Oh No

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

They started a war they could not possibly win. It's as much martyrdom as Iran starting a war they couldn't win would be.

You never know if a war is hopeless-after all, they could have held on longer and hoped ther Chinese had come in on their side- hell, the American fought in Vietnam for 8 years with total conventional superiority and lost- why shouldn't the Khmer Rouge have held the idea that they could not hold out until political pressure got to the Vietnamese?

They couldn't. A conventional war is always in some amount of doubt- the comparison is at best extremely weak. There is a vast difference between all the possible complixities of what can happen in combat, and with a military campaign, vs. the simple- you nuke me, I nuke you, millions die reality of nuclear strategy.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


You never know if a war is hopeless-after all, they could have held on longer and hoped ther Chinese had come in on their side- hell, the American fought in Vietnam for 8 years with total conventional superiority and lost- why shouldn't the Khmer Rouge have held the idea that they could not hold out until political pressure got to the Vietnamese?

They couldn't. A conventional war is always in some amount of doubt- the comparison is at best extremely weak. There is a vast difference between all the possible complixities of what can happen in combat, and with a military campaign, vs. the simple- you nuke me, I nuke you, millions die reality of nuclear strategy.

I find it amusing that you should say mention the deaths of millions as something that would deter a regime when we're talking about Democratic Kampuchea.

Anyway, you're arguing that the Khmer Rouge regime was not suicidal because there was a chance they might only get beat up without actually being toppled. That's like saying that shooting yourself in the head is not suicidal because you might survive.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I find it amusing that you should say mention the deaths of millions as something that would deter a regime when we're talking about Democratic Kampuchea.

Deaths of millions of enemies of the people is fine. The death of millions of party faithful, plus the leadership, now that is not allowed.

Anyway, you're arguing that the Khmer Rouge regime was not suicidal because there was a chance they might only get beat up without actually being toppled. That's like saying that shooting yourself in the head is not suicidal because you might survive.

The analogy is wrong, but the first part is correct. States start wars all the time, with different aims-that a state might be mistaken in its assumptions is not the same as being suicidal. The better analogy is someone who is overyl confident getting into a fight with a much bigger person. Its might be stupid, but you can;t call it suicidal- that implies a wish by the persojn acting of certain death. Possible death, even probable death, is not a suicidal action. Only if you know death is assured is the action to be considered suicidal.

Regime death was certainly NOT a certainty when they declared war on Vietnam-after all, the Vietnamese could have simply beaten them, placed a harsh peace treaty on them, and still let them rule. Regime change was a decision made by the Vietnamese, after the war began. So, again, the action was stupid, but certainly NOT suicidal.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Deaths of millions of enemies of the people is fine. The death of millions of party faithful, plus the leadership, now that is not allowed.

The only reason they didn't kill millions of party faithful was that they didn't have millions of party faithful.

The analogy is wrong, but the first part is correct. States start wars all the time, with different aims-that a state might be mistaken in its assumptions is not the same as being suicidal. The better analogy is someone who is overyl confident getting into a fight with a much bigger person. Its might be stupid, but you can;t call it suicidal- that implies a wish by the persojn acting of certain death. Possible death, even probable death, is not a suicidal action. Only if you know death is assured is the action to be considered suicidal.

Regime death was certainly NOT a certainty when they declared war on Vietnam-after all, the Vietnamese could have simply beaten them, placed a harsh peace treaty on them, and still let them rule. Regime change was a decision made by the Vietnamese, after the war began. So, again, the action was stupid, but certainly NOT suicidal.

That's simply not how the word "suicidal" is normally used. But we are getting away from the point.

Obviously, Pol Pot et consortes wouldn't had started the war unless they'd managed to delude themselves they could not only survive it but also win. Similarly, Teheran won't initiate nuclear war unless they first convince themselves they'd have something to gain from it*. The point of in mentioning Kampuchea is that what a regime thinks it can get away with has just about no necessary relation to reality.


* Or, conceivably, just out of pique if they figured they'd be annihilated anyway.

[Seeker]

Hey guys remember how the world stopped North Korea from ge--

never mind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That's simply not how the word "suicidal" is normally used. But we are getting away from the point.

That is what suicidal means. I do not concern myself with the common misuse of the word.

The point of in mentioning Kampuchea is that what a regime thinks it can get away with has just about no necessary relation to reality.

That is true of the actions of any regime, at any time.

But the issue here is that the workings of deterrence are known to everyone beforehand. There is little ambiguity. Leaders in Tehran KNOW that if they use WMD's against Israel, they will suffer form retaliation with nukes. The leaders of Kampuche did not KNOW that in starting a war with Vietnam they would be thrown out of power. That is the diifference. Whether losing totally was more probable than other outcomes is imaterial to the fact that the leaders simply could not know. That is why the comparison is not very usefull.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
On the other hand I do know of a solution that would prevent Iran from getting nukes at any point in the foreseeable future. But you're not going to like it...

Well, tell us

[Straybow]

Well? WELL?!

[Kuciwalker]

Nuke them, obviously. Or invade, though I don't think that's what he was suggesting.

[RGBVideo]

The US invaded Iraq because of Hussein proclaimed he possessed and would use WMDs [snip]

The funniest thing about this sentence is that you genuinely seem to believe it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nuke them, obviously. Or invade, though I don't think that's what he was suggesting.

You are wrong.

The invasion would stop them.

Nuking them is just stupid.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Odin


It will be a huge boon for Islamic Fundimentalism.

But they've already been granted a lot of boons lately , so another one won't make much of a difference . A nuclear-armed Iran will mean that two Islamic coutnries will have the bomb - which is a far bigger boon to the Islamism world .

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
It was bushs fault. labelling them part of the axis of evil pushed iran and north korea to turn to nukes so that they could not be invaded.

Except they've been working on nukes since long before that speech. It is Bush's fault for going on an optional war and making the mullah's believe the US is to busy to stop them.