Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

Oddly, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator(or MOP), which weighs 15tons, can be carried by B-2s and B-52s, while the MOAB cannot. The B-2 can actually carry 2 of them! Those would more likely be the type of ordnance we might use against the most hardened targets in NK(or Iran).

[Old Man]

Perhaps we will get another weapons demonstration this weekend. :|

[Ranxerox]

Oddly, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator(or MOP), which weighs 15tons, can be carried by B-2s and B-52s, while the MOAB cannot. The B-2 can actually carry 2 of them! Those would more likely be the type of ordnance we might use against the most hardened targets in NK(or Iran).

 

Damn!  Could they have tried a little harder to be Freudian when naming that thing?

[BoloOfEarth]

Next up, Trump calls for development of the Ballistic Implemented Global Demolitions Intermediate Cluster Kinetics...

 

Wonder if that has anything to do with tiny hands...

[Old Man]

Damn!  Could they have tried a little harder to be Freudian when naming that thing?

 

That's actually pretty subtle for the military.

[Michael Hopcroft]

The MOAB strike killed 36 enemy fighters, according to the Afghan government.

 

Thirty-Six.

 

How much did that bomb cost? 

 

 

$16 million, but I have read that the target was a tunnel network that ISIS was dug into. It could be a valid strategic use of the weapon. At least no Navy SEALs or American kids died.

Is there such a thing as a "valid strategic use" for such an overkill device? Was there a valid reason for building it in the first place? (Seriously, this sounds like something Lex Luthor would have built.) What vital American interest was at stake here?

[Pattern Ghost]

Is there such a thing as a "valid strategic use" for such an overkill device? Was there a valid reason for building it in the first place? (Seriously, this sounds like something Lex Luthor would have built.) What vital American interest was at stake here?

 

Are these doubts based on an understanding of what the device is and how it functions? Or just a knee-jerk reaction?

 

Here's an article that explains it: http://www.businessinsider.com/moab-airburst-bomb-explanation-2017-4

 

Consider that Afghanistan is riddled with tunnels, and that hardened, underground bunkers aren't uncommon, and I think the purpose is pretty clear. 

 

That said, I think the whole perpetual war in the Middle East is getting old after all these years, so if you go back to first causes, it does seem a bit ridiculous.

[Nolgroth]

I'm just waiting for the designer of the MOAB to be kidnapped and then forge his own suit of powered armor in a cave somewhere over there.

 

What?

[Michael Hopcroft]

A Washington Post opinion piece suggests that the solution to North Korea's nuclear program is to let South Korea build their own nuclear weapons. I wonder if that means every nation has an inherent and inalienable right to develop whatever weapons they choose, regardless of the opinions of the United States or anyone else.

 

Is this the madness it sounds like? Would it lead to dozens of countries on hair-trigger alert to rain atomic death on adversaries at a moment's notice? Or would it actually prevent further wars by making their consequences so terrible?

[Tom]

The logical extension of the belief in sovereign nations is that, of course, every nation has the right to develop and field whatever weapons it feels are necessary to defend it's sovereignty.

 

It's a very Hobbesian viewpoint and, in my opinion, ruinously short-sighted.

 

However, as I've mentioned earlier, I tend to be a globalist and I believe the whole can be more than the sum of its parts.

 

There are plenty of other people who subscribe to various forms of nationalism or tribalism who firmly believe 'they' should be 'first' and everyone else can/should fend for themselves (or more darkly, should be exploited/subjugated for the benefit of the dominant group).

[Michael Hopcroft]

The logical extension of the belief in sovereign nations is that, of course, every nation has the right to develop and field whatever weapons it feels are necessary to defend it's sovereignty.

 

It's a very Hobbesian viewpoint and, in my opinion, ruinously short-sighted.

 

It also implies that nations can also hold to any moral standard they choose, especially within their borders. Suppose a theocracy like Saudi Arabia were to prohibit non-believers from entering the country, and further claim the right to arrest all non-believers who reside there (including citizens) and imprison then and/or deport them to other countries (if they can find other countries to take them). This is clearly an offense against the moral principles most nations claim to embrace. Yet the Saudis could claim that since they are independent and sovereign they can do what they wish within their own borders. If they decide a subset of their population are non-persons without rights, they can do so.

 

So this idea of sovereignty should logically have limits. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from just after World War II was an attempt to do just that -- set limits of national sovereignty when dealing with individuals. The document itself, of course, is so self-contradictory and confusing that its existence is barely acknowledged in most countries. And it certainly does not bear the weight of law. So are there limits that enable other nations to say to a nation "This is unacceptable! You cannot treat your people this way!"?

[Hugh Neilson]

A Washington Post opinion piece suggests that the solution to North Korea's nuclear program is to let South Korea build their own nuclear weapons. I wonder if that means every nation has an inherent and inalienable right to develop whatever weapons they choose, regardless of the opinions of the United States or anyone else.

 

Is this the madness it sounds like? Would it lead to dozens of countries on hair-trigger alert to rain atomic death on adversaries at a moment's notice? Or would it actually prevent further wars by making their consequences so terrible?

 

It also implies that nations can also hold to any moral standard they choose, especially within their borders. Suppose a theocracy like Saudi Arabia were to prohibit non-believers from entering the country, and further claim the right to arrest all non-believers who reside there (including citizens) and imprison then and/or deport them to other countries (if they can find other countries to take them). This is clearly an offense against the moral principles most nations claim to embrace. Yet the Saudis could claim that since they are independent and sovereign they can do what they wish within their own borders. If they decide a subset of their population are non-persons without rights, they can do so.

 

So this idea of sovereignty should logically have limits. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from just after World War II was an attempt to do just that -- set limits of national sovereignty when dealing with individuals. The document itself, of course, is so self-contradictory and confusing that its existence is barely acknowledged in most countries. And it certainly does not bear the weight of law. So are there limits that enable other nations to say to a nation "This is unacceptable! You cannot treat your people this way!"?

How far does one carry this? Can other nations impose gun control on the US, or prohibit their taxation on the basis of citizenship, rather than the residency basis used by most nations? Can the world as a whole decide "no more death penalty" on behalf of the world as a whole? The US has not even ben able to legislate many issues for the nation as a whole without individual states protesting. We've had similar issues in Canada.

 

Nations presently impose restrictions on who may enter their borders. Should we accept that all humans have the right to go anywhere they wish to go, and ban passport and entry visa requirements? Certainly, restricting the ability of people to seek employment wherever they wish is morally repugnant, isn't it?

 

Does one nation have the right to imprison its citizens for an act which is legal in another country (marijuana laws vary a lot around the world, as one pretty simplistic example). For that matter, I think we in North America have rejected the view that Rastafarians can smoke marijuana in accordance with their religious practices.

 

The theory that some rights should be universal seems reasonable, but how far it should go is pretty challenging.

[Tom]

It certainly does, and there are people who believe exactly that.

 

It doesn't make for a very pretty world if you value cooperation over competition and believe in things like 'universal' rights, but it still exists.

 

It exists in the US in those who believe 'America First' and in a lesser form in the argument that State's rights should supersede the Federal government's authority.

 

There are also people who believe differently and they're major drivers behind supranational organizations and international NGOs.

 

Right now, the America First groups and various populist/nationalist groups are enjoying considerable success in the political realm.  Obviously that's disappointing, and even bewildering, to those of us on the 'other' side.  Maybe 'we' became complacent, maybe the 'they' just managed to get their second wind/feet back under them.

 

It doesn't really matter, except to realize there is still more work to be done and the contest of ideas (and ideals) isn't over yet.

[Cancer]

I drove past someone waving a "Trump 2020" sign today. My reaction was, "No, the old way's better. Use a thirty-thirty."

[DasBroot]

You know, the one thing I was pretty sure of was that he'd stick to the insular and withdrawn America he ran on (and I considered it a mistake, but it was better than him messing around with international diplomacy).

 

Argh.

[Lord Liaden]

George W. Bush ran on a similar (though less extreme) platform of dealing primarily with domestic issues. Once he was in the Oval Office he also discovered that no country today, particularly one as powerful and influential as the United States, can shut out the rest of the world. As President, America is your house, and when the world inevitably comes knocking you have to answer. How you answer is up to the the individual holder of the office; whether to invite it in or tell it to get off your lawn.

[megaplayboy]

Unfortunately, the Project for a New American Century had his ear.

[BoloOfEarth]

Had to check to make sure this wasn't actually posted on April 1st.

 

Leader of 'Cal-Exit' Drops Bid for California to Secede, Instead Moves to Russia

 

The Yes California Independence Campaign's vice-president, Marcus Ruiz Evans, left after it's president, Luis Marinelli, revealed ties to Russia.  Evans has since joined the California Freedom Coalition.

 

 

 

"It prevented Yes California from getting any serious money, I can tell you that," [CFC treasurer] Gonzales said, noting that he is a native Californian who has never been to Russia. The group will accept no foreign money, and contributions from other states must be cleared by the coalition's board, he said.

 

This last bit reminded me of a story that many decades back, some Texans proposed building a wall around the state to keep the "riff-raff" out.  They stopped when they realized most of the donations and pledges of support were coming from the states surrounding them.

[DShomshak]

Well, I remember hearing on All Things Considered some years back that a bunch of Texans put a petition to the White House that Texas secede from the US. (If a petition gets a certain number or signatories, the White House promises to at least reply. For instance, the response to the petition to build a Death Star was, in brief, "We calculate it would cost too much."

 

In response there was a second White House petition from people of other states that Texas be expelled.

 

Also a petition from the people of Austin that they be helped to secede from Texas.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

I don't think anyone has ever determined an official number of "the people" needed to trigger their "right to self-determination."

[Michael Hopcroft]

I don't think anyone has ever determined an official number of "the people" needed to trigger their "right to self-determination."

Enough that they can kick the Army out and survive the reprisals. It didn't work in 1861, and it won't work now.

[DShomshak]

Last year, I read Daniel Moynihan's Pandaemonium, based on a series of lectures he gave on the subject of ethnicity in politics. He had a fairly extensive discussion of the mischief Woodrow Wilson helped unleash with his phrase, "the right of national self-determination." Like many truly bad ideas, it sounds simple and laudable -- until you consider the details of who, exactly, constitutes a "nation" and how they can obtain "self-determination" without stepping on other people's rights. Particularly in places like the Balkans, where populations are so fragmented and mixed.

 

Nationalism -- the political doctrine that the legal institution of the state should coincide with, as closely as possible, the cultural territory of a nation, is also a particularly bad idea for the United States of America, because "American" is not a nationality in the sense of a group of people who share a language, cultural identity, common descent and a territory they have inhabited since time immemorial. The Japanese are a nation. The Welsh are a nation. The Navajo are a nation, Americans aren't. It's all backwards: The legalities come first, and the cultural identity grows from adherence to the ideas behind them. You have to be born Japanese, but you become American through the legal process of citizenship.

 

It isn't a nation-state; it's a philosophical state. But unfortunately, many people are not philosophers.

 

Here endeth the ranting digression.

 

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

I remember reading an account of an Iranian immigrant who was asked why he loved America. His answer was something like, You could be born in Japan and never be Japanese; you can spend your entire life in France and never be French; but you can move to America and be an American. Something like that.

[Lord Liaden]

Sadly, he may be re-thinking that position.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Last year, I read Daniel Moynihan's Pandaemonium, based on a series of lectures he gave on the subject of ethnicity in politics. He had a fairly extensive discussion of the mischief Woodrow Wilson helped unleash with his phrase, "the right of national self-determination." Like many truly bad ideas, it sounds simple and laudable -- until you consider the details of who, exactly, constitutes a "nation" and how they can obtain "self-determination" without stepping on other people's rights. Particularly in places like the Balkans, where populations are so fragmented and mixed.

 

Nationalism -- the political doctrine that the legal institution of the state should coincide with, as closely as possible, the cultural territory of a nation, is also a particularly bad idea for the United States of America, because "American" is not a nationality in the sense of a group of people who share a language, cultural identity, common descent and a territory they have inhabited since time immemorial. The Japanese are a nation. The Welsh are a nation. The Navajo are a nation, Americans aren't. It's all backwards: The legalities come first, and the cultural identity grows from adherence to the ideas behind them. You have to be born Japanese, but you become American through the legal process of citizenship.

 

It isn't a nation-state; it's a philosophical state. But unfortunately, many people are not philosophers.

 

Here endeth the ranting digression.

 

 

Dean Shomshak

Wilson's racism might have had something to do with that belief. Like the Democratic Party of the time (which was farther to the right than the Republicans -- a position that would radically flip in the 1960s and 1970s) he was generally opposed to immigration, particularly of religious minorities like the Jews. Today he would be in Trump's cabinet assuming the Donald would ever trust an academic.

 

The notion of a unitary American culture, and of assimilation into that culture, has always held a strong appeal to the right. The Puritans, who were notoriously intolerant, would have loved it. In the 19th century viewing states as cultural entities as well as political ones was common. The idea holds true today, with a lot of people holding stereotypical ideas of what a "Texan" or a "Californian" is like.

 

The thing is such stereotypes are often wildly inaccurate, Every state has substantial populations who will never fit those perceived norms. And that's fine. America isn;t a melting pot -- it's a stew pot, with each new ingredient making it richer and more flavorful. It's not just sad that our government is abandoning that idea -- it's enraging.