Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Titan on February 12, 2009, 04:49:52 pm
-
http://www.halturnershow.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-talks-civil-war-against.html
Holy. Effing. S***. :eek2:
Can't say I don't agree with them on several points, seeing as I grew up in a hunting family.
-
Withdraw all the FBI from the state and publicly announce that it's up to them to deal with their own crime then.
After a couple of months of a return to the Wild West they'll rip up that bill themselves. :p
-
The blog that posted this article looks to be pretty biased. And its commenters are racist trash.
Not saying it didn't happen, but let's take it with a grain of salt.
-
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
Turning into a dictatorship without consent of the people is wrong? No ****.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
Forced labor camps are wrong? No ****.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
Child slavery is wrong? No ****.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
Being annexed to another country is wrong? No ****.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
Denying basic constitutional rights is wrong? No ****.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition
Denying basic constitutional rights is wrong? No ****.
What the hell is the point? Don't they have anything better to be doing? Wasn't this kind of stuff sitting in the Deceleration of Independence for well over 300 years?
-
Has anyone read the comments ppl have been making underneath the article? Jesus ****ing Christ! Are they for real!?
-
Civil War... Now that would be exciting.
-
[Citation needed]
-
Yeah. I doubt the bill is about what that website claims it's about. :D
-
S***. sorry, i read it somewhere, couldn't find it again, so i just used the first website on google. Hang on,
http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-fires-first-shot-of-civil-war-resolution-immediately-voids-several-federal-laws-threatens-counterstrike-against-breach-of-peace/ (http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-fires-first-shot-of-civil-war-resolution-immediately-voids-several-federal-laws-threatens-counterstrike-against-breach-of-peace/)
-
So you go to a site that comments on the fact that Obama is doing something about Gitmo with the headline "Obama Terrorizes Families Of U.S. Terror Victims"?
Find this story on somewhere that isn't the mouthpiece of an ultra-right wing nutcase and I might buy it.
-
dammit... well, you find it. I can only post in 1-minute bursts, since i'm at the local library
-
Strange. There doesn't seem to be any reputable newssource covering this. At least, none that I would recognize. (Disclaimer: I'm not american)
-
That's because it's just a bill. It's no big deal. Some rabid folks just happened to find out about it and now it's getting blown all out of proportion.
-
Nutjobs doing their job.
-
Harold Charles "Hal" Turner is an American white nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. He ran his program, The Hal Turner Show, as a webcast from his home once a week, and depended on donations from his listeners. He quit the show in July 2008. In August his website also closed down, though he retains a blog.
Wiki Hal Turner
Nut jobs indeed.
-
There's a lot of valid points. And do realize just how much states are being restricted by the Federal gov't. Some states will fight back.
-
Hey its on the license plate "Live Free or Die" :D
All kidding aside though I'll need to show this to my coworker from NH it'll get a facepalm for sure.
Looking at an the article is there an option to donate to keep Hal OFF the air?
-
Assuming this is real, and all valid arguements aside, it's about time that a state decided to stand up against the federal government.
-
What the ****? Has anybody actually read this stuff? Sure revolution is all well and good, our rights are clearly being taken away. Maybe we're even overdue for one.
But nobody really understands why;
"You know, I said it before and I'll say it again: This nigger will be the cause of the Second Civil War. Never mind the so-called "majority" that "voted" for the nigger, many were multiple votes by one or more persons, dead people, fictitious, and so on. Granted, the GOP ran a milquetoast - instead of a real man like Ron Paul, with fellow NRA member Sarah Palin as VP. No, economic meltdown and civil war is coming. NOW is the time to stock up on food, water, and ammo. If you have one firearm, get more! There are a number of dealers online who sell ammo, patronize them now! Stock up on Hoppe's #9, Rem Oil, brushes, and patches. Stop playing computer games, and learn how to reload. Learn a trade that will help you in the coming months, like leatherworking, gunsmithing, veterinary, first aid, and so on. Get a concealed permit, if you can, and learn to carry a handgun with you (shoulder holster, purse, backpack, and so on). You never know when the nigger's cadre will erupt in violence. Things are going to be hard, and the nigger and his cadre have pledged to make life hell for us. If you are a Christian, then you know what liberty is, and will eagerly defend your liberty, unlike the nigger's army, who will more than likely desert."
"There are already Secessionist movements in more than 25 individual States. It wouldn't even be the States that started a Civil War. Just as in 1860, the Feds would commit the first act of aggression. The States would then act in Self Defense, hopefully with all jews expelled from all positions of power in every seceding State to prevent the usual jewish sabotage of the Secession. I would not be at all surprised if the individual States won independence from ZOG simply by issuing mass dismissals from employment to all jewish State employees in anticipation of Federal aggression and potential jewish sabotage."
It's not the blacks. Jews? Nope. It's greed. Color and religion are irrelevant. We're turning into Nazis more and more every day.
Seventy million people didn't die for us to accept fascism seventy years later.
-
The good thing is that these people are in the minority, or we wouldn't have voted a black president into office.
-
Suicide bombers are also a minority, or the Middle East problems would have solved themselves a long time ago...
-
There's a lot of valid points. And do realize just how much states are being restricted by the Federal gov't. Some states will fight back.
When you find yourself agreeing with white supremacists, it's time to start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Cause you can bet they sure as **** don't. :p
-
There's a lot of valid points. And do realize just how much states are being restricted by the Federal gov't. Some states will fight back.
When you find yourself agreeing with white supremacists, it's time to start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Cause you can bet they sure as **** don't. :p
Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points. Anyways--on the topic of this particular nutjob. He has some points--some states need to take a stand and oppose further restriction on rights. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that there are states willing to stand up for their rights is powerful enough. And also realize that our founding fathers most likely expected revolutions every few decades. They gave us a framework, and it's our job to maintain it.
-
Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points.
Sometimes. More often than not though they have a rather poorly thought out argument that looks sensible until you look more closely at the problem. At which point it falls apart.
My earlier joke about the FBI was actually semi-serious. If you went back to giving the federal government only the powers in the constitution how much damage would that do to fighting crimes that cross state borders?
-
Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points.
Until you realize that the federal government has all the powers it has because its citizens expect it to fix everything. Society has caused the federal government to increase it's powers for a reason. If we take away all those powers, the government will simply not be able to do what it needs to do.
Except the patriot act. That's just stupid.
-
I've always wondered which section of the US would play the role of Serbia were the country to be Balkanized. Would "battleground states" become the new Kosovo? Would NATO bomb us? What would Canada make of all of it? Oh no!
-
Too bad it's not as easy as the last civil war. The Mason-Dixon line = very convenient. But now the retard states are in the middle of everything.
I don't imagine anyone will actually secede, though. The south lasted as long as it did because of the southren military tradition. And probably because they managed to completely surround NC, making it secede. ^^; The states with people crazy enough to commit treason just don't have the kind of population secession would require.
But imagine if all the US military people from those states went with their states. It would really be like the civil war of a new era. Only instead of five years and millions dead, it would be more like... :\ I don't even know, actually. Would we really bomb ourselves?
-
Quite frankly, if it happened, it would be the first step of America falling apart from the inside out.
Fortunately, I very highly doubt such a thing would be passed, I certainly hope that the majority of New Hampshires' politicians are bright enough to realise that by being selfish, they could destroy the very thing they are claiming to protect.
-
I don't think the goal is to pass it. I think it's a political stunt. :\
-
I'm not so certain, from some of the comments, I think it's about, horror of horrors, a non-white president!
Frankly my first thought when I read some of those comments was 'Hmmm.. Someone's afraid Karma is gonna get 'em' ;)
-
Generally, I think this is a pretty good rule:
If they grew up in America and are still dumb enough to be racist to the point of calling for civilwar/assassination/etc, then they are not capable of pulling off whatever it is they are calling for.
-
Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points. Anyways--on the topic of this particular nutjob. He has some points--some states need to take a stand and oppose further restriction on rights. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that there are states willing to stand up for their rights is powerful enough. And also realize that our founding fathers most likely expected revolutions every few decades. They gave us a framework, and it's our job to maintain it.
This is madness of the first order. The Federal government has assumed these powers from the states because it needed to, because the states cannot be trusted to use them properly, because leaving these things to the states will result in fragmentation of the country, because we would end up not being one nation but many.
He has no points. Not one. If he had perhaps mentioned California's stand on setting tougher emissions restrictions, he might have had a point. But he didn't. He's bat-**** crazy, and this is not a rabbit hole you want to go down. States are hardly useless, and it struck me very abruptly that Kara's comment about the FBI is, in fact, a telling one that he doesn't quite understand how the Federal system works. Counties police themselves, and there are state police as well, and they handle the majority of the law-enforcement work in a state, and they have effective liason with other states around them, and they have for a long time. There just isn't enough of the FBI to make a great difference on this, they are primarily meant to handle high-profile and high-impact crime. A state is hardly like some kind of useless middle management layer. It does a lot of things. If you doubt that, move to California while the state government is falling apart and watch for things that break and aren't getting fixed because the state government can't fix them.
-
This is what kills me - relying on a document, word for word, that's hundreds of years old to define how modern governance should work is foolhardy. The needs of a country change. The needs of a populations change. It's ridiculous to think that a model laid down in the 1770s could apply EXACTLY AS IT WAS WRITTEN today.
This is the problem with Constitutions - they don't get updated frequently enough because of the amount of political bickering that goes on whenever someone tries to make a needed and important change. One thing that does help in the American's case is the existence of amendments, but even then we see how irrationally they can be taken (the 2nd amendment is now being used to justify things that fall well beyond its original scope - but it will never be properly updated and clarified because no one can agree).
It's further interesting that the proposed bill states that the US federal government was limited to lawmaking on certain defined acts in the original Constitution. In point of fact, the original Constitution left that open-ended:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
and allowed for Congress to make additional laws as became necessary. This was then adjusted by the 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Blame the Bill of Rights?
-
This is madness of the first order. The Federal government has assumed these powers from the states because it needed to, because the states cannot be trusted to use them properly, because leaving these things to the states will result in fragmentation of the country, because we would end up not being one nation but many.
Not that I'm siding with the nutters but do you have any examples of this? I haven't been keeping up on any of this for a long while....
-
States are hardly useless, and it struck me very abruptly that Kara's comment about the FBI is, in fact, a telling one that he doesn't quite understand how the Federal system works. Counties police themselves, and there are state police as well, and they handle the majority of the law-enforcement work in a state, and they have effective liason with other states around them, and they have for a long time. There just isn't enough of the FBI to make a great difference on this, they are primarily meant to handle high-profile and high-impact crime. A state is hardly like some kind of useless middle management layer. It does a lot of things. If you doubt that, move to California while the state government is falling apart and watch for things that break and aren't getting fixed because the state government can't fix them.
I don't doubt they do. However the article was calling for an end to all federal crimes apart from the ones mentioned in the constitution. Now I wasn't on about simply catching the criminals. In fact although it probably reads that way the problem that immediately came to mind was prosecuting them not catching them.
If you make all federal crimes illegal you're going to have to replace all of them with state laws. Many of the newer crimes may not even have suitable non-federal versions or ones that are hugely out of date. You're not going to be able to make a major change like that without serious problems. Not to mention that almost every single criminal currently held under federal charges would instantly have the right to appeal their sentence on the grounds that it was illegal. Basically I can't see any way you can do this without completely swamping the judiciary.
-
This is madness of the first order. The Federal government has assumed these powers from the states because it needed to, because the states cannot be trusted to use them properly, because leaving these things to the states will result in fragmentation of the country, because we would end up not being one nation but many.
What is the reason to trust the Feds more than the States?
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
~John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, 1887
-
You can't have Texas decide to legalise cocaine while the other states that border it want to keep it illegal for instance.
Having a single rule for the entire country makes more sense than each state making up their own mind when it comes to things like these.
-
The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are! The problem really is that you have 100 senators and 535 representatives. Very few senators at least had reached their office with all due honesty. When you start yanking open states like New York, Illinois, and Florida, you start seeing just how corrupt big government is. One scandal after another. In New York, we had a self-righteous turn-the-other-cheek governor, elected on the grounds of cleaning up the NY political system, get caught with classy whores. We've got former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to replace Obama in the Senate. The problem is nobody pays attention to these guys--until they get caught. These guys are prime examples of why the Fed is so dangerous. They're at state level, but they are very limited in people they can trust. So look up a level--what are these guys doing that will never come to light? They're prime examples of how states are corrupt, but it's the same exact institutions that will send people to Washington. At best, Washington is corrupt. At worst, they're forcing continuing expansion.
-
The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are! The problem really is that you have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Very few senators at least had reached their office with all due honesty. When you start yanking open states like New York, Illinois, and Florida, you start seeing just how corrupt big government is. One scandal after another. In New York, we had a self-righteous turn-the-other-cheek governor, elected on the grounds of cleaning up the NY political system, get caught with classy whores. We've got former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to replace Obama in the Senate. The problem is nobody pays attention to these guys--until they get caught. These guys are prime examples of why the Fed is so dangerous. They're at state level, but they are very limited in people they can trust. So look up a level--what are these guys doing that will never come to light? They're prime examples of how states are corrupt, but it's the same exact institutions that will send people to Washington. At best, Washington is corrupt. At worst, they're forcing continuing expansion.
-
The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are! The problem really is that you have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Very few senators at least had reached their office with all due honesty. When you start yanking open states like New York, Illinois, and Florida, you start seeing just how corrupt big government is. One scandal after another. In New York, we had a self-righteous turn-the-other-cheek governor, elected on the grounds of cleaning up the NY political system, get caught with classy whores. We've got former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to replace Obama in the Senate. The problem is nobody pays attention to these guys--until they get caught. These guys are prime examples of why the Fed is so dangerous. They're at state level, but they are very limited in people they can trust. So look up a level--what are these guys doing that will never come to light? They're prime examples of how states are corrupt, but it's the same exact institutions that will send people to Washington. At best, Washington is corrupt. At worst, they're forcing continuing expansion.
435 reps. Sorry.
-
The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are!
The solution to having a big pile of **** is not to take little bits of **** and post them through everyone's letterbox. :p
Similarly if your big elected government is massively corrupt you need to kick them out, not force them back to the states to run their own tin pot corrupt states. That won't help anyone at all. Let's pick for instance Texas and New York. Both are only ever going to be won by one party. So you basically have a self perpetuating oligarchy. The potential for corruption in both is enormous,
-
It's not like people elected at the local level can't be corrupt too. A lot of counties hold elections for top Justice Department positions, which is not always a good thing.
-
We've all seen it. The problem is nothing controversial ever happens in an election year, and when it does people are too blind to see that the guy they elected is more crooked than an LA gang.
-
Similarly if your big elected government is massively corrupt you need to kick them out...
That would take a lot more than a few guys in NH claiming they'll declare civil war.
-
Not that I'm siding with the nutters but do you have any examples of this? I haven't been keeping up on any of this for a long while....
Desegration, or the way the Emancipation Proclaimation was interpreted into law for all states rather than those merely in open rebellion like it mandated, or the ongoing conflict between medical marijauna laws here in California and federal drug laws.
The concept of democracy is heavily dependent on there being one law for all, with as few exceptions or exemptions as possible. In times past, when it was not as possible to travel great distances, this could be handled well enough by the states, but now that it is reasonably possible to hop in your car and cross state lines twice in one day of driving, this is best handled by the federal government.
-
The good news about the US corruption is that it can still be contained at the political level but when corruption on a widespread social level occurs (like in Russia where bribery is expected to do anything) then there is little hope for the system until it collapses under its own weight and starts again. In short no country is without its corruption and dirty dealings and Im glad to see that we still have the ability to talk about this subject and we have a law enforcement agency that still catches these people and many get convicted.
There is always room for improvement and in the case of the US, there is much improvement needed.
-
1 Assuming this is real, and all valid arguements aside, it's about time that a state decided to stand up against the federal government.
2 There's a lot of valid points. And do realize just how much states are being restricted by the Federal gov't. Some states will fight back.
Seconded. But can anyone find out if this is real or not?
With all the technology nowadays I dont see a civil war going far.
EDIT: Im not saying civil war is what should happen, but I think the Fed has taken away far too many rights, restricted far too many things. It is about time We the People took a stand.
As someone said, its our job to maintain it. If gov gets out of hand, then civil war them. (As I said, this is not the case yet)
-
And which rights would those be that justify civil war? Yes, the federal government has expanded, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.
-
Hmm, maybe this is a good thing, if we go to war against NH, maybe we can jump start the economy. :p
But, in the end, the real civil war may come from the other states who want to annex NH after the fighting.
-
Why would anyone want NH?
-
The Constitution isn't as cut and dry as people would like to think. Sure the federal government only gets enumerated powers, but in a seemingly contradictory statement Congress also has the power to pass any law that is "necessary and proper". Therefore federal drug laws, etc. are all legal.
The article is throwing loaded words like "civil war" into a debate that has been going on for over 2 hundred years. Sure the state government vs. federal government was what spawned the Civil War, but really...why would THIS attempt start a civil war.
EDIT: Nice comments from people that read that blog...sensationalism, pure and simple. When I hear from a reputable news source that New Hampshire has seceded, I'll worry.
-
And which rights would those be that justify civil war? Yes, the federal government has expanded, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.
There becomes a point when its too big, and does not give back the temporary power we give it. Can easily turn into dictatorship.
-
Of course, the Civil War proved that you don't have the right to secede, so sorry.
-
Of course, the Civil War proved that you don't have the right to secede, so sorry.
Seceding is counter-productive. Overthrowing the government and making a new one is not.
-
Of course, the Civil War proved that you don't have the right to secede, so sorry.
Seceding is counter-productive. Overthrowing the government and making a new one is not.
Yes, but that would be popular rebellion, not civil war, particularly not in this context of a single state.
-
So... last I heard, the count was 21 states have joined new hampshire?
-
So... last I heard, the count was 21 states have joined new hampshire?
Source? And does it actually mean anything?
-
Too bad NC done went with 'em. I guess me and Turambar ain't Amurricans no more.
-
I sure hope Colorado did the smart thing and stayed out of it?
Cause I don't wanna be at war with my own state.
-
JK. NC is a blue state now. You're safe in Colorado.
-
I'm just confused by Titan's statment. He makes it sound like there's actually some type of intra-Federalism strife, which would be . . . unexpected.
-
So... last I heard, the count was 21 states have joined new hampshire?
I heard 9, but that's still 18% of the states. I'm curious to more valid sources for all this. That guy is a nutjob if there ever was one, though his posts about this topic in particular seems much more grounded in reality. The thing is the more states that introduce bills like this, the more states that WILL introduce bills like this.
-
Arizona had one AGES ago. Provided for everything int he event of breaking off from the US and all.
-
The way my dads friend (who pretty much spends his free nights going to town hall, to give you the idea) explained it to me is: NH is no longer following laws set up by the national goverment.
-
NH legislators wrote a bill. We can start caring if it gets passed. Until then, no big deal.
-
Someone start citing some sources. 21 states joined, 9 states joined? 18%?
-
Someone start citing some sources. 21 states joined, 9 states joined? 18%?
Take a look at the Crazy's newer blog posts. Basically they're saying that anything not listed in the US Constitution is null and void and then making a rule about some aspect, like guns. IIRC Montana's book says that any citizen can own a gun not made in Montana, and sets rules about what type of guns are OK (pistols, shotguns, single-shot rifles) and which are not OK (multi-shot rifles like assault rifles, machine guns, cannons), and set a rule about a required engraving of "Made in Montana".
-
Someone start citing some sources. 21 states joined, 9 states joined? 18%?
Take a look at the Crazy's newer blog posts.
At this point I'd be interested in seeing sources that are NOT affiliated with Crazy. :)
-
So now government sources then.
-
http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/2009/02/something-big-is-happening-9-us-states.html
Three of those are broken links (last I checked), but the sources are perfectly valid when they cite the bills or laws. Most of them effectively say that in regards to the 10th Amendment, they declare null and void all laws restricting their rights not specifically delegated to the national government, and that a copy of this bill will be sent to every state legislator, every other state's head legislator, the national legislators, and the President of the USA. So basically going the finger to the Federal side of things while asking for help from other neighboring states. Some bills say to every state, some will specifically state neighboring states.
-
In other news, Indiana, Texas, Alaska, Nebraska among US states proposing controversial legislation stating "water is wet."
Give me three solid examples of the Federal government "trampling" all over States' rights and powers and I'll lead the secessionists myself. It's called the "necessary and proper clause." Love it.
-
1. Patriot Act.
2. Any illegal drug law.
That's two.
-
In other news, Indiana, Texas, Alaska, Nebraska among US states proposing controversial legislation stating "water is wet."
Give me three solid examples of the Federal government "trampling" all over States' rights and powers and I'll lead the secessionists myself. It's called the "necessary and proper clause." Love it.
1) Patriot Act
2) Anything to do with restricting the sale of firearms
3) Anything to do with prosecuting crimes committed in states (criminal law enacted by the national government only applies to the military and being outside of the USA proper, such as on a US ship)
4) Plenty of unreasonable search & seizure, including "information" bureaus trespassing to acquire evidence.
5) Agricultural Adjustment Act
6) Anything to do with the Death Penalty
7) Anything to do with assisted suicide
8) Anything to do with gay marriage
9) Anything to do with marijuana
10) Treaties that legislate law internationally
Even if you see the law as being good, the law itself is illegal. Basically then we can continue on and include a number of issues from pasts wars including the Japanese internment under an executive order during World War II, prohibition and later establishment of a minimum drinking age (setting 21 as the minimum age if a state wanted transportation funds, without which many states would be forced into bankruptcy). On and on.
-
As previously stated (by myself and nuclear1) the elastic clause gives Congress near carte blanche as long as a law can be somehow justified as "necessary and proper". If the Constitution was as cut and dry on this subject as many of you are making it, then there would be a significantly less amount of debate on this subject. Drug laws, etc. have all been passed because they have been deemed necessary and are thus in full compliance with the constitution. They do NOT constitute "trampling" of States' rghts and powers.
But then again, the apparent contradictions between these two clauses (the enumerated powers vs. elastic clause) has been a subject of intense debate for years.
-
As previously stated (by myself and nuclear1) the elastic clause gives Congress near carte blanche as long as a law can be somehow justified as "necessary and proper". If the Constitution was as cut and dry on this subject as many of you are making it, then there would be a significantly less amount of debate on this subject. Drug laws, etc. have all been passed because they have been deemed necessary and are thus in full compliance with the constitution. They do NOT constitute "trampling" of States' rghts and powers.
But then again, the apparent contradictions between these two clauses (the enumerated powers vs. elastic clause) has been a subject of intense debate for years.
Which is showing especially now. Some prior-Blue states are now Red, as the federal government has shifted from Red to now Blue. It's all about which way you view the laws. There is an argument to be made that the 10th Amendment restricting Federal power has made the Necessary and Proper Clause null and void. The Amendment came after the Constitution (and thus the clause). There are also other issues that some states are being "intruded" upon. One that comes to mind is the Real ID Act, which moves the right to issue IDs from individual states to degrading the status of those state-only IDs in favor of Federal guidelines.
-
Which is showing especially now. Some prior-Blue states are now Red, as the federal government has shifted from Red to now Blue.
Given Obama's overwhelming victory in the electoral college and the large democratic majority in the senate I would say you've got it a bit backwards.
-
Which is showing especially now. Some prior-Blue states are now Red, as the federal government has shifted from Red to now Blue.
Given Obama's overwhelming victory in the electoral college and the large democratic majority in the senate I would say you've got it a bit backwards.
Take a look at what matters here--state legislators. Even so, many Democratic states have similar proposals being prepared for a vote. Obama had a pretty big majority, but part of that majority is losing hope in him. The stimulus plan, for example, was a load of bull**** if there ever was such a thing. It's just not enough and many Republicans specifically will be angry about the 12 hours it took for the Senate version to appear in Congress and be voted upon. 48 hours was the promise, and 1100 pages was the length.
-
@Titan: There's not going to be a revolution (Note, I'm not saying there shouldn't be). I thought like you did a year ago (albeit for different reasons). Quit dreaming.
-
At this point I'd be interested in seeing sources that are NOT affiliated with Crazy. :)
Lolz.
And im all for extended clips and automatic pistols btw.
-
heh, my family just bought a couple A-15 actions.
-
At this point I'd be interested in seeing sources that are NOT affiliated with Crazy. :)
Lolz.
And im all for extended clips and automatic pistols btw.
According to some of the laws being proposed, extended clips are a yes, automatic weapons of any sort are a no.
-
Maybe he was thinking of semi-automatic, and not fully automatic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
-
Ever sence i saw a Glock fully automatic in Rainbow Six: Las Vegas (1, 2) i want to get one now.
Wow, proposing extended clips? Finally.
-
Well, now here's some more justification
11) Transportation Secretary LaHood wants to abuse our privacy for extra tax dollars. As if we're not taxed enough already!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29298315
-
Isnt that a bit off topic?
-
Isnt that a bit off topic?
No. If that would ever be passed, it'd be breaking the 10th Amendment.
-
With all due respect to supposedly crazy talk show hosts (I don't know, I never listened to or have heard of Hal Turner),
has anyone actually read the proposal of New Hampshire's proposal? It seems that the the primary reasons of wanting to seceed involve the following:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition
More details can be found here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html)
Quite frankly, I don't see anything morally reprehensible or treasonous. If the legislature were advocating violence against fellow states, or initiating a war, I could see otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
What I am saddened to see is that many people seem to think, erroneously in my opinion, that this has something to do with the current POTUS being black (well, let's be honest, he is multi-racial as WHITE European blood flows through him as well as African; at best I can take a jest and suggest that he is indeed the first 'Gray' president of the United States). Asides from the aforementioned Hal Turner character, why would anyone on these boards jump to racism as the most probable explanation? Let's not forget that Obama DID win NH in the election just over three months' time ago.
The other thing I don't understand is why people on this board (and other boards for that matter) seem so enraged and bitter towards their New Hampshire brethren. Unless you happen to live in that state, it really isn't for you to decide whether they stay or not. If they so feel that they cannot in good conscience remain part of the Union, due to deep, perhaps even unreconciliable differences, why should we force them to stay? It would only further agitate the situation to at which point, the idea of a peaceful secession becomes replaced with a violent one. Do any of us really want that to happen? Are people outside of New Hampshire really that bitter? And if so, we need to have an honest discussion to at least here out WHY the anger if nothing else other than to be addressed so there is no misinterpretation.
One last thing, I reside in Connecticut and have never been a citizen, nor have I resided in New Hampshire. So it's not like my state is going anywhere soon.
What say you? :)
-
With all due respect to supposedly crazy talk show hosts (I don't know, I never listened to or have heard of Hal Turner),
has anyone actually read the proposal of New Hampshire's proposal? It seems that the the primary reasons of wanting to seceed involve the following:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition
More details can be found here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html)
Quite frankly, I don't see anything morally reprehensible or treasonous. If the legislature were advocating violence against fellow states, or initiating a war, I could see otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
What I am saddened to see is that many people seem to think, erroneously in my opinion, that this has something to do with the current POTUS being black (well, let's be honest, he is multi-racial as WHITE European blood flows through him as well as African; at best I can take a jest and suggest that he is indeed the first 'Gray' president of the United States). Asides from the aforementioned Hal Turner character, why would anyone on these boards jump to racism as the most probable explanation? Let's not forget that Obama DID win NH in the election just over three months' time ago.
The other thing I don't understand is why people on this board (and other boards for that matter) seem so enraged and bitter towards their New Hampshire brethren. Unless you happen to live in that state, it really isn't for you to decide whether they stay or not. If they so feel that they cannot in good conscience remain part of the Union, due to deep, perhaps even unreconciliable differences, why should we force them to stay? It would only further agitate the situation to at which point, the idea of a peaceful secession becomes replaced with a violent one. Do any of us really want that to happen? Are people outside of New Hampshire really that bitter? And if so, we need to have an honest discussion to at least here out WHY the anger if nothing else other than to be addressed so there is no misinterpretation.
One last thing, I reside in Connecticut and have never been a citizen, nor have I resided in New Hampshire. So it's not like my state is going anywhere soon.
What say you? :)
I say the balance of power is out of whack. The problem with Obama with many people isn't his name, his racial makeup, or anything of the sort, it's the fact that he's for big government and is allowing pork to become the substance of "his" stimulus package, basically with him saying "believe what I say, not what I do".
-
Obama let the GOP walk all over him. Stupid bipartisan crap. :rolleyes:
-
Huh? I was pretty sure that the House and Senate were OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic at the moment. Unless it's much narrower than I think, the GOP can at best, protest and perhaps filibuster, but that's it.
-
Huh? I was pretty sure that the House and Senate were OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic at the moment. Unless it's much narrower than I think, the GOP can at best, protest and perhaps filibuster, but that's it.
The moment one Republican leaves the room, though, the fillibuster is out.
-
To my (limited) knowledge, compromises were made when they shouldn't have been.
-
The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long totaling nearly $900B, which is much too long for an "emergency" bill to stimulate the economy.
-
The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long totaling nearly $900B, which is much too long for an "emergency" bill to stimulate the economy.
1100 pages? Heavans! Who wrote it, Tom Clancy? :rolleyes:
-
The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long
And if it hadn't been that long the issue you would have had with it was that it was too vague, no doubt.
-
Then there's the other issue- Obama promised bills to be on the Internet for everyone to read and comment for 48 hours.
The stimulus was up for 1 night before it was pushed through.
Also- how many politicians knew what they were pushing through? How many read the whole thing, from page 1 to page 1100 before the vote?
And finally- how do you know Bob-san would think it was too vague?
-
I downloaded a PDF of the bill and it was closer to 500 pages, not 1100.
-
And finally- how do you know Bob-san would think it was too vague?
Cause that's the way the politics flowchart works
STEP 1 : Find some totally insignificant nitpick and blow it completely out of proportion until you can make that the focus of the argument.
STEP 2 : If you can't find a nitpick, Complain about the length of the law. If it is short, claim that it doesn't have enough safeguards. If it is long claim that there wasn't enough time to study it. If it is in between have two people complain about both things and then go with whichever one the public complain about most bitterly.
-
The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long
And if it hadn't been that long the issue you would have had with it was that it was too vague, no doubt.
I would have rather seen a 10-page law. Even with legal jargon, everything to stimulate the economy should fit just fine in a shorter bill.
-
I would have rather seen a 10-page law. Even with legal jargon, everything to stimulate the economy should fit just fine in a shorter bill.
But then you'd be complaining that a bill involving almost a trillion dollars should be stated in far deeper detail.
Hell, even if it were 10 pages long, it's a good bet that nobody would bother reading it before passing it anyway. It's not like it's a closely held secret that most bills are passed without having been read by those passing it. As long as they have the general gist of it, they're happy to hammer it through and leave early, regardless of whether it's a $900 billion stimulus bill or a constitutional amendment requiring ducks to wear long pants.
-
I would have rather seen a 10-page law. Even with legal jargon, everything to stimulate the economy should fit just fine in a shorter bill.
But then you'd be complaining that a bill involving almost a trillion dollars should be stated in far deeper detail.
Why would he have "rather seen a 10-page law" if he really, deep down, wanted a larger one? I assume Bob-san was stating that his ideal "scenario", was a shortish (shorter than it is now, but not just a check) bill. Arguing that somebody would complain regardless is fine and dandy in many circumstances, but it does have the convenient byproduct that you aren't actually engaging his argument. You're just saying "well, you'd complain anyway...so I'm not really going to listen to you".
I would love to have seen a shorter bill; I'm not interested in paying for the democrats' pork. But let me add on to that by saying just because I want a shorter bill does not mean I want no restrictions on money given out. It is a fallacy, plain and simple, to think the two are equivalent. There are many, many, many good things in this bill. But there is loads of crap in it that just doesn't need to be there.
-
STEP 1 : Find some totally insignificant nitpick and blow it completely out of proportion until you can make that the focus of the argument.
STEP 2 : If you can't find a nitpick, Complain about the length of the law. If it is short, claim that it doesn't have enough safeguards. If it is long claim that there wasn't enough time to study it. If it is in between have two people complain about both things and then go with whichever one the public complain about most bitterly.
STEP 3: If the nitpick is significant, go to the opposite extreme and blow it out of proportions.
STEP 4: Attack with the result of step 3.
STEP 5: Be sure not to bring any new arguments into the discussion though, because some people might disagree and use the flowchart against you.
-
Wait a second, when the republicans complained about the lack of checks and balances in the previous plan are you saying that they were wrong?
-
What I'm saying is the Bush plan didn't do 1/10 of what it was supposed to do. Not only that, but it took quite a bit of tax cuts to "stimulate" the post-9/11 economy. I hold conservative views about the economy. Trust-busting and monopoly busting is all good and fine, and I even see many of these expenditures as "whatever"--they'll occur because of the administration change and there isn't a single thing that's going to stop them. However, it's business as usual on Capitol Hill. Our politicians are still spending an ungodly amount of money, our politicians are still saying to each other, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and all these other complaints about big government that have existed for decades now. When Obama was finally elected, I put aside my dislike of his policies, preferring to judge him from November onwards based on his policy, and not his speeches. To me, he has already failed in many of those promises to conservatives. Bipartisanship? Hardly. Doing what's best for the American people? Hardly. Pushing a pork-laden bill while preaching about how it'll help everyone? Very much so.
-
I say wait and see. If it works than there isn't a problem
I honestly think he tried way too much to get the extremely stubborn repulbicans. It was pretty clear even after a third of the bill was in tax cuts that they wouldn't accept it unless it went totally their way. Bipartisanship requires BOTH sides to make compromises.
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
So what you're saying is that, in order to have a functioning economy, The U.S. needs to produce goods and maintain/make jobs for U.S. citizens.
Congress The conglomerates that control Congress will never go for that. :P
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
Oh hey, yeah! Protectionism! Because that's never plunged the world into the biggest economic depression in living memory. Good plan. :doubt:
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
Also known as the death of dominance. The reason we got to be so powerful in the first place was that we could export old technology for great profit. It is science that builds societies. Revoke free-trade agreements and the only thing you do is retard our existing industries. As for growing industries, you have to be careful about how shielded they should be. They have to be competitive on a level playing field, but that does not occur automatically.
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
Oh hey, yeah! Protectionism! Because that's never plunged the world into the biggest economic depression in living memory. Good plan. :doubt:
You do realize that Smoot-Hawley came after we (the United States) were already in the Great Depression, therefore to say it caused the situation that we were in is a myth.
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
Also known as the death of dominance. The reason we got to be so powerful in the first place was that we could export old technology for great profit. It is science that builds societies. Revoke free-trade agreements and the only thing you do is retard our existing industries. As for growing industries, you have to be careful about how shielded they should be. They have to be competitive on a level playing field, but that does not occur automatically.
If this this is true, then why is China a rising star, while the U.S. is falling with regards to trade? Do you think a $266 Billion Trade Deficit for 2008 is a sound economic policy? China purchased almost $72 Billion from us, yet we purchased nearly $338 Billion from them, all during 2008. We're losing dominance all right. We're purposefully eroding our own ability to be self-sufficient. I for one, do not feel comfortable having to be dependent on Beijing for almost every consumer good on the face of the earth.
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
Also known as the death of dominance. The reason we got to be so powerful in the first place was that we could export old technology for great profit. It is science that builds societies. Revoke free-trade agreements and the only thing you do is retard our existing industries. As for growing industries, you have to be careful about how shielded they should be. They have to be competitive on a level playing field, but that does not occur automatically.
If this this is true, then why is China a rising star, while the U.S. is falling with regards to trade? Do you think a $266 Billion Trade Deficit for 2008 is a sound economic policy? China purchased almost $72 Billion from us, yet we purchased nearly $338 Billion from them, all during 2008. We're losing dominance all right. We're purposefully eroding our own ability to be self-sufficient. I for one, do not feel comfortable having to be dependent on Beijing for almost every consumer good on the face of the earth.
Because China is a developing country. When there's nowhere to go but up, where do you go? Up. China is seeing economic advances, but they're also 1.3 billion Chinese there! They're four times the size of the USA, and their GDP is still lower. And then there's quite a few old words of wisdom that explains it. "The strong will do what they want, and the weak what they must." Then there's our own saying going against us... "The dollar is our currency, but your problem!" In short, the best way the USA could have remained dominant in the world would have been to ensure that China never became an economic rival. Too little, too late, so the best thing we can do is remain a center of knowledge and technology, as China's economy expands.
-
With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.
What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import. This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.
There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.
Oh hey, yeah! Protectionism! Because that's never plunged the world into the biggest economic depression in living memory. Good plan. :doubt:
You do realize that Smoot-Hawley came after we (the United States) were already in the Great Depression, therefore to say it caused the situation that we were in is a myth.
The stock crash caused the problem, I'll grant you, but it was protectionism that turned it from a serious problem to flat out catastrophe. And while I'm also unhappy with Chinese dominance of the manufacturing market (it's given them the economic power to come into Australia and start buying up all our mineable resources, which really worries me), there's not a lot you can do without provoking a trade war, and nobody's going to win that.
-
In short, the best way the USA could have remained dominant in the world would have been to ensure that China never became an economic rival. Too little, too late, so the best thing we can do is remain a center of knowledge and technology, as China's economy expands.
And while I'm also unhappy with Chinese dominance of the manufacturing market (it's given them the economic power to come into Australia and start buying up all our mineable resources, which really worries me),
It's nice to see that the Yellow Peril is coming out of retirement. :doubt: Seriously what did you guys expect, that they stay poor forever? Very humanitarian......
On a side note it's worth mentioning that in dollar terms the US still out produces China (although they are coming up quick), it's just that so much of what the US makes now is heavily restricted "sensitive" tech.
-
In short, the best way the USA could have remained dominant in the world would have been to ensure that China never became an economic rival. Too little, too late, so the best thing we can do is remain a center of knowledge and technology, as China's economy expands.
And while I'm also unhappy with Chinese dominance of the manufacturing market (it's given them the economic power to come into Australia and start buying up all our mineable resources, which really worries me),
It's nice to see that the Yellow Peril is coming out of retirement. :doubt: Seriously what did you guys expect, that they stay poor forever? Very humanitarian......
On a side note it's worth mentioning that in dollar terms the US still out produces China (although they are coming up quick), it's just that so much of what the US makes now is heavily restricted "sensitive" tech.
And that technology has been our biggest and best advantage for decades. Knowledge builds nations and then keeps them together. All North America and the Europe needs to do is keep on the leading edge with technology. Once that advantage is lost, so is the possibility of winning a war against China. And let's face it--what's keeping China off of the Western world is two-fold. One part is economic demand--they can profit off of us, at least for the time being. The second part is political--the US military has the best technology in the world, which would be the deciding factor in an out-and-out war. Lose the first advantage, and then it's a cold war.
-
What exactly is the problem with China becoming more powerful? The less unilateral the world is, the better, and the more co-dependent we all are the less chance of another large war.
-
Because the last time there were two major powers, one Capitalist, the other Communist we very nearly had WW3 on several occasions.
I agree that inter-dependence would be good, but nationalism is still too strong a force.
-
It's nice to see that the Yellow Peril is coming out of retirement. :doubt: Seriously what did you guys expect, that they stay poor forever? Very humanitarian......
You need to realize that the job of any one country's head officials is to serve what's in that nation's best interest. Humanitarianism has nothing to do with it, though while we're on the subject, China isn't exactly reputable for its sterling human rights records, nor are the corporations who put their manufacturing centers in her, as they could care less about working conditions, etc. (ie. sweatshop labor).
General Battuta, the problem with China becoming more powerful (from an American standpoint), is that it is at the expense of America's ability to retain it's sovereignty. By becoming increasingly dependent on a foreign nation for everyday goods that are widely used, China can get leverage over us which effectively means that they can begin to influence U.S. policy, which may not be in our best interest, but is in Beijing's. For example, if China produces most of the goods we use, yet attacks Taiwan (again, hypothetical), a country whom we have pledged to defend, what exactly do we do? If we don't honor our pact with the Taiwanese government, we're seen as unwilling or unable to keep our word which damages American credibility and even perceives us as weak, especially to our enemies. If we rush to Taiwan's aid, how do you think China will retaliate? You think they'll still allow our companies to manufacture goods there to sell here? Most likely, in the event of a military engagement/war, the Peoples' Army would seize the centers, halt trade, in addition to stacking their conventional forces against our own. Then what? We have no manufacturing facilities of our own because we relocated them out of country. It becomes a lose-lose situation in which you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Black Wolf, during the years Smoot Hawley was enacted (before the 1934 revisions which weakened the tariff), our GDP declined by 46%. Exports only hurt us by 3.8% and imports decreased by 0.5%). So, from mid-1930 to 1933, protectionism really didn't keep us in the Depression. At best, one could argue that Smoot-Hawley didn't make things better during those years. If anything, it had more of a neutral effect.
Bob-san, I respect what you're saying, but it doesn't address the fact that the USA is losing it's sovereignty by ceding its manufacturing power nor does it address how to rectify our trade deficit. Do we simply not pay the Chinese back? The country is already broke and we've already seen something of a trader's revolt against President Obama's "stimulus package" last week (you can check out CNBC's Rick Santelli on Youtube, if you haven't seen it), the Congressional Budget Office says the Trillion dollar bill will drastically shrink the economy in over ten years. To put it bluntly, we're going broke.
China is already gaining in technology and won't be before long that they overtake us on that front too. I'm sorry to disagree, but unfettered free trade isn't working. This is the legacy of Bush-Clinton-Bush, and soon to be Obama.
-
Bob-san, I respect what you're saying, but it doesn't address the fact that the USA is losing it's sovereignty by ceding its manufacturing power nor does it address how to rectify our trade deficit. Do we simply not pay the Chinese back? The country is already broke and we've already seen something of a trader's revolt against President Obama's "stimulus package" last week (you can check out CNBC's Rick Santelli on Youtube, if you haven't seen it), the Congressional Budget Office says the Trillion dollar bill will drastically shrink the economy in over ten years. To put it bluntly, we're going broke.
China is already gaining in technology and won't be before long that they overtake us on that front too. I'm sorry to disagree, but unfettered free trade isn't working. This is the legacy of Bush-Clinton-Bush, and soon to be Obama.
I'm glad you're addressing various points. Truth be told, I'm little more than a student of business. Anyways--to best address the points you made. It's very true that exporting our manufacturing will leave us with little leverage. We became a world power because we had the resources and the labor to do anything. Through out the Cold War, we were a world power because we could do all of that, as well as be very, very innovative. Take the collapse of Russia as an example of what could happen and may very likely will happen if the USA continues exporting manufacturing. Economic collapse, regime changes, decomposing infrastructure, loss of population, and everything else. We watched them crumble under the pressures of the Cold War. And guess what--we're next on the chopping block. I did an analysis of the subprime lending crisis and now recession. In short, Obama's got some of the right ideas but also some of the wrong ideas. One is that he sent Clinton to China to promote the sale of US Government securities. That's precisely what caused much of this mess--we sold our debts to foreign lenders. The best and fastest way out of that? Overthrow the US Government as it stands and leave the foreign investors with their money evaporated. What are they going to do? Start a war? The worst that can happen then is the US military forces the Chinese hand. Do I think that this would be World War III? Yes--it has all the implications of a world war, as well as many of the common causes including poor global economy, unbalanced trade, and increasing patriotism. Either the USA and China will match or one will entirely dominate the other. The current state of the US military is still solid and advanced, meaning that in the case of war, our best bet would be the Navy and Air Force. A land war against a nation four times our size is simply absurd, meaning that whoever can hold the line over the water longer will ultimately be protected. Once it hits the borders, all hell breaks loose in China or the USA.
-
Because the last time there were two major powers, one Capitalist, the other Communist we very nearly had WW3 on several occasions.
I agree that inter-dependence would be good, but nationalism is still too strong a force.
There's some very big differences between China and the Soviet Union that don't make it such a valid comparison. For one thing the soviets were out to destroy the international system instead of becoming a part of it, which is not what China has been doing.
What exactly is the problem with China becoming more powerful?
Cold war paranoia. Something people don't get is that many of these fears are being pushed by people with their own agendas, and there's always plenty of money to be made in a good old arms race.
so is the possibility of winning a war against China.
I don't think there is much of a possibility of winning that war even with our tech advantage. Look at the problems we've had with Iraq, a small desert country with a 4th rate army, no air force and a relatively small population. Do you seriously think we could occupy a nation the size of our own with many times our population? Plus China is a nuclear armed state, going to war with them would have many bad consequences for us all.
China isn't exactly reputable for its sterling human rights records,
True, but then again we have supported regimes far worse in the past.
-
Last I checked, it wasn't the Iraqi military we were having troubles with, it's the insurgency. If a conventional war with China were to happen, it would be an air and sea battle, where China's vast population gives it little advantage and the US dominates with better-trained, better-equipped forces.
Even with a ground war, honestly, how many Indians, Mongolians, or Laotians are going to make the long hard trek into China's populated areas to take part in any resistance?
-
There's not going to be a war with China. Neither side would risk such a profitable trade arrangement.
-
They already have most of our money anyway, what else would they gain from bombing us?
-
Cheers from The U.N.?
-
You missed my point. I'm comparing the USA to the former USSR. The USSR lost the Cold War because they ran out of money. That's very similar to what is happening now with the USA--we're borrowing and borrowing and borrowing some more to try to make ends meet, yet the best that we can hope for with the stimulus is drastically heightened inflation. The worst is as I said--we can fall apart at the seams for a variety of reasons, the least of which is a collapse of society. Anyways--I agree, that a conventional war between a Western power and China would be very much limited to ships and airplanes, at least initially. The entire point would be a game of Battleship--move your fleets around until someone decides enough is enough, and treaties get signed or the war becomes very unconventional.
A problem I see right now is that the US military is geared up mostly to fight a guerrilla army. China is none of the sort--infantry is definitely their strong-suit (sheer numbers alone) and everywhere else they'll be limited engaging us. Tank for tank, man for man, ship for ship, and even airplane for airplane, the USA would come out on top. But for at least two of those areas--tanks and men--we're outnumbered 4:1 in the best of circumstances. I don't think that either side will try to start a war, but China relies heavily on the USA for foodstuffs and as a market for their (cheap) goods. The issue becomes that, as the US economy becomes worse, overall demand is rapidly shrinking, regardless of disposable incomes. That's one half of the economic barrier to war--we still demand it, but are we able to demand enough of it to prevent a war? As China develops, Chinese markets for Chinese goods will grow. In effect, they are rapidly approaching the point that their economy can be mostly self-sufficient, especially if they geared up for war (in which case, many factories producing consumer goods would likely be switched to produce military assets). I'm trying to stay realistic with the outcomes, though history says that wars follow recessions and depressions, especially when there are stressed relations with outside nations. A (higher) trade tariff against China will not decrease Chinese profit from the USA, but will rather raise prices for consumers.
-
Last I checked, it wasn't the Iraqi military we were having troubles with, it's the insurgency. If a conventional war with China were to happen, it would be an air and sea battle, where China's vast population gives it little advantage and the US dominates with better-trained, better-equipped forces.
Even with a ground war, honestly, how many Indians, Mongolians, or Laotians are going to make the long hard trek into China's populated areas to take part in any resistance?
They don't need to, there would probably be enough native resistance. Besides, wouldn't such a conventional war leave us in something of a stalemate, making the whole conflict meaningless unless it goes nuclear?
I don't think that either side will try to start a war, but China relies heavily on the USA for foodstuffs and as a market for their (cheap) goods. The issue becomes that, as the US economy becomes worse, overall demand is rapidly shrinking, regardless of disposable incomes. That's one half of the economic barrier to war--we still demand it, but are we able to demand enough of it to prevent a war? As China develops, Chinese markets for Chinese goods will grow. In effect, they are rapidly approaching the point that their economy can be mostly self-sufficient, especially if they geared up for war (in which case, many factories producing consumer goods would likely be switched to produce military assets). I'm trying to stay realistic with the outcomes, though history says that wars follow recessions and depressions, especially when there are stressed relations with outside nations. A (higher) trade tariff against China will not decrease Chinese profit from the USA, but will rather raise prices for consumers.
But then again the last time there was such a major depression we didn't have nukes, and that's a game changer in and of itself. The chinese economy has never be completely self sufficient without having mass poverty, it doesn't have the resources to pull that off. It will always be dependent on the outside for at least something, especially food. It might become self-sufficient in terms of self-sustained economic growth, but no more than that.
-
Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline. :p
-
Oh my those little hitlers in the comments of the blog should be allowed to keep talking as many of the things they say really tickle the funny bone. Then the mothers of the little hitlers need to ***** slap the **** out of them. That'll also continue tickling my funny bone.
-
So, any real updates on this?
FuBaR11974 (12:34:55 AM): so what's your opinion on the states that are declaring sovereignty?
Durandal42x (12:35:14 AM): I already answered that question.
Durandal42x (12:35:21 AM): I don't believe anything will come of it.
Durandal42x (12:35:27 AM): You should lay off the weed.
FuBaR11974 (12:48:47 AM): I highly doubt that.
FuBaR11974 (12:48:53 AM): because now they are putting it on the news networks.
I doubt his sources, but I'm too lazy to look and have school right now.
-
They already have most of our money anyway, what else would they gain from bombing us?
canada?
-
Has everyone's massive store of nukes suddenly dissapeared then? I never saw anything on the news about it.
-
I don't think there is much of a possibility of winning that war even with our tech advantage. Look at the problems we've had with Iraq, a small desert country with a 4th rate army, no air force and a relatively small population. Do you seriously think we could occupy a nation the size of our own with many times our population? Plus China is a nuclear armed state, going to war with them would have many bad consequences for us all.
You're assuming a lot here. Nobody would ever propose to invade mainland China. It's just not practical. We just might be able to destroy the Chinese Army in actual battle, it's the sort of opponent the US Army is designed to fight in a conventional war and we might even be able to come up with the fuel to actually manuver them to death, but nobody would be crazy enough to try. There are just too many of them.
Winning a war against China would be a far more limited affair than you seem to think. At best, it would be an air-naval action in which the USN and USAF fight a set-piece battle against their Chinese counterparts and smash them. This is entirely possible, and destroying the Chinese ability to project conventional power renders them relatively moot...plus the commercial fallout of fighting a war against their biggest market would knock the country back decades.
At worst, the B-2s go in, destroy China's ability to strategically retaliate against the mainland US, and then they take down the system of massive hydroelectric dams. China goes dark and mass flooding kills tens of millions of people and destroys whatever domestic food production capablity China has while the USN prevents food and oil imports. The country falls apart as unable to feed its citizens or deploy its military to put down the resulting food riots.
-
I don't think there is much of a possibility of winning that war even with our tech advantage. Look at the problems we've had with Iraq, a small desert country with a 4th rate army, no air force and a relatively small population. Do you seriously think we could occupy a nation the size of our own with many times our population? Plus China is a nuclear armed state, going to war with them would have many bad consequences for us all.
You're assuming a lot here. Nobody would ever propose to invade mainland China. It's just not practical. We just might be able to destroy the Chinese Army in actual battle, it's the sort of opponent the US Army is designed to fight in a conventional war and we might even be able to come up with the fuel to actually manuver them to death, but nobody would be crazy enough to try. There are just too many of them.
Winning a war against China would be a far more limited affair than you seem to think. At best, it would be an air-naval action in which the USN and USAF fight a set-piece battle against their Chinese counterparts and smash them. This is entirely possible, and destroying the Chinese ability to project conventional power renders them relatively moot...plus the commercial fallout of fighting a war against their biggest market would knock the country back decades.
At worst, the B-2s go in, destroy China's ability to strategically retaliate against the mainland US, and then they take down the system of massive hydroelectric dams. China goes dark and mass flooding kills tens of millions of people and destroys whatever domestic food production capablity China has while the USN prevents food and oil imports. The country falls apart as unable to feed its citizens or deploy its military to put down the resulting food riots.
I think you're mostly right about what a convention war with China would look like if it happened tomorrow. Truth be told, we could keep troops down in Iraq and Afganistan while fighting China. However, what you're not counting on is US protected countries in Asia--South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all come to mind. We'd have to try to defend these nations against a joint Chinese/North Korean land war, as well as their air and naval units. But once these protected nations are taken over, the war would stall as the USA has the ability to target and defeat perhaps the entire rest of the world's navy. Just consider that our navy is the largest Navy in the world, consisting of a dozen major fleets centered around our carriers and AEGIS-equipped warships.
-
Good points all around
At worst, the B-2s go in, destroy China's ability to strategically retaliate against the mainland US, and then they take down the system of massive hydroelectric dams. China goes dark and mass flooding kills tens of millions of people and destroys whatever domestic food production capablity China has while the USN prevents food and oil imports. The country falls apart as unable to feed its citizens or deploy its military to put down the resulting food riots.
I'm not so sure that would go over well politically in the US.
-
This is why it's a worst-case option. The only probable scenario for it being invoked is a Chinese invasion of Korea or Japan that cannot be stopped by conventional means, both of which are extremely unlikely.
-
Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline. :p
I'd see it like this:
USAF: "B-52"
PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force): "Miss. J-10"
USAF: "Not even close... F-22"
PLAAF: "Oh s**t, that's a hit"
USAF: "How 'bout B-1?"
PLAAF: "Hit..."
USAF: "B-2!"
PLAAF: "Destroyer sunk. Now either stop it or we bring out the nukes."
*PLAAF hangs up the phone*
The whole debate is centered on USA vs China, which I'd say the US would win thanks to a 10x greater military budget.
Now add Russia.
-
Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline. :p
I'd see it like this:
USAF: "B-52"
PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force): "Miss. J-10"
USAF: "Not even close... F-22"
PLAAF: "Oh s**t, that's a hit"
USAF: "How 'bout B-1?"
PLAAF: "Hit..."
USAF: "B-2!"
PLAAF: "Destroyer sunk. Now either stop it or we bring out the nukes."
*PLAAF hangs up the phone*
The whole debate is centered on USA vs China, which I'd say the US would win thanks to a 10x greater military budget.
Now add Russia.
I'd say a war with Russia would just escalate from Conventional to Nuclear in <3 months.
-
I'm not so sure that would go over well politically in the US.
Well all in all. If china attacks on our soil well be pwned. So if its us or them, our politics wont agree but they will happily 'live with it'.
-
Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline. :p
I'd see it like this:
USAF: "B-52"
PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force): "Miss. J-10"
USAF: "Not even close... F-22"
PLAAF: "Oh s**t, that's a hit"
USAF: "How 'bout B-1?"
PLAAF: "Hit..."
USAF: "B-2!"
PLAAF: "Destroyer sunk. Now either stop it or we bring out the nukes."
*PLAAF hangs up the phone*
The whole debate is centered on USA vs China, which I'd say the US would win thanks to a 10x greater military budget.
Now add Russia.
I'd say a war with Russia would just escalate from Conventional to Nuclear in <3 months.
MAD :rolleyes:
-
China's navy isn't as quite as ill-prepared to handle a carrier battle group. For one, we know that they were purchasing Russian built Sovremeny-class destroyers which are designated as carrier killers, and that was going on since the latter half of President Clinton's second term. Doubting that they just stopped during President Bush's two terms, the question is this: If no other navy has an abundance of carriers in their fleet (we had about 11 or 12 active last time I checked, and the Brits had 2 or 3), why would they purchase ships whose primary purpose is to engage and destroy enemy aircraft carriers?
Let us not also forget the whole Airplane collision debacle during the third month of Bush's first term, where a Chinese MiG and U.S. cargo plane collided.
Even if such a battle erupted over Chinese airspace, if dragged on, I may wager the Chinese would win, first off, due to homefield advantage, and also the fact that as they DO have most of the world's manufacturing, could easily out-massproduce aircraft without the distances to replenish the front lines being too great. Then, factor in how the U.S. is spread out all over the world, already engaged in two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that if we did get into an engagement with China, that not only do we bomb factories that produced day-to-day items that we used, but also the rest of the world, who by the way, does not hold us in such high esteem as it is. Countries who also depend upon Chinese goods as part of their everyday life may rally to her defense.
No, the best way to get out of this potential quagmire would be to make this ultimatum to Beijing: You are free to sell us your goods, however, they must be manufactured in the United States (or at the very least, a certain percentage of the manufacturing). The alternative would be a gradual tariff which would have a subtle, yet annual increase until a certain percentage has been reached.
-
The second place the US would be bombing would be manufacturing facilities, right after AA emplacements and energy.
-
Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point.
-
No, the best way to get out of this potential quagmire would be to make this ultimatum to Beijing: You are free to sell us your goods, however, they must be manufactured in the United States (or at the very least, a certain percentage of the manufacturing). The alternative would be a gradual tariff which would have a subtle, yet annual increase until a certain percentage has been reached.
Thank you. That just made my day. That has got to be the least thought-through proposal I have ever read on that topic. For starters, the only reason to produce stuff in China is because it's too expensive to manufacture mass produced items in countries like the USA, because peope in the western world actually expect to earn enough to afford living in the western world through their work. Forcing companies to produce stuff in the USA just doesn't work.
Now, the one thing that should be done with regards to China, is to stop treating them like a third world country. They have nuclear weapons, for crying out loud. Just because they claim to be a third world country whenever it suits their needs (pollution, human rights, copyright law) doesn't mean they are. (China runs a fine line in their propaganda, in the interior, they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others, kept down by the malicious intervention of foreigners; Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).
Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point.
Mobius is right here. A military confrontation beyond the occasional posturing is severely unlikely.
-
Even if such a battle erupted over Chinese airspace, if dragged on, I may wager the Chinese would win, first off, due to homefield advantage, and also the fact that as they DO have most of the world's manufacturing, could easily out-massproduce aircraft without the distances to replenish the front lines being too great. Then, factor in how the U.S. is spread out all over the world, already engaged in two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that if we did get into an engagement with China, that not only do we bomb factories that produced day-to-day items that we used, but also the rest of the world, who by the way, does not hold us in such high esteem as it is. Countries who also depend upon Chinese goods as part of their everyday life may rally to her defense.
As someone stated earlier we should be able to get in and cripple them via bombers before any of that would be allowed to happen.
Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point.
Mobius is right here. A military confrontation beyond the occasional posturing is severely unlikely.
QFT.
-
As someone stated earlier we should be able to get in and cripple them via bombers before any of that would be allowed to happen.
We don't know how effective their SAMs are. Giving that even North Korea is probably developing new missile technologies we have to presume that China may get full knowledge of them and/or even support their development. All you need is minimal visual/radar contact...it's not difficult to use nuclear warheads against aircraft, even if you don't have a perfect lock. Nuclear weapons are strong enough to obliterate entire bomber formations and, if you open the formations to prevent that, you'd have to deal with countless interceptors exploiting the fact that the bombers' fighter escort will be spread in a wide area.
I really have to say, however, that even the most advanced and modern Chinese aircraft designs look very old. How do they pretend to compete with modern fighters with "advanced" planes that resemble the Saab Gripen? The Gripen is good, alright, but you can't use it to compete with F-22s.
-
As someone stated earlier we should be able to get in and cripple them via bombers before any of that would be allowed to happen.
We don't know how effective their SAMs are. Giving that even North Korea is probably developing new missile technologies we have to presume that China may get full knowledge of them and/or even support their development. All you need is minimal visual/radar contact...it's not difficult to use nuclear warheads against aircraft, even if you don't have a perfect lock. Nuclear weapons are strong enough to obliterate entire bomber formations and, if you open the formations to prevent that, you'd have to deal with countless interceptors exploiting the fact that the bombers' fighter escort will be spread in a wide area.
I really have to say, however, that even the most advanced and modern Chinese aircraft designs look very old. How do they pretend to compete with modern fighters with "advanced" planes that resemble the Saab Gripen? The Gripen is good, alright, but you can't use it to compete with F-22s.
Using nuclear weapons on 'bomber formations' over your own country sounds criminally stupid.
And, for that matter, so do 'bomber formations'.
-
They don't necessarily have to be used above China...interceptors should be able to fire them before the bombers get too close, several hundred miles away. Weren't the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart American interceptors supposed to use the same tactic?
Also, air-to-air nuclear warheads don't necessarily have to be extremely powerful, with impressive radioactive fallout, because aircraft are somewhat fragile. In any case, even if their own warheads have dangerous effects to their own soil, shooting down enemy bombers before they delivery their payload is always a good thing.
-
Using nuclear weapons on 'bomber formations' over your own country sounds criminally stupid.
And, for that matter, so do 'bomber formations'.
Exactly. Assuming the US would try to attack, they wouldn't group their Bombers in formations a la WW2. I mean, how many B2s are there? 20? Putting them in a situation where they can be targeted by nuclear airburst would be really, really stupid. And escort fighters? Having those around would kinda defeat the "stealth" approach, wouldn't they? Maybe, maybe the Us would send a flight of F22s or F35s ahead on "Wild Weasel"-Missions, but escorting bombers that aren't supposed to be seen in the first place, sounds like a waste of time....
They don't necessarily have to be used above China...interceptors should be able to fire them before the bombers get too close, several hundred miles away. Weren't the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart American interceptors supposed to use the same tactic?
Also, air-to-air nuclear warheads don't necessarily have to be extremely powerful, with impressive radioactive fallout, because aircraft are somewhat fragile. In any case, even if their own warheads have dangerous effects to their own soil, shooting down enemy bombers before they delivery their payload is always a good thing.
Welllll.....But those Missiles were designed to take out large, WW2-style bomber formations. Against modern air tactics (which revolve around getting a stealthy platform capable of delivering a stealthy stand-off weapon into range) they are highly ineffective.
-
As I said before, we can't base our assumptions on current technologies because the two countries aren't going to engage each other in a conflict anywhere soon. You're giving for sure that stealth planes will never, ever lose their advantage...how can you say that? There could be stuff like optical tracking, even by satellite, able to spot stealth planes....even at extremely low altitudes(in that case, ground-based observation networks would be more effective). In a generalized discussion about an eventual conflict that *could* take place in the future I'd never give for sure that stealth technology is going tol remain as effective as it is today.
(And, if I really have to go for the nitpicks, the F-35 is a "not so stealthy" plane, thus meaning that it may be detected... :rolleyes:)
About the WWII-style bomber formations matter: read above. If it's clearly stated that bombers may be detected (so the presence of an escort complement will be required) the bombers can't spread in a wide area if they want to be adeguately protected by their little friends.
-
Ahh, I see your point. So, you are essentially saying that advances in radar (or other sensor) tech will render current stealth technology null and void, thus requiring a return to the old "quantity has a quality all of its own" approach. That could be true. I don't believe so. Remember, it's really hard to detect something like a B2 on approach to its target (if american propaganda is to be believed), and if it carries something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM), it will launch its payload and RTB before impact, or even before crossing your border. Granted, that wouldn't stop a "proactive" defence, thus requiring an escort for our bomber, but that shouldn't be a problem, really....Damn. Have to read a couple Tom Clancy novels. I'm sure I remember a similar scenario in one of his books....
-
So we've gone from New Hampshire declaring war against the Federal Government to the US nuking China?
Just had to point that out. :nervous:
-
So we've gone from New Hampshire declaring war against the Federal Government to the US nuking China?
Just had to point that out. :nervous:
Well, the one thing is about as realistic as the other, isn't it? :D
-
So we've gone from New Hampshire declaring war against the Federal Government to the US nuking China?
Just had to point that out. :nervous:
Well, the one thing is about as realistic as the other, isn't it? :D
Well, so long as Congress creates The Department of Lampshade Hanging.... :P
-
Ahh, I see your point. So, you are essentially saying that advances in radar (or other sensor) tech will render current stealth technology null and void, thus requiring a return to the old "quantity has a quality all of its own" approach. That could be true. I don't believe so. Remember, it's really hard to detect something like a B2 on approach to its target (if american propaganda is to be believed), and if it carries something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM), it will launch its payload and RTB before impact, or even before crossing your border. Granted, that wouldn't stop a "proactive" defence, thus requiring an escort for our bomber, but that shouldn't be a problem, really....Damn. Have to read a couple Tom Clancy novels. I'm sure I remember a similar scenario in one of his books....
"The AGM-129A is carried exclusively by the US Air Force's B-52H Stratofortress bombers."
Which is not a stealth craft and is extremely old.
-
Yes, well, but it would really surprise me if it can't be retrofitted to be compatible with the B2. We are talking about a hypothetical war scenario here, after all.
-
"The AGM-129A is carried exclusively by the US Air Force's B-52H Stratofortress bombers."
Like that's the whole truth...
Speaking of sensor tech- there was an F-117 shot down by a modded SA-3 from IIRC 8 miles away, but it's retired due to being too detectable (in other words- 1 plane lost in 20 000 missions over the enemies' cities is too detectable)
The F-35 is harder to detect than the F-117, and the B-2 and F-22 are a whole different league. I've read that the Raptor is the stealthest plane currently used by the USAF, because it's much smaller than the B-2.
Optical satellite tracking will work against anything, unless it's invisible to the naked eye- paint a plane dark blue and it's invisible above an ocean, light the bottom up with bright blue and it's invisible from below.
Now in hostile environments the F-22, 35 and B-2s are to be used during night time, hence their dark gray color, which blends in with the night. Only contrails can save you, but those happen only in high tropospheric flight, and can be avoided.
And if camo isn't enough, then there are Standard SM-3's, which can kill ICBM's, or... satellites (also shot down historically by a missile fired from an F-15, the US did that stuff more than once). The Chinese and Russians also have A-Sat weapons.
I wouldn't be surprized if the first week of WW 3 would be shooting down satellites and flying nukes.
As for the Sovremenny- it's pretty modern, but not as modern as the Arleigh Burke class, and wiki claims China has 4 such ships. While a salvo of cruise missiles launched from it could be deadly if they Zerg-rush enemy CIWS systems, there are a few dozen planes that could sink such a DD per carrier.
I'll probably post some more thoughts later today.
-
they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others,
Actually I can't think of a single person I've ever met who believes that.
Now, the one thing that should be done with regards to China, is to stop treating them like a third world country.
The funny thing about China is that it is a first, second and third world country all at the same time depending on where you go. A friend of mine once said if you want to see what China will be like in 10 years go to Shanghai, if you want to see how it was like 10 years ago go to Beijing, and if you want to see what it was like 100 years ago go to Xi'An.
Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).
The biggest problem is not necessarily the tech base, it is the cost as well as generally uneven enforcement at the local level.
Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point
Good point.
For starters, the only reason to produce stuff in China is because it's too expensive to manufacture mass produced items in countries like the USA, because peope in the western world actually expect to earn enough to afford living in the western world through their work.
Very true, unless people want to pay $500+ for shoes.
-
I wouldn't be surprized if the first week of WW 3 would be shooting down satellites and flying nukes.
Umm....No. You're still stuck in the cold war way of thinking. During the cold war, it was believed that WW3 would be much like WW2, with added nukes. I don't think thats propable. Why? Because: Big wars of conquest are ultimately too expensive. When Germany opened WW2, it needed to keep on conquering in the hope of aquiring enough assets to pay of its debts. Then theres the post-war occupation, which is hardly cost effective either. I recently read Halting State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_State) by Charles Stross, where he describes a much more propable (and less risky, more profitable) way of how WW3 might play out, through subtle manipulation of Information leading to the desired results.
they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others,
Actually I can't think of a single person I've ever met who believes that.
Oh, okay. I remember reading this some time ago, but of course my source may be wrong about this.
Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).
The biggest problem is not necessarily the tech base, it is the cost as well as generally uneven enforcement at the local level.
Okay, but I still believe that's a pretty lame excuse.
-
Okay, but I still believe that's a pretty lame excuse.
Well the fact that it is for the most part a developing country doesn't help the cost issue. Still the biggest problem is regionalism. There actually are plenty of environmental regs on the books, the problem is the disconnect between the central government and the local governments who too often will ignore central government directives about many things, including the environment. Take what happened last November (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JK26Ad01.html) as a classic case of regionalism:
Even the Hong Kong government became concerned and appealed to the central government for intervention to help Hong Kong-invested businesses in the Pearl River Delta in particular ride out the financial crisis, to help the semi-autonomous region stabilize its economy.
Yet Wang Yang, who was elected as a politburo member in October 2007 and appointed as Guangdong party chief at the beginning of this year, seems happy to see the demise of such labor-intensive SMEs. During an inspection trip to Zhanjiang city in western Guangdong on November 12, Wang said the Guangdong authorities would make no effort to save these "backward" enterprises.
"What are these enterprises which have gone under? Are any of them large enterprises with a big name? No! My judgment is that, generally speaking, these bankrupt enterprises belong to a backward productive force, which is bound to be eliminated by the market."
No sooner had Wang said this than Premier Wen, Wang's one-time mentor, publicly demanded Guangdong take "heavy-handed" measures to help SMEs. While making an inspection tour in Guangdong on November 14, Wen said SMEs played a decisive role in China's economic and social development. SMEs are very important in boosting economic growth, in increasing fiscal income and employment and safeguarding social stability, said Wen, with Wang seen on TV footage enthusiastically nodding and saying "yes, yes!"
But a week later, on the sidelines of a conference, Wang insisted again that Guangdong would not try to save its "backward productive forces", and would continue with its own policy to upgrade its economy.
Although they usually are not so open about their defiance, it does happen quite often.
-
Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for that link, Kosh. Seems like China risks running into the objective reality problem the USSR couldn't handle (Disconnect between reality and party ideology). Kudos to those guys making those decisions on the regional level.
-
Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for that link, Kosh. Seems like China risks running into the objective reality problem the USSR couldn't handle (Disconnect between reality and party ideology). Kudos to those guys making those decisions on the regional level.
That still isn't accurate since the party has no real ideology (and it has shown to be far more competent and adaptable than the soviet communist party ever was), maosim died long long ago. It's really more of a case of what's best for the country is not always best for this particular area. Sometimes it can be good but in cases like environmental protection it can be very harmful. Double edged sword really.
-
Okay, i'll stop now. Have to do more research, apparently.
-
Umm....No. You're still stuck in the cold war way of thinking. During the cold war, it was believed that WW3 would be much like WW2, with added nukes. I don't think thats propable. Why? Because: Big wars of conquest are ultimately too expensive. When Germany opened WW2, it needed to keep on conquering in the hope of aquiring enough assets to pay of its debts. Then theres the post-war occupation, which is hardly cost effective either. I recently read Halting State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_State) by Charles Stross, where he describes a much more propable (and less risky, more profitable) way of how WW3 might play out, through subtle manipulation of Information leading to the desired results.
Information warfare doesn't work. If country A hacks country B's servers, the citizens of country B get p!$$ed, and B's military cuts country A's cables, jams their wireless networks and if possible, shoots down their satellites. If the people get really p!$$ed, they might even want a full scale war.
Also- what profits do you get through info manipulation? You could steal money and technology, generate temporary chaos perhaps... But no new territory, no new resources, no new free labor and no new worshippers of your ideology and no increase of your country's security, and these have been the main reasons that people started wars.
The risks are as always- being bombed to hell and back, invaded, occupied and overthrown.
-
Thank you. That just made my day. That has got to be the least thought-through proposal I have ever read on that topic. For starters, the only reason to produce stuff in China is because it's too expensive to manufacture mass produced items in countries like the USA, because peope in the western world actually expect to earn enough to afford living in the western world through their work. Forcing companies to produce stuff in the USA just doesn't work.
Not a problem. I'm sure all of us here would be more than willing to hear an intelligent and detailed alternative from you. Also, I already know the reasons why Big Business prefers to send manufacturing overseas, so what you are saying really isn't some awe-inspiring revelation.
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point, so I will reiterate it for you: If manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and the jobs that replace those aren't as high paying, then people are not making the money that they used to, meaning the circulation of cash isn't flowing as much as it used to because people have less. And of course, a country that cedes its manufacturing capabilities, also cedes its sovereignty because it becomes dependent on others for its day to day necessities and not all of the people we trade with particularly care what happens to us as long the cash keeps coming. And when that cashflow stops and we ask them for loans to buy more stuff FROM them, we put ourselves at their mercy. I guarantee you that the Red Dragon isn't exactly as tolerant or understanding as the boobs who run Washington are.
Now, the one thing that should be done with regards to China, is to stop treating them like a third world country. They have nuclear weapons, for crying out loud. Just because they claim to be a third world country whenever it suits their needs (pollution, human rights, copyright law) doesn't mean they are. (China runs a fine line in their propaganda, in the interior, they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others, kept down by the malicious intervention of foreigners; Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).
Not sure if this is still directed at me, but I never indicated that China should be belittled by the U.S. Personally, I don't think we should do anything that aggrevates or appeases Beijing, as long as no vital U.S. interest is at stake. The ability to make our own goods IS a vital interest and it IS at stake.
-
Information warfare doesn't work. If country A hacks country B's servers, the citizens of country B get p!$$ed, and B's military cuts country A's cables, jams their wireless networks and if possible, shoots down their satellites. If the people get really p!$$ed, they might even want a full scale war.
Also- what profits do you get through info manipulation? You could steal money and technology, generate temporary chaos perhaps... But no new territory, no new resources, no new free labor and no new worshippers of your ideology and no increase of your country's security, and these have been the main reasons that people started wars.
The risks are as always- being bombed to hell and back, invaded, occupied and overthrown.
You're still thinking about this the wrong way. Information Warfare isn't about destroying/disrupting the enemy's IT-Infrastructure. It's about subverting it. It's about being able to alter the communications between government agencies to steer them where you want them to be. remember, if you invade a country, you have to (for a while, at least) replace and run that country's TOTAL infrastructure, until the locals are able to do your bidding out of their own free will. This is both cost- and labor-intensive, and unless you are prepared to not only control the country you're occupying, but also every other country that has an interest in your victim, you are going to fail.
Not a problem. I'm sure all of us here would be more than willing to hear an intelligent and detailed alternative from you. Also, I already know the reasons why Big Business prefers to send manufacturing overseas, so what you are saying really isn't some awe-inspiring revelation.
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point, so I will reiterate it for you: If manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and the jobs that replace those aren't as high paying, then people are not making the money that they used to, meaning the circulation of cash isn't flowing as much as it used to because people have less. And of course, a country that cedes its manufacturing capabilities, also cedes its sovereignty because it becomes dependent on others for its day to day necessities and not all of the people we trade with particularly care what happens to us as long the cash keeps coming. And when that cashflow stops and we ask them for loans to buy more stuff FROM them, we put ourselves at their mercy. I guarantee you that the Red Dragon isn't exactly as tolerant or understanding as the boobs who run Washington are.
Ahh. That makes it clear. However, unless you are willing to subsidize local production, either by Government spending or import tariffs, it's not going to work. You are right, maneuvering yourself into a position where you are indebted to a possibly hostile country is a pretty stupid move.
Not sure if this is still directed at me, but I never indicated that China should be belittled by the U.S. Personally, I don't think we should do anything that aggrevates or appeases Beijing, as long as no vital U.S. interest is at stake. The ability to make our own goods IS a vital interest and it IS at stake.
Wasn't directed at you. That was me going into rant mode. Anyway, you still have the ability to manufacture any thing you want, it's just that noone wishes to buy it at the prices you have to ask for if you do. Welcome to the downside of globalized capitalism.
The basic assumption that anything can be available cheaper without averse consequences for anyone may prove to be the biggest misconception ever. If i had a cure for it, I wouldn't be here whining about its unavailability.
-
You're still thinking about this the wrong way. Information Warfare isn't about destroying/disrupting the enemy's IT-Infrastructure. It's about subverting it. It's about being able to alter the communications between government agencies to steer them where you want them to be. remember, if you invade a country, you have to (for a while, at least) replace and run that country's TOTAL infrastructure, until the locals are able to do your bidding out of their own free will. This is both cost- and labor-intensive, and unless you are prepared to not only control the country you're occupying, but also every other country that has an interest in your victim, you are going to fail.
Except it still doesn't work, because lots of people can read books, like you can, and devise countermeasures. This is why US military tactical doctrine is somewhat vague, for example. Not only does this reflect the desire for the man on the scene to think for himself, it also reflects that published detailed doctrine is easily countered.
There is a fundemental paradox at work with information warfare. It is the non-real attempting to effect the real. That is a very steep hill to climb, and there are numerous and simple obstacles to place in its way. The simplest and most effective obstacle to information warfare, an unconnected second network that operates independent of others, is already one embraced by nearly every military in the world, and many governments have the option to operate in such a mode if they don't actually do so already.
The concept of being able to do such things as you seem to believe is quaintly cyberpunk. It's also totally impossible.
-
Then there's the problem people personally discuss many things, making even the greatest l33t h4x fail.
-
Except it still doesn't work, because lots of people can read books, like you can, and devise countermeasures. This is why US military tactical doctrine is somewhat vague, for example. Not only does this reflect the desire for the man on the scene to think for himself, it also reflects that published detailed doctrine is easily countered.
There is a fundemental paradox at work with information warfare. It is the non-real attempting to effect the real. That is a very steep hill to climb, and there are numerous and simple obstacles to place in its way. The simplest and most effective obstacle to information warfare, an unconnected second network that operates independent of others, is already one embraced by nearly every military in the world, and many governments have the option to operate in such a mode if they don't actually do so already.
The concept of being able to do such things as you seem to believe is quaintly cyberpunk. It's also totally impossible.
You're not wrong. It's just my biases at work, I guess. I'm basing my assumptions on the fact that engaging something like the US Military in a military way is just a very spectacular way of committing suicide. Thus, if you want to achieve certain strategic goals by force as opposed to diplomacy, you'll have to find ways that don't involve putting yourself in the flightpath of an incoming JDAM.
-
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point, so I will reiterate it for you: If manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and the jobs that replace those aren't as high paying, then people are not making the money that they used to, meaning the circulation of cash isn't flowing as much as it used to because people have less. And of course, a country that cedes its manufacturing capabilities, also cedes its sovereignty because it becomes dependent on others for its day to day necessities and not all of the people we trade with particularly care what happens to us as long the cash keeps coming.
If you want to pay $500+ for shoes go for it. The few people that have tried to avoid buying stuff from outsourced China factories found it extremely difficult, not because of availability but because of cost. It's expensive to make that stuff in the developed world.
-
Interesting news from New Hampshire. The retired people have started to talk that maybe they will also see the collapse of US within their life time. Witnessing the rise and death of two super powers within one's personal life.
I don't see much point in military conflict between China and USA, unless initiated by US. I also remind that Western Army representatives were doubly surprised (or at least acted as such) when China blew up a satellite from the orbit with a ground based missile and their submarine surfaced right in the middle of US Battlegroup.
Besides, I thought it was already too expensive for US to utilize its military force. New F-22s and B-2s don't make things exactly cheaper. And, in my opinion China doesn't work with "in-your-face" military attitude as US does. China is much more manipulative and relies on diplomacy and projected images to actually avoid fighting in war. Though this can probably changed quite quickly with propaganda from the central government.
I think US has already found itself in a situation where it cannot back off any more, being too dependent on Chinese economy to attack it militarily. Wasn't it a couple of weeks ago when Hillary Clinton actually said she's glad the Chinese still support US monetarily? I'm pretty sure they are busy as hell looking for other locations to deposit their money in the mean time. And trying to find other partners for selling their goods.
Mika
-
And that's where India comes in.
About the retired people saying they'll see the fall of the US- here's something from another forum:
Comments made in the year 1955!
That's only 54 years ago!
'I'll tell you one thing, if things keep going the way they are, it's going to be impossible to buy a week's groceries for $20.00.
'Have you seen the new cars coming out next year? It won't be long before $2, 000.00 will only buy a used one.
'If cigarettes keep going up in price, I'm going to quit. 25 cents a pack is ridiculous..
'Did you hear the post office is thinking about charging 10 cents just to mail a letter
'If they raise the minimum wage to $1.00, nobody will be able to hire outside help at the store.
'When I first started driving, who would have thought gas would someday cost 29 cents a gallon. Guess we'd be better off leaving the car in the garage.
'I'm afraid to send my kids to the movies any more Ever since they let Clark Gable get by with saying DAMN in GONE WITH THE WIND, it seems every new movie has either HELL or DAMN in it.
'I read the other day where some scientist thinks it's possible to put a man on the moon by the end of the century. They even have some fellows they call astronauts preparing for it down in Texas .
'Did you see where some baseball player just signed a contract for $75,000 a year just to play ball? It wouldn't surprise me if someday they'll be making more than the President.
'I never thought I'd see the day all our kitchen appliances would be electric. They are even making electric typewriters now.
'It's too bad things are so tough nowadays. I see where a few married women are having to work to make ends meet.
'It won't be long before young couples are going to have to hire someone to watch their kids so they can both work.
'I'm afraid the Volkswagen car is going to open the door to a whole lot of foreign business.
'Thank goodness I won't live to see the day when the Government takes half our income in taxes. I sometimes wonder if we are electing the best people to government.
'The drive-in restaurant is convenient in nice weather, but I seriously doubt they will ever catch on.
'There is no sense going on short trips anymore for a weekend, it costs nearly $15.00 a night to stay in a hotel.
'No one can afford to be sick anymore, at $35.00 a day in the hospital, it's too rich for my blood.'
'If they think I'll pay 50 cents for a hair cut, forget it.'
I didn't check even one of those claims, some could be wrong, but I think they give a general idea of people complaining back in the '50s. Don't forget how everyone feared WW III and the end of the world during the whole Cold War (with fallout shelters being built in the thousands).
And it looks like the world still exists, and not even the fact people complain a lot has changed over the years.
-
I think they are comparing the USSR ending conditions to US conditions at the moment and draw the conclusion from there. They simply see the situation irreversible. The only question remaining is if US suffers a sudden catastrophical collapse, or a slow spin to the bottom.
Many of the money related comments should be corrected for inflation and general price level.
Bombshelters are still required to be constructed here for all major population centers, but for different reasons.
Mika
-
Bombshelters are still required to be constructed here for all major population centers, but for different reasons.
Such as?
-
Bombshelters are still required to be constructed here for all major population centers, but for different reasons.
Such as?
Weather?
-
Godzilla?
-
Godzilla?
Zombies! :D
-
Them?
-
Me.
-
Weather?
BWAHAHAHA! I just figured a guy going back to his trusty-ol'-bombshelter since it's raining sleet again. "God dang it, I ain't gonna go there! Better sleep til' tomorro'!"
Why such interest in the bomb shelter construction? That is obviously 'cause you never know what those Swedes are up to! Come to think of it, it would actually be interesting to see if there really exists a plan for invading Sweden in the ministry of defense...
Besides, would there be willing participants for a little dredging of the shore of my summer cottage located at the Bay of Bothnia? I think we can set up the bonfire and drink some lemonade and beer and eat fried sausages after all the work is done. I suppose I can warm up the sauna also for those who want to have a bath and possibly swim. Here is a map of the area to be dredged: http://i13.tinypic.com/2j5mnx0.jpg
Sorry, that Sweden part got out of hand now once I started it! I had to self-censor half of the post and almost all links, but I suppose I can leave that one.
As more serious note, they still test all the public loudspeakers every month by playing the general alarm. In my home village, it wasn't monthly, but weekly; every Monday at 12.00.
Mika
-
As more serious note, they still test all the public loudspeakers every month by playing the general alarm. In my home village, it wasn't monthly, but weekly; every Monday at 12.00.
Mika
I'm pretty sure that if an air-raid siren went off in a heavily populated area in The U.S., that no one (okay, 80%+) would know what was going on. And if it wasn't completely illegal to do so, I would test that theory. :drevil:
-
People would just get pissed off about the noise.
-
TL;DR except for a couple paragraphs of the article, but it looks like Ron Paul would be proud.
-
As more serious note, they still test all the public loudspeakers every month by playing the general alarm. In my home village, it wasn't monthly, but weekly; every Monday at 12.00.
Mika
I'm pretty sure that if an air-raid siren went off in a heavily populated area in The U.S., that no one (okay, 80%+) would know what was going on. And if it wasn't completely illegal to do so, I would test that theory. :drevil:
Anyone in the Midwest would know what to do, seeing as how they use the same system as the tornado warning sirens, which are tested the first Saturday of every month at 1:00 PM.
-
Except we'd look out the window and see a bright sunny day, and think '****ing sirens are broken again'.