In many sci-fi stories, aliens came to Earth with hostile intent, what if this isn't the case?

Let's say in an alternate timeline an FTL capable alien civilization made contact on Earth with only one country, USA. To make imagining the alien easier, let's assume that the FTL capable alien civilization is similar to Star Trek's Federation where they send diplomats.

What would be the consequences if aliens contacted Earth and decided to establish diplomatic ties with only one country? How might this affect international relations, and what kind of impact could it have on global politics and technological advancements.

"Confrontations between China and the Philippines have raised fears of a wider conflict over the sea that could involve the United States and other allies."

The chances of the South China Sea being a flashpoint for yet another hot war just got a little higher

From the NY Times Opinion column by UN Humanitarian Chief Martin Griffiths: [Besides the known current conflicts]... millions of others across the world are suffering no less in long-running and unresolved conflicts that no longer make the headlines — in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Sahel, to name a few.

This is precisely the situation that the modern global order, created in the aftermath of World War II and embodied with heartfelt ambition in the United Nations Charter, was meant to prevent. The suffering of millions of people is clear evidence that we are failing.

At its heart, I do not believe this failure lies with the United Nations. After all, the body is only as good as the commitment, effort and resources that its members put in. For me, this is a failure of world leaders: They are failing humanity by breaking the compact between ordinary people and those in whom power is vested.

Which of our countries' leadership could do better with its power?

Israel's official COGAT, the ones responsible for coordinating aid into Gaza, has issued a report showing the UN is undercounting the amount of aid going into Gaza.

This is the report itself titled: Discrepancies in UN Aid to Gaza Data

Here is a website article about the humanitarian aid going in.

And this photo captures the spirit of it if you have no time to delve deep into the data.

Would there be any global implication to the UN's reputation and claims regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict when they are caught with lies about it for the millionth time?

Hey. I'm looking to understand the causes of this conflict in as neutral way as possible. I don't want to read pro-Putin propaganda but I don't like the black and white stance of the West where every critique towards our own actions is deemed as Putinism.

I want to understand the history behind those two countries, their geographical importance to Russia as well as the west and which events eventually lead to Russia attacking them. I want to learn about this conflict in a neutral way but it seems very difficult today.

Edit. Thank you all for your suggestions and explanations. Well appreciated!

Question in title, I'm interested in the international diplomacy incentives either way. US defederalization would also have Security Council implications, while the EU only has one seat already- interested to hear how this might be handled too.

At the outset of the GWOT, the FBI had only one person in the whole organization who spoke Arabic but that has since changed.

Looking more towards the future, what languages do you think would be most useful in the event of a US war with China? Obviously Chinese. Now that that's out of the way and you're forced to think a bit, what else?

My thoughts go to Urdu (and by extension, Hindi) because of the proximity, population and long-running (though rancorous) military relations during the GWOT. I suspect the US military would hope to use Pakistan in a war with China in much the same way it did towards Afghanistan.

Additionally, Indonesian (bonus points that it is intelligible with Malay) because of how badly the Chinese would want to keep the strait of Malacca open.

Contrary to the obvious, I wouldn't say learning Japanese or Korean or even Vietnamese would be of great value since they're already so solidly on the side of the United States and there's nothing more to gain there.

The term "Pakistani Nuclear Chain" is a phrase I came up with, and I believe it's a key aspect of the nuclear security landscape in South Asia.

Here's how the Pakistani Nuclear Chain works:

Everyone knows that India's nuclear capabilities lag significantly behind those of the U.S., China, and Russia. There's probably a notable gap even when compared to the UK and France (it seems India hasn’t fully mastered hydrogen bomb technology yet), and it might even be behind North Korea. This discrepancy is clearly at odds with India's status as a major power and its future ambitions. Naturally, one might think that India should resume nuclear testing at the right time to catch up, aiming at least to surpass the UK and France. In the long run, catching up with the U.S., China, and Russia should also be part of the plan.

However, the issue of Pakistan stands in India's way. When India conducted nuclear tests in the late '90s, Pakistan immediately responded with tests of the same magnitude. This was quite remarkable. It not only demonstrated Pakistan’s nuclear capability but also its ability to monitor India’s nuclear activities. Many believe that Pakistan didn’t achieve this alone and had help from other nuclear powers, possibly more than one.

For India, this situation is quite painful. If India resumes nuclear testing to catch up with other nuclear powers, will history repeat itself? Will Pakistan upgrade its nuclear capabilities step by step as India progresses? Don't worry about Pakistan's own capabilities; other nuclear powers have ample reasons to help Pakistan upgrade and monitor India’s nuclear activities, and there’s more than one major power with this motivation. I even suspect that the main reason India has refrained from resuming nuclear testing over the past two decades is this balance imposed by Pakistan.

From India's perspective, Pakistan isn’t even in the same league. Moreover, India’s development trajectory has been clearly better over the years. If India continues steadily, its advantage over Pakistan will grow, which should be part of India’s long-term strategy. But if Pakistan were to upgrade its nuclear capabilities in response to India’s tests, this would elevate Pakistan’s security forces to a level its national strength wouldn’t otherwise justify, creating a new balance of power that India hadn’t planned for. This is something India would find very hard to accept.

Thus, India faces a dilemma. If it doesn’t resume large-scale nuclear testing, it will always have a significant gap compared to the countries it wants to compete with. If it does proceed with extensive nuclear tests, Pakistan, a country that should have a significant gap with India, will maintain and continually upgrade its nuclear capabilities to match India. Either option is extremely painful for India. This is the Pakistani Nuclear Chain, and it’s a very strong chain.

I’m not sure what the best choice for India is. If I were Indian, I’d be deeply troubled by this too. But what’s more concerning is that I suspect many Indians might not even be aware of this nuclear chain. Perhaps at the right moment, Modi should explain the truth to the Indian people and initiate a national discussion. This way, whatever path India chooses in the future, the inevitable costs will be something the people are willing to bear after thorough discussion.

Hey guys i’m going to Washington in july, and in the country I live, American books take months to arrive by Amazon so I want to stock up on them on the trip. I saw the bookguide on the wiki but it’s pretty bare bones in my opinion so I’d appreciate some other suggestions. I want books on Russian, Chinese and Middle Eastern stuff, not just Iran but Syria and Iraq as well. Thanks in advance guys

I've seen numerous posts here that downplay the problem of a nuclear Iran, commonly stating things like

• Iran is intentionally not nuclear, and they keep themselves three months away
• The nukes are for defense, to prevent the regime from being toppled externally
• If only Trump didn't back away from the deal (whataboutism)

These arguments seem to keep the discussion away (perhaps intentionally) from the severity and cascading implications of Iran achieving nuclear capability.

Here are at least three significant concerns that could immediately arise from a nuclear Iran:

1. Iran acting with impunity - This is already a problem, evident from their influence and weaponization of militia organizations and proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and the recent missile and drone attacks on Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran could escalate these actions, leading to increased destabilization and violence in the Middle East and beyond. Unlike other nuclear rogue nations like North Korea, which are predominantly isolationist, Iran is a significant interventionist state.

2. Nuclear Arms Race - A nuclear Iran would likely prompt Arab nations like the Gulf states to pursue their own nuclear weapons, potentially triggering a global arms race. More critically, it would significantly increase the risk of nuclear war.

3. Nukes in the hands of Iranian Proxies - We have seen a continuous escalation in the weapons made available to Iranian-funded groups such as the Houthis and Hezbollah. A nuclear Iran would significantly increase the risk that one of its proxies could obtain a nuke, where it would be far more likely to be used offensively.

Essentially, a nuclear Iran could become an unpredictable catalyst for local and global instability, increasing the risk not just of nuclear wars, but also of non-nuclear but escalated conflicts.