Of course! Disaster becomes photo op
YUCK!!!!! EWWWWW!!!! EKKKHHHH!
Isn't it bad enough that Barbara Bush thinks that the Astrodome is 'working very well' for the refugees and that they are 'so overwhelmed by the hospitality' and finds it 'sort of scary' that they want to stay? Must we really add onto this Bush senior, Governor Perry, and Obama making a photo op of their visit? I mean, I understand the need to multi-task, but is this really necessary?
If Bush senior is 'anxious to roll up [their] sleeves and get to work' then maybe he should quit the chatting and get to work. Same applies to the rest of 'em. Surely there's a food line down the way they can help serve.
I'm not sure if I'm more disgusted about the content or the coverage in this CNN article.
Isn't it bad enough that Barbara Bush thinks that the Astrodome is 'working very well' for the refugees and that they are 'so overwhelmed by the hospitality' and finds it 'sort of scary' that they want to stay? Must we really add onto this Bush senior, Governor Perry, and Obama making a photo op of their visit? I mean, I understand the need to multi-task, but is this really necessary?
If Bush senior is 'anxious to roll up [their] sleeves and get to work' then maybe he should quit the chatting and get to work. Same applies to the rest of 'em. Surely there's a food line down the way they can help serve.
I'm not sure if I'm more disgusted about the content or the coverage in this CNN article.
posted by smokey spice at 12:28 AM
14 Comments:
in international law, persons displaced by natural disasters are not "refugees." refugees are displaced persons who have crossed international borders to evade political oppression. these people are "internally displaced" and would be more appropriately labled as "victims" or, with a more positive twist, "survivors."
Hey handsome! I'm glad you've awakened. I've been stalking your blog for the last couple of days, hoping to see some activity.
Thanks for the linguistic correction.
I looked it up further since I used the term refugees purposely.
Wikipedia describes 'Internally displaced person' as such:
"An internally displaced person (IDP) is someone who has been forced to leave their home for reasons such as religious or political persecution or war, but has not crossed an international border. The term is a subset of the more general displaced person. There is no legal definition of IDP, as there is for refugee, but the thumbnail rule is that if the person in question would be eligible for refugee status if he or she crossed an international border then the IDP label is applicable. IDPs are not technically refugees because they have not crossed an international border, but are sometimes casually referred to as refugees.
There are currently nearly 20 million IDPs worldwide, roughly twice the total number of refugees. Internally displaced persons do not have a specific international legal instrument that applies to them as do refugees, because any attempt by an outside body to tell a nation how it should treat its own citizens has been seen as a violation of the principle of national sovereignty. This principle has come under pressure in recent years by those who feel a moral imperative to stop gross abuse of citizens by their governments. The most notable recent example was the use by the United States of mistreatment by the Iraqi government of its own population as a secondary excuse for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The United Nations recently agreed on non-binding Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement based on the refugee instruments. Nevertheless, there is no dedicated UN agency to deal with IDPs. This has led the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to act as ad hoc lead on IDP matters. As a result, it has been criticized for treating IDPs as less important adjuncts to their core mission to assist refugees."
So, you are correct in saying that those who fled the New Orleans disaster are not recognized under international law as refugees. But if you're looking toward international law, then I would suggest that the term internally displaced is used to avoid insulting/violating national sovereinty than it is truly descriptive of the status of the 'victims' or 'survivors'.
I used the term because they are in fact seeking refuge albeit from a natural disaster. That the extent of the disaster was avoidable leads me to question whether there wasn't a political or socio-economic rational to the government's apparent neglect before and after Katrina.
That there isn't a legal term that gains the victims any rights to refuge and/or a gain of government resources definitely speaks to me on numerous levels.
Keep an eye out for San Francisco's next big earth-quake if you want to see the difference in responses. First off, SF is a wealthy city with a diverse population that includes many wealthy white people. The area likely to be most impacted is one of the richest parts of town which is also all land-fill. It was the same part of town that was pretty much destroyed last time around and has been completely rebuilt while other areas could still use some help. Government funding at all levels has definitely gone there, but then they have the connections to get that.
In the end, I'm just not sure that the terms used in international law should be our standard. Language can evolve to meet the needs of communication though it doesn't always. I wonder why.
i guess the point is just that it's not a political thing. the people down there were a. stupid, b. homeless, c. crippled, or d. any combination therein.
i will say that i think it's foolish to say that they would have reacted better in another situation because this isn't any other situation. the national guard was deployed.
i am sure this will be blown into a much bigger deal than it is. and that's ok. the most significant problem with the war in iraq is that it weakens the defenses of the united states when we need to be prepared for a confrontation with north korea/china.
i realize that this is about oil, and that national policy has long since dictated that we shall go to war to protect the american supply of oil. but we have the technology to move off of oil now. our concern is, of course, to corner the world market as the rest of the third world becomes oil-dependent.
and as much as i appreciate the long-term goals and such, they aren't my thing. i say we let the islamists have the holy land. abandon it all together. tell india that we have their back in the scenario that pakistan (either the current government or the soon-to-follow theocracy) uses nuclear weapons against them, and give israel the bird.
in fact, i say that unless another nation uses nuclear weapons (i could really give a fuck less about the so-called "WMDs"), we keep our nose out of other people's business and prepare for that nuclear war, which is sure to come in the next 15 years.
we don't have the kind of army that china has. we have to have trust and support from other nations. now if mexico or canada want to join the united states, i am cool with that. but we just can't maintain multiple armies abroad.
master sun said that when an army prepares for war, they intend to fight a war. not only are we not prepared for war, but we are not paying attention to those who are.
no offense sweetheart, but these islamists (i think they are wassabists, but i am not sure about all that ... it sounds too much like a garnis for sushi) are fucked up in the head. this is all something that they believe their god wants. to me, that says they hear voices in their heads.
and really, i am pretty sure that if we took off, they wouldn't fuck with us, they wouldn't fuck with europe, and they wouldn't fuck with the line-share of indo-china. and theocracies don't have a very long shelf-life anyway.
what does any of this have to do with the flood? nothing. a hurricane hit the south. it's bound to happen. bush is only taking heat because the national guard could have really helped out in this situation.
and going back to china and north korea ... they certainly know what this is when they look at it. we are not prepared to ward off invasion.
really, we are lucky to have bush as president. i see only three things that keep north korea/china from invading us: justification (which wouldn't be hard to find), the coming winter (which will come to an end before long), and the fact that bush is just as insane is lil' kim -- they don't ever know when he is just going to straight up drop the bomb.
of course, if bush wasn't president, we don't have the spy plane incident with china. though 9/11 still happens, gore doesn't pull the american support from the DMZ -- as he never makes plans to fight with iraq. also, because of bush and iraq, russia has lost a very large oil contract with iraq that was to take place as soon as economic sanctions were lifted -- now the russians, who just happen to have 70 some-odd percent of the world's natural gas, will have to come to us for oil. without bush, the united states would have it's record surplus to help pay for imediate reaction to the hurricane and subsequent flood ... or fund a draft in the case of that conflict.
these are all irreversable steps that bush has taken, making the end of the pax americana certain to come soon. and though he is not to blame for the huricane, i am ok with his immediate removal from office for the high crime of treason in that he knowingly weakened the defenses of the united states with the express purpose of personal gain.
but at no point in time, can i feel more shocked about katrina than the tsunami, or the east timor earthquake, or any other natural disaster. we are part of the earth, and if she wishes to open up and swallow some of us, then it is arrogant to fight it.
if there is one thing that i know is true, it is that from this hurricane will come more positive than negative ... and maybe i will even learn how to spell the word "huricane."
how's that for an abstract rant? and you will notice that at no point in time did i resort to any metaphysical argument -- save maybe the part about us being part of the earth, though i would argue that seeing ourselves as part of the earth is based more in physical evidence than metaphysical evidence ... as shown in the molecular composition of the earth.
i think i have gone totally insane. oh well.
lol... wahabi not wassabi. Like you said, the second is the Japanese garnish (that I still manage to pick up too much of).
Jeames, I think we're both in the insane camp. But at least it's more interesting, isn't it?
That said, my inbox is full of rants. Don't worry, you're not the first.
Last rant I was sent was from someone who is accusing me of lying to him about my identity and associations in some 'spy' game. Apparently, he doesn't think there could be anyone else with the same first name as me and so thought I was a big-wig in DC. I think I may devote a whole post to that one.
Jeames... did you just make all that stuff up? Be honest!
did i make up what? obviously i made up my opinions, but most of the things i said were based on fact. i didn't have any sort of reference materials at hand, and i didn't look anything up. so i could definitely be wrong.
but if you doubt anything i said, you can surely look it up. or you can just ask me specifically, and i could tell you where i got my information.
Hi Jeames-
What makes you think China and North Korea want to invade the US? What makes you think they could, if they did want to? China has a huge military, yes, but they are landlocked, and will be for the forseeable future. Launching an invasion across an ocean requires a small number of very high quality troops, not millions of armed peasants :)
Although, I suppose they could invade Canada, spend a year shipping 60 million troops to Canada, and then invade the US... which would be seriously bad.
But don't you think we could settle Chiana's and North Korea's grievances against the US by throwing Taiwan and South Korea over the side? The SOuth Koreans don't seem to even think they need US support anymore, and the Taiwanese have been very busy playing kissy face with the Communists... so, I don't think the US really owes either of them a thing, at this point in time!
well ... once american troops were pulled away from the DMZ, i think we sent the signal to south korea that they were on their own.
having said that, i never once talked of china/north korea wanting to invade us. the world has changed, we no long play the game of who can becomd the biggest empire. now the game has changed into trying to install likeminded governments in the pawn countries.
as i write this, china has about 50 nuclear weapons aimed at the united states. now sure, we have 10-fold aimed at them, but beyond two, it all becomes rather academic.
china wishes the united states no ill will, just as we wished germany no ill will before the second world war. that's my way of saying that if we continue on our path, china will be forced to fight a war with us, as we will certainly be seen as an out of control tyranical state.
there should be no doubt that korea and china are preparing for nuclear war with the united states. i think of nuclear warfare as the undoing of mankind (though i am probably too paranoid). and so i am saying a few things here:
1. the current path of the united states is forcing other major powers in the international community into a situation where they will have to respond. and from what i have seen of bush and his cronies, they won't take any response as anything other than opposition.
2. the current path of north korea (which is fully supported by china) is forcing the united states to cement foreign policy with regard to nuclear weapons in rogue states.
3. between afghanistan, iraq, katrina and whatever unforeseen situations arise, the united states is not prepared to fight a war that has been inevitable for more than 60 years.
and, of course, all of this is based upon the applications of what we were taught by master sun in conjunction with my one premise, that follows as such:
the nuclear age is the age in which nuclear technology is provides both the most efficient energy system and the most powerful weapons of war. this age will last until a greater technology(ies) has provided a better alternative for both. that this end of the nuclear age will not come for at least another 50 years (unless ended by war). and, finally, it's absurd to think that in the 110 years of the nuclear age, nuclear weapons will only be used on a mass scale once -- at the onset of the age -- and never again, especially when said age coincides with the end of the pax americana and quite possibly with the decline of the american republic.
so, in short, you could say i am just playing the odds as an answer to each of your questions.
of course, i do see possible (though highly improbable) solutions. most notably, localized global responsiblity.
as some history, i will offer this:
when amelia airheart was caught spying on japan and executed for espionage in the late-30s, it took four years for japan to retaliate with the attack on pearl harbor. japan never looked to invade the united states.
oh, and i am sure that you knew this, but china actually has 14,500 kilometers of coast line (the yellow sea, east china sea, and south china sea). and yes, china has almost a billion peasants, but they still have more than a million armed, trained and prepared troops.
you will see that you are actually guilty of what i was saying in the original post -- underestimating the threat of china/north korea.
Hi Jeames... since you took the time to reply at length, I'll try and comment in detail.
#well ... once american troops were pulled away
#from the DMZ, i think we sent the signal to south
# korea that they were on their own.
I think once South Korea (after 10 years of street protests against US forces in South Korea) elected a President who ran on an anti-American platform, they pretty much sent *us* the signal that they WANTED to be on their own :)
#having said that, i never once talked of china/
#north korea wanting to invade us.
Er.... sorry, Jeames, but here's the quote:
START QUOTE:
"and going back to china and north korea ... they certainly know what this is when they look at it. we are not prepared to ward off invasion. "
"really, we are lucky to have bush as president. i see only three things that keep north korea/china from invading us: justification (which wouldn't be hard to find), the coming winter (which will come to an end before long), and the fact that bush is just as insane is lil' kim -- they don't ever know when he is just going to straight up drop the bomb."
END QUOTE.
#the world haschanged, we no long play the game
#of who can becomd the biggest empire. now the
#game has changed into trying to install likeminded
#governments in the pawn countries.
Actually, that's the old game, not the new one! Since we are talking about Korea, we fought both China and North Korea in the early 1950s. South Korea wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for that conflict. We "installed" a like minded government in South Korea, and that government has done very well. But, that was over 50 years ago!
#as i write this, china has about 50 nuclear #weapons aimed at the united states. now sure,
# we have 10-fold aimed at them, but beyond
#two, it all becomes rather academic.
I think China is much more concerned with India than the United States. What possible benefit would there be for China in starting a nuclear war with the US? 2 billion people dead, for what?
# china wishes the united states no ill will, just as
# we wished germany no ill will before the second
# world war. that's my way of saying that if we
# continue on our path, china will be forced to
# fight a war with us, as we will certainly be seen
# as an out of control tyranical state.
China has already fought a war against us, a war which never officially ended. I mentioned Taiwan and South Korea as potential causes for succh a war. But I disupute that this is anything that can be blamed on Bush! These are both 50 year old sore spots. And, sorry about this, but it's somehwat laughable to think that either the North Koreans or the Chinese could make a plausible argument that they consider the US to be tyranical :)
# there should be no doubt that korea and china
# are preparing for nuclear war with the united
# states. i think of nuclear warfare as the undoing
# of mankind (though i am probably too paranoid).
No, you aren't. One third of humanity will die outright in the opening salvo of a nuclear war between China and the US.
# and so i am saying a few things here:
#1. the current path of the united states is forcing
# other major powers in the international
# community into a situation where they will have
# to respond.
I disagree. I was in South Korea in 1984 and 1986 for Operation Team Spirit. That's when 2 million NATO and South Korean troops (including 600,000 US troops) stand just on the other side of the DMZ
and glower at the North Koreans for a month.
This isn't something new. You make a mistake to claim tensions wbetween the US and China are something new, or that they are higher now than they were in the past. The US has always been hostile towards North Korea, and relations with China are probably the best they've EVER been right now!
#and from what i have seen of bush and his
#cronies, they won't take any response as
#anything other than opposition.
Heh... why would Bush and his cronies expect anything our enemies do to be anything besides opposition? We have no peace treaty with CVhina or North Korea, the war between those two nations and the US was ended with a mere ceasefire. Hostilities could resume at any time.
#2. the current path of north korea (which is fully
# supported by china) is forcing the united states
# to cement foreign policy with regard to nuclear
#weapons in rogue states.
I'm not really sure what you meant, here.
#3. between afghanistan, iraq, katrina and
#whatever unforeseen situations arise, the united
# states is not prepared to fight a war that has
# been inevitable for more than 60 years.
I don't agree. I think abandoning South Korea and Taiwan reduces China's "options" for starting a war with the US to a single option - launching nuclear weapons at America. And that's suicide for China. They won't do that. The question is, are South Korea and Taiwan worth going to war over? They were in the past, but neither one of them seems like a friend or ally to the US now, so I have no problem with leaving them to fend for themselves.
#and, of course, all of this is based upon the
# applications of what we were taught by master
#sun in conjunction with my one premise, that
#follows as such:
#the nuclear age is the age in which nuclear
#technology is provides both the most efficient
#energy system and the most powerful weapons
#of war. this age will last until a greater
#technology(ies) has provided a better alternative
# for both. that this end of the nuclear age will #not come for at least another 50 years (unless #ended by war). and, finally, it's absurd to think #that in the 110 years of the nuclear age, nuclear #weapons will only be used on a mass scale once -- #at the onset of the age -- and never again, #especially when said age coincides with the end #of the pax americana and quite possibly with the #decline of the american republic.
You speak of Armageddon, not the decline of the American Republic! I'm pretty sure evryone will be in decline during a nuclear holocaust! Who is this master Sun you reference? Not Sun Tzu, I take it...
#as some history, i will offer this:
#when amelia airheart was caught spying on japan
#and executed for espionage in the late-30s, it
#took four years for japan to retaliate with the
#attack on pearl harbor. japan never looked to
#invade the united states.
Not touching that conspiracy theory thing :)
#oh, and i am sure that you knew this, but china
#actually has 14,500 kilometers of coast line (the
# yellow sea, east china sea, and south china sea).
How does that help them launch an invasion?
#and yes, china has almost a billion peasants, but
#they still have more than a million armed, trained
#and prepared troops.
They sent a million troops into North Korea, November and December of 1951, and early 1952. Across the LAND. And still, they failed, even with a 10 to 1 numerical advantage.
And even if those million troops they have now (according to you) were as good as US troops (they aren't) that's not enough. The US has, right now, 1.2 million active duty troops, and 600,000 reservists. Also, how many of those million could China put on ships that can reach US shores? How many of those ships actually WOULD reach US shores, considering US naval and air superiority?
That would be a disaster, for the chinese. The big threat is a ground war in Asia against the chinese, where they could put their masses of troops to good use in human wave attacks.
By the way, though, China has quite a lot more than a million troops :)
13 million is a conservative estimate.
#you will see that you are actually guilty of what i
#was saying in the original post -- underestimating
#the threat of china/north korea.
I don't think so, but you are welcome to your opinion :)
ok, i will adress some points here in the same style:
"I think once South Korea (after 10 years of street protests against US forces in South Korea) elected a President who ran on an anti-American platform, they pretty much sent *us* the signal that they WANTED to be on their own :)"
i do think that the struggle in korea was about keeping communism at bay, and that we weren't so concerned with what the people in south korea thought.
re: invasion. i still don't see the word "want" in my quote. am i missing it? i use the word invasion loosely, foreshadowing an international effort to stop the united states. and the bit about bush is a joke. but the point of the second post is that the "invasion" would be forced.
"Actually, that's the old game, not the new one! Since we are talking about Korea, we fought both China and North Korea in the early 1950s. South Korea wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for that conflict. We "installed" a like minded government in South Korea, and that government has done very well. But, that was over 50 years ago!"
the game changed with the onset of the nuclear age and the development of the global community. that was at the beginning of last century. but i should point out that fighting communism on any front has always been a war with either china or russia (including vietnam, afghanistan and iran/iraq). so i don't really see us having any significant disagreement here.
"And, sorry about this, but it's somehwat laughable to think that either the North Koreans or the Chinese could make a plausible argument that they consider the US to be tyranical :)"
i am sure germans laughed at the idea that they were tyranical too. i ask myself quite often, "how would you feel if you lived as a nazi? would you have seen what you represent to the rest of the world?" either way, i am pretty sure that american imperialism poses a similar threat to the rest of the world as german imperialism did. and i am even more sure that most americans don't see it.
"You make a mistake to claim tensions wbetween the US and China are something new, or that they are higher now than they were in the past. The US has always been hostile towards North Korea, and relations with China are probably the best they've EVER been right now!"
i agree that relations with china were at their best BEFORE the spy plane incident. and they are still very good (superficially) now. our taking control of the iraqi oil reserves and the asian natural gas pipeline directly threaten the nations that are still heavily oil-dependent (i.e. china and russia, as well as many, many others). with the united states becoming a greater threat to global peace ... i am just saying china is not all good with us.
"I'm not really sure what you meant, here."
i meant that the united states has, with iraq, set a precident as to what steps it will take to prevent nuclear proliferation. if we do not respond to north korea with the same hardlined approach (and we won't), then we demonstrate to the global community that american aggression is imperial by nature, and not responsible or protective -- reinforcing the image of america as a tyrant.
"I don't agree. I think abandoning South Korea and Taiwan reduces China's "options" for starting a war with the US to a single option - launching nuclear weapons at America. And that's suicide for China. They won't do that. The question is, are South Korea and Taiwan worth going to war over? They were in the past, but neither one of them seems like a friend or ally to the US now, so I have no problem with leaving them to fend for themselves."
i am calling nuclear war inevitable, not war with china. china is just the most likely opponent. really, there aren't but a few nations that will be capable of opposing the united states when the time comes. as it stands right now, if the united states needs to be confronted, it will fall upon the shoulders of china and russia ... mainly china.
"Who is this master Sun you reference? Not Sun Tzu, I take it..."
of course i mean sun tzu. the art of war is always correct. when wars are lost, they are lost because of violations of the art of war. when they are won, they are won because of adherence to its principles.
in this instance i am referring to the passage that reads something like "when your enemy prepares for war, he intends to go to war."
as far as the historical points go ...
i mentioned amelia airheart because of the similarities with the spy plane incident. and it's no conspiracy, in japan history says that she was captured as a spy and executed.
i mentioned the china coastline because you said: "China has a huge military, yes, but they are landlocked, and will be for the forseeable future."
if china has to invade the united states it will have to be a grand international alliance, and it will most likely have to come up through mexico or down through canada.
a secondary connection with amelia airheart and japan is that china would have to start by taking hawaii, which would be no easy task either.
the most important thing that master sun said was that you do not fight a war that you cannot win, and that you maintain civil relations with your enemy until you are prepared to win the war.
also, you clearly know enough to know that saying china could not win in korea was some sort of failure is a straw man. the mountains and weather forced the cease fire, not ineptitude on either side. korea was actually a valuable stalemate.
but since you did ask point by point, i will say this ... no i did not make most of my shit up. i was, though, very liberally creative in the interpretation of the limited facts ... and that was mainly for humor purposes. but it was also to put a stress on the realistic possibilites of nuclear war. i actually belive the opening salvo in the nuclear holocaust will occur after muslim fundamentalists take over pakistan, instantly becoming a nuclear power. and that at that time, pakistan and india will come to blows (there isn't even a cease fire between those two). but i believe that the losses will be more like 10 million. that's got to be a silver lining.
that's impressive about the size of the chinese military. but what i find more interesting is that if the united states has less than two million troops, don't we have more than two million prisoners in our jails? that has to be a human rights violation. you can't have more prisoners than troops. that just isn't right.
i guess i would just say that outlasting the nuclear age should be the major concern of the united states. everything else should be secondary.
Well, I'm not in as much disagreement with you as I had thought, Jeames! I'll try to reply in more detail later on :)
OK, here goes! I'm only going to respond to the few areas I disagree, btw!
#but the point of the second post is that the
#"invasion" would be forced.
Like the Japanese were "forced" to attack Pearl Harbor in WWII? You know, because we were embargoing their oil and steel imports due to their aggression in Manchuria and elsewheer in Asia? That kind of "forced?"
I'm not a big fan of the theory that one state can be forced into an act of war. The only legitimate provocation for an act of war, is an act of war. The US was not "forced" to invade Iraq in 2003. for instance, and the US wasn't "forced" to defend Kuwait in 1990 and 1991. Those were choices.
I would argue that the US was forced to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban, though. September 11th was an act of war against the US.
#i am sure germans laughed at the idea that they
#were tyranical too.
Well, when the US invades and annexes Canada and Mexico because we need "room to grow" feel free to compare America to Nazi Germany! I won't argue with you :)
#our taking control of the iraqi oil reserves and the
# asian natural gas pipeline directly threaten the
# nations that are still heavily oil-dependent (i.e. #china and russia, as well as many, many others).
China will truly be threatened when (and if) the US cuts off Iranian oil to China. As for Russia, they have plenty of oil. Any harm done to the Russians due to US actions in the region threatens only Russia's abilty to *export* oil... and I don't really see that as very likely. We buy Russian oil, why would we want to harm exports?
#with the united states becoming a greater threat
#to global peace
I always get a kick out of this statement! If America withdrew all military forces back into the continental US, broke all treaties and alliances, withdrew from the UN, etc....
How many wars would start on day 1 of the new reality? I don't understand this fetish people have for blaming the global policeman for being the big threat to world peace. That's a different discusssion though.
#then we demonstrate to the global community
#that american aggression is imperial by nature,
I snipped your argument, because I think the world has already come to this conclusion, rightly or wrongly. Nothing the US does in the future will change that, one way or the other.
# and not responsible or protective -- reinforcing
# the image of america as a tyrant.
You mean, people might have an even worse opinion of the US? :D
# i am calling nuclear war inevitable, not war with
# china. china is just the most likely opponent.
# really, there aren't but a few nations that will be
# capable of opposing the united states when the
# time comes. as it stands right now, if the united
# states needs to be confronted, it will fall upon
# the shoulders of china and russia ... mainly china.
I agree, nuclear war is probably inevitable. I think it's inevitable that terrorists will get a nuclear weapon, and use it (in India, Isreal or the US). And I think the response from any of these 3 nations (which are all nuclear armed) to that will prompt a wider nuclear exchange, and possibly to the long awaited nuclear winter/armageddon/whatever.
I don't agree that China is the main threat though. China's nuclear arsenal is fairly small. Russia/Ukraine/etc... have nuclear arsenals to match the US. Nobody else comes close. The problem (from a nuclear holocaust point of view!) with a small number of nukes, is that they can be (mostly) destroyed with a pre-emptive strike.
#of course i mean sun tzu.
OK, good... I just didn't see how you were abstracting Sun Tsu into nuclear war :)
I snipped the part about Amelia Earhart because I don't attach teh same significance to the spy plane incident that you do. That was a boon to the Chinese... free technology! I think there were communists in Beijing giggling their asses off when they forced that plane down in China :)
#i mentioned the china coastline because you said:
#"China has a huge military, yes, but they are
#landlocked, and will be for the forseeable future."
Landlocked, not in a literal sense, but in the sense that they have no ability to project power across the water. And a very limited ability to project power on tthe ground, btw! Too many troops, not enough transport! A modern military could literally run rings around the Chinese.
#if china has to invade the united states it will have
#to be a grand international alliance, and it will
# most likely have to come up through mexico or
# down through canada.
Agreed, but then the US is fighting the Chinese in Mexico or Canada. We aren't going to stand idly by while the Chinese get a foothold on one of our neighbors!
#a secondary connection with amelia airheart and
# japan is that china would have to start by taking
# hawaii, which would be no easy task either.
I don't agree. China does not have the air and sea assets to capitalize on Hawaii as a strategic base.
#the most important thing that master sun said
#was that you do not fight a war that you cannot
#win, and that you maintain civil relations with your
#enemy until you are prepared to win the war.
Ah, but the part you are missing is that it is Americans who study Sun Tsu, now, not the Chinese!
# also, you clearly know enough to know that
# saying china could not win in korea was some
# sort of failure is a straw man. the mountains and #weather forced the cease fire, not ineptitude on
#either side. korea was actually a valuable
#stalemate.
I don't agree. I think the Chinese WERE trying to win in Korea. But, their troops were literally starving to death, and literally freezing to death, in the winter. They couldn't even supply the 1 million or so they sent into Korea, and I think that's the only reason they didn't send more.
As for the US side of it, once the Chinese entered the war directly, I think the plan all along was to play for a stalemate. MacArthur miscalculated when he thought the Chinese would let him take all of Korea, and once it became clear the Chinese wouldn't accept that (after the North had been completely defeated and US forces were on the Yalu river) and the Chinese pushed back... then the intent was to get back to the original status quo, before the North invaded the South.
#i actually belive the opening salvo in the nuclear
# holocaust will occur after muslim fundamentalists
# take over pakistan, instantly becoming a nuclear
# power. and that at that time, pakistan and india # will come to blows (there isn't even a cease fire
# between those two). but i believe that the
# losses will be more like 10 million. that's got to
#be a silver lining.
I don't disagree with any of this.
#that's impressive about the size of the chinese
#military. but what i find more interesting is that if
#the united states has less than two million troops,
#don't we have more than two million prisoners in
#our jails? that has to be a human rights violation.
Are you saying we should have more troops? Or, fewer prisoners? Maybe we could expand the military with convicts! Sorry. Just kidding, I'd hate that.
We have a lot of crime in the US. DOn't know how to solve this, myself. We could cut the hands off thieves, castrate rapists, and execute murderers, instead of sentencing them to prison, I guess. I'm a big fan of human rights, but it's not a human right to commit crimes and not be punished for it. Do you have a better plan than prison, for dealing with criminals?
#you can't have more prisoners than troops. that
# just isn't right.
Actually, I think pretty much everyone has more prisoners than troops! At least, during peace time. And the US is still at peace time troop levels, for some reason.
#I guess i would just say that outlasting the
#nuclear age should be the major concern of the
#united states. everything else should be
#secondary.
Do you think the nuclear age is going to end, peacefully?
i have just come back from the most hectic road trip ever, so i am only going to respond to a few things.
"Well, when the US invades and annexes Canada and Mexico because we need "room to grow" feel free to compare America to Nazi Germany! I won't argue with you :)"
you don't know me or my off-the-wall theories, but i find this funny because i have believed for years that i could more easily accept a war with mexico or canada over iraq as i find it infinitely more logical.
"How many wars would start on day 1 of the new reality? I don't understand this fetish people have for blaming the global policeman for being the big threat to world peace. That's a different discusssion though."
i believe the local police are the biggest threat to community peace as well.
"Are you saying we should have more troops? Or, fewer prisoners? Maybe we could expand the military with convicts!"
let the drug offenders out of prison ... and jail for that matter. there is no crime attributed to drug abuse that is not illegal without the drugs. to arrest someone for any drug offense is to claim that you know what they will do, and that they should be prosecuted for such. i believe that the drug offenders make up as much as forty percent of the prison population in the united states.
of course, people always find it easy to rationalize the legalization of pot, but you really can't agree with me here unless you think that meth and heroin and the like should be legal as well.
"Actually, I think pretty much everyone has more prisoners than troops! At least, during peace time. And the US is still at peace time troop levels, for some reason."
i believe that i have heard the united states has the most prisoners of any country in the world. logically, i would think that india and china would not fit, but i am not knowledgeable enough to say. if this is true, though, then it means that any country with a larger military than us has more troops than prisoners.
"Do you think the nuclear age is going to end, peacefully? "
i doubt it will end peacefully, but i do see three or four plausible outcomes that do not include nuclear war. of course, two of those include conventional war. and one that would be peaceful: the advent of a new technological age that provides for more effective energy production as well as "safer" war -- "safer" meaning less civilian casualties. i am not a scientist, so i cannot imagine anything specific about the technology. i presume it will most likely be two seperate technologies, and that at least one of them hasn't even been dreampt of.
my hope is that if there is nuclear war, it is less horrific than we imagine it will be. that's my positive twist.
i do know that i agree with bob dylan in that i would rather die on the ground than live under it. if it comes down that it is as horrific as we imagine, than i would like to see the beauty of the event and just die in the blast. of course, i might change my mind on that at any time.
Nice post, Jeames... I think I'll let it go at that, I don't really disagree with you much, I think :)
Post a Comment
<< Home