Is collective security still applicable today?
Is there a historical precedent for the diplomatic system in place currently? Thoughts?
Collective security as long since been superseded by mutually assured destruction.
>>1383649
Yes, but mutually assured destruction is only applicable to countries with such means, and many of them are content to not expand their borders or seek further control, with the obvious exception of Russia. Adding to that, MAD has done little to curb Russian expansionism; in other words it isn't a viable alternative due to its consequences, and as such isn't really relevant.
>>1383680
whoops forgot china too
>>1383692
But that's exactly my point. It is not effective in resolving conflicts short of world wars
>>1383717
False - its not effective in resolving conflicts between countries that don't actually matter. Obviously, countries that are completely irrelevant don't get to benefit from MAD.
>>1383723
>resolving conflicts between countries that don't actually matter
You realize a conflict requires two parties, and Russia is the other power? Are you implying Russia is irrelevant?
>>1383745
Not as relevant as they were before, but, that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that if one of the two feuding parties is irrelevant (which Ukraine is) then nobody will actually care.
>>1383750
I don't know, I see where you're going, but I don't think you can reduce it to other countries not caring, especially given the recent memory of the Cold War and the increasing expansion of Russia and the effect that has on the geopolitical climate. I mean countries are imposing sanctions on Russia, EU has straight up imposed tariffs on exports to Russia, the issue isn't a question of whether or not MAD can prevent such conflicts, the question is how far it will take to get to such a point. Youre right, annexing part of the Ukraine doesn't constitute enough of an act of aggression to provoke use of Nuclear Arms, but that is my point is that it takes so much to even get to the point where nuclear weapons enter the conversation, how can that system be effective?
>>1383789
Because literally the entire 20th century was about containing Russia and preventing it from assuming world dominance - and this is still continuing into the 21st century. I'm serious, all of history from 1914 onward can be reasonably viewed from the lens of the "Western world" trying its damnedest to destroy, subvert, contain, or otherwise cripple Russia for fear of what would happen if they became a world superpower.
The eternal struggle between the Anglo-Americans (and their allies) versus Russians for world domination has been a thing going far back as the 1800's even.
>>1383805
not that guy but how does that address the imparticality of mutually assured destruction? Genuinely curious desu senpai
>>1383825
Was mostly a tangent related to why the world cares a lot more about Russia annexing a black sea port (Crimea) than it does about China annexing an entire geographic region (Tibet)
>>1383789
Do people think MAD actually works? Isn't it contingent on only certain countries, i.e. great powers, having nuclear weapons? For example, India and Pakistan have gone to war, and they each have nukes; I really doubt they'd use them for something like the Kashmir conflict if one side were to really start losing. It also works great if you have nukes and you want to invade a country; if no other nuclear power objects, you basically have free rein.
MAD only seems to work if it looks like you are going to be completely destroyed by conventional warfare, especially if the other country doesn't have nuclear weapons.
>>1383964
I only read >>1383649 to mean that MAD has superseded collective security, which I agree with. Not sure about the attitude to MAD as applied to current affairs.
The theory feels like an outdated cold war concept that relies on two primary powers, each with the ability to destroy each other. With North Korea developing their own weapons because China may no longer be willing to back them, and Saudi Arabia threatening to start a nuclear program in response to the Iran deal, nuclear weapons seem to be proliferating. This would render MAD toothless, because as long as you don't totally try to destroy the other country through conventional war, you won't have nukes fired at you because then you could just destroy the other country right back.
