(no subject)
Oh, for @Q()*#Q. People are saying that Pein's plans work like real-life nuclear deterrence, and at all smart about it. But there are crucial differences between the lots.
NF version <- answers some objections to this listing.
#1: Nuclear deterrence means that Nobody uses the weapon. Pein, on the contrary, is counting on Everyone to use the weapon.
This is the first biggest and most obvious difference. The US and Russia certainly did Not stop fighting each other because they used weapons on each other First. On the contrary, they never even started. Contrast this with Pein's attitude:
People who have a weapon will inevitably use it. Hundreds of millions of people would be killed instantly. And the survivors would be completely terrified!
Neither the US or Russia had ever used the weapon. People are afraid of nuclear weapons yes, but I'd like to point out something: we have NEVER had a case in which two countries both Have extremely destructive weapons, And have used it against each other. We have either been in scenario #2, or scenario #3, see below.
Finally, people forget that nuclear deterrence applies Only to nuclear weapons. Even the US has agreed to not use it, but it will still use other types of weapons. Basically, we're back to square 1. See #3.
#2: With Hiroshima, the US was the only one with the bomb. With Pein's ambitions, everybody has it.
People have used the Hiroshima analogy: it "saved lives" by ending the war quickly. But there is a crucial difference: Japan did not have nuclear capacity. With Pein's ambitions, everyone would have "nuclear" capacity.
The war ended quickly in Japan's case because Hiroshima showed the US's overwhelming military superiority. But if Everyone had that ultimate jutsu, there would be No overwhelming advantage to convince any party to stop, provided that they Have begun.
In the current world, in the majority of cases where nuclear deterrence Does work, it involves the following scenario: the US has nuclear weapons. Most of the rest of the countries do Not. The US threat is basically "You mess with me, I mess you, and you can't even touch me."
We have yet to experience a real-world situation where two countries with both nuclear weapons unleash their full military capacity against each other.In the event that such a thing happens, there is No guarantee that anything would stop it short of annihilation of one country or one country's economic collapse, leading to surrender.
As far as we can tell, when two countries still Do have means of retaliating against each other and one party isn't completely defeated, then war never ends instead of what Pein has in mind. Case in point: Israel vs Palestine. No end in sight there. And the Iraqi civil war seems to be headed that way. In the event that one party does win, the victor would simply carry on with wars whenever they arise.
#3: The US and Russia both having nuclear weapons didn't lead to peace. It just lead to a cold war. And that war only ended for economic reasons.
Lovely deterrence effect there! When two countries Do have nuclear weapons, it doesn't guarantee peace! It just means that they don't cross a taboo line where they fight each other with those weapons directly. But the Cold War wasn't devoid of wars, quite the contrary. The battle ground simply moved. Russia and the US fought in Vietnam. They fought in Korea. They fought in Afghanistan. They were Certainly not at peace.
The reason the Cold War ended was also not because of horror, but because Russia was simply broke. As far as anyone can tell, the Only historic guarantee to real peace is not military, but economic. See #4.
#4: The reason peace is maintained nowadays is Not because of military threat, but because of economic inter-dependency.
When the US entered Germany after WWII, it tried to educate the Germans on how horrible they've been to the jews. It actually never did work though. What worked with both Germany and Japan was the Marshall plan, an Economic plan that allowed both countries to recover economically while becoming economically inter-dependent on the rest of the world.
This is also the reason China and the US will never fight each other. This is the reason China will never start a full-out war with any significant country: because the international community would retaliate by bankrupting it.
The countries that Do defy the US are small economically isolated countries: they have nothing to lose. Cuba, Korea, Iran and the likes are not at war with the US either, but that's because they're in scenario #2: they don't have the same military capacity as the US (we're not even talking about nuclear here). It's not peace though: if they find a loop-hole, and if the US starts seriously posing a threat, then they probably Will retaliate.
Terrorists usually have nothing to lose to the US (that or they're simply mentally unstable), so they don't mind blowing themselves up.
#5: Humanity doesn't have much of an attention span, and this is worsened by the changing nature of war
Did WWII prevent the US from going to war in Vietnam? Did Vietnam prevent Iraq? Did the "suffering" generated by 9/11 lead to a more peaceful US presidency? Did the US presence in Iraq lead Iraqis to behave? Did the Iraqi "suffering" prevent a full-blown civil war, as opposed to an increasingly violent cycle of revenge that's somewhat reminescent of Israel vs Palestine?
If you want to go back even further, did medieval torture means prevent the horror of WWII?
Humanity in general has a short attention span. Even when the generations that had suffered are still alive (case of WWII and Vietnam survivors), it does not prevent the ensuing generations from taking the issue lightly. This is made more complicated by the changing nature of war. The US went into Iraq expected a quick victory and roses and kisses, much different from the drawn-out wars of the World Wars. Perhaps it wouldn't have gone in there if it had the same rough weaponry as their opponents. But the nature of war changes with time. Just like Pein can invent a new jutsu, nothing prevents future generations from forgetting via changing the rules as well, perhaps by finding a way to deter Pein's jutsu.
And the opponents of the US? They came up with terrorist warfare. We're back at square 1. The countries that Don't fight each other do not because they have too much money to lose. Pein's plan doesn't mention economic inter-dependence anywhere, to he's essentially neglecting the biggest component of a peace plan.
Most likely, Pein's ambitions would only lead to one of the following scenarios, none of which would be what Pein has stated:
1. All parties involved, after extensive suffering, agree to not use that weapon and Only that weapon. If any other country does use it, all the remaining countries would gang up on it to annihilate it. However, other jutsus can still be used. Basically, we're in the same situation as before, though with more deaths in-between because of the period where a country Does use that jutsu.
2. The start of the usage of the weapons leads to a Continued usage, and somehow there are still people alive at any time to keep throwing these weapons against each other (possibly through development of a counter jutsu or similar, or possibly because there are just too many places to blow up). In such a scenario, we'd either end up with Israel vs Palestine, or end up in the same situation as in the current Naruto world, though with a bigger destruction scale. Same old, same old.
3. All those capable of using the jutsu die. This isn't "growing up through suffering," this is simply death. If there are people who survive and who Can use the jutsu, then we'd end up with 1.
4. Pein's ambitions achieves peace for a moment by causing the nations to gather through emergency discussions, much like 1. They agree not only to not use that jutsu, but to cease fighting for now completely. However, as soon as the responsible generation dies off, future generations will likely "forget" about it all, and we'd be back to square one, or any of the above scenarios, Again.
Really, the only way to achieve lasting peace is to make sure all parties have interest in keeping each other up and healthy (usually economic reasons). Military threat alone never guarantees real peace for the long term. And as for "growing up because of the pain," don't make me laugh. It's never worked. It only leads to a cycle of revenge, which is actually strangely what Pein seems to be doing.
In other words, Pein is now officially my least-liked Naruto character. Hell, I even like Gatou more than him. At least Gatou wasn't a delusional retarded god-wannabe. =.= And you just Know that one of these days, he'll break down crying at the memory of whatshisname after Naruto yells a few times at him. Though fortunately, he'll end up dying. Good riddance once that happens. =.=
NF version <- answers some objections to this listing.
#1: Nuclear deterrence means that Nobody uses the weapon. Pein, on the contrary, is counting on Everyone to use the weapon.
This is the first biggest and most obvious difference. The US and Russia certainly did Not stop fighting each other because they used weapons on each other First. On the contrary, they never even started. Contrast this with Pein's attitude:
People who have a weapon will inevitably use it. Hundreds of millions of people would be killed instantly. And the survivors would be completely terrified!
Neither the US or Russia had ever used the weapon. People are afraid of nuclear weapons yes, but I'd like to point out something: we have NEVER had a case in which two countries both Have extremely destructive weapons, And have used it against each other. We have either been in scenario #2, or scenario #3, see below.
Finally, people forget that nuclear deterrence applies Only to nuclear weapons. Even the US has agreed to not use it, but it will still use other types of weapons. Basically, we're back to square 1. See #3.
#2: With Hiroshima, the US was the only one with the bomb. With Pein's ambitions, everybody has it.
People have used the Hiroshima analogy: it "saved lives" by ending the war quickly. But there is a crucial difference: Japan did not have nuclear capacity. With Pein's ambitions, everyone would have "nuclear" capacity.
The war ended quickly in Japan's case because Hiroshima showed the US's overwhelming military superiority. But if Everyone had that ultimate jutsu, there would be No overwhelming advantage to convince any party to stop, provided that they Have begun.
In the current world, in the majority of cases where nuclear deterrence Does work, it involves the following scenario: the US has nuclear weapons. Most of the rest of the countries do Not. The US threat is basically "You mess with me, I mess you, and you can't even touch me."
We have yet to experience a real-world situation where two countries with both nuclear weapons unleash their full military capacity against each other.In the event that such a thing happens, there is No guarantee that anything would stop it short of annihilation of one country or one country's economic collapse, leading to surrender.
As far as we can tell, when two countries still Do have means of retaliating against each other and one party isn't completely defeated, then war never ends instead of what Pein has in mind. Case in point: Israel vs Palestine. No end in sight there. And the Iraqi civil war seems to be headed that way. In the event that one party does win, the victor would simply carry on with wars whenever they arise.
#3: The US and Russia both having nuclear weapons didn't lead to peace. It just lead to a cold war. And that war only ended for economic reasons.
Lovely deterrence effect there! When two countries Do have nuclear weapons, it doesn't guarantee peace! It just means that they don't cross a taboo line where they fight each other with those weapons directly. But the Cold War wasn't devoid of wars, quite the contrary. The battle ground simply moved. Russia and the US fought in Vietnam. They fought in Korea. They fought in Afghanistan. They were Certainly not at peace.
The reason the Cold War ended was also not because of horror, but because Russia was simply broke. As far as anyone can tell, the Only historic guarantee to real peace is not military, but economic. See #4.
#4: The reason peace is maintained nowadays is Not because of military threat, but because of economic inter-dependency.
When the US entered Germany after WWII, it tried to educate the Germans on how horrible they've been to the jews. It actually never did work though. What worked with both Germany and Japan was the Marshall plan, an Economic plan that allowed both countries to recover economically while becoming economically inter-dependent on the rest of the world.
This is also the reason China and the US will never fight each other. This is the reason China will never start a full-out war with any significant country: because the international community would retaliate by bankrupting it.
The countries that Do defy the US are small economically isolated countries: they have nothing to lose. Cuba, Korea, Iran and the likes are not at war with the US either, but that's because they're in scenario #2: they don't have the same military capacity as the US (we're not even talking about nuclear here). It's not peace though: if they find a loop-hole, and if the US starts seriously posing a threat, then they probably Will retaliate.
Terrorists usually have nothing to lose to the US (that or they're simply mentally unstable), so they don't mind blowing themselves up.
#5: Humanity doesn't have much of an attention span, and this is worsened by the changing nature of war
Did WWII prevent the US from going to war in Vietnam? Did Vietnam prevent Iraq? Did the "suffering" generated by 9/11 lead to a more peaceful US presidency? Did the US presence in Iraq lead Iraqis to behave? Did the Iraqi "suffering" prevent a full-blown civil war, as opposed to an increasingly violent cycle of revenge that's somewhat reminescent of Israel vs Palestine?
If you want to go back even further, did medieval torture means prevent the horror of WWII?
Humanity in general has a short attention span. Even when the generations that had suffered are still alive (case of WWII and Vietnam survivors), it does not prevent the ensuing generations from taking the issue lightly. This is made more complicated by the changing nature of war. The US went into Iraq expected a quick victory and roses and kisses, much different from the drawn-out wars of the World Wars. Perhaps it wouldn't have gone in there if it had the same rough weaponry as their opponents. But the nature of war changes with time. Just like Pein can invent a new jutsu, nothing prevents future generations from forgetting via changing the rules as well, perhaps by finding a way to deter Pein's jutsu.
And the opponents of the US? They came up with terrorist warfare. We're back at square 1. The countries that Don't fight each other do not because they have too much money to lose. Pein's plan doesn't mention economic inter-dependence anywhere, to he's essentially neglecting the biggest component of a peace plan.
Most likely, Pein's ambitions would only lead to one of the following scenarios, none of which would be what Pein has stated:
1. All parties involved, after extensive suffering, agree to not use that weapon and Only that weapon. If any other country does use it, all the remaining countries would gang up on it to annihilate it. However, other jutsus can still be used. Basically, we're in the same situation as before, though with more deaths in-between because of the period where a country Does use that jutsu.
2. The start of the usage of the weapons leads to a Continued usage, and somehow there are still people alive at any time to keep throwing these weapons against each other (possibly through development of a counter jutsu or similar, or possibly because there are just too many places to blow up). In such a scenario, we'd either end up with Israel vs Palestine, or end up in the same situation as in the current Naruto world, though with a bigger destruction scale. Same old, same old.
3. All those capable of using the jutsu die. This isn't "growing up through suffering," this is simply death. If there are people who survive and who Can use the jutsu, then we'd end up with 1.
4. Pein's ambitions achieves peace for a moment by causing the nations to gather through emergency discussions, much like 1. They agree not only to not use that jutsu, but to cease fighting for now completely. However, as soon as the responsible generation dies off, future generations will likely "forget" about it all, and we'd be back to square one, or any of the above scenarios, Again.
Really, the only way to achieve lasting peace is to make sure all parties have interest in keeping each other up and healthy (usually economic reasons). Military threat alone never guarantees real peace for the long term. And as for "growing up because of the pain," don't make me laugh. It's never worked. It only leads to a cycle of revenge, which is actually strangely what Pein seems to be doing.
In other words, Pein is now officially my least-liked Naruto character. Hell, I even like Gatou more than him. At least Gatou wasn't a delusional retarded god-wannabe. =.= And you just Know that one of these days, he'll break down crying at the memory of whatshisname after Naruto yells a few times at him. Though fortunately, he'll end up dying. Good riddance once that happens. =.=