| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why Pax Novus?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Why Pax Novus?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
theManwhocouldntcry View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Loveland
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote theManwhocouldntcry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why Pax Novus?
    Posted: 06 Apr 2010 at 23:53

why are [nuclear] countries so afraid to go to war when their capabilities totally warrant it and some (like russia, or china, or even India) are in a great position to do so?Dead I dont know about u, but if i were in charge of a powerful country, the first thing I would think about is war and conquest. Call me a sensless machiavellianEvil Smile, or a remnant of a past, long-phased out conciousnessBroken Heart, but what has happened to the warlike human spirit? What has happened to war as a diplomatic tool, or something that strong countries just do? Why this Pax Novus?

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 01:05
I'm still trying to figure out what 'pax novus' means. New Peace? Wide ranging Peace? Piece of A..?

As for nuclear Countries fearing war, Countries don't make decisions - people do. As for leaders of nuclear Countries fearing war, that isn't true to the point of inhibiting acts of war. They do so all the time. It just happens to be of the conventional quality (unless one takes into account the use of atomic weaponry in WWII). Now the threat of war always looms large as a method of acquiring certain goals. When and how these methods were used are recorded in our history books. Plus we could also say that state acts of aggression even continue to this day.

Being that you are President of the Republic of Loveland where would you attack first? How? For what reasons? Maybe then we could best analyze your warlike spirit.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 01:15
Quote why are [nuclear] countries so afraid to go to war when their capabilities totally warrant it and some (like russia, or china, or even India) are in a great position to do so?


The US is conducting at least two invasions right now, Russia invaded another country last year. They aren't afraid of conventional small wars against non nuclear states that lack a nuclear protector.

Quote I dont know about u, but if i were in charge of a powerful country, the first thing I would think about is war and conquest. Call me a sensless machiavellian


You are a senseless Machiavellian (a Machiavellian with no sense). Trying to go around conquering all in your path in today's world will result in nuclear annihilation. So you go from being a ruler of a country to being dead, your country destroyed and your name be cursed by every generation for the rest of history if humanity does survive.

A sensible Machiavellian realises the sillyness in Napoleonic modes of conquest, and instead seeks to control other countries without overt territorial occupation.

Quote or a remnant of a past, long-phased out conciousness


Yep. Which had it not been phased out, would have resulted in the world turning into a lifeless irradiated shell.

Quote but what has happened to the warlike human spirit


It's still here, it is just that so far we have been smart enough not to go to war when nuclear reprisal is a consequence. Let's hope we remain at least that smart.

Quote What has happened to war as a diplomatic tool, or something that strong countries just do?


It pretty much is used by hugely strong countries against rather weak ones. Another factor is that in a world with so much infrastructure built up, the costs of war have risen. Increasingly countries are realising that cheaper diplomatic tools than war exist instead.

Quote Why this Pax Novus?


MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 03:40
Considering the ungrammatical nature of a masculine ending, -us, modifying a feminine noun, pax/pacis, the profer simply underscores the ignorance of the proponents. The correct term, pax nova or pacis novae please! But hey this phraseology comes from wing-nuts and assorted fundies--not to mention frustated Internet game players--long ignorant of Latin attempting a play at erudition.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 04:44
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Considering the ungrammatical nature of a masculine ending, -us, modifying a feminine noun, pax/pacis, the profer simply underscores the ignorance of the proponents. The correct term, pax nova or pacis novae please! But hey this phraseology comes from wing-nuts and assorted fundies--not to mention frustated Internet game players--long ignorant of Latin attempting a play at erudition.


Nicely spotted.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 07:29
Machievelli would never have advocated Napoleonic or Hitleresque style wars.
 
The Cold War on the other hand, when one does not risk everything nor do they fight with everything, preferring proxy war to direct conflict is right down his ally I'd suspect. Especially with nuclear weapons around.
 
Besides, what makes you think that any Great Power is currently in a great position to go to war? China risks loosing business and outlying provences, Russia and India risk powerful neighbours turning on them, the USA risks bankruptcy and defeat, the EU's military muscle is totally untested, Japan is still bound by the consequences of loosing the last war. What does anyone have to gain?


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 07 Apr 2010 at 07:36
Back to Top
Ziegenbartami View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ziegenbartami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 08:50
Originally posted by theManwhocouldntcry theManwhocouldntcry wrote:

why are [nuclear] countries so afraid to go to war when their capabilities totally warrant it and some (like russia, or china, or even India) are in a great position to do so?


Just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Nations refrain from nuclear war because of MAD, and insurgencies make conventional war long and costly.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 09:51
Because it is utter madness. Using nuclear weapons on other countries will open padora's box since almost every country in the world has other types of WMD's stocked that they will use to an effectiveness even more than nukes.
 
Remember that smallpox, anthrax, cynide family poisons etc. and most importantly exotic bugs are available for any country that wants to get them, a smallpox outbreak in India or China will easily kill millions while introducing certain types of exotic bugs to the US for example will distroy the agricultural industry for years in many parts.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 10:06
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Considering the ungrammatical nature of a masculine ending, -us, modifying a feminine noun, pax/pacis, the profer simply underscores the ignorance of the proponents. The correct term, pax nova or pacis novae please! But hey this phraseology comes from wing-nuts and assorted fundies--not to mention frustated Internet game players--long ignorant of Latin attempting a play at erudition.


His Satyr points at no Defect,
But what all Mortals may correct;
For he abhorr'd that senseless Tribe,
Who call it Humour when they jibe:
He spar'd a Hump or crooked Nose,
Whose Owners set not up for Beaux.
True genuine Dulness mov'd his Pity,
Unless it offer'd to be witty. 
Those, who their Ignorance confess'd,
He ne'er offended with a Jest;
But laugh'd to hear an Idiot quote,
A Verse from Horace, learn'd by Rote.


Johnny Swift.



Edited by Dolphin - 07 Apr 2010 at 10:09
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 10:14
^^

Not a jibe btw, I'm sure you know the context of the poem. I think it is quite apt in this discussion.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 15:43
Vain human Kind! Fantastick Race!
Thy various Follies, who can trace?
Self-love, Ambition, Envy, Pride,
Their Empire in our Hearts divide:
Give others Riches, Power, and Station,
'Tis all on me an Usurpation.
I have no Title to aspire;
Yet, when you sink, I seem the higher.
In Pope, I cannot read a Line,
But with a Sigh, I wish it mine:
When he can in one Couplet fix
More Sense than I can do in Six
It gives me such a jealous Fit,
I cry, Pox take him, and his Wit.

   Why must I be outdone by Gay,
In my own hum'rous biting Way?

Well, Dolphin, this is one Dean that is quite familiar with Grub Street and certainly recognized Swift's own Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift (1731/1739). But then...
 
What Poet would not grieve to see,
His Brethren write as well as he?
But rather than they should excel,
He'd wish his Rivals all in Hell.


Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Apr 2010 at 15:44
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 23:10
reading the posts above leads me to a thought that maybe Nuclear weapons are not horrible in every aspect. In one aspect they are a deterrent for large scale wars being waged by Nuclear powers and leading world powers. This deterrent prevents wars of insane magnitude by powerful countries from ever occuring (waged by U.S., China, or Russia, and even India) not 100% true imo but not far from it. In a weid way they encourage peace.

In a laymens term you could coin Nuclear weapons as being somewhat of an insurance option for countries in need of protection when their status and power doesn't warrant it (United Kingdom, France, Israel, Pakistan)

... The only problem is keeping these Insurance options (Nukes) form countries or more importantly world leaders like Iran and North Korea. Not necessarily the countries but their leaders who have too much control over the particular country Kim Jong ill or Ahmadinejad (more like Khamenei).

Edited by SPQR - 07 Apr 2010 at 23:16
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 20:58
SPQR, is not the "crazies" scenario in itself a rationalized feint? A "nuclear" weapon, despite all of the rhetoric about home-made dirty bombs, still requires a delivery system to make them believable. If Comrade Kim is simply crazy rather than exercising rhetoric for other ends, then long ago the demilitarized zone would have been a radiocative wasteland. We will not go into the Islamic Revolution and its verbiage in outdoing the Shah and his dreams of a "nuclear" Iran as the arbiter of the Near East. Try looking at the entire subject from its 55 year perspective and the old war-horse: Atoms for Peace.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 23:38
Hi, and welcome manwhocouldntetcetc,

First, there is no warring human spirit. Most humans find killing other humans abhorrent. Armies must put people through special brainwashing training to make it more palatable, and even then, when it actually happens, it destroys the souls of the soldiers.

Second, indiscriminate use of force is bad diplomacy. Take Bush as an example.

In conclusion, your ideas would make you a terrible diplomat and head of state, but it may be good for playing risk? Would you like playing risk with the rest of us?

Get an account at http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=home send me a pm with your account name, and I will invite you to some games :)
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 01:16
Originally posted by Hugo Hugo wrote:

First, there is no warring human spirit. Most humans find killing other humans abhorrent. Armies must put people through special brainwashing training to make it more palatable, and even then, when it actually happens, it destroys the souls of the soldiers.
I disagree. Just like any other mammel, human males particular are prone to enjoy fighting.
Otherwise games like paintball and risk wouldn't be fun.
 
The brainwashing (training) of soliders is to prevent the flight instinct, not the fight instinct. Without that, as we all know well from history, untrained men show up keen for a fight and break shortly into it if it goes badly.
 
Without training, WW1 would still have happened, but shortly after the commencement of the war and the realisation of the terrible power of artillery and machine guns most of the troops would have broke and deserted.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 09 Apr 2010 at 01:17
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2010 at 13:32
Your test bump came through, Omar, and I must admit that despite all of the headlines of late over Reduction Agreements and disposal of "wastes", the silence on this thread is a bit puzzling. Yet, if we are to discuss the excess rhetoric of public diplomacy (if there is such an animal) and the never ending propaganda campaign on the ars terribilis of nuclear fission (or fusion), then we must place emphasis on the actors and not their scenery.
 
Admittedly, I was struck by your assumption that training counteracts the demoralizing consequences of technology. Are we speaking of homo vulgaris here? Elsewhere there is a thread on the heroic, where people are having difficulty assessing what does constitute the hero--and if we are to be consistent it is rather difficult to separate the verbiage of heroism from the madness that forms the regular background of what some affectionately call War.
 
In the above you make reference to demoralization--we will not mention the blatant sexism behind the characterization "human males are prone to enjoy fighting". If one is cynical, then this observation is mandatory: in Nature, few if any species of mammalia fight to the death! Survival and not blood lust is the hard-wired directive. With reference to World War I, the conduct and nature of the that war did generate a long-range demoralization pervading Western societies as a whole long after the guns fell silent along the Western Front in November of 1918. Hence, I must at this point pose the essential query: Is not the entire artifice of "Pax Novus" but a grand exercise in hypocrisy? Certainly, placed in the setting where mass annihilation is a no-no yet de facto it is acceptable to mutilate, rape, and pillage on minor scales (after all that's tradition), then one must wonder just exactly where any moral compass is entertained.
 
Absentis moral bellum non pacis specimen est.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2010 at 14:57
Hegel and Fichte and a few other names are being recalled to my mind. Distastefully.
 
Only through war does the state justify itself and reach its highest state? If there will always be aggressors, why should we not be aggressors first?
 
I don't really want to go look these things up.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.