Save a country, look like the biggest douche ever

[quiet_samurai]

All those fucked up countries in Africa are like that because it is a learned culture for them. They are brought up in that hostile and constant state of war, much like the Middle East and countires in Eastern Europe. To go in and pacify them wouldn't do shit because they are unstable by nature, and the only way to counteract that instability and violence is with time. Look at Southern Asia like Vietnam and Loas for example, in the mid 20th century it was very unstable and war-torn, now although poor they are quite peaceful.

All we can really do is hope they come to their senses and change on their own, who knows maybe they will.

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

No way, nukes are expensive. Not to mention the cost of the aftermath and stigma we would recieve for doing it.

So? The other option is invading a country with thousands or millions of mercenaries who will end up taking the law into their own hands and doing whatever they want. I'd rather get nuked.

Yeah, because sterilizing a piece of the earth and the surrounding area (depending on the size of the bomb) for a generation or more in a country that didn't provoke us would go real well with the UN and the rest of the world. Not to mention the billions of dollars a nuclear campaign would cost.

 

[A Weary Exile]

They already have a name for that: Colonization. It hasn't worked well in the past.

 

[CouchCommando]

hahahaha anyone say imperialism??? think the romans called it pax romana, same deal as you just laid out. Peace thru unity under one central government. Utilising levies from different areas of the empire as mercenaries to police other areas, yeah it actually works as history has shown, although there will inevitably be corruption of the highest order within all facets of such a large beurocracy.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

Seems like a terrible idea. Why're you nuking a city occupied by your own tanks?

Move the tanks out if they are your only tanks.... or keep them in there if your have millions more. Either way it proves your a crazy bastard.

 

[Taipan]

snip

Well, that's one hell of a first post. Welcome to the Escapist!

Cheers.

Why dont we just build a missle defense system, tighten up security, and send weapons to those countries until they fight it out. in say 20 years when the fire as died, who ever left can be assimilated by us.

Effort. Couple of tactical nuke strikes cost a few million dollars, problem goes away after a century or so of letting the radiation die down. Simple, cheap and effective.

As a matter of fact, China and Russia already have an ingenious foreign policy with regards to the Third World. They first offer weapons (lets say fighter planes) to one country, in exhcange for access to oil etc. Then they go to a rival country, offer them weapons (lets say AAA guns or anti-aircraft missiles). Play both sides until the resources and money dries up, rinse and repeat.

All those fucked up countries in Africa are like that because it is a learned culture for them. They are brought up in that hostile and constant state of war, much like the Middle East and countires in Eastern Europe. To go in and pacify them wouldn't do shit because they are unstable by nature, and the only way to counteract that instability and violence is with time. Look at Southern Asia like Vietnam and Loas for example, in the mid 20th century it was very unstable and war-torn, now although poor they are quite peaceful.

All we can really do is hope they come to their senses and change on their own, who knows maybe they will.

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

No way, nukes are expensive. Not to mention the cost of the aftermath and stigma we would recieve for doing it.

How fast they truly moderninse really depends on the culture. Look at Japan they went from a feudal system to an industrial in almost one generation. If you were a Japenese fighter pilot in WW2 it's quite possible your grandfater told you stories of sword weilding samurai and having to bow as they passed by.

Ah, but remember what happened to Japan. America firebombed every city except Nagasaki and Hiroshima, hoping the Japs would surrender. Because they were so suicidally dedicated to their God-Emperor, they didn't. America then dropped a nuke on them. JAPAN STILL DIDN'T SURRENDER. America, now feeling a little desperate, dropped another nuke. Japan wasn't sure how many more nukes the Yanks had (none, at the time, which made the gambit all the more risky), so they caved in.

Having had their old culture shown to be self-destructive and futile, Japan then had to live under occupation for a few decades. So, they went from aggressive imperialism to pacifism, because they got bombed nearly into oblivion. Japan also had the advantage of being very modern (they'd learned everything they could from the West, to better defeat them), very productive (like Germans, they have a work ethic that makes Anglo-Saxons look like lazy dipshits), and driven to move away from their past. I don't think the Japanese feel at all ashamed about what happened (even when, for example when they invaded China, they should be), but they have collectively modernised as a society.

Yeah, because sterilizing a piece of the earth and the surrounding area (depending on the size of the bomb) for a generation or more in a country that didn't provoke us would go real well with the UN and the rest of the world. Not to mention the billions of dollars a nuclear campaign would cost.

The UN is a forum for debate and international relationships. It has zero real power (as should be the case), and it's military interventions point-blank don't happen without the Americans. The rest of the world can cry a river, but it will all be fake compassion anyway.

Nukes are actually quite cost-effective weapons, thats why they're such a problem in terms of proliferation. You can completely annhilate any conventional land army, and even airforce (due to the blast and EMP effect), and all with a handful of missiles. Both the Americans and Russians have enough to wipe out the entire planet like 5 times over or something. It would take just a fraction of the arsenal, not even 10 missiles, to wipe out any nation on Earth. They can even predict the drift of radioactive material, effective yield etc, so they can precisely annhilate whatever the target is, and minimise damage to anything else.

Although, I have to point out that being of the 1st World, we have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate, even if they don't want it. I'm not talking dropping food on their heads to wipe out local farm economies (thanks, UN and Europe), or selectively arming/making client states of the groups who control where the oil is (oh China, didn't see ya there), I'm talking about sending educated men and women back to those countries and supporting grass-roots efforts towards democracy. It's far more complicated than just invading and forcing things to happen (which doesn't work), or bombing said country out of existence (which is morally wrong, if highly effective), but it's the right way to do it.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So i was having a conversation with my brother, and he said we could end 3rd world countries corruption crap if we just took over them using mercenaries, saying that we're not going to war, we're just solving their problems for them since they're too slow. While on paper this looks like a bad idea, imagine if it actually worked. what do you think?

Basically doing Vietnam and Iraq all over again. Good plan... *not*

 

[Brett Alex]

if we just took over them using mercenaries

Someones being reading a bit of Forsythe's Dogs of War?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

When you consider how much the U.S. have dicked around in the Middle East, its not a wonder they fight. What's amazing is that there are any left at all. Leave the world alone.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

I like the way you think, good sir.

 

[Brett Alex]

it's military interventions point-blank don't happen without the Americans.

Nitpicking out of your broader argument, but that isn't strictly true. The East Timor (and I'm sure dozens of other missions) intervention occurred with next to no American support.

 

[AxelMiller]

Or a even better question. Why cant the world live in peace anyway? Stop building guns and machines to kill each other and get that damn comet out of the earth's face.

 

[Fraught]

Get rid of 'em by nuking 'em and then build new cities there. The population would have much more room.

Though yeah, I know, it sounds unplausible. There'd probably be a nuclear war, and I'm evil if I'd want to kill hundreds of millions of people, but it's all hypothetical fun we're having here, right?

 

[JemJar]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

Nah, just culture bomb them. Plus we get to see, oh I don't know, Damien Hirst maybe disappear in a puff of smoke.

As a matter of fact, China and Russia already have an ingenious foreign policy with regards to the Third World. They first offer weapons (lets say fighter planes) to one country, in exhcange for access to oil etc. Then they go to a rival country, offer them weapons (lets say AAA guns or anti-aircraft missiles). Play both sides until the resources and money dries up, rinse and repeat.

This is in no way limited to China and Russia. The British and American governments pull much the same trick - except instead of selling arms directly they use loans required to buy them as leverage (and relax restrictions on their own companies selling pointless equipment to whichever country is foolish enough to take the debt).

 

[Horizontalvertigo]

Many of the people of those countries say that democracy wouldn't work in their country, and for the most part that's probably true. You can't make people have a structured non-corrupt government just by pointing a gun at them and telling them to play nicely with each other. (America, we're looking at you)

 

[Kiutu]

I'm reminded of the Starfleet's Prime Directive from Star Trek.

I'm reminded about every colony in the English empire. If we did that, 200 years from now they'd be celebrating about how they fought off the big evil Americans, much the same way Americans talk about English. Hell, the right to bear arms was written in the event they ever showed up so normal people could defend themselves and not just the militia

Im reminded how they were former people of that invading country. Not to say your overall point is wrong, but I think thats kind of important that it was not some foreign civilization.

 

[brodie21]

why mercenaries? the prez can deploy troops for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war and we took over iraq in less than a month with somewhere around 50000 troops and the african countries dont have money for food, much less a competent military

 

[Taipan]

it's military interventions point-blank don't happen without the Americans.

Nitpicking out of your broader argument, but that isn't strictly true. The East Timor (and I'm sure dozens of other missions) intervention occurred with next to no American support.

East Timor was lead by the Australians, who are an ally of the US. So, maybe I should just say 'if America or a close ally thereof isn't interested, shit doesn't happen'.

Also, East Timor was and remains a real strategic head-ache for Aussies, as does Papua New Guinea. We can't afford to let the Indonesians take over (because that lets them block the Torres Strait and hold our shipping to ransom), nor can we afford an independent government to form up and try the same shit. Hence, both East Timor and PNG are massively subsidised by the Australian government, and are client states in all but name. They have pretend elections every few years to shift different cronies around, but it's really just a couple of 'big men' who know the game and play it. We are fighting the same political battle in the rest of the Pacific, where the Chinese are buying off the small island nations so they can cut down their rainforests to plant rubber plantations/gain strategic influence in Australia's backyard.

Or a even better question. Why cant the world live in peace anyway? Stop building guns and machines to kill each other and get that damn comet out of the earth's face.

I dunno lol. Humans are complex creatures. It's incredibly naive and disingenuous to assume we'll ever all become hippies and just love eachother, but likewise it's too depressing and numbing to think all we're capable of is hate and self-destruction.

The biggest deterrent to war isn't a weapon, it's trade. The more two nations rely on eachother for their economic prosperity, the less likely war will break out. Likewise, the more nations talk to one another and try to get along (through forums like the UN), the less likely it is that a nation will feel encircled (like Germany), or think it's the centre of the universe (Japan). So, as globalisation increases, I think we'll see things calm down more. We're basically slowly and torturously moving our subconcious off the rough savanna of our ancient past, and into an entirely controlled world of our own creation (ie cities). Different cultures are at different points along that road, and it's the moral obligation of those who are slightly ahead (the West) to enable the others to catch up.

Get rid of 'em by nuking 'em and then build new cities there. The population would have much more room.

Though yeah, I know, it sounds unplausible. There'd probably be a nuclear war, and I'm evil if I'd want to kill hundreds of millions of people, but it's all hypothetical fun we're having here, right?

Nah, the Russians don't give two shits about the Third World. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if America or another nuclear power ever did just bomb away the Third World. Utterly immoral, but I just wonder how much condemnation, or even outrage, there would be.

It's funny, but humans still have a moral 'sphere' that is completely geographical. So, in the inner you have your family, sexual partner(s), offspring, close friends; outer is work colleagues , casual friends, acquaintances. As far as empathising with people we've never met and may never meet, it's really hard. It's not about being callous or heartless, people genuinely can't care about what happens in other countries, or even in other cities.

We can all pretend to, but the fact is we don't place such problems on anywhere near the same priority list as the close circles of our moral sphere. Anyone who says they do has a bad case of what I call 'conspicuous compassion', the same misguided and egotisical behaviour that motivates religious zealots. Seriously, compare the preacher of old with the guy on the street asking if you care about what's happening in Tibet, they have the same disconnect with the real world.

TL: DR

So anyway, my long-winded point is that people are complicated, we're capable of great compassion and great violence, and we can achieve more in the Third World through trade and dialogue/diplomacy than any billions of dollars of aid money or military intervention.

 

[TheMatt]

Why don't we just do my style of Civilization?

First, we become friends, then once I build a wall, roll tanks in and occupy a city. After that, nuke the city.

Ummm... so just to be clear... You roll your troops into the city... and then you nuke it? You realize the troops might have a few concerns after the first couple times that happens.

just a thought...

We should use the Sirian doctrine... and if you are a true Civ nut, you should know what that is... !

 

[aruseusx]

All those fucked up countries in Africa are like that because it is a learned culture for them. They are brought up in that hostile and constant state of war, much like the Middle East and countires in Eastern Europe. To go in and pacify them wouldn't do shit because they are unstable by nature, and the only way to counteract that instability and violence is with time. Look at Southern Asia like Vietnam and Loas for example, in the mid 20th century it was very unstable and war-torn, now although poor they are quite peaceful.

All we can really do is hope they come to their senses and change on their own, who knows maybe they will.

...Wouldn't it be easier to nuke them instead of paying thousands of mercenaries to march away to a incredibly large insurgency war?

No way, nukes are expensive. Not to mention the cost of the aftermath and stigma we would recieve for doing it.

You won't save shit. The population will hate you and you'll constantly have to fight a brutal and bloody insurgency war, like what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advancement that will come is that you'll unite the country for a short while against a common enemy. Once you give up in frustration and leave, they'll go back to raping and killing each other.

The fact of the matter is, Africa and much of the Middle East is so fucked up (largely because they do it to themselves), it's going to take centuries of cultural and political change before they can get past the feudal era. Nothing we (as in the West) can do is going to speed up that process. Latin America is a little better, but their problem is socialist/fascist government, which again we can't fix for them.

As a matter of comparison, it took England roughly 100 years to go from feudal monarchy to parliamentary democracy. The UK was at that time the world's superpower, with massive gold reserves and a navy (sea power was the trump card of that era) that few if any could match (think America today, minus the world-wide empire). So, if it took England that long to transition (and they had their fair share of wars and political/religious purges during that period), expecting the Third World to do so in our lifetime is ludicrous. They don't have anywhere near the same resources, education or political stability.

My personal feeling is that we should just let things progress normally. Some Third World countries have already begun modernising and stabilising politically, and are trading/sending their kids overseas to be educated in the West. Others continue to be hellholes, others are just stagnant and corrupt. In any case, countries are going to have to fail or succeed on their own merits. Outside influence generally just makes things worse.

If you wanna be really extreme, you could just nuke the whole lot. Socio-political problems don't matter if all the participants are radioactive ash. Wait a few centuries, go in with clean-up crews, re-populate.

How fast they truly moderninse really depends on the culture. Look at Japan they went from a feudal system to an industrial in almost one generation. If you were a Japenese fighter pilot in WW2 it's quite possible your grandfater told you stories of sword weilding samurai and having to bow as they passed by.

Well they are the japanese they do build giant robots and make sweet cartoons(anime for the specific crowd), games and technology.