• Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Right, but I’m not saying it is. My point is that the fact that someone is challenging American hegemony doesn’t mean there has to be war. There was definitely enough time in which the Soviet Union looked strong and unlikely to collapse to show that.

    • 0nekoneko7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      both sides know this, neither of them wants to be seen as the aggressor because then the other side will have a narrative edge for their action. like the Imperial Japanese Army did in Pearl Harbor, where the US government took the opportunity to justify their use of Weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilians.

            • 0nekoneko7@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              As an example of how powerful it is to have a narrative edge in war. where a government can easily get away with a crime against humanity, without any consequences.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                6 months ago

                Okay, so the U.S. is going to commit a crime against humanity in a war with China? What crime would this be?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Maybe if you were clearer about what you were saying, these “interpretations” wouldn’t be an issue.

                    I’m not sure what the point of bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show that the U.S. is capable of crimes against humanity is when you aren’t saying that’s what the U.S. is going to do again.