Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 241 to 269 of 269

Thread: Backroom Errata

  1. #241

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Racist anti-Japanese propaganda may have had some effect on attitudes on the ground, with a marked difference in approach between the European and Pacific theatres (but then, Japanese behaviour rather encouraged this too). However, I see little difference in attitudes towards Germany and Japan in the air war. The resources and strategies for the immensely destructive air war on Japan were developed for use on Germany.
    The impression I've gained over time is that:

    1. Most military men and politicians didn't really consider ethical questions at a remove one way or another, or not more than idly
    2. The civilian population couldn't hold their leaders to account because they couldn't realistically have been aware of the details of the campaign (such as they existed), and in principle would not have tended to disagree with the general idea of bombing enemy cities to further the war effort/exact retribution
    3. Some influential (Anglo-American) interwar doctrine put a lot of stock on air supremacy and materiel/industrial destruction from the air, and during the war the actual effectiveness of this doctrine would have been a lesser consideration compared to inter-service competition and the commitment of fixed infrastructure

    Some tidbits I learned from Wellerstein:

    1. The A-bombs were an order of magnitude deadlier than firebombs relative to area affected. It's not surprising, since the explosive yield in kilotons was about an order of magnitude greater than what could be achieved by a even whole bomber command of B-29s.
    2. Everyone knows there was an internal ethical debate over the use of the weapons brewing among the Manhattan Project scientists before fruition, but even the general American public got into, even before the surrender had been finalized. The Japanese themselves had some awareness of the debate already as the process of occupation began, but I gather (understandably) we don't have much of their perspective on the issue. Other than the standard postwar line, potentially propaganda, that the power of the atom presented an unanticipated Sword of Damocles that could not be countered short of honorable surrender, but that doesn't imply an ethical valence to the bombing itself.

    We should always keep in mind that a retrospective student can achieve a better grasp of both the big picture and the nitty gritty facts than almost anyone at the time could hope for. When you think about it, it's existentially terrifying how irrational, ill-informed, and uncertain so much human action is in real time.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-18-2020 at 04:28.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  2. #242
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,475

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    The impression I've gained over time is that:

    1. Most military men and politicians didn't really consider ethical questions at a remove one way or another, or not more than idly
    2. The civilian population couldn't hold their leaders to account because they couldn't realistically have been aware of the details of the campaign (such as they existed), and in principle would not have tended to disagree with the general idea of bombing enemy cities to further the war effort/exact retribution
    3. Some influential (Anglo-American) interwar doctrine put a lot of stock on air supremacy and materiel/industrial destruction from the air, and during the war the actual effectiveness of this doctrine would have been a lesser consideration compared to inter-service competition and the commitment of fixed infrastructure

    Some tidbits I learned from Wellerstein:

    1. The A-bombs were an order of magnitude deadlier than firebombs relative to area affected. It's not surprising, since the explosive yield in kilotons was about an order of magnitude greater than what could be achieved by a even whole bomber command of B-29s.
    2. Everyone knows there was an internal ethical debate over the use of the weapons brewing among the Manhattan Project scientists before fruition, but even the general American public got into, even before the surrender had been finalized. The Japanese themselves had some awareness of the debate already as the process of occupation began, but I gather (understandably) we don't have much of their perspective on the issue. Other than the standard postwar line, potentially propaganda, that the power of the atom presented an unanticipated Sword of Damocles that could not be countered short of honorable surrender, but that doesn't imply an ethical valence to the bombing itself.

    We should always keep in mind that a retrospective student can achieve a better grasp of both the big picture and the nitty gritty facts than almost anyone at the time could hope for. When you think about it, it's existentially terrifying how irrational, ill-informed, and uncertain so much human action is in real time.
    Post-event students may be better able to grasp objective facts and the bigger picture. But it does not mean they should ignore details in order to paint the bigger picture they favour. At the time, Japanese behaviour was known to be contrary to the accepted western practice of war, eg. the unwillingness to surrender and the targeting of personnel western norms viewed as off limits. And after the war, as in Europe, details came out that justified further a ruthless and efficient degradation of the Japanese capacity and willingness to fight, eg. their treatment of prisoners and subject populations, and unit 731.

    At the time, firebombing and by extension the nuclear bombs were justified methods of subduing the Japanese. Given further information available after the war, they were even more justified methods of subduing the Japanese. It is only with the indulgence of the victors and the distance of generations that we start to question this. There is plenty of information and context to show that, with a reversal of the situation, Germany and Japan would have used these methods without hesitation, and to a greater extent.

    Here's a thought to consider. The USSR, which we have customarily thought to be abusive of its prisoners, actually treated its Axis prisoners with far more care than we are accustomed to think. The worst and most inhumane of the Allied powers treated its prisoners far better than either of the main Axis powers treated theirs. The Japanese notoriously used its prisoners for bayonet practice and scientific experiments while the Germans actively planned to exterminate its subject populations. In contrast, the Soviets, suffering from shortages themselves, had a death rate of 10-15% among its Axis prisoners (Soviet POWs had a death rate of 60%+ in German hands, mostly in the early days when Germany had control of Europe). That was the worst of the Allied powers. Germany and Japan were far, far worse.

  3. #243

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Post-event students may be better able to grasp objective facts and the bigger picture. But it does not mean they should ignore details in order to paint the bigger picture they favour. At the time, Japanese behaviour was known to be contrary to the accepted western practice of war, eg. the unwillingness to surrender and the targeting of personnel western norms viewed as off limits. And after the war, as in Europe, details came out that justified further a ruthless and efficient degradation of the Japanese capacity and willingness to fight, eg. their treatment of prisoners and subject populations, and unit 731.

    At the time, firebombing and by extension the nuclear bombs were justified methods of subduing the Japanese. Given further information available after the war, they were even more justified methods of subduing the Japanese. It is only with the indulgence of the victors and the distance of generations that we start to question this. There is plenty of information and context to show that, with a reversal of the situation, Germany and Japan would have used these methods without hesitation, and to a greater extent.

    Here's a thought to consider. The USSR, which we have customarily thought to be abusive of its prisoners, actually treated its Axis prisoners with far more care than we are accustomed to think. The worst and most inhumane of the Allied powers treated its prisoners far better than either of the main Axis powers treated theirs. The Japanese notoriously used its prisoners for bayonet practice and scientific experiments while the Germans actively planned to exterminate its subject populations. In contrast, the Soviets, suffering from shortages themselves, had a death rate of 10-15% among its Axis prisoners (Soviet POWs had a death rate of 60%+ in German hands, mostly in the early days when Germany had control of Europe). That was the worst of the Allied powers. Germany and Japan were far, far worse.
    Whatever one thinks of a particular strategy, it is not philosophically available to argue that because someone else committed a crime, one's own actions therefore cannot be crimes. They might not be, or they might be. It depends on how much space for the targeting of civilians to (attempt to) degrade the enemy's resistance (in Japan's case the resistance to particular terms of capitulation) we deem legitimate. This applies to any theater of the war, or to other wars.

    Some of the contemporaneous American proponents of firebombing and nuclear bombing against Japan admitted that it was available to judge their authorizations as criminal.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #244
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,475

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Whatever one thinks of a particular strategy, it is not philosophically available to argue that because someone else committed a crime, one's own actions therefore cannot be crimes. They might not be, or they might be. It depends on how much space for the targeting of civilians to (attempt to) degrade the enemy's resistance (in Japan's case the resistance to particular terms of capitulation) we deem legitimate. This applies to any theater of the war, or to other wars.

    Some of the contemporaneous American proponents of firebombing and nuclear bombing against Japan admitted that it was available to judge their authorizations as criminal.
    Considering that, as long as Japan were in possession of the territories they were in possession of, they were free to do whatever it was they were doing whilst in possession of these territories. And what they had planned to do on any invasion of the home territories. These are the defaults. If you don't act to stop them, that is what they do. The records are there. So do you act to stop them? How do you act to stop them? Or do you leave them be?

    This ain't philosophy. This is decisionmaking.

  5. #245
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,238

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Considering that, as long as Japan were in possession of the territories they were in possession of, they were free to do whatever it was they were doing whilst in possession of these territories. And what they had planned to do on any invasion of the home territories. These are the defaults. If you don't act to stop them, that is what they do. The records are there. So do you act to stop them? How do you act to stop them? Or do you leave them be?

    This ain't philosophy. This is decisionmaking.
    True enough. Yet attention to ethics is never entirely mis-spent effort. Even if you end up making a choice that is less than ideal, the effort to make sure it is the best choice left to you is a good one.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  6. #246
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,475

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    True enough. Yet attention to ethics is never entirely mis-spent effort. Even if you end up making a choice that is less than ideal, the effort to make sure it is the best choice left to you is a good one.
    There is still the logic of making war and the logistics of making war though. Firstly, to make war on Japan, which is separated from the Allied forces by sea, you either invade, or you use your strategic bomber force. The cost of invasion was well known; the losses to frontline troops were staggering at every step. And there was the massive bomber force, developed for use on Germany, but with the German surrender, left with nothing to do if you didn't use it on Japan. Given that the Market component of Market Garden was to make use of an Airborne that was otherwise sitting idle since Normandy, a similarly idle (and far larger) bomber force would have been even more of an eyesore to the higher ups. Use it or lose it. Given the context of the time, what arguments were there against using it?

    Everything pointed to using the bomber force. And once you decide to use the bomber force, quibbling about its tactics rather ignores the limited control individual bombers have, let alone formations. I've seen an assessment of the famed Norden bombsight that concluded that, in practice, it didn't do its job. Once you take operational conditions into account, bombing the right city was about the most accurate that you could get for a massed bomber force.

  7. #247

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    To my mind, whether a military or political course of action is justifiable or justified comes independent of how bad the opposition may be. Justification is consequentialist, and there may be a ledger for reparations but not for vengeance or cruelty. What does that mean? It means a level of coercion (which itself means human destruction on all sides) is justified insofar as it subdues an inescapable threat against you. Or to others, if you want to get advanced. A much lesser degree of coercion could be justifiable to extract concessions or recompense for past damages. A program of bloodlust is not justifiable, e.g. 'killing those people would make me feel better,' or even, 'killing those people would make enough people feel good as to be politically convenient, or vice versa' - though in the latter it is at least possible to conceive of a balanced trolley dilemma.

    The general ethical schema can be captured by the question: What level of general human suffering - and perhaps in particular civilian damage - are we willing to tolerate/perpetrate in pursuit of what goals?

    It was clear that by the time firebombing (i.e. terror bombing) against Japan commenced with the March raid against Tokyo, it had been subdued as a threat to the United States and its major allies. It still remained a threat to many civilians in China, Korea, and SE Asia, as well as POWs. This suggests that the United States, USSR, and their allies had a moral imperative to quickly secure peace not according to the maximal satisfaction of their strategic or geopolitical designs, but according to whatever would expeditiously resolve the humanitarian catastrophe in the Pacific.

    By the time of the Potsdam Declaration in July the firebombing campaign had essentially been completed; by this time we can say that the Allies had probably not been fulfilling their moral responsibilities, given the awareness of all parties that the Japanese leadership were willing to tolerate hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to secure their own objectives. What should have gone into the Potsdam Declaration, or the timetable of operations in August, is a whole area of debate, but from the perspective of ending the fighting quickly the lack of clarification that the future position of the Emperor, or the kokutai, would be negotiable, was indefensible. I don't know how the Soviets felt about this messaging, but concealing the inevitability of their military intercession is another decision that could only serve to prolong conflict.

    The atomic bombings, though an order of magnitude deadlier, were a continuation of the ethically-compromised bombing campaign already prosecuted. To sidestep the common debates of timing and so on, the most absolutely justifiable targets in Japan for any sort of incineration would have been the Emperor and his military elites. Not because they were bad men, but because decapitating the Japanese war machine would be the most obvious bridge to a cessation of fighting. (It's actually arguable that killing these individuals would not soften - alternatively even harden - Imperial resolve, but in principle it is low cost, most appropriate of target, and potentially decisive.)

    In all the preceding the relevant considerations have not been the moral character of the enemy or their actions, you should note. Whatever your perspective is on Allied operations against Japan, it shouldn't come from that sort of place. The badness of an enemy in itself cannot be probative, or there would be a case for democide of conservatives in the style of Stalin or Pol Pot. Never say that we should do something to someone because of, purely in retaliation against, something they or some group associated with them did to us. Otherwise:




    The only way I can think of to bring the bad behavior of the enemy into a consequentialist framework would be to argue that 'because they are such bad dudes, they will remain or reemerge as a threat unless we beat them into submission now beyond what is proximally proportionate.' Or in another very borderline sense, 'if they are such bad guys now, then maybe putting on the hurt will teach them a lesson and turn them into good guys, and this would eventually prove a greater benefit to everyone than to do otherwise.' This is a morally fraught and risky calculation to make any time - cf. historically-upcoming containment doctrine and "we had to destroy [them] to save them" - but at least it can be predicated on an admissible goal and argued on some merits.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-22-2020 at 01:15.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  8. #248
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,475

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    To my mind, whether a military or political course of action is justifiable or justified comes independent of how bad the opposition may be. Justification is consequentialist, and there may be a ledger for reparations but not for vengeance or cruelty. What does that mean? It means a level of coercion (which itself means human destruction on all sides) is justified insofar as it subdues an inescapable threat against you. Or to others, if you want to get advanced. A much lesser degree of coercion could be justifiable to extract concessions or recompense for past damages. A program of bloodlust is not justifiable, e.g. 'killing those people would make me feel better,' or even, 'killing those people would make enough people feel good as to be politically convenient, or vice versa' - though in the latter it is at least possible to conceive of a balanced trolley dilemma.

    The general ethical schema can be captured by the question: What level of general human suffering - and perhaps in particular civilian damage - are we willing to tolerate/perpetrate in pursuit of what goals?

    It was clear that by the time firebombing (i.e. terror bombing) against Japan commenced with the March raid against Tokyo, it had been subdued as a threat to the United States and its major allies. It still remained a threat to many civilians in China, Korea, and SE Asia, as well as POWs. This suggests that the United States, USSR, and their allies had a moral imperative to quickly secure peace not according to the maximal satisfaction of their strategic or geopolitical designs, but according to whatever would expeditiously resolve the humanitarian catastrophe in the Pacific.

    By the time of the Potsdam Declaration in July the firebombing campaign had essentially been completed; by this time we can say that the Allies had probably not been fulfilling their moral responsibilities, given the awareness of all parties that the Japanese leadership were willing to tolerate hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to secure their own objectives. What should have gone into the Potsdam Declaration, or the timetable of operations in August, is a whole area of debate, but from the perspective of ending the fighting quickly the lack of clarification that the future position of the Emperor, or the kokutai, would be negotiable, was indefensible. I don't know how the Soviets felt about this messaging, but concealing the inevitability of their military intercession is another decision that could only serve to prolong conflict.

    The atomic bombings, though an order of magnitude deadlier, were a continuation of the ethically-compromised bombing campaign already prosecuted. To sidestep the common debates of timing and so on, the most absolutely justifiable targets in Japan for any sort of incineration would have been the Emperor and his military elites. Not because they were bad men, but because decapitating the Japanese war machine would be the most obvious bridge to a cessation of fighting. (It's actually arguable that killing these individuals would not soften - alternatively even harden - Imperial resolve, but in principle it is low cost, most appropriate of target, and potentially decisive.)

    In all the preceding the relevant considerations have not been the moral character of the enemy or their actions, you should note. Whatever your perspective is on Allied operations against Japan, it shouldn't come from that sort of place. The badness of an enemy in itself cannot be probative, or there would be a case for democide of conservatives in the style of Stalin or Pol Pot. Never say that we should do something to someone because of, purely in retaliation against, something they or some group associated with them did to us. Otherwise:

    The only way I can think of to bring the bad behavior of the enemy into a consequentialist framework would be to argue that 'because they are such bad dudes, they will remain or reemerge as a threat unless we beat them into submission now beyond what is proximally proportionate.' Or in another very borderline sense, 'if they are such bad guys now, then maybe putting on the hurt will teach them a lesson and turn them into good guys, and this would eventually prove a greater benefit to everyone than to do otherwise.' This is a morally fraught and risky calculation to make any time - cf. historically-upcoming containment doctrine and "we had to destroy [them] to save them" - but at least it can be predicated on an admissible goal and argued on some merits.
    I'm not sure who to read the above meanderings, complete with video clips from irrelevant films, but I'll restate the position as simply and concisely as possible, with the salient points.

    Default position: The Axis powers are in possession of territories and peoples they've conquered. In the absence of any action to rectify this, this is what the situation defaults to.

    Basic question: What do you do?

    I can elaborate on related points if required to, but I've tried to keep things simple.

  9. #249

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I'm not sure who to read the above meanderings, complete with video clips from irrelevant films, but I'll restate the position as simply and concisely as possible, with the salient points.

    Default position: The Axis powers are in possession of territories and peoples they've conquered. In the absence of any action to rectify this, this is what the situation defaults to.

    Basic question: What do you do?

    I can elaborate on related points if required to, but I've tried to keep things simple.
    I'm not trying to mix myself into the perennial could've-would've-should've, I just marked some priors that could be useful in such a discussion. How simple these questions are depends on the level of analysis. The answer to your basic question should tend toward

    quickly secure peace not according to the maximal satisfaction of their strategic or geopolitical designs, but according to whatever would expeditiously resolve the humanitarian catastrophe in the Pacific.
    But the main thing I want to foreclose on is the idea you seemed to be referencing, that someone else's misdeeds are a license for one's own. Like - Unit 731, therefore bombing. Let's deprecate that sort of thinking.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  10. #250
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,475

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I'm not trying to mix myself into the perennial could've-would've-should've, I just marked some priors that could be useful in such a discussion. How simple these questions are depends on the level of analysis. The answer to your basic question should tend toward



    But the main thing I want to foreclose on is the idea you seemed to be referencing, that someone else's misdeeds are a license for one's own. Like - Unit 731, therefore bombing. Let's deprecate that sort of thinking.
    Again, it's not a pure philosophical argument. Something is the default and is currently happening, and will continue happening until you put a stop to it. The humanitarian catastrophe is not some abstract natural disaster, but an occupying force currently in possession of territories where they are carrying out these acts. That's the default. By default, it means what is currently the case, and will continue to be the case until it is changed. Talking about geopolitics and whatnot matters little to those being occupied.

    Do you effect change, or do you allow the default to persist?

    As an American some generations removed, I'd imagine arguing about the situation in philosophical terms makes for an interesting debate. Things were different on the ground at the time though.

  11. #251

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Again, it's not a pure philosophical argument. Something is the default and is currently happening, and will continue happening until you put a stop to it. The humanitarian catastrophe is not some abstract natural disaster, but an occupying force currently in possession of territories where they are carrying out these acts. That's the default. By default, it means what is currently the case, and will continue to be the case until it is changed. Talking about geopolitics and whatnot matters little to those being occupied.

    Do you effect change, or do you allow the default to persist?

    As an American some generations removed, I'd imagine arguing about the situation in philosophical terms makes for an interesting debate. Things were different on the ground at the time though.
    These issues were debated both before and immediately after the fact. What I'm saying is along the same lines as what you are. It is possible to argue that the Allies' overall strategy in 1945 was mindful of their ethical obligations, or the opposite. It is possible to argue the Allies did not act in a way to bring the war to a rapid, less-costly, conclusion, or that they did. Maybe I sound too abstract to you because, as I said, I'm not interested in actually holding those arguments right now. The most important thing for me here is to foreclose on anything that sounds like 'The Japs were brutal warmongers, so anything we did was justified.'

    Here, have a Brexit snack to tide you over:
    https://www.nfuonline.com/news/lates...f-sufficiency/
    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...-day-1-6795904
    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-24-2020 at 23:56.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  12. #252

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Exxon is being delisted from the Dow. It was originally listed a year before start of the Great Depression, and as I understand it has had the longest tenure of any listed company.
    https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-en...nes-1844839090

    The Russians have just declassified never-before seen archival footage of Tsar Bomba (the full Rosatom video has been made private, have a mirror)!



    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-28-2020 at 03:22.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  13. #253
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,415

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Obligatory posting of the nuke map. I guess the only thing comforting about this is that any nuclear strike on my city (an extremely likely target in any nuclear conflict) would mean that I probably wouldn't know what hit me.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  14. #254

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    I thought you were in DC.

    EDIT: Lol that's just the page default setting.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-29-2020 at 02:48.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:



  15. #255
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    809

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    I think it just automatically identifies your location. Mine was Selanik.

  16. #256
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,925

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Crandar View Post
    I think it just automatically identifies your location. Mine was Selanik.
    Is it in Alpine Subtundra?
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  17. #257
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    809

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Well, it's close to the Dinaric Alps and considerably below the Russian tundra, so the answer is yes.

  18. #258

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Possible unexpected positive externality of the Second Amendment: Insofar as it is used to license the open carry‌ing of firearms for political or other purposes across much of the country, it may be a valve against violence to some extent. That is, in other countries when it comes down to armed partisans stalking city streets the threshold of mass violence has already been reached and is unfolding. Whereas in the US, since armed partisans know they won't be confronted or punished by the government for their brandishment, the act is less escalatory and generally doesn't result in violence. You don't have to be Serious about imminent insurrection or democide to swing a rifle about in the United States, unlike in most other countries. Impunity affords complacency, or something...

    (Of course, ceteris paribus a country without such a gun culture and legal cover for it would be less likely to reach this stage in the first place...)
    (And most of the armed partisans currently understand that the police and federal government favor them... November and December will be the proper test of my hypothesis.)
    Last edited by Montmorency; 09-24-2020 at 20:57.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  19. #259
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,081

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    November and December will be the proper test of my hypothesis.
    You're going to see more of what occurred in Virginia, and I believe when a militia group shows up with rifles to harass voters, there will be likewise retaliation
    High Plains Drifter

  20. #260

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Kastellorizo: The Greek Falklands?
    Nagorno-Karabakh: Have drones made SAM systems obsolete like antiship missiles have made carriers obsolete?


    Why are Georgia (not that Georgia) and North Carolina population-twinsies?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3-georgia population.png 
Views:	9 
Size:	89.1 KB 
ID:	23958

    The more thought you give it the more profound it seems.


    Wowie EUlluminati confirmed? Sounds like a brainchild of that Hobson fellow.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_(board_game)

    Imperial is a German-style board game designed by Mac Gerdts in which the object is to accumulate wealth in the form of bond holdings in successful countries and cash. Players take on the role of international financiers who purchase government bonds in the six pre-World War I empires of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia. The principal bondholder of a nation gains control of its government and can order importation or production of armaments and ships; maneuvering of military units; construction of factories; and taxation. During play, an investor card is passed around which allows the purchase of additional bonds. A rondel – a wheel-shaped game mechanism with eight different options – is used to determine the options available to a country. The game box states that it is for 2–6 players, but a developer-supported variant allows play with seven.[1] Imperial 2030 is a follow-up game released in 2009 with similar mechanics.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 09-29-2020 at 00:50.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  21. #261
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    809

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Unlike the Falklands and the Argentinians, the Turks have a point about Kastellorizo. Greece's proposal of territorial waters completely violates the principle of equity. The best-case scenario would be if Turkey and Greece resorted to international arbitration, but that will never happen, because the voters in both countries have ridiculously unrealistic expectations. Meanwhile, nationalism has already poisoned the political discourse. Immigrants and journalists reporting abuses are dismissed and demonised as MIT agents.

    Many are calling for war (in that case, Erdogan will probably pray in the Rotonda of Selanik in a matter of weeks, our army and officers are like your average red-neck militia of rural Idaho) and a government official (under-secretary for immigration) said that the immigrants being homeless, following a fire that destroyed the slums they lived in, is an appropriate punishment. Hopefully, the entirety of the sea between Greece and Turkey will be given to a third-party, Israel, let's say, since our nationalists hate Jews so deeply, in order to infuriate every available chauvinist on the wider periphery.

    Member thankful for this post:



  22. #262

    Default Re: Backroom Errata




    Supreme Court joke: Used to be, no Catholics or Jews allowed. Now, it's nothing but Catholics and Jews.

    It's not even a joke (Barrett is Catholic).

    Are Judaism and Catholicism the Harvard and Yale of religions now? :P



    Quote Originally Posted by Crandar View Post
    Hopefully, the entirety of the sea between Greece and Turkey will be given to a third-party, Israel, let's say, since our nationalists hate Jews so deeply, in order to infuriate every available chauvinist on the wider periphery.
    Then the Aegean would become Nea Palestina.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  23. #263
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,475

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Then the Aegean would become Nea Palestina.
    What's that?

  24. #264

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    What's that?
    The humor (?) being that if Israel were allowed to dispose of the Aegean islands it would probably try to colonize the Palestinians there.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  25. #265
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    809

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    It will not be the first time!

  26. #266
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,081

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    I've been late to cop to this woman's work, but I'm sold-----KATIE PORTER FOR PRESIDENT!

    Her latest dress-down of a corporate official:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d-math-pharma/

    By now, the scene is familiar, if never less enthralling: Porter leans into the microphone by her seat in a hearing room. She turns to the board on her left to scribble some numbers. And then, she begins pelting questions at a powerful man in front of her.

    It is this kind of clear, insistent inquiry that has made Porter — a consumer protection lawyer and former professor who studied bankruptcy law under Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — so effective at grilling everyone from Mark Zuckerberg to little-known Trump appointees, all with a dry-erase marker and some simple math.

    “No one has ever wielded a weapon as terrifying as Katie Porter’s whiteboard,” wrote Molly Wood, a public radio journalist and host of “Marketplace Tech.” “This is just a fact.”

    “If you ever wonder why certain types of men don’t want to elevate women into power, this, right here, is why,” said Julie Rodin Zebrak, a political consultant and contributing writer for Washington Monthly. “This is what they fear: Katie Porter calls BS and has the receipts and it is a glorious sight to behold.”

    But for Porter, who is the only single mother in Congress, it’s all small potatoes compared to her three children at home in Irvine, Calif.

    “I have never encountered a witness,” she said last week, during an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” “that was even close to as difficult as any one of my children.”
    Think about that last remark..... "....even close to as difficult as any one of my children." Business CEO's beware

    We need more of this, please!
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-02-2020 at 18:12.
    High Plains Drifter

  27. #267

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    I've been late to cop to this woman's work, but I'm sold-----KATIE PORTER FOR PRESIDENT!

    Her latest dress-down of a corporate official:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d-math-pharma/



    Think about that last remark..... "....even close to as difficult as any one of my children." Business CEO's beware

    We need more of this, please!
    Yeah, she's been notorious at hearings.

    Another example of DESTROYING with facts and logic, though powerful for its understatement.
    https://twitter.com/BharatRamamurti/...13487306035202 [VIDEO]
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  28. #268

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    I do not believe there are thousands of Nigerian Hitlers.





    I do not believe there are a thousand French Stalins, nor a thousand Indians alike.


    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  29. #269

    Default Re: Backroom Errata

    I've been thinking throughout the year, 2020 hasn't had many major public mass shootings of the marked categories. I'd expected the pandemic to have an effect, but by now it looks like a durable one, at least for the short-term.

    So I'm going to reprint here a list of gun violence incident summaries for incidents in the US in 2020 with at least 5 fatalities or 10 injuries. On the other hand, it testifies to the nationwide increase in gang-related or hot-blooded shootings since at least May.

    Dead Injured Description
    7 0 A shooting at a large marijuana grow house left seven people dead.
    7 0 Shortly before midnight authorities responded to a home fire. Once the fire was extinguished seven adults were discovered dead by gunshot wounds.
    7 0 Seven adult members of the same family were killed in an apparent murder suicide and were discovered after reports of shots fired
    6 0 A mother killed her neighbor, and four children aged 12, 8, and 5-years-old and a 5-month-old infant, before committing suicide in a murder-suicide.
    6 0 Milwaukee brewery shooting: Five people were killed when a gunman opened fire at the local Molson Coors Beverage Company campus, where he had been employed. Afterwards, the gunman committed suicide.
    5 2 A shooter killed four people, including a police officer, and injured two others, including another police officer, before committing suicide at a gas station.
    5 0 A man killed his wife and three children, aged 12, 10 and 6-years-old, and then himself in an apparent murder-suicide.
    5 0 Five people were killed in a home, aged between 14 and 41, with a child being uninjured in the violence. Police are treating the incident as a matter of family violence.
    5 0 A man shot and killed his wife and three children, aged between eight months and four years old, along with the family dog. He then killed himself.


    Dead Injured Description
    1 20 A 17-year-old boy was killed and 20 others injured, including an off-duty police officer, at a party in the southeastern section of the nation's capital.
    1 17 Seventeen people were wounded and one killed after a shootout between multiple motorcycle clubs after a fight at one of the club's headquarters caused many to be thrown out.
    2 15 Two people (including the perpetrator) were killed and fifteen others were injured during a shooting at a nightclub.
    0 15 Fifteen people were injured, four critically, after a shooter opened fire at people leaving a funeral home in Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood.
    2 14 Rochester shooting - At least two people were killed and 14 others were injured in Rochester at a backyard party on Pennsylvania Avenue.
    0 13 Thirteen people were injured in an early morning shooting at a riverfront gathering. An argument between two women led to a man firing two shots into the air. This led to multiple individuals opening fire on the crowd.
    0 13 Hundreds of people had gathered for a memorial service when multiple shooters began firing wounding thirteen people.
    2 12 A large group of people were watching fireworks, when a fight broke out after a car hit a pedestrian.
    1 11 A group of people fired into a crowd, killing one and injuring 11 others.
    0 10 Ten people were injured in a drive-by shooting during a family gathering in a park.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO