Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

Possible? Yes. We could invade and conquer them at pretty much any time if we wanted and it would take a couple years at absolute most to overrun the entire country (a couple weeks is probably more accurate for how long it would actually take).
Likely? Nope. The Democrats are against the idea for several reasons and the Republicans need their bogeyman, so neither side in American politics wants Mexico gone.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

I hope not until America can fix itself. On the other hand, Mexico’s votes could sway the votes towards Democrats. Still, that would also change Democratic politics.

[Nea Byzantia]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

I hope not until America can fix itself. On the other hand, Mexico’s votes could sway the votes towards Democrats. Still, that would also change Democratic politics.

The Dems are currently using the Mexicans; but one day soon it will be the Mexicans using the Dems...

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I hope not until America can fix itself. On the other hand, Mexico’s votes could sway the votes towards Democrats. Still, that would also change Democratic politics.

The Dems are currently using the Mexicans; but one day soon it will be the Mexicans using the Dems...

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

[Nea Byzantia]

The Dems are currently using the Mexicans; but one day soon it will be the Mexicans using the Dems...

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

I'm aware of that; but do you really think Republicans will do that?

[Northern Davincia]

The Dems are currently using the Mexicans; but one day soon it will be the Mexicans using the Dems...

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

Mexican isn't a race.

[Fahran]

I do want to reiterate my previously sourced point that somewhere between twenty two and forty nine percent of Mexicans are counted in censuses and studies as white or light-skinned, with many of them possessing significant Iberian descent. A lot of the perception of Mexicans as homogeneously mixed race or half-Indian comes from American racism and attempts by generally white elites during the Mexican Revolution to promote the cosmic race ideology. A large swathe of the population is mestizo, but their culture is almost entirely Spanish and is easily distinguished from the Nahua, Maya, and other indigenous populations. Furthermore, a racial and ethnic caste system is in place that tends to favor lighter-skinned and/or more culturally Spanish people over darker-skinned and less culturally Spanish people.

[Nea Byzantia]

I do want to reiterate my previously sourced point that somewhere between twenty two and forty nine percent of Mexicans are counted in censuses and studies as white or light-skinned, with many of them possessing significant Iberian descent. A lot of the perception of Mexicans as homogeneously mixed race or half-Indian comes from American racism and attempts by generally white elites during the Mexican Revolution to promote the cosmic race ideology. A large swathe of the population is mestizo, but their culture is almost entirely Spanish and is easily distinguished from the Nahua, Maya, and other indigenous populations. Furthermore, a racial and ethnic caste system is in place that tends to favor lighter-skinned and/or more culturally Spanish people over darker-skinned and less culturally Spanish people.

Very true.

[Fahran]

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

Debatable. Their rigid adherence to laissez faire economics isn't really compatible with the political culture of Mexico or other Latin American countries - especially not in more recent times. The Democrats tend to gain Mexican-American/Chicano votes based on their status as a pro-immigrant party that promotes economic justice. Their social policies cater more to white liberals, but aren't egregious enough to alienate Mexican-Americans/Chicanos most of the time. That said, we have a few reasons to suspect that this might change as the composition of immigrants coming into the United States changes given historical enmities and dislikes between Mexicans and Central Americans and the oddly climbing favor-ability of Trump in the Mexican-American community.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

I'm aware of that; but do you really think Republicans will do that?

No. I'm just pointing out that it would be beneficial if they did.

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

Mexican isn't a race.

I didn't say it was.
Should I have written my statement as "Hispanic Catholics living in Mexico" instead of "Mexican Catholics? Seems a bit wordy to me, at least.

I do want to reiterate my previously sourced point that somewhere between twenty two and forty nine percent of Mexicans are counted in censuses and studies as white or light-skinned, with many of them possessing significant Iberian descent. A lot of the perception of Mexicans as homogeneously mixed race or half-Indian comes from American racism and attempts by generally white elites during the Mexican Revolution to promote the cosmic race ideology. A large swathe of the population is mestizo, but their culture is almost entirely Spanish and is easily distinguished from the Nahua, Maya, and other indigenous populations. Furthermore, a racial and ethnic caste system is in place that tends to favor lighter-skinned and/or more culturally Spanish people over darker-skinned and less culturally Spanish people.

I'm familiar with this but I'm also pretty sure that the "Mexicans are bringing drugs, crime, and rape" crowd doesn't care about the nuances to Mexico's ethnic makeup.

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

Debatable. Their rigid adherence to laissez faire economics isn't really compatible with the political culture of Mexico or other Latin American countries - especially not in more recent times. The Democrats tend to gain Mexican-American/Chicano votes based on their status as a pro-immigrant party that promotes economic justice. Their social policies cater more to white liberals, but aren't egregious enough to alienate Mexican-Americans/Chicanos most of the time. That said, we have a few reasons to suspect that this might change as the composition of immigrants coming into the United States changes given historical enmities and dislikes between Mexicans and Central Americans and the oddly climbing favor-ability of Trump in the Mexican-American community.

Basically my point boils down to "if Republicans stopped demonizing Mexicans and started appealing to them, then they'd get more Mexican voters" applied to a massively increased proportion of Mexican-Americans, specifically talking about political groups that are similar to other groups in the Republican base (conservative Christians). I admit that I don't know much about Mexican politics, though, so I might read up a bit before I continue that line of thinking.

[Novus America]

Einstein’s role is grossly exaggerated, although his advocacy helped get the project political support.

But he was not the only German Jew to flee to the US.
Hans Bethe, James Franck and Dieter Gruen were also Jewish refugees of the Nazi regime.
From the British contingent Rudolf Peierls was a German refugee.

There were other Jewish refugees; many from other parts of Europe as well.
Edward Teller was from Hungary. And of course though not a refugee Oppenheimer was Jewish.

And the problems with the German program were more than theoretical.
It was not well organized, was politicized and did not receive nearly enough resources.
Even after getting the details of how to build the bomb it to the Soviets 4 years to actually do so.

Both the US and Soviets built city sized complexes to do the work.
The Manhattan project got nearly unlimited resources.
The Germans never invested nearly enough.
Looking at the absurd cost and complexity they decided it was not going make a soon enough impact to justify the cost, whereas the US put in crazy amounts of money and personnel to speed up the process.

And sure we hit the Norwegian plant. We also leveled the Oranienburg uranium plant with B-17s.
We also could and did attack major German infrastructure for their project.

While they could not bomb Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos.

I probably should've been more general and said "Jewish" instead of Einstein in particular, but the point remains: the importance of Jews in atomic research is rather overstated. Mark Oliphant and Enrico Fermi are the two I'd considered most decisive for the Allied project, although this is not an attempt to take away from the value of individuals such as Oppenheimer.

As for the Germans, it was entirely an issue stemming from their problems getting over the theoretical hurdles. The inability to properly nail down critical mass theory made them come to the conclusion that the development of Atomic weapons would not be something possible in the short term, which was decisive as far as funding and resource allotments went in the Reich given the realities of the conflict. While the multiple competing projects were an issue, it was ultimately the failure to sort through the theoretical issues that doomed the project, not an actual inability to do it. In this, not much blame can be assigned upon them; as previously noted, it wasn't until 1941 the American project was able to sort through the same issues and, further, it wasn't until Mark Oliphant visited America in late 1941 that the bomb-element of the project became emphasized and with the program in its entirety put on track.

To put things into perspective, here's a timeline of events sourced from The Critical Mass by Jonothan Logan in American Scientist, Vol. 84, No. 3 (MAY-JUNE 1996), pp. 263-277

May 1, 1939 - Francis Penin in Paris publishes a calculation of the minimum mass of natural uranium for a chain reaction: 40 tons of uranium oxide, possibly reducible to 12 tons with a neutron reflector. In a paper two weeks later he concludes that a slow-neutron chain reaction will require only 5 tons.

December, 1939 - Rudolf Peierls in Birmingham publishes an improved calculation of the critical mass, extending Perrin's results to neutron multiplication not small compared to 1; results are stated as general formulas. The article presumably did not reach Germany due to the onset of the war, but the calculations led directly to the realization of about 10 kilograms or less of U235 was needed for bombs on the part of the Allies.

February 29, 1940 - Heisenberg submits to German Army Weapons the second part of his report dealing with slow neutron chain reactions; he rejects graphite as a moderator.

January 20, 1941 - Walther Bothe and Peter Jensen in Heidelberg measure the neutron absorption cross section of graphite and mistakenly conclude that graphite can not be an effective moderator.

August, 1941 - Fritz Houtermans submits to the German Post Office a report including a critical mass formula like Perrin's but without quantitative estimates, and the suggestion that fissionable plutonium will be generated in a reactor. Houtermans' work gains little attention.

Had the Germans learned of Perrin's work and been able to figure it out from there at best, and such was entirely possible given what the Farmhill Transcripts show from August of 1945, or, at worst, got a hold of Peierls work and then just did the minor refinements from there, they would've immediately been at where the Americans were in the first half of 1941. Had Heisenberg tested ultra pure graphite, or had one of the follow on tests deduced its viability, the German project in 1940 would've then been 1-2 years ahead of their American counterpart. It's entirely possible from there the Germans could achieve nuclear weapons in mid to late 1943 at the earliest, although most probably sometime in 1944.

Enrico Fermi had a Jewish wife, one of the reasons he moved to the US was to escape rising European anti Semitism.
While it was not all Jews, the certainly made a big difference.
German Jews did play a big role in the Manhattan project.
Killing, exiling or reducing some of your best scientists to manual labor slaves is always a bad idea.

Had Germany not been so anti-Semitic (had it won WWI) it would be in a much better place.

Being in the same place theoretically is not in the same place practically.
Again the Soviets were in the same place theoretically as the US in 1945, but still had to spend 4 years building the necessary infrastructure.
Turning nuclear weapons theory into an actually realized weapon takes an enormous amount of labor, materials and money. And the construction of very expensive infrastructure.

Given Germany’s wartime constraints and the constant attacks on the limited nuclear infrastructure it did have, the only way to get where it needed would be not invade Poland in the first place.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I probably should've been more general and said "Jewish" instead of Einstein in particular, but the point remains: the importance of Jews in atomic research is rather overstated. Mark Oliphant and Enrico Fermi are the two I'd considered most decisive for the Allied project, although this is not an attempt to take away from the value of individuals such as Oppenheimer.

As for the Germans, it was entirely an issue stemming from their problems getting over the theoretical hurdles. The inability to properly nail down critical mass theory made them come to the conclusion that the development of Atomic weapons would not be something possible in the short term, which was decisive as far as funding and resource allotments went in the Reich given the realities of the conflict. While the multiple competing projects were an issue, it was ultimately the failure to sort through the theoretical issues that doomed the project, not an actual inability to do it. In this, not much blame can be assigned upon them; as previously noted, it wasn't until 1941 the American project was able to sort through the same issues and, further, it wasn't until Mark Oliphant visited America in late 1941 that the bomb-element of the project became emphasized and with the program in its entirety put on track.

To put things into perspective, here's a timeline of events sourced from The Critical Mass by Jonothan Logan in American Scientist, Vol. 84, No. 3 (MAY-JUNE 1996), pp. 263-277

May 1, 1939 - Francis Penin in Paris publishes a calculation of the minimum mass of natural uranium for a chain reaction: 40 tons of uranium oxide, possibly reducible to 12 tons with a neutron reflector. In a paper two weeks later he concludes that a slow-neutron chain reaction will require only 5 tons.

December, 1939 - Rudolf Peierls in Birmingham publishes an improved calculation of the critical mass, extending Perrin's results to neutron multiplication not small compared to 1; results are stated as general formulas. The article presumably did not reach Germany due to the onset of the war, but the calculations led directly to the realization of about 10 kilograms or less of U235 was needed for bombs on the part of the Allies.

February 29, 1940 - Heisenberg submits to German Army Weapons the second part of his report dealing with slow neutron chain reactions; he rejects graphite as a moderator.

January 20, 1941 - Walther Bothe and Peter Jensen in Heidelberg measure the neutron absorption cross section of graphite and mistakenly conclude that graphite can not be an effective moderator.

August, 1941 - Fritz Houtermans submits to the German Post Office a report including a critical mass formula like Perrin's but without quantitative estimates, and the suggestion that fissionable plutonium will be generated in a reactor. Houtermans' work gains little attention.

Had the Germans learned of Perrin's work and been able to figure it out from there at best, and such was entirely possible given what the Farmhill Transcripts show from August of 1945, or, at worst, got a hold of Peierls work and then just did the minor refinements from there, they would've immediately been at where the Americans were in the first half of 1941. Had Heisenberg tested ultra pure graphite, or had one of the follow on tests deduced its viability, the German project in 1940 would've then been 1-2 years ahead of their American counterpart. It's entirely possible from there the Germans could achieve nuclear weapons in mid to late 1943 at the earliest, although most probably sometime in 1944.

Enrico Fermi has a Jewish wife, one of the reasons he moved to the US.
While it was not all Jews, the certainly made a big difference.
German Jews did play a big role in the Manhattan project.
Killing, exiling or reducing some of your best scientists to manual labor slaves is always a bad idea.

Being in the same place theoretically is not in the same place practically.
Again the Soviets were in the same place theoretically as the US in 1945, but still had to spend 4 years building the necessary infrastructure.
Turning nuclear weapons theory into an actually realized weapon takes an enormous amount of labor, materials and money. And the construction of very expensive infrastructure.

Given Germany’s wartime constraints and constant attacks on the limited nuclear infrastructure it did have, the only way to get where it needed would be not invade Poland in the first place.

Alt history novel where Germany decides to delay starting World War II until it gets nuclear weapons when?

[Novus America]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

Both. It is absolutely possible. But unfortunately very unlikely.
There are too many political problems on both sides of the border.

[Conserative Morality]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

[Conserative Morality]

I hope not until America can fix itself. On the other hand, Mexico’s votes could sway the votes towards Democrats. Still, that would also change Democratic politics.

The Dems are currently using the Mexicans; but one day soon it will be the Mexicans using the Dems...

To do what tho

[Conserative Morality]

Tbh if Republicans could get over their racism they'd get a lot of support from Mexican Catholics. The US isn't the only country with conservative Christians.

Mexican isn't a race.

Race is a social construct; as such, race is not restricted by such petty ideas as 'consistency' or 'reality'. 'Mexican' is seen as many as a race, or part of one, and thus, it is a race.

[Novus America]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

I do not believe it's possible. A better question would be, do you believe it's desirable? And why or why not?

Oh it is possible, just not at all probable.

But it is Absolutely desirable.
1). For the US to keep up with China and India we have to increase our population greatly.
They can get a total economy larger than ours with less than a quarter of our productivity person (having 4 times the population).
Getting Mexico would give our economy and population a large boost.

Sure we can just bring in immigrants but we have to build infrastructure, housing and the like to support them. Also the use resources.

Getting Mexico means not just getting the people, but all the land, resources, housing and infrastructure to support them.

2). It would eliminate our trade deficit with Mexico.

3) The new border would be shorter and easier to secure.

4) Mexico’s big problem is corruption. Its governmental structures are too corrupt to reform from within, but as part of the US they would have the oversight of a much less corrupt government.

5) Mexicans would benefit because the US has much lower crime, higher wages and better living standards.

6) Immigration from Mexico would no longer be a issue either.

[Novus America]

Mexican isn't a race.

Race is a social construct; as such, race is not restricted by such petty ideas as 'consistency' or 'reality'. 'Mexican' is seen as many as a race, or part of one, and thus, it is a race.

A fair point. Although the idea of Mexicans as a race is fundamentally stupid and contradicts other concepts of race, such things do not stop racists.
I mean there was a time Poles and Germans were considered different races.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I do not believe it's possible. A better question would be, do you believe it's desirable? And why or why not?

Oh it is possible, just not at all probable.

But it is Absolutely desirable.
1). For the US to keep up with China and India we have to increase our population greatly.
They can get a total economy larger than ours with less than a quarter of our productivity person (having 4 times the population).
Getting Mexico would give our economy and population a large boost.

Sure we can just bring in immigrants but we have to build infrastructure, housing and the like to support them. Also the use resources.

Getting Mexico means not just getting the people, but all the land, resources, housing and infrastructure to support them.

2). It would eliminate our trade deficit with Mexico.

3) The new border would be shorter and easier to secure.

4) Mexico’s big problem is corruption. Its governmental structures are too corrupt to reform from within, but as part of the US they would have the oversight of a much less corrupt government.

5) Mexicans would benefit because the US has much lower crime, higher wages and better living standards.

6) Immigration from Mexico would no longer be a issue either.

Those are some rather good points that I hadn't considered.

[Valrifell]

Worth noting that immigration from Mexico hasn't been the big problem for a few year and, instead, it's been Centroamericans coming through Mexico that make up mkst new Hispanic arrivals.

By annexing Mexico you'd just be saving those folks the trip.

[Novus America]

Worth noting that immigration from Mexico hasn't been the big problem for a few year and, instead, it's been Centroamericans coming through Mexico that make up mkst new Hispanic arrivals.

By annexing Mexico you'd just be saving those folks the trip.

Except that the Mexico Guatemalan border is much shorter and easier to secure.
If we put all the Border Patrol on an border 1/4th the length, they would be at least 4 times more effective.

But why do you think I stop there?
My ultimate goal is the Darien Gap.

[Valrifell]

Worth noting that immigration from Mexico hasn't been the big problem for a few year and, instead, it's been Centroamericans coming through Mexico that make up mkst new Hispanic arrivals.

By annexing Mexico you'd just be saving those folks the trip.

Except that the Mexico Guatemalan border is much shorter and easier to secure.
If we put all the Border Patrol on an border 1/8th the length, they would be at least 8 times more effective.

But why do you think I stop there?
My ultimate goal is the Darien Gap.

My god

[Conserative Morality]

Worth noting that immigration from Mexico hasn't been the big problem for a few year and, instead, it's been Centroamericans coming through Mexico that make up mkst new Hispanic arrivals.

By annexing Mexico you'd just be saving those folks the trip.

Except that the Mexico Guatemalan border is much shorter and easier to secure.
If we put all the Border Patrol on an border 1/8th the length, they would be at least 8 times more effective.

But why do you think I stop there?
My ultimate goal is the Darien Gap.

>> not dreaming of a United States of the Americas

[Novus America]

Except that the Mexico Guatemalan border is much shorter and easier to secure.
If we put all the Border Patrol on an border 1/8th the length, they would be at least 8 times more effective.

But why do you think I stop there?
My ultimate goal is the Darien Gap.

>> not dreaming of a United States of the Americas

I mean that is an interesting concept but the US has a greater population than the entirety of the rest of North America combined.

So a United NA still has a majority of people who were Americans citizens before.

South America is also not as Americanized and Brazil is too large and different to be easy to incorporate.

[Conserative Morality]

>> not dreaming of a United States of the Americas

I mean that is an interesting concept but the US has a greater population than the entirety of the rest of North America combined.

So a United NA still has a majority of people who were Americans citizens before.

South America is also not as Americanized and Brazil is too large and different to be easy to incorporate.

One at a time, I get it, United NA first, later, the world SA. =^)