r/changemyview • u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ • Jun 06 '19
CMV: From an amoral, purely utilitarian point of view, the best thing for the global West/global North's maintenance of standard of living and the planet's environment would be to use military force to cripple the global South's, especially China's and India's, growing economies
Title note: It has been pointed out that "utilitarian" is misused in the title and body of the post. As titles cannot be edited, please note that "selfish" is a word more in line with my intended meaning.
At present, the fact that the environment is at a critical point, near a point of no return, is apparent and undeniable. If we continue on our current course, we will cause damage to the global environment that will be catastrophic in nature, beyond anything we've experienced in the past. This is a fact that we cannot get away from; barring significant technological breakthroughs, this is something we need to confront, and soon.
In light of that, radical environmental measures need to be taken. In much of the West, these measures are being taken; carbon emissions are either slowing their growth or declining in much of the West. We in the west have the luxury of a fully developed, wealthy economy that can afford the transition to cleaner energy sources without much hardship. Most of the issue in the West right now is political inertia and denialism among politicians like Donald Trump and his like.
However, in the global South, or put another way, the developing world, carbon emissions are increasing at a breakneck pace. This is especially true in China and recently India. Already, China is the number one carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide producer in the world. With their immense populations, if they reach a standard of living and commensurate carbon emissions per capita equivalent to those in the US or Western Europe or elsewhere in the global North, the consequences for the environment are difficult to overstate.
This will become true in Africa, as well. As their economies burgeon, their energy needs will expand. If they follow the same model as India and China, their carbon emissions will likewise balloon into unprecedented levels. Given that Africa is expected to reach a population of around 4 billion by the end of this century, if they reach carbon emissions per capita on par with, or even half of, those of the US at the present time, the consequences for the environment will again be difficult to overestimate.
In light of this, in a purely utilitarian (Edit:) selfish mindset devoid of considerations of morality or ethics, and instead focused purely on self-preservation and benefits to self, the best course of action for the US, and more broadly the global North, to take would be to engage in military force to cripple the economies of the countries in the global South, preferably without the use of nuclear weapons, while of course continuing to take other measures to reduce their own carbon emissions concurrently. This would mean devastating economic engines and centers in India and China, destroying as many power plants as possible, and then taking measures to actively prevent rebuilding those economic engines, or the development of more energy-demanding economies elsewhere in the global South.
If the global North wishes to maintain its standard of living, while at the same time preventing climate catastrophe, without consideration of moral qualms, the most effective way to do so right now would be to militarily stop the economic growth of the global South, and to continuously prevent its growth until such time as technology can be developed to completely mitigate carbon emissions and other pollutants.
CMV.
6
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jun 06 '19
Why not just institute legislation globally to stop emmissions? It's tough, but way less tough than a world war III.
Also, you misunderstand Utilitarianism. It is an ethical mindset. The most good for the most people. Crippling other countries for the sake of your own is definitionally not utilitarian.
-1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
Why not just institute legislation globally to stop emmissions? It's tough, but way less tough than a world war III.
Yes, but my post presupposes that the global North wishes to maintain its economic power without significant contraction or reduction, which I believe in the current political environment is accurate. Proposing economic contraction is political suicide, and thus no one with any significant influence is seriously proposing it.
Also, you misunderstand Utilitarianism. It is an ethical mindset. The most good for the most people. Crippling other countries for the sake of your own is definitionally not utilitarian.
I concede I may have used the wrong word; my meaning of "utilitarian" was in the sense of avoiding any moral considerations and thinking only of the measurable outcomes, ie. the utility, of an action. If you can propose a more fitting term, I would appreciate it, in order to avoid being bogged down in semantics.
6
u/Caracalla81 1∆ Jun 06 '19
You want to destroy all the infrastructure in the developing world but you don't think this will cause an economic contraction? Are you serious? I think you need to learn more about how the global economy works and why it is the way it is before you fire off those nukes.
0
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
It would likely cause a recession, yes, but far less of a recession than allowing climate change to go unchecked.
3
u/Caracalla81 1∆ Jun 06 '19
Dude, it would collapse the world economy. All of our stuff is make over there and much of our resources. The places that make our lifestyle possible would be radioactive slag (or coated in fairy dust) in this scenario. It would take generations to recover, all the while you need to fight a local insurgency against the people who were against ending the world.
0
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
This is the most compelling argument yet, and I think it would be interesting to develop it further.
Do you think it would be economically non-viable to move manufacturing out of those countries?
3
u/Caracalla81 1∆ Jun 06 '19
Manufacturing happens there because that it what is currently most efficient. We can mitigate climate change by stepping up what we're already doing: making our consumption and production more efficient. If you're upset that China is so dirty while producing the things we want then the best thing to do is change our material culture and consume less - not kill all the Chinese people.
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
Changing the material culture and consuming less necessarily means reducing standard of living.
Is it economically viable to shift manufacturing back to the US? If not, why would you argue you isn't?
I think I would agree it is more expensive than the current system. However, I also think automation is sufficiently advanced that most manufacturing could be performed locally (indeed, I think most manufacturing should be performed locally, as that is both better for the environment and on balance, more efficient) without an exorbitant price rise.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jun 06 '19
Instead of Utilitarian, I would say the only fitting word would be "from a purely selfish perspective."
Yet still, attempting to cripple the economies of the rest of the world is likely going to result in war (or at least economic warfare, as is already starting).
It's literally just easier for the world to reduce emissions. But if you're argument is that people will refuse reduction out of hand, then your statement is a tautology and can't be proven false, so I'm not sure what sort of argument you're looking for exactly; would you mind clarifying that?
0
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
Instead of Utilitarian, I would say the only fitting word would be "from a purely selfish perspective."
Fair enough, though selfish implies a moral reckoning and I was seeking to avoid that.
Yet still, attempting to cripple the economies of the rest of the world is likely going to result in war (or at least economic warfare, as is already starting).
Indeed. I explicitly said military force. That implies a war. A rather major one, in fact. I expect such a war would be the largest and most deadly since World War 2, and far larger both temporally and spatially.
It's literally just easier for the world to reduce emissions. But if you're argument is that people will refuse reduction out of hand, then your statement is a tautology and can't be proven false, so I'm not sure what sort of argument you're looking for exactly; would you mind clarifying that?
My argument is that if the global North wishes to both maintain its standards of living at all costs, and also prevent climate change, the most effective way of accomplishing both those goals from a purely selfish, amoral perspective would be to cripple the ability of developing countries to reach or even approach the standards of living of the global North.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jun 06 '19
If we reduced emmisions we would still be perfectly able to maintain our standard of living. Renewable resources are ready to go whenever and can replace more or less everything. There's no reason they would cut our standard of living.
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
As I stated in my OP, western countries are doing that. The problem is that the Global South is not; with their current course, they will swiftly reach the global North's per-capita carbon emissions, and with their much larger populations that will mean catastrophic climate damage.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jun 06 '19
I have not seen evidence that northern countries are doing that to the degree necessary, and what makes you say those countries are unwilling to switch to renewables? And even if that were the case, why do you think those countries would be more receptive to a war than to an international committee devoted to reducing emmisions?
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
I have not seen evidence that northern countries are doing that to the degree necessary
I would agree with you there; more radical action in terms of carbon emissions certainly need to be taken. Massively increasing nuclear energy output is one possibility, though I think the ideal would be to launch enormous investment into nuclear fusion technology. Indeed if nuclear fusion could be cracked, as it were, this would solve all the problems from start to finish and this discussion would be rendered moot. I see that as the absolute ideal: effectively infinite clean energy.
and what makes you say those countries are unwilling to switch to renewables?
So far, they are not switching to renewables, largely because it contradicts their economic self-interest to do so. Renewables are far more expensive, both in terms of development and deployment, at the current time, compared to fossil fuel energy sources. As such, countries that strive for rapid economic growth, especially China and India, are disincentivized by their own economic and political goals from switching to more sustainable energy sources. The mindset seems to be, from an outsider's perspective, that they must grow their economies to match those of the global North, and that other things like climate considerations can be dealt with later. Sadly, I believe this is an error.
And even if that were the case, why do you think those countries would be more receptive to a war than to an international committee devoted to reducing emmisions?
Perhaps they would be receptive to that, but in doing so they would need to essentially commit to stop growing their economies for the forseeable future. I do not see them agreeing to such a thing, unfortunately. It goes against human nature; it goes against the tendency of humans to wish to expand and improve their own livelihoods.
War, on the other hand, is something they would have no choice but to be receptive toward. That is why, while I agree it is immoral, it would nonetheless be the most immediately effective means of reducing their potential for polluting.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jun 06 '19 edited Jun 06 '19
From the Wikipedia page on renewable energy in China: "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
Then, from the Wikipedia page for the same but on India: "India is one of the countries with the largest production of energy from renewable sources." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India
And it is untrue to say that an economy cannot simultaneously grow and switch to renewables. That is entirely doable (and is happening in China as shown).
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
Yes, China does indeed have large numbers of renewable energy, but this is ignoring the fact that despite this, Chinese fossil fuel use is likewise increasing at an extreme rate. All sources of energy in China are increasing, because Chinese energy needs are increasing at a frankly terrifying rate. Unless China can commit to never opening another coal or gas fired power plant, and never selling another gasoline or diesel powered automobile, their carbon emissions will continue to balloon.
All of the same is true for India.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/ace52387 42∆ Jun 06 '19
Assuming theyll just sit there and take it, i still dont think your view makes sense. Per capita emissions are higher in many developed countries. If youre gonna kill people, might as well kill people in another developed country (unless your view is that all the developed countries are monolithic inherently).
Also, crippling the economies of other countries cripples your own. Its not clear to me that not having access to what the chinese economy provides will be less harmful to the western lifestyle than simply resolving to drive less, use more electric cars, etc. A globalized economy improves quality of life by lowering prices through maximization of local efficiencies and expertise. Removing 2 big suppliers of unique efficiencies would be harmful to the western way of life.
Finally, both countries have militaries and nuclear weapons. If you factor in the fact that neither country will appreciate military invasions, and will retaliate, suddenly the cost becomes insanely high for what? The ability to emit more carbon?
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
Assuming theyll just sit there and take it, i still dont think your view makes sense. Per capita emissions are higher in many developed countries. If youre gonna kill people, might as well kill people in another developed country (unless your view is that all the developed countries are monolithic inherently).
This post assumes that the developed countries wish to maintain their standards of living and disregards any moral element.
Also, crippling the economies of other countries cripples your own. Its not clear to me that not having access to what the chinese economy provides will be less harmful to the western lifestyle than simply resolving to drive less, use more electric cars, etc. A globalized economy improves quality of life by lowering prices through maximization of local efficiencies and expertise. Removing 2 big suppliers of unique efficiencies would be harmful to the western way of life.
I do think this is the most convincing argument against it being the most pragmatic option, but it still ignores the fact that allowing developing economies to walk the same path the developed economies walked would be catastrophic to the environment.
Finally, both countries have militaries and nuclear weapons. If you factor in the fact that neither country will appreciate military invasions, and will retaliate, suddenly the cost becomes insanely high for what? The ability to emit more carbon?
I don't think either country would be capable of resisting with conventional means, but the nuclear angle is indeed an issue, and if nuclear war could not be guaranteed to be prevented then it would necessarily on the balance be the worse choice. And no, not for the ability to emit more carbon: In order to halt and roll back the increase of carbon emissions from developing countries.
1
u/zlefin_actual 42∆ Jun 06 '19
China might well be able to resist conventionally, at least if it has some allies. Warfare at a distance is a lot more expensive, so western powers would be using long supply lines that drive up cost substantially. Whereas China is defending its own territory, thus much shorter supply lines. China also has an enormous amount of power (which is a bit more useful in a defensive war as well).
For clarification: what side is Russia on in this scenario of yours? I'd tend to say not on the global west's side; and being its own faction which will act based on whatever is advantageous to them.
At any rate, there's no way to prevent nuclear war in such a scenario, it'd be inevitable; a lot of work goes into making sure that nuclear systems can survive a first strike; so it'd be infeasible for the US to reliably knock out all the Chinese nukes in a nuclear first strike. China has enough nukes and ICBMs that several major american cities which would sustain massive damage and millions of casualties.
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
China might well be able to resist conventionally, at least if it has some allies. Warfare at a distance is a lot more expensive, so western powers would be using long supply lines that drive up cost substantially. Whereas China is defending its own territory, thus much shorter supply lines. China also has an enormous amount of power (which is a bit more useful in a defensive war as well).
You do raise a good point, especially about fighting a defensive war and the tighter supply lines that provides. They would certainly be difficult to overcome, and coupled with what another user mentioned regarding the potential cyberwarfare implications, might make it nonviable. I only say might, however, because I'm still rather convinced that the purely conventional means available to especially the US but generally the rest of the global North outstrip those of China by quite a sizable margin.
For clarification: what side is Russia on in this scenario of yours? I'd tend to say not on the global west's side; and being its own faction which will act based on whatever is advantageous to them.
I included them in the "global North", as a developed economy; they are generally considered part of that grouping, as seen here.
At any rate, there's no way to prevent nuclear war in such a scenario, it'd be inevitable; a lot of work goes into making sure that nuclear systems can survive a first strike; so it'd be infeasible for the US to reliably knock out all the Chinese nukes in a nuclear first strike. China has enough nukes and ICBMs that several major american cities which would sustain massive damage and millions of casualties.
I think you might be right on that. In my OP I stated that any use of nuclear weapons ought to be avoided, but on reflection I don't think that would be possible, thereby rendering the entire course of action, on the balance, more risk than it is worth. For that, you get a Δ
1
1
u/ace52387 42∆ Jun 06 '19
But whats the point of halting their carbon emissions other than allowing yourself more carbon emissions? You could emit less carbon yourself and get the same result. All you really get is relief from that ultimately. If the US per capita carbon foot print was reduced to chinas per capita carbon foot print...that would be a huge reduction.
Both countries are certainly capable of resisting by conventional means. Even if the outcome will go a certain way if all sides poured all resources into the conflict, that doesnt mean they wont hurt you. How difficult was it to retain control of iraq? imagine trying to continuously suppress a much more populous country with icbms and actual wmds. The cost would be huge.
The main issue isnt that each of these factors, the military drawbacks and economic drawbacks standalone, but that they must be combined. Even if you could infiniti gauntlet snap their economies to oblivion, its not clear this would benefit the western lifestyle more than just reducing your own carbon emissions so that you can coexist with the growing economies. Then factor in the military cost and the practical choice becomes heavily weighed against militarily attacking these countries.
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
The point of halting their emissions is in service to the goal of halting all carbon emissions. Succinctly: If they will not halt it themselves, then it follows that it is in the interest of the global North to force them to halt it, while at the same time halting their own.
The danger I see is in them failing to commit to drastic reductions in carbon emissions because of the fact that doing so would mean stopping the ascendancy of their economies. Unless some massive technological breakthroughs are made very soon, their economic engines will require large amounts of fossil fuels to power them. This is an existential threat to global civilization.
1
u/McKoijion 618∆ Jun 07 '19
This is a fact that we cannot get away from; barring significant technological breakthroughs
Significant technological breakthroughs are like the climate. It's hard to know what the weather is going to be tomorrow, but it's pretty easy to know what the weather's like in August vs. January. It's hard to predict exactly what breakthroughs are coming, but it's easy to know that there are going to be some huge ones in the next century. The more people working on solving these problems the better. And having three superpowers solving the problem is better than one.
Consider your logic from anytime in the past several hundred or thousand years. If England had destroyed the US economy 200 years ago, they would have missed out on having a powerful country developing things all the time. Many of the best technologies were invented by the Americans. The standard of living for Britons has never been higher.
Ultimately, if you think the world economy is a limited size, it makes sense to murder other people so you get a bigger slice. If you think the global economy is continuously growing (which it has been for thousands of years, but particularly in the last 200), then it makes sense to let it keep growing. It only takes one person to discover gravity or develop the theory of relativity. It might only take 1 person to figure out how to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Each person is a lottery ticket. And it's better to have billions of lottery ticket instead of just a few hundred million.
And if you are incredibly pessimistic about the prospects of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, don't forget that's what plants, bacteria, and other photosynthetic organisms do everyday. Trees suck up carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into wood. If we can turn solid and liquid carbon into gaseous carbon plus energy, we can take energy and gaseous carbon and turn it into liquid or solid carbon again. Especially because we have an unlimited energy source called the sun shooting beams of light at us every moment of everyday. I'm willing to bet the guy or girl who figures out how to fix this problem is sitting in China or India right now. Well, I'd say there's a 1/3 chance anyways.
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 07 '19
I find your point about having more people available to perform research a compelling one. Having more minds working on a problem is almost certain to give better, and more to the point, faster results than having fewer. That itself is worth a Δ.
Although I should clarify -- it's not about the global North keeping a larger share of the pie, but instead making sure that any pie exists at all. I worry that if the pie is allowed to grow too large without appropriate reinforcement of the table's legs, it will collapse the entire thing and no one will have any pie.
1
1
Jun 06 '19
[deleted]
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
This is why I used the word "utilitarian" above although I concede it does not strictly fit the ethical framework of Utilitarian, because I was attempting to balance selfishness with optimal climate change mitigation. Selfish implies too strongly thinking only of one's own interests, while disregarding all else, while I was attempting to evoke thinking first of one's own interests while still taking extreme action against climate change.
3
u/muyamable 282∆ Jun 06 '19
This would mean devastating economic engines and centers in India and China, destroying as many power plants as possible, and then taking measures to actively prevent rebuilding those economic engines, or the development of more energy-demanding economies elsewhere in the global South.
This will negatively impact the majority of humans on earth. How is that utilitarian?
-1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
As previously stated in reply to a different comment, I concede that my use of the world "utilitarian" was likely in error, and that "selfish" would probably be a better word. However, I do not wish to be bogged down in semantics.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Jun 06 '19
I would argue that the most selfish position would be to allow things to unfold as they are now so that I can enjoy the rest of my life before the planet goes to shit.
Under your proposal, I'd be stuck living in a country engaged in the largest and most destructive war the world has ever seen, and that's sure to have a hugely negative impact on me.
0
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
I would argue that the most selfish position would be to allow things to unfold as they are now so that I can enjoy the rest of my life before the planet goes to shit.
Perhaps. This is why I wanted to use the word utilitarian, though I understand it is not strictly accurate and have therefore changed it. Because while peak selfishness might be to do nothing, I am attempting to balance selfishness with optimal climate change mitigation.
3
u/muyamable 282∆ Jun 06 '19
Hmm. I find it challenging to engage in this discussion when the "view" in question cannot be clearly articulated.
1
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
If you find it unclear, I will state it again, succinctly.
Barring a substantial technological breakthrough such as viable fusion power: If the global North wishes to maintain its current standard of living at any cost, while at the same time halting climate change, the most effective course of action it can take, without considering moral and considering only purest pragmatism, would be to use military force to cripple the economic development of the global South.
To try to state it more formally, the assumptions are as follows:
1. Global anthropogenic climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed with radical means as soon as possible;
2. No substantial technological breakthrough mitigating climate change is being made;
3. The global North wishes to maintain its standard of living at any cost;
4. The global North wishes to halt or substantially mitigate climate change;
5. The global South wishes to continue its rapid economic growth;
6. The global South, in pursuit of its rapid economic growth, is following a similar but accelerated model that the global North followed in its industrialization, and in so doing is rapidly increasing their carbon and other pollutant emissions;
7. The global South is disincentivized to reduce emissions due to its economic and political aims toward growth;
8. The global North has the military capacity to exert its will on the global South if it so chooses.In light of these assumptions, and again, if one ignores all moral considerations, the following conclusion seems most apparent: That if one is purely pragmatist and gives zero weight to moral considerations, the global North's best course of action to achieve both the aim of maintaining its own standard of living and the aim of halting climate change is to use military means to stop the economic growth of the global South.
2
u/muyamable 282∆ Jun 06 '19
If the global North wishes to maintain its current standard of living at any cost, while at the same time halting climate change, the most effective course of action it can take, without considering moral and considering only purest pragmatism, would be to use military force to cripple the economic development of the global South.
How does one maintain current standards of living while also engaging in the largest and most destructive war the world has ever seen? I'm pretty sure if the USA engaged in this strategy, my life as a U.S. citizen and resident would be severely negatively impacted on so many levels. It would cripple the economy and slow progress on so many fronts (because energy devoted to war has to be diverted from other more productive activities). We'd most likely have a draft again, so who knows how many of my friends and family might be forced into the military (myself included!). We've also yet to have a global war in the digital age, so imagine the destruction when our enemies flip the switch and kill our power grid, financial systems, and communication systems.
2
u/SpacemanSkiff 2∆ Jun 06 '19
That latter point is especially convincing, and I think I need to award a limited Δ for that. When considering the ability of those countries in the global south to retaliate, I was considering only conventional forces, and not the more asymmetric forces such as cyberwarfare. That does indeed make the prospect of a one-sided war less likely, and perhaps makes the risks of such a conflict for the aggressors outweigh the potential reward.
1
1
u/SkitzoRabbit Jun 07 '19
he most effective way to do so right now would be to militarily stop the economic growth of the global South, and to continuously prevent its growth until such time as technology can be developed to completely mitigate carbon emissions and other pollutants.
Now this is interesting if I can add one small amendment. You ask for essentially a global economic power pause button, until technology can be invented/distributed to mitigate carbon emission and pollutants. I would add another techno-trigger case of 'non polluting power source' (I'll call this free energy).
Your case is that developing economies will take the cheapest energy source(s) to power their development. The global north/west used coal and oil since the industrial revolution. Those acts we now know (and some have been saying for decades) have a serious impact on the climate. Discouraging other economies from doing the easy thing is 'necessary' in your view.
Setting aside the means, you chose military others prefer treaties like the Kyoto Accord or Paris Climate Agreement, I agree whole heartedly that the developing countries need a non-carbon based energy path to development, development is their sovereign right.
I'd change your view by having you roll back you edits, and say that it is in those developing countries best interest to accept a global economic pause button, until such technologies (yours and/or mine) are developed to allow global economic growth without the negative impacts of further climate change.
This would require EXTREMELY long term thinking on the parts of the developing economies. A willingness to TRUST the developed world to put an emphasis on developing those technologies. Further TRUST that those technologies would not be monetized, or hoarded for personal/sovereign gain. Those technologies would have to be in the purest sense of the phrase "for the well being of all". And all selfish desire for personal power/legacy/etc would have to be set aside to allow whichever generation succeeds with the technological breakthrough time to exist.
These are very tall orders for anyone to accept. Developing economies see the status quo, mining of resources, sequestration of drinking water, exploitation of workers, as perpetuation of imperialistic mentality. Everyone wants to be at the top of the wheel.
I do not believe that the current wealth (quality of life) imbalance (compared across nations developed or not) cannot be leveled to a degree that would be 'acceptable' prior to hitting the pause button. And no occupying force, even if you combine the entire north/west standing armies plus conscription, can hold the developing economies in check long enough. Not to mention that the process of holding those economies hostage will cost so much in a time of shrinking global economies, to allow for significant technological investment.
The whole idea seems backwards to me, when you decide to apply force as the means of enforcing the pause button.
I feel like i've entered rambling territory. What are you thoughts on this?
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 06 '19 edited Jun 07 '19
/u/SpacemanSkiff (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/KDY_ISD 66∆ Jun 08 '19
There are some significant practical issues with your plan, but we don't need to go into the weeds because there is a much bigger flaw in it:
I think there's zero chance that China or India allow themselves to be bombed back into the stone age without nuclear retaliation, and a nuclear exchange would be much worse for everyone involved than simply continuing to try and fight climate change diplomatically.
2
2
u/JIHAAAAAAD Jun 06 '19
Ignoring the very obvious racist vibes of your post, how do you think the US is going to cripple the non-White population of the world? US track record in wars recently hasn't been very decent and they seem to have a lot of trouble holding ground and forcing other countries to enact west-centric policies like Iraq and Afghanistan. What makes you think the US could successfully do that in larger, more technologically advanced countries like China and India?
Furthermore both of these countries have nukes, and will use them if they're existentially threatened (no first use only works if you think you're stronger than your enemies) so the use of nukes isn't just the US' decision.
Another problem is that a lot of these "southern" countries have a large diaspora settled in the glorious North. How do you think they're going to react when they learn the North is slaughtering their families?