View Poll Results: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

Voters
710. You may not vote on this poll
  • Multi-Polar World

    458 64.51%
  • Nuclear War

    252 35.49%
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 157 of 157

Thread: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Our political philosophies are probably quite similar, Mild Steel . On the surface, without thought , the question is , IMO, silly/stupid ; but, in truth, NO question is "stupid" as the self-righteous seem to think. I feel that it is absolutely impossible for us to remain as the ONLY world power ..To have this POWER , its possible (short term), but then we would have to dominate ALL other nations .. subjugate and control ..neither economically nor psychologically feasible , IMO .. Others have tried this .. with limited success .. China for one ..
    As for a nuclear war "alternative" ..Even if we are the "winners" .. still a horrible thought ..we would actually be the losers .. Intelligent, sensible people know this .. Russians for one ..
    What you have said here is true. That said, a large problem in relations between Russia and the U.S. is not the lack of intelligent people but rather the lack of trust that exists on both sides. Although you response has merit, it fails to take into account that despite the presence of intelligent actors on both sides of a conflict, war still takes place due to lack of trust between the two sides. Consider this from the book "Ethics and War: An Introduction"

    Distrust by itself can lead to war, or it can exacerbate real conflicts making war more likely. The main source of distrust is that no group can be assured that its opponents will not take advantage of its trust. (This is the "cause of quarrel" that Hobbes refers to as diffidence.) The international distrust creates an assurance problem and sets up a dynamic which is referred to as the security dilemma. In the absence of effective international institutions, each state must look after its own security. But due to general distrust, each state's efforts to make itself more secure can make its adversaries fell less secure. The resulting spiral of mutual distrust leads to war.
    To see the level of distrust that exists between the two sides consider this from a 1997 piece by Ariel Cohen, a foreign policy expert who has advised the U.S. government

    A more equitable balance of power in Eurasia
    Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has become a weak regional power in need of Western assistance. At the same time, the Russian government makes unfair security demands on its neighbors -- for example, by trying to block Poland, the Czech Republic, and other countries from joining NATO. This behavior is reminiscent of efforts by the Soviet Union and the Romanov Empire to carve out spheres of influence and assure that Soviet or imperial Russian security interests prevailed over those of neighboring countries. In return for continued U.S. and multilateral economic aid, favorable debt rescheduling, and future foreign investment, Russia should recognize the seriousness of U.S. and European security and economic interests. Issues such as Moscow's acceptance of NATO expansion, agreement on theater missile defense, and termination of any Russian involvement in the Iranian military buildup should be pressed more firmly in diplomatic negotiations.
    Please note that Mr Cohen feels that in return for foreign investment, Russia should accept NATO expansion. It is interesting to note Mr Cohen's feelings about Iran's nuclear program, even at such an early date.

    Russia is using Iran like a piece in a game of multidimensional chess that combines a realpolitik recognition of Moscow's relative weakness vis-ŕ-vis Washington with Russia's desire to push America out of the Persian Gulf, a vital zone of military and political predominance.
    ....
    The Kremlin does not see Iran as a threat, but as a partner and an ad hoc ally to challenge U.S. power through the expansion of Russia's regional and international influence.[27] While the Iranian agenda is clearly separate from that of Russia, the Kremlin uses Iran as geopolitical battering ram against the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf region and the Middle East. Not only is Russian support for Iran's nuclear program and arms sales good business from the Kremlin's perspective, but it advances a geopolitical agenda that is at least 20 years old.
    ....
    Today, both Russia and Iran favor a strategy of "multipolarity," both in the Middle East and worldwide. They seek to dilute American power, revise current international financial institutions, shift away from the dollar as a reserve currency, and weaken NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. They are also working to forge an anti-U.S. coalition to counterbalance the Euro-Atlantic alliance. The coalition will likely include Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Russia is courting China, India, and other states to offset American influence.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Our political philosophies are probably quite similar, Mild Steel . On the surface, without thought , the question is , IMO, silly/stupid ; but, in truth, NO question is "stupid" as the self-righteous seem to think. I feel that it is absolutely impossible for us to remain as the ONLY world power ..To have this POWER , its possible (short term), but then we would have to dominate ALL other nations .. subjugate and control ..neither economically nor psychologically feasible , IMO .. Others have tried this .. with limited success .. China for one ..
    As for a nuclear war "alternative" ..Even if we are the "winners" .. still a horrible thought ..we would actually be the losers .. Intelligent, sensible people know this .. Russians for one ..
    CONTINUED

    Of course Mr Putin is not so thrilled

    After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.
    ....
    In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.
    The point is that there is a large amount of distrust that exists between Russia and the U.S. today. A manifestation of this distrust can be seen in the armed conflict that is taking place in Ukraine today. If the U.S. does indeed take the step of providing lethal aid to Ukraine, the conflict will escalate and the possibility of that distrust turning into an armed conflict between the two nations would increase dramatically. Russia simply cannot compete with the U.S. in a conventional war. They have clearly stated that if they are faced with an overwhelming threat from a conventional force that they feel threatens the existence of the Russian state, they will use their nuclear arsenal. Therefore Putin said this:

    “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” he said. “This is a reality, not just words.”

  3. #153
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Nuke Moscow. That will do it.
    I don't think your plan will end well.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #154
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
    Clearly multi-polar world. At least the human race has a chance in that case (provided this is an all or nothing choice you're giving us).

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    Clearly multi-polar world. At least the human race has a chance in that case (provided this is an all or nothing choice you're giving us).
    That is a good answer. Therefore we should not do things that put us on the path to nuclear war in the name of maintaining a uni-polar world.

  6. #156
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    That is a good answer. Therefore we should not do things that put us on the path to nuclear war in the name of maintaining a uni-polar world.
    Duh...

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    Duh...
    Yep, that's what I say too. I don't know why people can't understand that.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •