One of the two biggest global superpowers, the PRC, bombastically announces a dozen or so redlines per year.
The actual diplomatic language for war is “勿谓言之不预” (from official diplomatic channels) and they use “core interests” for a vaguely defined redlines: https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/core-interests
So yes, cross “redlines” won’t trigger a war with PRC. And ignoring final warning is also fine.
Other countries world-wide, especially right-wing movements in them, have also been fanning nationalist flames. We know well what the outcome often is.
Well, we are about 50 years overdue for a large scale conflict?
Thanks nukes. There’s something to be said for nobody wanting to open pandora’s box.
Those institutions, including the UN and the rules-based international order, were built by the people who fought WWI and WWII, specifically to prevent future war. We can say that they got the outcome they aimed at, an historic acheivement. We live at the most peaceful time in history, including for non-nuclear states.
They built that - at the end of WWII when many despaired of humanity - and we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?
What actions do you consider productive contributions to peace and preventing war? What aren't we doing, that was done before. What does quitting look like?
> it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world.
Maybe you are right and it is the institutions that changed the world, but I find it odd that you attribute causality to actions following the war, and not the war itself.
What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff.
That is what quitting looks like.
Are you saying we need more wars to prevent wars? Economic solidarity in sanctions against bad actors?
It is easy to say "wars bad, peace good", but more difficult to articulate an actual plan for preventing them and promoting peace.
> What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff.
War is peace - right out of 1984!
>we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?
It seems like you think there are clear and obvious solutions to conflict. Im asking what those are? Do you think they are working? why or why not?
What is the obvious playbook solution for resolving Ukraine or Gaza conflicts that we threw away instead of following?
Because it’s the significant thing that has changed.
We’ve always had political institutions, and it’s clear how useful those have historically been at preventing war.
What we haven’t had is the ability to destroy entire countries (and likely the world) at the press of a button.
It’s not that I consider it desirable that that is the main reason, but I do consider it likely.