They're fronts. Actors. Literal tv personalities. Expendable. Insignificant. Grow up. Trump is the perfect president to appease Putin with.
They're fronts. Actors. Literal tv personalities. Expendable. Insignificant. Grow up. Trump is the perfect president to appease Putin with.
I'm being strict with you because you're so close and I believe in you.
Your view can drive the policy if enough people in power believe in it, I'll give you that.
Everyone believes in survival.
If that was the case the government wouldn't be gutting CDC and denying climate change. "Everyone believes in what they believe increases their survival chances" is a more nuanced way of looking at this. "Letting russia fail" -> "Nuclear war" is not a guarantee, it is a probability based on beliefs
Probabilities. Calculated risks. The US intends to win WWIII first. No use in funding research that won't complete before China invades Taiwan.
Then there's the russians screaming at them about what they'll do.
The problem in believing this is that it makes ww3 inevitable. This mindset would explain at least partially why military elites won't push back on trump's actions.
Well China isn't stopping either, is it.
It doesn't mean WWIII is inevitable. But to deter war one must prepare for war. To not prepare is to lose.
That's prisoners dilemma for you.
As long as there's no obvious weakness to exploit, cooperation is the rational play.
Not a bit. You see, I believe in humans, not countries. So I'm not even sure if it is a war that is worth actually fighting. Trying to deter - absolutely. Fighting - I'm not so sure.
Your weakness will be China's opportunity. Weakness is the problem. It provokes aggression.
>Weakness is the problem That's only if we are stuck in this tribalist mentality. Humanity as a whole might not make it if instead of spending resources on survival we spend them on wars. But I understand that it takes 2 to tango, so unless everyone accepts this - no one will. Coordination problem.