How corrupt can a modern country/empire be until it collapses?

>implying El Presidente is not an immortal, timeless being

>Constantly attacking foreign nations for no reason
Money is a pretty obvious reason.

Yes, but no one has ever seriously claimed that Perfidious Albion is not a force of evil in this world.

Look at Hungary, Russia, and China (at least before the various centralization anti-corruption crackdowns for the latter two).

You can keep it very corrupt for a long time, as long as you have the armed men to keep the lid on and no surprising events interfere.

This can last many decades nowadays. Possibly longer, but I don't feel qualified to judge that.

Being unimportant to the world helps.

Or being the lesser evil too. All North Korea news are rethoric from both sides. The troublesome issue is keeping a fragile country of blowing up but also keeping from prospering. Meanwhile, the dictator has to balance the secret police and the army. If the whole game of cards collapses, you have about 25 million utterly alienated people/refugees, a civil war, vacuum for more extremist power grabbers, nuclear weapons, countless bunkers and unknown amounts of chemical/biological weapons. I shudder every time I recall they used VX to poison his brother. That thing is nasty, and they could seed their soil with chemical landmines.

No one wants to take care of that. Even China would have issues absorving 25 million people at once, and that is if they want to in the first place. Others might collapse their own economy trying to. The whole situation would make the current Middle East sound like a nuisance.

>Oh, come off it, we always have a reason.

No legitimate reason, then. They like to make shit up to convince the population to accept it, but that's just the behaviour of a corrupt nation.

>let's be real: if we were ever going to use nukes again, we would have in Afghanistan

Not even slightly, since it makes raping a foreign nation's natural resources much harder under nuclear fallout.

This is a stealth /pol/ thread, isn't it?

Possibly it's been mostly civil so far.

You know why they used the atomic bombs, doesn't make them corrupt for using them. I'm sure you've heard the casualties statistics before.

Anyway you are guaranteed some (you's) today.

>You know why they used the atomic bombs

Yeah:
>to test it in a real situation and show off their new toy to Russia

That's it. Most believe the "corrupt" version, that it was a selfless, heroic, necessary act to stop the evil Japanese horde, who refused to surrender. But they ignore that the Japanese were already offering a surrender months before hand, were driven back to their island by the US forces already, and were getting invaded from the north by Russia so no longer a threat. Not to mention that TWO nukes were dropped, over civilian populations.

And even in the official version, if they wanted to force a Jap surrender, dropping them off the coast but in sight of a city would've done the job. But they wanted to kill people, specifically as an act of petty revenge for Pearl Harbour.

>Nuking Argentina
>Argentina starting shit
Oh please, Argentina of today couldn't beat Argentina of 1982

For corruption to destroy a modern country there must be the following factors

1)The population is connected to the needs provided to the governing elite but not enough amentities is cared for. A population cant rebel if they are starving, illiterate and completely isolated. A Banana Republic population has revolt urges when the money they get isnt enough go provide them with medicine and education among all things and have the means to do so.

2) Economy boom or Bust also makes corruption's effects on society able to cause collapse as either one side wants everything from the resource boom or the economy is bad enough that they too are starving to death

3) Corruption in the keys to power. If a leader's enemy have more power than intended they are inevitably going ro hold delusions if grandeur. No longer content with just beibg a lacky they want the throne themselves so they start provoking a situation to start a rebellion or coup and promise lofty promises if they switch sides.

Incorrect: The Emperor of Japan wanted to surrender,his generals on the other hand would not.

In fact they were plotting a coup to overthrow him and continue the war.

There were ONLY two ways the war could end.

Either with a costly bloody invasion the Purple Hearts of which are still being used TO THIS DAY...........

Or we harness the energies of creation to make the most powerful weapons that have ever shed the blood of fellow men.

And End The War With A Single Stroke.
Bombings:226,000

Invasion:41,885,500

ANY QUESTIONS.

Conditional surrender is no surrender, user. Let's not revise the facts, mm-kay?
And 'revenge for pearl harbor'?? Are you fucking kidding us? You clearly are unaware of Curtis Lemay and the application of 'firebombing'.

>Conditional surrender is no surrender, user.

That's not true. There is surrender beyond unconditional. I mean, that's why we need to include the term 'Unconditional' when describing it.

lulz
You're not even technically wrong you're just a basic bitch.

It takes an incredibly limited historical imagination, or wilful ignorance, two think those were the only two options. Seriously, even a cursory knowledge of the subject should dissuade such simple thinking.

No, simple knowledge of the facts - Borneo proved Japan would not fall easily.
Seriously, even a cursory knowledge of the subject should dissuade such simple thinking.

You're incredibly thick- you seem to think I'm suggesting that the invasion could go ahead, but not be that bad. You're so locked into this binary set of options that you can't conceive of a reality where japan is neither invaded nor atomically bombed, and still surrenders: something that is not only plausible but likely.

You should stop huffing radiation, it's melting your brain.

There really isn't an upper limit.

Corruption is only likely to cause collapse if the country has some strong institutions that resist the corruption, leading to internal conflict.

In fact, at a certain point, a sufficiently extreme degree of corruption can actually prop up a weak regime, as powerful corporate and organized crime interests essentially become extensions of the regime itself and will independently seek to support it.

Look nobody here wants a fight.It can be argued that there were other options.

BUT, It can also be argued that the U.S government either was not aware of them or had reason to think that they would cause even more deaths.

But let's not argue politics here.......That Is What /POL/Is For.

This trollwants to fight, user. He's pushing fantasy like it's history, and bein' stupid about it. The allies would never accept anything but total surrender after the shit they put up with. That's a fact.

"I like to eat my cum and also my pubes"
-Your name, spoken in a gay lisp

Wow, you sure showed him.

Just keep watching Brazil news feeds.

I dare someone show to me a fictional OR real society more corrupt than 2017 Brazil.

What stands out?

If you ever reach the point where the people want the bananas to fuck off, look into Venezuela. Shit's fucked over there right now.

The only country in the world where you're allowed to speak your mind and own legal firearms.

We ARE free, as much as you cucked yuropoors want to think otherwise while your governments import muslims to rape, murder, and replace you.

kys and kiss my ass bitch.

Way to prove him wrong. Dumbass.

>the ONLY country in the world with guns and freedom of speech rights
Fucking kek. I'm an American and even I know that's not true. There's plenty of other nations that have one or both of these things, most of which are in Europe.

What do you even think corruption is?

That would be fucking glorious. Uppity nations might need a nuking once in a while.

We could had just sieged the fucking islands and kept bombing them. Why do we NEED to go into their meatgrinder? Japan was fucked in late 45. Just wait them out the winter and onto spring.

Japan was willing to surrender, the US dropped the bombs only to make sure Japan would negotiate only with them and not the USSR.

Japan wanted to go back to status quo antebellum. They were trying to salvage their empire and be poised to try again in twenty, thirty years. They weren't going to give up Manchuria, Korea, or Taiwan. Would you had accepted that surrender?

They rejected our terms for surrender.

We were treaty obligated not to accept their conditions, and we honored our treaty (with the UK, USSR etc).

The czech senate just voted to amend their constitution to guarantee the right to keep, bear, and carry arms.

That means a European country literally has more gun rights than some US states, as not all 50 states have unrestricted or guaranteed shall-issue carry.

You fucking Americans can't even keep up with Europe in GUN RIGHTS anymore - what good even is the US?

Compare Brazil to Venezuela. That's the literal line between "breathtakingly corrupt" and "too corrupt to function as a nation."

Europe does not have free speech. You can get jailed for basically wrong think in Germany for example if you question allied narrative of ww2. That's not freedom.

Are you from there or do you have too much time to get ALL the news?
I am surprised anyone heard about that.

I've got a real bad problem about being a news junkie.

This. There's a reason why they mock Brazil politics as a more absurd irl House of Cards season.
But it's as other user said, as long as you have bread and circus. The corruption will fly. You don't even need guns if the bulk of the population turned as corruption as the government or are simply too dumb and lazy to make protests that actually impact the country enough to generate a positive reaction.

>But they ignore that the Japanese were already offering a surrender months before hand

No, they were prepared to negotiate a conditional surrender that would allow them to hold onto some of their conquests. Of which they still mostly had, even at the end of the war. Key islands had been taken but much of China was still in Japanese hands, as was most of South East Asia. It's worth pointing out that civilian death rates in those occupied areas were running at 100,000 per MONTH so long as the war continued. Unconditional surrender was considered the only acceptable surrender for the Allies because they wanted to stamp out militarism; they saw the legacy of not completely destroying Germany in 1918 to be the militarism that lead to WW2. They didn't want to fight the same war against Japanese militarism 20 years in the future.

>were driven back to their island by the US forces already

Most Japanese ground forces were still intact and fighting in China.

>and were getting invaded from the north by Russia so no longer a threat.

Didn't care. Japan saw the Soviets as potential negotiators of a conditional peace. The entry of the Russians certainly annoyed the Japanese, but they weren't going to surrender over it.

>But they wanted to kill people, specifically as an act of petty revenge for Pearl Harbour.

No, they wanted to demonstrate that they had a weapon that Japan couldn't fight against. If they wanted to kill people, they had conventional bombs.

Germany put more resources into locking up islamophobes than they put into locking up islamic extremists after their rash of islamic extremist terror attacks.

Yeah. German leaders are also busy literally replacing the native germans with arabs and want to use the EU to force that shit onto all European nations and peoples. EU can't collapse soon enough.

>a pseudo-dictatorship
Not even close to a dictatorship, the President barely has any power on a domestic level, and the government's in a near constant state of gridlock,.

(cont.)

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than in either atomic attack. Most major Japanese cities were already getting plastered from the air. They didn't need nukes to do that.

What caused Japan to surrender was the nukes, and using them against cities, so their absolute destructive power could be demonstrated, was critical to that, as was using 2 of them. That's because Japan's plan to gain a peace treaty with the Allies was to cause so many Allied casualties when the Allies landed that the Allies would sue for peace. To that end the Japanese were completely willing to conscript their entire population, boys down to 13 and girls to 15, arm them with anything including spears and bows and arrows, and hurl them against the landing beaches on Kyushu. They had 12,000 kamikaze planes ready for that too, plus 3.4 million troops on the Home Islands.

Atomic bombs changed all that. The Japanese couldn't count on a policy of drowning the Allies in blood if the Allies could just fly overhead dropping nukes. Heavy bombers were bad against troops due to inaccuracy and poor penetration of defenses; nukes didn't have to be accurate and blasted aside anything. The Japanese knew the Allies could drop lots of nukes because 2 were dropped; the Japanese had a nuclear program and they knew how complex these things were. By dropping 2, the Allies showed they could mass produce the things. That's why Japan surrendered after the 2nd nuke, not the first.

t. Tex McBurger

Look at the EU now.
Look at it and laugh at their burning streets.

Well, the Soviet Union was corrupt since like 1910, and only collapsed in 1990.

The USA has been corrupt since like 1941, and hasn't collapsed yet.

Venezuela has been collapsing since its existence, and it still hasn't collapsed yet, but its pretty close.

Mexico is also corrupt as shit, and yet it doesn't look like it will collapse any time soon.

Holy shit you are deluded if you honestly believe this.

he is right

you are the one deluded enough to believe your life is good

ugh racist /pol/ posters need to take their facts back to the containment board ugh

Corruption is not a real word. It's a clumsy synonym for the patches insecure rulers make and the patches populations make in response.

With a good population or rulership, countries can last a long time.

>used nuclear weapons offensively

You mean against that one country that actually attacked them first?

...

High standard of living, democratic elections, low ranking on the world corruption index, people free to protest, etc.

I admit we have our problems, but you have to be pretty damn thick, or maybe just really blind, to think the us was a totalitarian shit hole.

>its justificable to use a weapon capable of scorching Earth, and mutating millions of people for the next generation. IF they suicide themselves into a naval port.

You are a disgusting human being.

This is why the conversations about Europe are always so silly. You're comparing one country with an entire neighborhood of countries. Sure that can work on some levels but when it comes to human rights, that is going to go south quick. For example Switzerland allows private gun ownership and free expression while Germany allows neither. And yet they're both under this umbrella of "Europe".

>low ranking on the world corruption index,
>your president is in an all out war against the press and 'deep state' (whatever that is)
>not corrupted

Right.
Like the EU isn't falling appart.
The 3Seas group just practically prepared them selves for a total split of from that toxic beraucracy.

Enjoy the images of burning German streets.

So you bait me by saying they were used offensively, then you misrepresent me by saying that I approve of nuclear weapons.

8/10, you got me to respond twice and I'm still not sure if you're serious

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets

>while Germany allows neither

Oh please.

>gun ownership

Weird that thats alwayws used an indicator of civil liberties. Anyways you can have a gun but the requirements are stricter. As a not shitpoor citizen with no prior convictions its not that hard to get a gu. Most people just don't bother.

>free spech

>can't use nazi symbols or deny the Holocaust
>you aren't allowed to incit racial/religious violence

Wew 1984 anyone.

Oh please. Look at the fucking riots in America. Its like you all conveniently forget how many riots happen in other countries.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.932019

Oh and btw G20 always attracts tons of foreign leftie militants. Thats in no way a regular situation.

>foreign debt is higher than 120% of the GDP

The KGB estimated that thats the point where the magic of coups revolutions etc. happens.

>starving millions of people to death is more humane than blowing up 150k
really makes you think

And lets not forget:

>potentially killing more than a million allied soldiers against a fanatical enemy that was willing and capable to lead an industrialized guerillia war
>killing much more civilians with ferocious fighting in populated areas

user, you are making Veeky Forums and the world a better place.

Lol but that's Germany that's their culture.

And btw GB seems unable to elect a stable government despite Brexit, has the most terror attacks and is in a really shitty spot economically. Oh and stopping foreigners from coming in also isn't working.

And burgers bragging about islamic invasion of europe conveniently forget that their POTUS will have a name like Pablo Sanchez long before europe hits 25% muslims.

>can't use nazi symbols or deny the Holocaust
Why shouldn't you be able to do either?
Why should the government prevent people from expressing their views?

Called the Mods. A /pol/ purging is going to happen. Die for Darkseid.

Apokolips may not be a modern example but it is the ultimate example of a system designed to be corrupt and opressive.

Germany is trying to impose that shit on the rest of us as well trough the EU.
Fuck the modern day germans. They sicken me.
t. Finn

This is wrong as the way our rights work are fairly unique.

Our rights are rights that exist separate from the state, they are just recognized as rights by the state. In almost every other country rights are those that state provides, without the state their would be no rights. In the American mindset our rights are restricted by the government as the government only recognizes some rights, while in the European style mindset the government is the one that frees you.

Truly they are cucks without peer on a philosophical level.

>Corruption doesn't cause collapse
What do you mean by corruption? Because Corruption absolutely can cause collapse. I assume people in this thread are talking about relatively sparse ( and despite how bad things are they are still in fact relatively infrequent currently) backroom deals like what people in the west think of as corruption. which is of course isn't good and has negative impact, but doesn't show what happens if corruption continues over time which, again, absolutely can cause or at the very least hasten the collapse of a state.

Corruption can set norms in place that spread from top down across all institutions, and that corruption creates and exacerbates inefficiencies which drains resources and prevents the government from taking ANY action even ones essential to maintaining the survival of the state.

When every individual only works in exchange for bribes, or steal resources for themselves, or nepotistic promotional strategies become dominant the actual amount of material wealth the nation may or may not have becomes immaterial because they state can't use those resources.

To elaborate further from my somewhat messy comment here

You keep talking about corruption is a general term for evil, which isn't what corruption is. Corruption is really a kind of an inefficiency that affects all actions. "Stick size" becomes irrelevant if you can't use the stick. if your military contains X amount of corruption ( I know it can't really be cataloged in this way but go with it) then every time you spend money on the military or buy weapons for the military a portion of the cash and weapons disappears into corruption networks and the corruption worsens the portion of resources lost grows and the entire system of the military begins to seize up as the corruption enterprises inevitably become more profitable for the corrupt than for the loyalists. and even though the schemes ake many connected powerful people money they become unable to "shut them off " as it were because the moving parts are each making too much money and no longer require the heads to continue, and the scheme of corruption network to legitimate military becomes unsustainable and the capacity and will of the military to fight becomes diminished.

Yea it is fuckhead.

They opened the war with a surprise attack without a formal declaration of war, and went on throughout the rest of the war acting like a bunch of goddamn monsters, throwing babies in the air and catching them on bayonets, slicing open pilot's stomachs and winding their entrails out, burning people alive for fun, and all of this other horrendous shit.

If we hadn't have nuked the fuckers we'd have seven million casualties and way more dead civilians as the Japs liked to press gang them into suicide missions.

Continued

of course, corruption is more complicated than open theft obviously ( although it has been shown that patterns of corruption are invariably linked, so when one kind of corruption increases all other forms begin to do so as well)

but two other forms of corruption are nepotism arraignments and partner favoritism.

I'm going to continue with the military example because its what I'm most familiar with and it's easier to handle than other forms but the basic lesson of corruption=inefficiency remains.

but back to my main point. Nepotism schemes and Partner Favoritism are both closely linked in that the represent situations where individuals or supplies are promoted/purchased because of corruption rather than merit or value.

In short, when you promote people for personal reasons you lose competance and encourage lack of information sharing ( because information is power and every is only looking out for themselves) one example that I'm thinking of is from the Iran-Iraq war where iraqi commanders would hoard information to make themselves more valuable to their superiors but the lack of sharing lead to failures on the ground.

partner favoritism is any situation where you aquire supplies through a personal arraignment rather than for quality. It's been shown in several studies on the issue ( if i can remember where they are i'll post them) that even if they supplier intends to supply quality weapons/armor/etc when the supply chain is corrupt the qualioty inevitable degrades because they aren't afraid of losing the contract over quality reasons.

This is a long ass ramble, but im tired and haven't slept. regardless i've made my point.

Probably 2016 numbers, wait for the next update.

You're actually badly overstating the effects of nuclear bombs.

Yes, you're OVERestimating how destructive a nuclear bomb is.

>mutating millions of people
You're off by more than one order of magnitude there, pal.
>scorching Earth
So is a magnifying glass on a sunny day.

The nuclear attack was not even the most destructive bombing raid of the war, you fuckwit. An atomic bomb is just a big bomb - a really big bomb. It doesn't do any more damage than a whole shitton of other bombs does.

you mean that's the culture the americans brainwashed them into

To continue my ramble because I feel like it, I would strongly suggest you look at the varieties of extinct varieties of banana. If you're specifically creating a banana republic you can't avoid the fact that those kind of specific countries were 1) propped up by outside entities and dependent on a lucrative but not diversified trade.

The amount of corruption that can be sustained in nations like that are dependent on the stability of those commodities. So if the commodity goes extinct, or decreases in value the amount of corruption that can actually be sustained changes. I'm sure you've thought about that but its good to think about.

>meanwhile, in New York

youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

New York has had Republican governors (as recently as 2006) and NYC has had Republican mayors (de Blasio is the first Democrat since 1993).

Detroit has not had a Republican since 1962 - over fifty years exactly as that image says.

>High standard of living

Ha! All your food is polluted, you're increasingly likely to get shot, you lose your homes to banks when they fuck up, and all your entertainment is geared towards retards.

>democratic elections

Yeah, that voting for a blue mask or a red mask really changes the stagnant fiend that wears it. It's like you aren't even looking for the bars.

>low ranking on the world corruption index

Likely paid off by your corrupt politicians and businessmen. The US is a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than anywhere on Tatooine.

>people free to protest

Only if they pay for it, and enjoy getting brutalised by cops.

>to think the us was a totalitarian shit hole

Except that's exactly what it is. Open your eyes to the shit around you.

>increasingly likely to get shot
No, no, we're talking about America, not Europe.

That's two different people you're responding to. And yeah, you are approving of nuclear weapons. Don't try to hide those redneck colours, boy.

This.
The most disgusting thing I see is murrican /pol/acks telling germans how "spineless" they are and how they should "do something" when the modern state of Germany and germans is directly due to what the Allies did to germans after their victory. It is sickening.

>thinks "violent crimes" means "shootings"

Classic burger, can't possibly comprehend violence without an overcompensating firearm involved.

Yes it was DEMOCRAT RULE that destroyed Detroit.

To elaborate on that graph, in the late 1990s violent crime statistics changed in the UK to mean "any crime against the person" which is an incredibly broad definition wheras in the US and most other countries on that graph only define it ( for the purpose of this graph) as 4 kinds of crimes; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

so crime has not been increasing in the UK like that graph shows.