Considering the space alien angle, I often wonder if Faster than Light travel would even be considered a technical breakthrough. It might be something we have to apply for, like a building permit, or a drivers liscense. (Or a hall pass) The galactic authorities would want to make sure we keep our diseases to ourselves, and I’m thinking contagious mental illness like warfare, more so than space AIDS or the common cold
6 Likes
To be more fair and accurate, the aliens need to have NATO explained to them.
“So in order to create peace, you all get together to build an even bigger army and surround more countries with it?”
2 Likes
The same way I’d explain anything to aliens: replace words with their definitions until I get to shared concepts.
In this case, evolution. Human intelligence evolved to help us outsmart each other in tribal politics, which includes making ourselves look good and our enemies look bad even when we engage in the same behavior. So, we have words for many situations that areally basically synonyms except one is associated with positive affect, the other negative. In this case the affect comes from the goals we accuse a “terrorist” of having.
I’d also try in this case to make clear the distinction between official propoganda (tactics) and actual difference in opinion/philosophy. The latter can be real and impactful even where the former is complete bs, even if only a small fraction of the population of either group genuinely understands and believes in the relevant philosophy.
5 Likes
Sad doesn’t even begin to cover it.
14 Likes
It seems two questions have been conflated:
- How does war differ from terrorism, and
- Are the United States’ military actions war or are they terrorism?
The first is a semantic dispute; so the second is kind of nugatory.
It’s too easy to say that making war is always wrong. War is bad, I think we can all agree. Until everyone is a pacifist, we can’t reasonably expect to survive without defending ourselves.
It seems reasonable, when considering all violent actions, to draw a line: between an action designed to kill only people who are in turn trying to kill the actor, and an action designed explicitly to kill people who pose no danger to the actor.
That said, ’Murica has a pretty bad track record these last few decades—to say the least.
2 Likes
The Martian raises good points but it seems kind of hypocritical from them. How much of the comparison of war to terrorism is trying to be objective, and how much is about how they didn’t like fighting back when it was with them?
9 Likes
Asymmetric warfare is the one in which one side has a proper conventional army with ranks and job descriptions, all trained to use the most advanced equipment in the ways laid down in the textbooks, and the other side (often the one fighting for their homes and families) do not follow the rules, adopting unfair tactics like sniping, IEDs and small mobile units.
Once upon a time this was the American settlers versus the German king. Later on it was the Russian peasants versus the German invader. Then it was Vietnamese peasants versus the American invader, and from then on it has gone downhill. I wonder what side Revere, Dawes and Hancock would be on nowadays?
5 Likes
Slightly more to it. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms or segregate themselves from civilian populations.
Plus the goal of a terrorist is not necessarily to bring about a resolution to a conflict such as a military victory. There is more of a political goal to terrorism than warfare between military forces generally.
Killing people and breaking stuff although part of terrorism is not usually the end result sought. Terrorism seeks to create an atmosphere of repression and intentionally invites draconian reprisals on civilians. All done to garner more support against a given government.
For example the Patriot Act after 9/11 probably does more to create terrorists than combat them. It has the US deliberately acting to undermine its own political strengths such as democratic civil liberties for the sake of safety. Plus we deliberately harass and attack domestic Muslim populations under the color of law. Domestic muslim populations who could be so pissed off that they might be willing to harbor future terrorists.
4 Likes
There is also the whole part of avoiding things military forces do to avoid civilian casualties and atrocities. Military forces are supposed to segregate themselves from civilians. They do that usually by having bases outside of populated areas and wearing distinctive clothing to indicate they are not civilians. Terrorists deliberately avoid both and actually act to cause civilian casualties where possible. Purely military targets are usually not important in terrorism except as a way to induce military forces to repress civilian populations in reprisal.
2 Likes
The thing that gets me about the “War on Terror” is, if it’s a war, right, then the opponent is objectively one of the weakest, most kitten-like enemies America (or any other country) has ever faced. The world’s combined terror forces, attacking as hard as they can for 15 years, have yet to kill as many NATO civilians as died in any given week of WW2. And people were defiant in WW2.
From that point of view, doesn’t this pant-wetting fear of terrorism make today’s America, you know, a colossal pussy?
7 Likes
5? I count more than that. 8 to 10 of them. I know Australia is rather lukewarm, but if the shit hit the fan, who do you think they would ask for help. Fortunately they are basically a giant island and so not really in fear of attack throughout history, unlike, say, Poland.
Look a lot of the countries want (or at least wanted) our presence there. WHY spend money on your own military when you can have a ally park on your soil and potentially die for you? During the Cold War you don’t think West Germany, France, UK etc didn’t want our presence there?
Now one could argue with the cold war over, our presence isn’t needed. I agree. I think all those other countries have artificially LOW military spending BECAUSE we have a presence there or near there and are and have ally agreements.
We are being suckers. We need to start charging for our presence, or pull out and let THEM spend more bolstering their defense. I guess a few external bases make strategic sense, but at this point I say let our allies fend for themselves. Of course they can afford more social programs. The US has their backs!
[quote]
Martian: But you have named one such weapon the “Hellfire” missile. Does this not mean you are well aware that the missile burns your fellow humans with fire? Was it not in fact designed to do so?[/quote]
It was originally made as anti-armor with a HEAT warhead, but there are another version that is a combination blast fragmentation/incendiary.
1 Like
As an American, reading that physically hurt. Not that I don’t already know all of it and agree with it, but that is why thought experiments are valuable.
Anyway, can Barry get the Martians to come down here and take our toys away until we grow up and start acting like rational adults?
7 Likes
I’m gathering you find the conception of the U.S. as an empire, what, absurd? Laughable? Outrageous?
4 Likes
The US can have overseas bases without being an empire.
The reason US forces are in Japan and Korea is has been to persuade them that the US is serious about its nuclear guarantees to them. Otherwise Japan - with nuclear powers North Korea, the Soviet Union and China next door - would have had little choice but to rebuild its military. With nuclear weapons.
Only the US presence prevents South Korea from going nuclear to protect itself against North Korea. If South Korea did go nuclear, again, Japan would have little choice but to follow.
For US national security, preventing a five-way nuclear arms race makes a few bases look like a good deal.
It was the same story in Europe. Without the American presence, and it’s ability to use nuclear weapons if necessary to stop the Soviets from invading, West Germany would have acquired its own nuclear weapons. Later it was the continued US presence in Germany that convinced Gorbachov he could allow the fall of the Berlin Wall and the uniting of the two Germanys. The US acted as a guarantor for the Russians against the Germans doing something silly. And they probably still do.
1 Like
So the US has the required force to stop others from acquiring same force and enforces this globally?
Does it also use its political, economic and military power to further its own interests?
Seems to me like the US can be an empire even if does not think of itself an empire.
6 Likes
It shows little sign of stopping others (China, Russia, Canada) from acquiring that force. Its economy simply lets it spend almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined.
The moral authority to have those overseas bases is a different matter. But Germany, South Korea and Japan show no signs of considering themselves “occupied.” Having a defense treaty with another country is not the same as subjugating them as an empire.
1 Like
The U.S. empire has over 800 military installations in (last I heard) over 150 countries. That’s not to prevent other nations from fighting with each other. It’s to ensure the enrichment of those who control the U.S. military industrial complex.
How do you think those weapons got there in the first place? Under whose control do you think they actually are?[quote=“RogerStrong, post:36, topic:74489”]
But Germany, South Korea and Japan show no signs of considering themselves “occupied.” Having a defense treaty with another country is not the same as subjugating them as an empire.
[/quote]
Holy shit. Um, you need to get out of your bubble more. All three countries, and many others, have long experienced strong resistance to such a heavy, squatting, controlling, self-interested and abusive U.S. military presence.
Exceptionalist propaganda in the U.S. about global American benevolence is so powerful! Even clearly intelligent and relatively informed people usually have little idea of how the U.S. operates in and is perceived by most of the rest of the world.
9 Likes
Again, defense treaties with those countries are not even remotely the same as subjugating them.
America’s military also owns more than 170 golf courses and manages enough land to host 93 Los Angeleses. It’s a very big military, but when you’re not using it to invade and occupy countries, it doesn’t make you an empire.
It’s to ensure the enrichment of those who control the U.S. military industrial complex.
No argument there. But that’s an internal problem. It doesn’t make the US an empire. Militaristic, yes. Socialist (having the government control that much of the economy), yes. But not an empire.
How do you think those weapons got there in the first place? Under whose control do you think they actually are?
North Korea developed its own weapons. I’ve never heard any suggestion that they were supplied by the US.
All three countries, and many others, have long experienced strong resistance to such a heavy, squatting, controlling, self-interested and abusive U.S. military presence.
All three countries seem to want them there. Beyond the post-war era, they were hardly “controlling.” The governments of all three countries are independent. Nothing even remotely like what you would see in a Roman, British or Soviet empire.
1 Like
I’ve seen that video before, noticed by the looks of it, that man successfully dispersed that crowd of haters! There were way more protestors present before he began speaking than there were by the end of the clip.
Maybe just the dozen plus that were walking on the wall ran off to the larger group, but they definitely fled.
3 Likes
You couldn’t.
Terrorism is a stupid affliction, anyway.
Afraid of what, exactly?
