David Njoku@davidnjoku@mastodon.world
What are the arguments for and against the rest of the world intervening militarily if a country is committing genocide against one of their own peoples?
Yes, I'm thinking of Gaza, but is what China is doing to the Uyghurs all that different?
One argument against is that it's difficult to get international consensus; however, is that an argument for sitting by and doing nothing?
#gaza
TeflonTrout :bc: he/him@TeflonTrout@beige.party
@davidnjoku@mastodon.world honestly? Cost and odds of success would factor in heavily in a world where leaders actually did things
Israel's bullshit? It'd be costly due to the technical parity, but their small size, accessibility by sea, and likely unwillingness to go all-out against otherwise friendly nations would make it a guaranteed success if the US military (only one I'm an expert about) alone were to decide to stop it.
China though
Fuck me, ...China. Look, the US military does NOT share Russia's paper tiger status. I feel like we can all agree on that.
China is rapidly reaching tech parity with the US. Their country is fucking HUGE. So is their military.
The U.S. would get it's head cut off and it's own dick jammed down it's neck in a full scale naval invasion, let alone a cross-country campaign to get to where the Uyghurs physically are. It would go, at best, worse than the Ukraine war is for Russia.
Any geopolitically accessible land border is HELLACIOUS terrain for traversing in a small group, let alone an invasion force. The US has an entire school devoted to training specialized units in mountain warfare- it would take a decade to prepare a moderate sized force that wouldn't be wrecked by altitude sickness alone, and would be capable of holding a defensive position in the Himalayas. That is a FAR cry from invading China