Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on August 29, 2013, 02:09:03 pm
-
The socioeconomic systems enforced today do not prevent our leaders from initiating all-out war. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to remind our leaders that to win an all out war, they would need total support of the population. I feel that this lesson has been forgotten or is being ignored by those in all branches of the Federal Branches, and that is why they are driving us to the brink of World War 3.
-
wat
EDIT: What exactly do you want to discuss here?
Also, if you could provide concrete examples of why or how our socioeconomic systems (What does that even mean?) are designed to deter actions by "our leaders" in any way whatsoever, that would be great.
-
I think it's not all that bad. From what I have heard, there will be only strategic strikes, and nothing on the level that will mean all out war and a WW3 scenario.
Or I just misunderstood your post.
-
@Joshua;
This is the situation in the Middle East right now;
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/08-2/20130827_ME.jpg)
At this point I have heard rumors that if the US were to undergo a strike, it would be in related support to Al Queida objectives.
I postulate that any "strategic strike" will explode into a dangerous situation. It happened in WW1. The UK and France know that, they're already on the ball and pushing hard to land the first punch. The US is being dragged along and Obama may be too naive to understand what's going on.
If the US launches an attack, it is possible that the result will be very different from it's intervention in Libya.
I think the UK and France are trying to get the USA to do it's usual "world police" routine, but the country just can't do it anymore. The last two wars and the constant fighting have weakened the country - economically, militarily, socially, and politically - and in a very public way - to the point where countries like Russia and China are just sitting back and watching the USA get tugged along. They are secure in their interests - politically and economically, and most importantly, legally, that they can simply watch the old dog get tugged into one last fight.
-
wat
EDIT: What exactly do you want to discuss here?
Also, if you could provide concrete examples of why or how our socioeconomic systems (What does that even mean?) are designed to deter actions by "our leaders" in any way whatsoever, that would be great.
Socioeconomic system - a singular system which encompasses both the social and economic workings of a society
socioeconomic systems - multiple systems which may or may not encompass the social and economic workings of a society
How:
By creating a written social contract with members of the local social upper class.
Why:
To provide for a more lasting mechanism for the betterment of the human species.
-
I don't think the terms are what The-E is confused about. Neither am I, for that matter. What's completely and utterly incomprehensible is what you're actually trying to say, which at the moment seems to be the most blasé and generic form of idealism I have ever seen.
-
I think he's saying governments can choose to go to war. But they shouldn't be going to war without the full support of the people. This I agree with.
EDIT: I realise there can be times when this is not a luxury that can be afforded.
-
I think he's saying governments can choose to go to war. But they shouldn't be going to war without the full support of the people. This I agree with.
EDIT: I realise there can be times when this is not a luxury that can be afforded.
Yes, I am saying that governments can choose to go to war. But no, I am not saying they "shouldn't" go to war. I'm saying that they can't.
True war, total war, of the sort that has not been seen on this planet since perhaps the period around 1943-1944, can not be won without the support of the populace.*
Different control organizations adopt different tactics to keeping it's population in line and in support of the war effort.
Government as we understand it today, is simply a machine built by people so as to control the way their descendants act.
*Depending on your point of view, the United States of America has been at total war with the world since August 29th, 1949, when the first atomic bomb was detonated by the Soviet Union.
So let me explain, what I mean by governments being unable to win a total war without the support of the populace.
If the population doesn't want to fight, the government can't fight it's war, and it will lose.
The key is separating the "Federal Government of the USA" from the "people of the USA". It's about holding the people in the Federal Government accountable for their actions.
The people in Egypt have it figured out;
(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/to-all-the-american-people-weve-got-nothing-but-love-for-you-egyptian-protest-sign.jpg)
-
This argument is essentially a rocket built out of Lego. You either need to build it out of real rocket parts or build something that can be reasonably achieved with Lego. It's not even worth debating in its current state since the main point and all the components trying to prove it are so vaguely defined and generic.
-
Is anyone willing to contribute anything to this discussion?
I feel like so far it's just a lot of asking me to explain things and not a lot of discussing?
Surely I can't be the only person who thinks that some of these things are possible?
-
Is anyone willing to contribute anything to this discussion?
I feel like so far it's just a lot of asking me to explain things and not a lot of discussing?
Surely I can't be the only person who thinks that some of these things are possible?
Again you can't exactly string some vague ideas together with all the consistency of a fog bank and expect a fantastic debate.
-
Is anyone willing to contribute anything to this discussion?
I feel like so far it's just a lot of asking me to explain things and not a lot of discussing?
Surely I can't be the only person who thinks that some of these things are possible?
I also am confused now. I liked the picture you showed a lot though. I do agree that wars are unfavourable without the support of the people, if they can't be won quickly, and the longer they go, the more impact that will have, but beyond that, I don't really know what you are trying to do here.
-
Limited Wars = Public Opinion
Total War = Until Public Opinion runs out on one side or another, depending on which gets stomped in bad poll numbers.
-
Is anyone willing to contribute anything to this discussion?
I feel like so far it's just a lot of asking me to explain things and not a lot of discussing?
Surely I can't be the only person who thinks that some of these things are possible?
I also am confused now. I liked the picture you showed a lot though. I do agree that wars are unfavourable without the support of the people, if they can't be won quickly, and the longer they go, the more impact that will have, but beyond that, I don't really know what you are trying to do here.
I was trying to foster a discussion regarding international relations by posing a few quick thoughts with lots of potential and hoping that people run with it. Thanks for putting in your two cents earlier, by the way. Please feel free to criticise, I think of these discussions a bit like art critiques.
Sort of like how Musk released the stuff with the Hyperloop.
Can you explain AtomicClucker? I think I get it but I'm not sure.
-
Limited conflicts are "pop wars" that run until the populace can no longer tolerate the burden and usually leaves the economy exhausted.
Total War isn't just about support from the populace - its a full scale mobilization of both civilians and military, whereas Limited Wars are fought with the intention of limiting the full extent of civilian involvement until funds run dry and the populace finds the conflict untenable, even though it might be plausible for victory.
So a government can wage a Limited War until the populace and administration no longer have the stomach for it.
-
So a government today can initiate a limited war without consent of the populace, however it cannot initiate a total war without the support of the populace (even defensively, though that does make it easier).
-
yes, in a nutshell while the caffeine lasts in my blood stream. McDonald's joe is weak on buzz, strong on heat.
-
I, too, am perplexed at this thread and its lack of any discernible argument to date.
If this is the argument...
So a government today can initiate a limited war without consent of the populace, however it cannot initiate a total war without the support of the populace (even defensively, though that does make it easier).
...then all I can say is "Yes."
That statement isn't exactly groundbreaking. It's quite well understood by historians and military advisors the world over. However, the last "total war" ended 68 years and 15 days ago, and there is nary a sign of another one in sight. Call me if someone starts shooting at Iran. Meanwhile, let's all hope the strikes on Syria are well thought-out and well-aimed.
-
I, too, am perplexed at this thread and its lack of any discernible argument to date.
If this is the argument...
So a government today can initiate a limited war without consent of the populace, however it cannot initiate a total war without the support of the populace (even defensively, though that does make it easier).
...then all I can say is "Yes."
That statement isn't exactly groundbreaking. It's quite well understood by historians and military advisors the world over. However, the last "total war" ended 68 years and 15 days ago, and there is nary a sign of another one in sight. Call me if someone starts shooting at Iran. Meanwhile, let's all hope the strikes on Syria are well thought-out and well-aimed.
Let's keep that clock going, I've no taste for long winded conflicts and cheesy recruitment posters.
-
I was trying to foster a discussion regarding international relations by posing a few quick thoughts with lots of potential and hoping that people run with it. Thanks for putting in your two cents earlier, by the way.
You're welcome.
Please feel free to criticise, I think of these discussions a bit like art critiques.
Sort of like how Musk released the stuff with the Hyperloop.
I do not understand. :D
-
Incoherent thread is incoherent.
Just how many people with mental incontinence need to start "discussions" on these boards? I thought Nakura was bad, but this one takes the cake.
-
This argument is essentially a rocket built out of Lego. You either need to build it out of real rocket parts or build something that can be reasonably achieved with Lego. It's not even worth debating in its current state since the main point and all the components trying to prove it are so vaguely defined and generic.
careful, someone might actually try to build one.
-
Hm... this seems topical:
I've read in multiple places (which don't cite a source, so there's no point in me citing them) that pre-emptive wars are "illegal". But I don't know what that means. Illegal according to US law? Unconstitutional according to the US constitution? Illegal according to "international law"? I don't really even know what that means... does it just mean a specific treaty to which the US is a signatory, or is there some body of law common to all nations, e.g. stuff done by the UN?
Maybe-relevant current events thing: Obama said himself that he doesn't have the constitutional power to do this military-involvement-in-Syria sort of thing (in the context of a hypothetical pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities, a scenario wherein it was explicitly stated there was NOT an imminent threat). Not without authorization by Congress.
That gets my :yes: But now he's acting like he may go and do it anyway :no:
-
Sort of like how Musk released the stuff with the Hyperloop.
I know it was probably not on purpose, but think for a second about that sentence and the ego it implies. Ahahah!
So you say a vague combination of vague generic politcal clichés "A country needs the support of the people to start a war!" where it's not even clear if it's a moral stance, a political stance or an observation of how things work, whatever.
And then you compare it to the effort that Musk and his team put forth into bringing the hyperloop to the community for discussion!
:D
I mean, this is the only thing interesting that popped into my eyes. All the rest is either already being discussed in the Syrian thread or is just captain obvious territory.
-
Maybe-relevant current events thing: Obama said himself that he doesn't have the constitutional power to do this military-involvement-in-Syria sort of thing (in the context of a hypothetical pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities, a scenario wherein it was explicitly stated there was NOT an imminent threat). Not without authorization by Congress.
That gets my :yes: But now he's acting like he may go and do it anyway :no:
President can move troops and conduct military operations anywhere in the world so long as he informs congress within 48 hours?. Also the War Powers Act is still on the books allowing for the President to conduct military operations for 60 days without the consent of congress. Followed by a 30 day period for troops to withdraw. Presidents are usually given very very broad ....leniency in the use of this power. Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since WWII, but they have approved every conflict via a resolution (correct me if wrong). Also the Pre-emptive strike notion seems...unlikely in the manner that most people thing of as a sledgehammer destroying everything. So long as casualties among the US military remain low (like Libya) chances are both the public and congress will go along with limited intervention.
I do believe the current situation in the US regarding the use of armed forces reflects a crisis of national identity in regards to how the US should conduct itself in foreign diplomacy post Cold War. For ~half a century foreign policy was defeat the soviets (This is somewhat simplified). I think that the US is currently struggling to define itself on the world stage in what it wants to do accomplish without an adversary. It has the most powerful military in the world and nothing to do with it. There is a void and its purpose must be filled as "defense" is no longer a legitimate reason for the size and power of our current military. Some people/views would like the US to act as the world's police force/peacekeepers (moral obligation), another idea is to extoll/export american virtues (Freedom, Democracy etc), another is to see the expansion of US interests abroad (economic, military), another view is that the our military is unnecessary in its current state and should be downsized. Lastly there is a an isolationist trend that wants to let the world do its own thing and focus on issues at home. It should be noted that none of the these forces are mutually exclusive and the arm of American influence is motivated by all of these factors at time.
Additionally I believe that America since the Monroe doctrine has been an imperial power, and since the turn of the 20th century has been a non-traditional empire in that it does not seek to acquire territory, but instead to acquire influence. I also think America has undergone a slow decline of it's world influence since the end of the cold war, but policy makers in many ways still act as if the US has more world influence than it currently does.
-
It should also be noted that the british parliament has voted to not support any military operations in Syria at this time.
-
Polish PM has also declared that Poland will not commit any military forces to Syria. While I wouldn't put my money on his word, the general sentiment in the government seems to be along these lines.
-
This is the situation in the Middle East right now;
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/08-2/20130827_ME.jpg)
I find it funny that that chart omits the main arrow-relationship that was likely the catalyst for the chart to be created in the first place: the relationship between the Syrian Rebels and Assad. :p
-
I'd assume that was a given. :p
-
Well, there's a bunch of things it's both omitting and including that are a given.... Israel -> Hamas is included, but Israel -> Iran isn't, for example. ;)
-
I don't know how far away I'm from the truth, but I'd say the only thing keeping the US dollar (and consequently the country) afloat is the fact that US has the largest military machine on the planet.