[Unknown Target]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Grizzly]

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.

[Unknown Target]

@Joshua;

This is the situation in the Middle East right now;



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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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;

[StarSlayer]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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?

[StarSlayer]

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. 

[Lorric]

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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).

[AtomicClucker]

yes, in a nutshell while the caffeine lasts in my blood stream. McDonald's joe is weak on buzz, strong on heat.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.

[Lorric]

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.