Topic: War in three years

Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #119,649

That's what the English army say, three years until war with Russia, China, Iran, NK.

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,311,067

Which side would do better to have that war today, rather than in 3 years?

If this statement is true, that side would just start the war today rather than waiting for their disadvantage to grow.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,068

@previous (B)

The English army is fucked, so Russia China etc

(Edited 19 seconds later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,069

Not to put a damper on people who want armed conflict between nuclear-armed nations, but it is extremely unlikely to happen, and in the event that it did happen, the cost would be arguably greater than the benefit.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,070

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)

Thanks Charlemagne

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,071

@previous (A)
Just make sure you're too old to serve and don't live near any likely targets for nukes.

Chuffed !m8sJfgzmLE joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 48 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,072

Are we hedging bets on what language we need to learn? I'd like to know now so I can start studying.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,074

@1,311,068 (A)
Then why don't those two start the war now?

They are just going to sit and wait for the west to build up their power first, and then strike?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,075

@previous (B)

That is false dichotomy

Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,081

@OP

> That's what the English army say, three years until war with Russia, China, Iran, NK.

It's not what "the English army" say, it's what yet another army suit panic-mongering in order to land more taxpayer cash says. The idea of the UK army, which is around 80,000 troops, fighting Russia, China and Iran is fucking hysterical.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 59 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,082

@1,311,075 (A)
No, a false dichotomy is presenting only two options when there are more.

I'm asking you why they would wait for a war if that means allowing their enemy to build up their defenses.

You could look at this as four separate options: start the war today, a year from now, 2 years from now, or 3 years from now.

Why pick the fourth option? why not the first or second?

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,083

@1,311,081 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
No one cares what you think.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,091

@1,311,082 (B)

You are presenting it as an option of "they start the war, or they wait for disadvantage". This is false dichotomy. In fact, nobody wants the war.

dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,093

@1,311,069 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You can have a world war without nukes

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,097

@1,311,091 (A)

I'm saying that the claim that there will be war in three years doesn't make sense, because if that were true there would be a side that preferred to have it now rather than give themselves a disadvantage.

The point of addressing that contradiction is to show that the claim is false, not to say that there are two choices that both involve war. If neither side wants a war, that's consistent with my actual claim: that the proposition war will happen in 3 years is false.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,103

@previous (B)

Instead of asking for more information which could inform you, you have calculated an incorrect opinion and are sticking by it no matter what.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,106

@previous (A)
If you had that info you could share it, but it doesn't exist.

Simple deduction, if this statement were true, one side would start the war now.

The fact the war hasn't started means that war is not inevitable in 3 years. Like you said, neither side wants it.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,110

@previous (B)

I might offer it if you had asked for it, but instead you offer your kingly opinion as if you know everything in the world.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,112

Might want to start studying Mandarin.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,113

@1,311,110 (A)
You don't need to know everything to know that nation-states don't twiddle their thumbs waiting for their enemies to build up their militaries right before a conflict.

A little common sense should tell you that.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,114

@previous (B)

Would you like the further information that could inform your opinion, or will you continue to believe you know everything there is to know?

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,115

@previous (A)
You can back up your own argument without getting permission from me, it's not my job to coax you into putting in effort.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,120

@previous (B)

You wish to remain a person who likes to deduce on incomplete information, then. That is a great shame, and a personal failure.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,122

@previous (A)
It's not my job to defend your absurd views, nor is it my job to beg you share them.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,311,125

@previous (B)

I am merely reporting the news. You are arguing against it, without even knowing the argument that was made.

Minichan