It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question Regarding World Death in War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
This is a question regarding world patriotism versus country patriotism: would you prefer that during a war the USA had 300,000,000 deaths and China had 999,999,999 deaths (1,299,999,999 world deaths) or that China had all the world deaths (1,300,000,000), with all other factors being equal, including life expectancy of all nations and the world?

I cannot answer definitively as I am both loyal to the world and my country.

May God protect the world from war.




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I certainly wouldn't choose an option which involved the death of the entire US population, so I wish the numbers were a little different, but I understand that's not the root of the question.

The basic question is one of how we care to see loss of life divided among the global population if the only criterion was nationality.

From a moral standpoint, perhaps I really shouldn't care: 1.3 billion corpses by any other name would still smell as bad.

On the other hand, there's a question of not only the value of the individuals on the moral plane but the consequences of the existence of the nation which they compose. In other words, would the world be better off with a weaker China or a weaker America?

It's hard to say that any one thing really benefits all the world. Ironically, China would be quite a bit worse off if America were excessively weakened or destroyed. I'm not so sure we'd be missed in the Middle East or Africa, but if we were, you could rest assured that the Europeans would take up a large part of what we've been doing, both in positive and negative ways.

America could deal with a weaker China, but probably not a billion people lighter.

So really when it comes down to the specific numbers you gave: either China is destroyed or else China is crippled and America is destroyed I'd say feel free to flip a coin because I'm gonna be more than a tad unhappy either way.

I don't see a universal moral answer and given those specifics I don't see a viable selfish answer either really.

At the simpler question however, whether we value foreigners over our own kind in a vacuum... I'm not gonna pretend to be anything I'm not. In a simple choice between I win they lose or they win I lose, I'm gonna choose to win. Serves me right though if I die and am reincarnated as one of them.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   


posted by The Vagabond

The basic question is one of how we care to see loss of life divided among the global population if the only criterion was nationality. In other words, would the world be better off with a weaker China or a weaker America? [Edited by Don W]



Vag, I’m glad you are able to interpret or translate the question. I could not. Keep in mind the US led the world in production in WW2 with but a few more than 140 million total population. Out of that number we had 13 million in uniform in August, 1945. We had already discharged 3 million for various reasons. Which is to say we had 16 million veterans in WW2. And we were able to set ourselves up for the grandest economic expansion between 1945 and the onset of Reaganism the world has ever seen.



It's hard to say that any one thing really benefits all the world. Ironically, China would be quite a bit worse off if America were excessively weakened or destroyed.



Do you say this because the US is the primary market for the remarkable Chinese manufacturing growth since 1977? That the US is the “only” market for their great productivity? That China and the US are symbiotic? That Wal-Mart is the distribution agency for the PLA?



I'm not so sure we'd be missed in the Middle East or Africa, but if we were, you could rest assured that the Europeans would take up a large part of what we've been doing, both in positive and negative ways.



Well, yes and no. I’m satisfied the EU would not undertake to rearm itself for any reason that now suggests itself. Co-operation not domination is the EU mantra. The EU has not been tested defense of the homeland-wise. While I am well pleased with the progress made by the EU so far, the failure of the Constitution vote in Holland and France means the EU has hit an impasse it has not yet been able to decide what to do about it.



America could deal with a weaker China, but probably not a billion people lighter. So really when it comes down to the specific numbers you gave: either China is destroyed or else China is crippled and America is destroyed I'd say feel free to flip a coin because I'm gonna be more than a tad unhappy either way.



This question remains too esoteric for me to comment on.



I don't see a universal moral answer and given those specifics I don't see a viable selfish answer either really. At the simpler question however, whether we value foreigners over our own kind in a vacuum . . I'm not gonna pretend to be anything I'm not. In a simple choice between I win they lose or they win I lose, I'm gonna choose to win. Serves me right though if I die and am reincarnated as one of them. [Edited by Don W]



To which answer I must join.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
In the late 1980s or maybe the mid 1990s, I read in a respected journal that the world could only support 2 billion people over the long haul - a millennia - in the style of living the West then enjoyed. The author’s thesis was we are riding a chemically supported agricultural bubble which will burst. The sudden downturn in food production would immediately put the remainder of the world’s population into a starvation mode. Chaos would ensue along with nuclear exchanges by the starving nations striking the over-fed - primally America - in a vain effort to get food. America would respond by spreading anthrax over Africa, Asia and Central America. As in a Bush43 pre-emptive strike type response.

Although I am not yet fully converted, I have begin to question the peak oil scenario I adhered to as recently as a few months ago. I always knew that old fields have as much as 50% of the original oil remaining that is not recoverable economically with today’s technology. And as we learn to search and drill deeper, we have found more oil. The peak oil theory rests on the premise the continental United States has been more throughly explored than any similar size place on the planet and we have indeed passed our peak when it was predicted, in the 1980s. On that assumption, the same thing will happen - peak oil says - to the world’s oil production by 2010. I do not think that will be the case, although I do believe it will ultimately be true, but maybe not in Century21.

Globalization - which may indeed be unstoppable - is dividing the world into two classes, the ultra rich and the ultra poor. Whether it can be stopped or not may be a question already answered by 19th century’s Karl Marx in his application of dialectical materialism. In any case, 1945-1975 will be viewed as the halcyon years of the American middle class.

Finally, it may turn out we run short of water before we run short of oil. Yet another topic but which bodes ill for the poor around the world.


[edit on 10/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Do you say this because the US is the primary market for the remarkable Chinese manufacturing growth since 1977? That the US is the “only” market for their great productivity? That China and the US are symbiotic? That Wal-Mart is the distribution agency for the PLA?


A little of all of those things I'd say, even though not all of them are necessarily iron-clad truth (particularly that the US is the only market or that the US and China are necessarily symbiotic). There are underlying facts which could hint towards those things however and which will have an impact.

There aren't too many nations that can match the US for population and per capita wealth.

Europe has a tad better than twice our population and population density if you count everything from Portugal to the Urals plus the UK, but their GDP by purchasing power parity is only about 14% higher than ours. In other words, they have just better than half our per capita GDP by PPP. If we go about the math in the quick but crude way, the result is that to replace US markets with European ones means cutting prices in half and doubling production.

Then there's the size of retailers to consider, but I'd have to do a little research to see just how far ahead US retailers beyond Walmart are in terms of volume, because having the retail volume and customer base to virtually ensure demand definately encourages production.

Not necessarily last and definately not least then, there's the simple question of whether or not other nations will shop China the way Americans do. We're a materialistic, individualistic, ruthlessly capitalist society. Not everyone will necessarily open the door to Chinese products at the expense of their own manufacturing capability.

Speaking of manufacturing capacity, you've got to consider trickle downs. With Americans no longer producing or generating demand for certain industrial equipment, production costs in some industries could easily go up. If a nation this heavily motorized suddenly stops buying cars, stops investing in auto manufacturers, and stops making the doo-hickey on the robot arm that welds the truck frame together, what's going to happen to the price of the trucks that get those Chinese products from the factory to a port, etc etc etc?



Well, yes and no. I’m satisfied the EU would not undertake to rearm itself for any reason that now suggests itself.


You'd be surprised, but in all fairness, so would the Europeans. I think they probably believe that they've at least partially out-grown imperialesque oppression, but they may not realize that they still reap the benefits of it when the US does it. If somebody doesn't prop up the kleptocracy in this or that obscure 3rd world nation there will be a revolution there, the land will be reappropriated, and they'll start growing food for their starving children instead of tea for fat white people. That will be bad for the boys at Lipton, or whoever's brand it is that the Brits drink, and there will be rich people nagging at the governments which they paid to put in power. Next thing you know, it'll be send in the checks and if that doesn't work, send in the Marines: the Royal Marines that is. The average European will be shocked. If there's an American left anywhere he might be amused. The masters of corporatism however will just see it to be business as usual.


Co-operation not domination is the EU mantra. The EU has not been tested defense of the homeland-wise.


I think my point has to do with a contrast between the above two sentences. You are right in regards to European civility where strategic matters are concerned: I trust the Europeans not fight with Iran for threatening Israel just because Israel shares their beliefs and may be a counterbalance against ideas different from their own. I do not trust the Europeans to let Western domination of the third world simply fade away if it threatens to cost them money.


Now look what I've done... lunch break is over.
Good talkin to ya as always Don.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   


posted by The Vagabond

There aren't too many nations that can match the US for population and per capita wealth. If we go about the math in the crude way, the result is that to replace US markets with European ones means [China] cutting prices in half and doubling production. Not necessarily last and least, there's the simple question of whether or not other nations will shop China the way Americans do.

We're a materialistic, individualistic, ruthlessly capitalist society. Europeans probably believe they've out-grown imperial oppression and may not realize they still reap the benefits when the US does it. If somebody doesn't prop up the kleptocracy in this or that obscure 3rd world nation there will be a revolution there, the land will be appropriated and redistributed and they'll start growing food for their starving children instead of tea for fat white people.

That will be bad for the boys at Lipton or whoever's brand it is that the Brits drink, and there will be rich people nagging at the government which they paid to put in power. Next thing you know, it'll be send in the Marines: the Royal Marines that is. The average European will be shocked. The masters of corporatism however will just see it to be business as usual. I think my point has to do with a contrast between the above . . You are right in regards to European civility where strategic matters are concerned. [Edited by Don W]



Your perspective on the EU and Europeans seems on point, Vag. Every nation on earth is benefitting from the end of the Cold War in 1989-1991, except the United States. We have not yet found an enemy worthy of our half trillion dollars a year military industrial congressional complex. Sure, people like Duke Cunningham thought they had found the Philosopher’s Stone but it turned out to be Fool’s Gold. Pyrite.

Because America was spared the horrendous casualties of both WW1 and WW2 that Europeans suffered, we have enjoyed only a casual acquaintance with the deprivations of war. We are still enthusiastic about war although we do feign appropriate concern over the dead, when they are mentioned, which is not often. Bush43 ordered early on, “no pictures of the dead coming home. It distresses the shepple, er, people.” Rodric Braithwaite, UK ambassador to the USSR from 1988 to 1992 said in his book, “Moscow 1941: A City and its People at War,” that 900,000 Soviets died in the Battle of Moscow in 1941-1942. The US lost 150,000 KIA in WW! And 450,000 KIA in WW2. So what do we know of death?



[edit on 10/23/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join