1. #2181
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    I already answered your question those people don't have the rank, position and protections we usually afford to people as heads of government. You keep saying deterrence works, do you have any examples where it has? because history is filled with what this is which is escalation not "deterence" because that is how the real world works. In the real world your policy ends with millions of people dead in Iran not even going into the fact that you seem to think that Trump has a policy for Iran so far there's no evidence of such a thing.
    Your argument is because deterrence hasn't worked in many cases it doesn't work at all? You going to die on that hill? Because MAD called, and it wanted to let you know it worked.

    In the real world this policy ends with us killing the Iranian leaders that attack us, and the people of Iran can then choose leaders who won't do that anymore.

    Remember, I'm arguing the policy, not Trump - we both agree on him overall.
    Last edited by cubby; 2020-01-13 at 01:33 AM.

  2. #2182
    You're following Trump's play...

  3. #2183
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    You guys are talking about deterrence the way goons talk about the death penalty being a deterrent, republican boomer mindset.

    Nevermind completely misunderstanding the point of the ongoing Russian interference.
    I disagree. Knowing that we might go after someone as a military leader if you order attacks on the United States is a very good deterrent. I'm curious why you think they wouldn't consider that before acting.

  4. #2184
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I disagree. Knowing that we might go after someone as a military leader if you order attacks on the United States is a very good deterrent. I'm curious why you think they wouldn't consider that before acting.
    Russia??
    Trump's icon?
    Pfft...you're not serious.

  5. #2185
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I disagree. Knowing that we might go after someone as a military leader if you order attacks on the United States is a very good deterrent. I'm curious why you think they wouldn't consider that before acting.
    What are the current foreign policy goals in Iraq?
    Has this action helped or hurt them?

    These are the only two questions you should be asking.

  6. #2186
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Your argument is because deterrence hasn't worked in many cases it doesn't work at all? You going to die on that hill? Because MAD called, and it wanted to let you know it worked.

    In the real world this policy ends with us killing the Iranian leaders that attack us, and the people of Iran can then choose leaders who won't do that anymore.

    Remember, I'm arguing the policy, not Trump - we both agree on him overall.

    That's not how MAD works we didn't nuke Russia first so that they won't nuke us both sides knew the consequences of using those weapons we didn't do that here this is false equivalency.

    You can't separate Trump from the policy because he is in charge for this to be a smart move you have to assume it is part of a plan.

  7. #2187
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Trump approves of Russian’s supporting him(aka an ordered attack on the USA). Why would they be worried?
    We're not talking about Trump. We're talking about the policy of targeting for assassination those leaders who order attacks on the United States.

    I've been very clear on this point. The policy is the conversation, not the idiot man-child Resident in the White House.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    That's not how MAD works we didn't nuke Russia first so that they won't nuke us both sides knew the consequences of using those weapons we didn't do that here this is false equivalency.

    You can't separate Trump from the policy because he is in charge for this to be a smart move you have to assume it is part of a plan.
    You asked about deterrence. MAD was a deterrent. You said deterrence doesn't work. I gave your proof they do. MAD worked as a deterrent.

    I can separate the man from the policy. Good policy implemented badly isn't the fault of the policy.

  8. #2188
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    We're not talking about Trump. We're talking about the policy of targeting for assassination those leaders who order attacks on the United States.

    I've been very clear on this point. The policy is the conversation, not the idiot man-child Resident in the White House.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You asked about deterrence. MAD was a deterrent. You said deterrence doesn't work. I gave your proof they do. MAD worked as a deterrent.

    I can separate the man from the policy. Good policy implemented badly isn't the fault of the policy.
    All we have is wag the dog here.
    As for assassination as a policy then I guess it's okay when Russia does it.
    Frankly I see it more as "nation building" and hpw often has that worked?

  9. #2189
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    All we have is wag the dog here.
    As for assassination as a policy then I guess it's okay when Russia does it.
    Frankly I see it more as "nation building" and hpw often has that worked?
    Agreed that Trump is pulling wag the dog.
    Different scenarios.
    It's not.

  10. #2190
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    You asked about deterrence. MAD was a deterrent. You said deterrence doesn't work. I gave your proof they do. MAD worked as a deterrent.

    I can separate the man from the policy. Good policy implemented badly isn't the fault of the policy.
    Perhaps I should have worded it better but MAD is not evidence that deterrence works, have you read about that era? we barely survived as a race there were so many times were we got on the brink but got lucky because Yeltsin wasn't drunk that day or someone pressed the right button by accident. That's not even going into how we lived in constant fear of death we still have the bunkers in old buildings to prove it. If that is your shining example of this working we're in trouble.

    You can't split the man from the policy because he is the one making it, for policy to work that means it's part of a long term plan but it's more likely Trump made this decision because Soleimani @Him on twitter or he was scared of Benghazi or Pompeo got to him or there was fly on his burger that night.

  11. #2191
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Perhaps I should have worded it better but MAD is not evidence that deterrence works, have you read about that era? we barely survived as a race there were so many times were we got on the brink but got lucky because Yeltsin wasn't drunk that day or someone pressed the right button by accident. That's not even going into how we lived in constant fear of death we still have the bunkers in old buildings to prove it. If that is your shining example of this working we're in trouble.
    Exactly. That was horrific deterrence, and it still worked. This is very straight forward, simple, deterrence. Order an attack on the United States and you'll be targeted for elimination.


    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    You can't split the man from the policy because he is the one making it, for policy to work that means it's part of a long term plan but it's more likely Trump made this decision because Soleimani @Him on twitter or he was scared of Benghazi or Pompeo got to him or there was fly on his burger that night.
    Of course we can. You don't want us to because it ruins your entire argument. Policies are carried down from administration to administration - they are easily separated (and in fact distinguished) by different people's application.

    Who knows why Trump made the decision - it's in fact looking more and more like he made up the "intelligence" he "acted on". But the policy is still sound.

  12. #2192
    If Benggaul's link in the shitshow is correct then Trump's decision was all impeachment pressure getting to him.
    Which sounds par for the course.

  13. #2193
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    If Benggaul's link in the shitshow is correct then Trump's decision was all impeachment pressure getting to him.
    Which sounds par for the course.
    And, ironically, an impeachable offense.

    I mean, seriously, even if it takes until 2024 to get a Democratic President into the Executive, how long do you think the Truth and Reconciliation Committee will take to complete their investigation?

  14. #2194
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @cubby Trump is the one who ordered the assassination. He will only do that when the attack isn’t useful for him. Russia’s attacks continue to be useful for him. Please keep up.
    We're going to go for personal attacks now? Is that your road to objective debate? Lovely. I thought we were having an honest conversation about foreign policy. You saying "please keep up" makes me think you're just clowning around looking for interweb zingers? Is that right? I'm taking you and your points seriously - I would appreciate the same.

    I'm talking about the policy, not Trump. The policy is 100% separable from the man. Time and again throughout even our short history as a country policy has transcended administrations, applied differently by different people. Trying to argue that they are inseparable is specious as best.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    And it means your earlier argument is specious at best.
    It in fact does not. Again, policy is separate from the man. Ask me questions if you don't know what I mean. It's entirely possible I'm not being clear. I can't do rectify that if you don't tell me what isn't clear.

  15. #2195
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @cubby let me know how much killing OBL has deterred others. Oh right, it hasn’t. Neither did the killing of ISIS leaders. Your supposition is based on a child’s logic of “if I hurt him he won’t do it again”.
    ISIS and OBL were different. Those are leaders of terrorist organizations - different from member nations of the UN (I know calling Iran a viable country is...difficult, but bear with me). So this new policy couldn't be applied to those two examples.

    Now, a better argument would be that Iran immediately attacked the United States (sort of - there is evidence to suggest Iran intentionally "missed") right after we initiated our Deterrence Policy. So initially it didn't work. However, time will tell. We're also in a rather bad spot because it's Trump running the policy now, and if it can be fucked up, we can count on him to fuck it up - if that makes sense.

  16. #2196
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Exactly. That was horrific deterrence, and it still worked. This is very straight forward, simple, deterrence. Order an attack on the United States and you'll be targeted for elimination.
    Again we didn't start MAD by nuking Russia also this deterrence business has had zero impact on terrorist organizations but you somehow think it will work against countries.

    Of course we can. You don't want us to because it ruins your entire argument. Policies are carried down from administration to administration - they are easily separated (and in fact distinguished) by different people's application.

    Who knows why Trump made the decision - it's in fact looking more and more like he made up the "intelligence" he "acted on". But the policy is still sound.
    Nope because policy implies it's part of a larger plan there is no plan this is not policy it's just a reaction that's why it matters why and how it was done.

  17. #2197
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @cubby not different in any meaningful way. We’ve been droning people who order attacks on the US for quite a while. All it does is piss more people off. And let me know when we start droning China and Russian leaders as they’ve been ordering regular attacks on the US for ages.
    Really? Can you point to those attacks and the people who ordered them? Please link sources and cites.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Again we didn't start MAD by nuking Russia also this deterrence business has had zero impact on terrorist organizations but you somehow think it will work against countries.
    But MAD was a form of deterrence, and it worked. You didn't say it had to be the exact same form of deterrence we're discussing here, you just said deterrence doesn't work. And it does.

    We're not talking about terrorist organizations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Nope because policy implies it's part of a larger plan there is no plan this is not policy it's just a reaction that's why it matters why and how it was done.
    There is a larger plan behind it. Stop allowing the U.S. to be attacked with impunity. The policy is separate from the man.

  18. #2198
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    There is a larger plan behind it. Stop allowing the U.S. to be attacked with impunity. The policy is separate from the man.
    And who is heading this policy the decider that will be consistent and clear again

  19. #2199
    The failings of deterrence is covered here

    https://www.nato.int/docu/review/art...-do/index.html

    But could Galtieri and his fellow countrymen not have guessed that a proud nation like the United Kingdom would not stand idly by as part of her overseas territory was being occupied by another power? Should one not have known that remaining passive would have spelled the end for any British government? The answer: yes, in normal times Argentina may well have pondered such scenarios. However, in a crisis humans tend to think along a different kind of logic. Indeed, many studies about human behaviour demonstrate that people who fear to lose something valuable are ready to take greater risks than those who hope to make a gain. In the context of the Falklands War, this means that for the Junta, which was under siege politically, occupying the “Malvinas” was not about a gain, but rather about avoiding losing power. This made them take risks they otherwise would not have dared to take. Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.

  20. #2200
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    And who is heading this policy the decider that will be consistent and clear again
    Lol yeah, you can separate the policy from the man, but right now the policy is being implemented by Cheeto - and he can't even think strategically enough to keep a casino profitable - so we're probably fucked (as usual).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    The failings of deterrence is covered here

    https://www.nato.int/docu/review/art...-do/index.html

    But could Galtieri and his fellow countrymen not have guessed that a proud nation like the United Kingdom would not stand idly by as part of her overseas territory was being occupied by another power? Should one not have known that remaining passive would have spelled the end for any British government? The answer: yes, in normal times Argentina may well have pondered such scenarios. However, in a crisis humans tend to think along a different kind of logic. Indeed, many studies about human behaviour demonstrate that people who fear to lose something valuable are ready to take greater risks than those who hope to make a gain. In the context of the Falklands War, this means that for the Junta, which was under siege politically, occupying the “Malvinas” was not about a gain, but rather about avoiding losing power. This made them take risks they otherwise would not have dared to take. Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.
    I wonder how much fear they'll have when it's their literal life at risk when considering attacking the U.S.?

Posting Permissions

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