A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy

[Bacle]

MAD is the most noble and beneficial bluff in human history, but a bluff nonetheless. Simply put, it is better to fight and lose a conventional war than win a nuclear war. One day a country will call its opponent's bluff and roll the troops in. The opponent, not being suicidal, won't push the big red button, and now we are back to conventional warfare which actually requires boots on the ground. IE, we'll have gone back to how things have been since Sumer and Akkad.

That is absolutely foolish thinking.

Nations absolutely will use nukes and enforce MAD to counter an invasion, or even the build up to an invasion.

Or do you think Putin, Xi, Kimmy Boy, Pakistan, the IRGC/Ayetollahs, or really any nuclear power (even western ones) wouldn't use nukes on people attempting to invade, and enforce MAD if tactical nukes are not enough to stop an invasion?

There are some people crazy enough to push that button. How long it will be until that happens?

I don't know; we might not see it before the second coming. Either way, like all types of conflict where bluffing is a useful tool, the fact that it might not be a bluff is key to it being possible for a bluff to work.

And the thing is with nukes, the cost of trying to call the bluff is not just a short term issue; radioactive fallout is something that can do damage for generations or more, depending on how how they are used/constructed.

Monarchies provide no defense against nukes, and that means what ever 'defensive' bonus they had over democracies and republics disappeared in a flash over the New Mexico sands.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

You can make bombs that are relatively clean. Then crank down the yield for battlefield applications. Tac-nukes are a thing if a country capable enough wants them to be. And using them only on troop formations is definitely one way to test MAD out.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

And it takes a competent government to capitalise on that. Given Brunei's size and wealth, it's a regional powerhouse that can punch well above its weight. Despite having just a bit more than half the GDP of a western nation like Iceland, Brunei could chew them up and spit them out militarily speaking.

That's something else to take into consideration. Monarchies seem to take national defence far more seriously than most democracies.

Which is a good thing, seeing as most democracies tend to be spending the most money on paying the rich.

 

[Bacle]

You can make bombs that are relatively clean. Then crank down the yield for battlefield applications. Tac-nukes are a thing if a country capable enough wants them to be. And using them only on troop formations is definitely one way to test MAD out.

True, nukes can be relatively clean, if the people using them want them to be.

Airbursts tend to leave little fallout, but are not too good against hardened structures, and except for troop formations or enemy fleets in deep water, most nukes are meant to take out hardened targets.

Then there are the colbalt nukes and neutron warheads, which have thier own nastiness of two different types.

Not every nuke detonation would leave an area irradiated like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl, but it's far harder to keep yourself restricted to 'clean detonations' in an actual shooting war with nukes in use.

Still, the fact is nukes and the paradiagm they've created mean the old military benefits of a monarchy no longer apply to peer-on-peer conflict.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

That is absolutely foolish thinking.

Nations absolutely will use nukes and enforce MAD to counter an invasion, or even the build up to an invasion.

In all honesty that's even more foolish. Losing conventionally and having a settled peace (as most wars have been concluded for the last five thousand years) is a far better outcome than a nuclear exchange.

 

[Bacle]

In all honesty that's even more foolish. Losing conventionally and having a settled peace (as most wars have been concluded for the last five thousand years) is a far better outcome than a nuclear exchange.

Once again, shit's changed, and what might have worked in the pre-nuke era will not always hold true anymore.

Also, a 'settled peace' is what happened at Versailles, and look how that went. It took the fucking Marshall Plan decades to make peace happen at the end of the next war, and that happened in a nuclear world.

And no politician in a nuclear power will accept a 'settled peace' when they still have any nuclear warheads to thier countries name.

Your view is much like the idea of a monarchy these days; a relic of a bygone era.

 

[Marduk]

True, nukes can be relatively clean, if the people using them want them to be.

Airbursts tend to leave little fallout, but are not too good against hardened structures, and except for troop formations or enemy fleets in deep water, most nukes are meant to take out hardened targets.

And that's the kind of nukes you would use to destroy a country. What you would want to use against an invading force, aka troop formations and ships, is specifically airbursts.
Hardened structures, by their nature, are bad at invading countries after all.

Once again, shit's changed, and what might have worked in the pre-nuke era will not always hold true anymore.

Also, a 'settled peace' is what happened at Versailles, and look how that went. It took the fucking Marshall Plan decades to make peace happen at the end of the next war, and that happened in a nuclear world.

And no politician in a nuclear power will accept a 'settled peace' when they still have any nuclear warheads to thier countries name.

Your view is much like the idea of a monarchy these days; a relic of a bygone era.

Lets not forget to take that part in context of MAD too. A settled peace between nuclear countries is unlikely to be something resembling a total capitulation, and in turn make it unlikely for the stronger side to press utterly crushing terms on the other, so that they may decide that escalating the war to nuclear level is a less bad option.
That is if the conventional war gets even that far. What MAD really causes is add a further level of cost and risk to an analysis of the possibility of a purely self-interested war. After all, even if conventional conflict can really mess up infrastructure and seriously damage some cities, in the long run its still semi functional and somewhat valuable (after all there was plenty of looting in various forms by Soviets after the WW2, implying lots of valuable stuff left to loot despite large scale strategic bombardment and meme grade artillery use practices).
But if the conflict goes nuclear, that's not going to be such a great idea. Even a lot of the land itself will be practically worthless for decades due to contamination, and that's even in the optimistic scenario that the nuclear war is only fought on enemy territory.
So in the end, the worse you think the consequences of a nuclear war would be, then necessarily the bigger disincentive the risk of it offers to the decisionmakers involved.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Actually, it wasn't nukes that made the peace we've enjoyed, it's practically free trade (both in the economical and political sense). It should also be noted that Versailles wasn't exactly the usual settled peace that is common historically. It was a revenge peace, pure and simple.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It should also be noted that Versailles wasn't exactly the usual settled peace that is common historically. It was a revenge peace, pure and simple.

And even then, how is a Versailles treaty worse than a nuclear war? At least with Versailles, Berlin isn't irradiated for the next thousand years.

 

[LordsFire]

And even then, how is a Versailles treaty worse than a nuclear war? At least with Versailles, Berlin isn't irradiated for the next thousand years.

The Versailles Treaty was entirely functional. What lead to WWII was not the treaty itself, but the failure to enforce its provisions. There are accounts from leaders within Germany at the time that if so much as a single police officer had tried to stop them the first time they violated it after the National Socialists took power, they would have immediately folded and handed Hitler over as a scapegoat.

 

[Aaron Fox]

And even then, how is a Versailles treaty worse than a nuclear war? At least with Versailles, Berlin isn't irradiated for the next thousand years.

Because it only set things up for round two. That's why. There are treaties that you simply don't do and Versailles is a purely revenge-driven treaty, the sort that only causes problems down the line. Especially with a country whose history is filled with attempts of unification that got destroyed by the French (and at times British).

Remember that Winston "I'm a near Tillman Racist" Churchill outright said that the Treaty of Versailles was a fucking bad idea.

The Versailles Treaty was entirely functional. What lead to WWII was not the treaty itself, but the failure to enforce its provisions. There are accounts from leaders within Germany at the time that if so much as a single police officer had tried to stop them the first time they violated it after the National Socialists took power, they would have immediately folded and handed Hitler over as a scapegoat.

Not really. The Treaty of Versailles was to strip Germany of as much power as possible (and thus put it into a position that any invasion would mean it'll be run over and unable to pay its debts), or have you forgotten how the French and British stripped the Rhur and Rhine of industrial capacity in the years beforehand? The very industry that Germany was planning to repay the respirations with via their products?

You two have forgotten that Germany united because of the French (and in part, the British) fucking them over repetitively historically. Every time they tried to unite, the French (and at times the British) toppled every attempt until Franco-Prussia.

 

[LordsFire]

Because it only set things up for round two. That's why. There are treaties that you simply don't do and Versailles is a purely revenge-driven treaty, the sort that only causes problems down the line. Especially with a country whose history is filled with attempts of unification that got destroyed by the French (and at times British).

Remember that Winston "I'm a near Tillman Racist" Churchill outright said that the Treaty of Versailles was a fucking bad idea.

Not really. The Treaty of Versailles was to strip Germany of as much power as possible (and thus put it into a position that any invasion would mean it'll be run over and unable to pay its debts), or have you forgotten how the French and British stripped the Rhur and Rhine of industrial capacity in the years beforehand? The very industry that Germany was planning to repay the respirations with via their products?

You two have forgotten that Germany united because of the French (and in part, the British) fucking them over repetitively historically. Every time they tried to unite, the French (and at times the British) toppled every attempt until Franco-Prussia.

Yes, it was a 'revenge-treaty.' Because Germany not only lost the war, it also spent almost the entirety of the war wrecking the French countryside, because that's where it was fought, and it also committed a large number of war crimes. Nothing on the order of WWII, but some of the shit they got up to with the Belgians was nasty.

Paying the other side when you lose has been a part of war throughout all of history, until the US became the world hegemon and decided that was unethical, and trying to rebuild the defeated nation(s) was a better plan.

Disarming Germany was also to be expected, given what it had done with its industrial capacity during the war. You don't leave an enemy ready to just start the war up again as soon as the US has pulled its troops off of the continent and had another election cycle turn it more isolationist again.

Further, while the web of treaties and the like that sent the conflict spiraling out of control aren't something you can reasonably blame Germany for, you can absolutely blame them for continuing the war year after year. They had explicitly, clear ambitions to carve up their enemies and keep them from becoming peer threats again if they won, and as they held the upper hand early in the war, then a somewhat balanced position for most of the war until the US joined, they could reasonably have proposed a peace that simply involved returning to the old borders, let's please just stop all the killing.

But they didn't. The German leadership was set on becoming the Hegemon of Europe by force of arms, and they didn't negotiate a surrender until it was absolutely clear that they were going to lose militarily due to America decisively tipping the scales, in spite of the Russians pulling out of the war. If they had been willing to sue for peace when the outcome of the war was still in doubt, they could have gotten better terms.

Instead, they continued to fight, inside of French territory, trying to hold onto the dream of ascendant Imperial Germany, until their position deterioriated to the point where Versailles was the best deal they could get.

This is what happens when you spend years despoiling the territory of your neighbors, and trying to break them. If you lose, you get broken instead.

Note, I'm not trying to argue there weren't unsavory or immoral things the allies did as well. There were. But after the first year or so of the war made it clear that people were just being sent to die to try and claim another hundred yards of cratered hellscape, they were in position to end the war at any time, and they refused to do so.

Imperial Germany played a stupid game, and they got a stupid prize.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Yes, it was a 'revenge-treaty.' Because Germany not only lost the war, it also spent almost the entirety of the war wrecking the French countryside, because that's where it was fought, and it also committed a large number of war crimes. Nothing on the order of WWII, but some of the shit they got up to with the Belgians was nasty.

Paying the other side when you lose has been a part of war throughout all of history, until the US became the world hegemon and decided that was unethical, and trying to rebuild the defeated nation(s) was a better plan.

Disarming Germany was also to be expected, given what it had done with its industrial capacity during the war. You don't leave an enemy ready to just start the war up again as soon as the US has pulled its troops off of the continent and had another election cycle turn it more isolationist again.

Further, while the web of treaties and the like that sent the conflict spiraling out of control aren't something you can reasonably blame Germany for, you can absolutely blame them for continuing the war year after year. They had explicitly, clear ambitions to carve up their enemies and keep them from becoming peer threats again if they won, and as they held the upper hand early in the war, then a somewhat balanced position for most of the war until the US joined, they could reasonably have proposed a peace that simply involved returning to the old borders, let's please just stop all the killing.

But they didn't. The German leadership was set on becoming the Hegemon of Europe by force of arms, and they didn't negotiate a surrender until it was absolutely clear that they were going to lose militarily due to America decisively tipping the scales, in spite of the Russians pulling out of the war. If they had been willing to sue for peace when the outcome of the war was still in doubt, they could have gotten better terms.

Instead, they continued to fight, inside of French territory, trying to hold onto the dream of ascendant Imperial Germany, until their position deterioriated to the point where Versailles was the best deal they could get.

This is what happens when you spend years despoiling the territory of your neighbors, and trying to break them. If you lose, you get broken instead.

Note, I'm not trying to argue there weren't unsavory or immoral things the allies did as well. There were. But after the first year or so of the war made it clear that people were just being sent to die to try and claim another hundred yards of cratered hellscape, they were in position to end the war at any time, and they refused to do so.

Imperial Germany played a stupid game, and they got a stupid prize.

The French also committed War crimes, as did the British. Infact, I would say that excluding the starting of the gassing, the French and British committed worse war crimes. From the raping and pillaging of tribal and colonial settlements in the German colonies, to the absolute massacres that occurred in the Ottoman territories, to putting a puppet king in Greece because they didn't want to fight a war, things were ass. Not only that, but the British wanted to do the only thing you don't do, Kinslaying. While yes Wilhelm accidentally killed the Romanov family, that was an accident. King George wanted Wilhelm to, and I quote, 'Suffer in the depths of hell, and hang from the Tower of London for all eternity' George fucking hated the Hohenzollerns, even though they were honoring a call to war.

Not only that, but France and Britain were also as it seems, preparing to declare war on the Germans anyway. Supplies were captured in the earliest days of the war that suggested military buildup of the wrong kind. Not the 'oh no, we're at war!' more of the 'we're going to declare war, only in a few years.'. Not only that, but several papers have been found that corroborate this. Stop looking at the war so black and white my friend, both sides were of the greyest kind.

 

[LordsFire]

The French also committed War crimes, as did the British. Infact, I would say that excluding the starting of the gassing, the French and British committed worse war crimes. From the raping and pillaging of tribal and colonial settlements in the German colonies, to the absolute massacres that occurred in the Ottoman territories, to putting a puppet king in Greece because they didn't want to fight a war, things were ass. Not only that, but the British wanted to do the only thing you don't do, Kinslaying. While yes Wilhelm accidentally killed the Romanov family, that was an accident. King George wanted Wilhelm to, and I quote, 'Suffer in the depths of hell, and hang from the Tower of London for all eternity' George fucking hated the Hohenzollerns, even though they were honoring a call to war.

Not only that, but France and Britain were also as it seems, preparing to declare war on the Germans anyway. Supplies were captured in the earliest days of the war that suggested military buildup of the wrong kind. Not the 'oh no, we're at war!' more of the 'we're going to declare war, only in a few years.'. Not only that, but several papers have been found that corroborate this. Stop looking at the war so black and white my friend, both sides were of the greyest kind.

You're ignoring both part of what I posted:
"Note, I'm not trying to argue there weren't unsavory or immoral things the allies did as well. There were. But after the first year or so of the war made it clear that people were just being sent to die to try and claim another hundred yards of cratered hellscape, they were in position to end the war at any time, and they refused to do so. "

And also the whole point of the post.

Germany lost.

When you lose a war, you pay a price for that. This is not a moral judgement, this is a fact.

 

[Largo]

Pretty much all nation's significance comes from their available resources. If the US government had only the land area and natural resources of Costa Rica do you think it would be the global hegemon still?

What are the natural resources of Taiwan and Japan? Hell, China's not that valuable in terms of natural resources. States are in fact able to become extremely powerful without natural resources if they are governed well. Not to mention that this doesn't answer the question: what, precisely, is the United States supposed to take away from Brunei's example. To start becoming more dependent on oil exports?

 

[Bear Ribs]

What are the natural resources of Taiwan and Japan? Hell, China's not that valuable in terms of natural resources. States are in fact able to become extremely powerful without natural resources if they are governed well. Not to mention that this doesn't answer the question: what, precisely, is the United States supposed to take away from Brunei's example. To start becoming more dependent on oil exports?

Taiwan has deposits of gold, copper, coal, petroleum, natural gas, marble, and very rich farmland. It's been a net exporting of fossil fuels and food for decades and exports vast quantities of cement.

Japan has access to some of the richest fisheries in the world, extremely high-quality forests they've been exporting for decades, and insanely good defensive terrain that has made any attempt at invading Japan a complete non-starter even as recently as WW2.

China meanwhile is literally the top country in the world for combined natural resources. They're top of the world in coal, gold, zinc, lead, molybdenum, iron ore, coal, tin, tungsten, rare earths, graphite, vanadium, antimony and phosphates. China is second in the world in copper, silver, cobalt, bauxite,a and manganese. This is on top of being one of the top nations for ranching, having a very significant percentage of the world's arable land, and large timber resources. I can't even begin to imagine where you get that China doesn't have valuable resources.

And yes, I think most people agree, if the US hadn't killed the Keystone pipeline and then supported Russia getting a new pipeline instead, the US would be in a far stronger position in the world with control over far more of the oil.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Monarchy is good when you have places-kings like Bhutan, Oman, Liechtenstein,Monaco,Luxemburg,somewhat Jordan, Morocco, Sweden, Norway, Spain and the Tuaregs.

But sometimes you get batshit butchers like Saudi, Bahrain, Brunei and the Central African Empire.

 

[Aldarion]

Relevant:

Source:

 

[Yinko]

Relevant:

Source:

Sargon was talking about this recently on someone else's channel. That conservatism does not exist in the US because both sides are the product of revolutionary ideologies, and that ideology is the inverse of tradition. Because ideology wants to change the world for reasons that follow a particular rationale while tradition wants to keep things in a way that works for reasons that more profound than can be rationally analyzed.

 

[Bacle]

Relevant:

Source:

Is this supposed to be meme in support of Monarchy, or an ironic post showing why monarchies have been consistently being replaced by Republics for the last few hundred years?