue with him. The courts will probably stay out of it, too.
How can he order air strikes in apparent defiance of the Constitution, federal and international law? Simple: the other guys did it.
Other presidents have launched attacks on sovereign nations for humanitarian reasons. Bill Clinton did it in Kosovo, and justified intervention in Haiti and Bosnia. Barack Obama initiated military action in Libya, and threatened to do it in Syria, too.
Both Clinton and Obama took the position that Congressional authorization is not required if the military action does not rise to the level of "war".

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/legality-of-trump-syria-missile-strikes-cevallos/

 

[LambdaDelta]

In the future, I recommend we all, in our various countries, try and elect people who a) demonstrate appropriate understanding of both domestic and global laws, b) demonstrate appropriate understanding of WHY those laws are in place (whether they agree with them or not, it's important to understand something you want to change *before* you start making changes...), c) yeah I think I've made my point by now.

c is to stop electing ****ing warmongers

which basically sums up the near-entirety both major party platforms of America

Finally : no democracy should let the power to launch a nuclear attack reside in one person with absolutely NO official way to counter that order. That is the kind of power dictators have.

no amount of people in the world should have that power, period

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that way cause really, whoever assumed just randomly shooting missiles to another country randomly is a good idea is so foolish that I doubt congress agreed to it.

pretty certain none of this went through the defense department or congress or anything

but hey, he told russia. so syria was able to get an advance warning

and of course, he'll still continue to reject refugees from there

Edit: Ill go as far to say that it seems like trump is becoming a dictator if he isn't one already. It seems that no laws can stop his foolishly harmful actions and that is definitely wrong.

at the very least his platform is perfectly content to go along with him

 

[nerdatheart9490]

We're flucked. They're flucked. Everyone is flucked.