NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[The Akasha Colony]

Currently holds 280 rounds for the main gun, 240 in a linkless drum and 40 in a separate magazine holding the APFSDS and PABM for self-defense and anti-vehicle use. There's probably space for a larger drum, which would improve the stowed kill shortage. The turret is unmanned and the crew sit in the front of the hull so the drum can be extended into the hull. I can only imagine how time consuming reloading would be though, at least without the use of special mechanical aids. Spent shells are ejected forward and beneath the gun.

The missiles are designed with an emphasis on speed to minimize flight time and are boost-only like ESSM. As a result they have a shorter range than missiles like the 57E6 used by Pantsir and have a maximum range closer to around 15 km. The top of the box launchers can be opened and the entire pod of six missiles lifted out via crane for replacement, or individual tubes may be replaced in the event most have not been fired when replenishment time comes. The vehicle carries 12 ready rounds and no spares. The main EO/IR turret with the laser designator for missile guidance is located on the right side of the main turret.

The Quick Kill installation holds 16 interceptors with 8 interceptors per box. I've added smoke dispensers to the drawing since I uploaded it (largely as a result of writing this and realizing it could use some softkill protection).

The MG is fed via 100-round belts and an extra 1,200 rounds are carried in boxes. The MG has its own EO/IR sensor and can engage targets separately of the missile system and cannon. Might have to add a small bustle rack for those ammo boxes although I'm trying to keep turret weight to a minimum to maintain rotation speed without the need for absurdly powerful motors.

The search radar is average for its class, with a detection range of around 30 km against most fighter-size targets and commensurately less against smaller RCS targets like artillery shells, mortar bombs, and such.

The turret itself is armored against autocannon fire but not against tank fire. The rest of it is just the regular tank chassis and the crew in the hull are fairly well-protected from tank fire and ATGMs. I'm wondering if there's a point in up-rating the APU to power the heavier electronics load while stationary or just assume the engine will remain at idle to supply enough power.

[Theodosiya]

Could I have a standard MOLLE load for soldiers, air force combat control & marines? Like, grenadiers kit, rifleman kit, etc. But, servicemen/women are allowed to bring additional stuffs on top of general issue.

[Laritaia]

Could I have a standard MOLLE load for soldiers, air force combat control & marines? Like, grenadiers kit, rifleman kit, etc. But, servicemen/women are allowed to bring additional stuffs on top of general issue.

according to kat the original intention of MOLLE was to have standardized configurations

[Gallia-]

went back to being sadistic assholes?

They were never "sadistic assholes" in the first place. They were men with families, friends, and loved ones, and they happened to clock in to work to at a gas chamber or a slave camp where they herded prisoners around for a living. Perhaps they didn't see "Jew" as "human" still, perhaps they were as unrepentant as Eichmann was, but the true horror of the Nazi Empire wasn't that it was some cartoonish evil comic book villain. They were just normal people with normal lives, except they were executioners or gaolers at some concentration camps, which while an esoteric choice of job didn't really entail being "sadistic assholes". When you don't view something as human beings, but as objects, equivalent to firewood or perhaps overly populous wildlife if we're being generous, it becomes very easy to kill them in large numbers without suffering too much in day-to-day life.

One imagines that were they actually "sadistic assholes", they would be utterly incapable of re-integrating into civil society, and this is completely false. SS men became fairly normal people with normal lives, working as automobile factory managers, political lobbyists, and were notable mostly for being polite, well integrated members of their adoptive communities; who just happened to have worked as a slave overseer or extermination facilitator and were well aware of their crimes, but obviously did not view them as such because they did not view Jews or Slavs as people in the first place (and often, they never did again).

It is 1938. Johannes Q. Public, family man, working man, loves his wife, would do anything for his kids. He wants to send Joachim to the Big City so he can learn accounting and become a successful banker. He is distressed that Hans wants to be a painter instead of doing something productive: not many men can be exceptional painters after all, and he does not want to see his child become a "starving artist". Emil, the youngest, wants to be a aeroplane pilot and he has made many gliders and got high marks in school in mathematics, which tells of a bright future for him and Herr Public could hardly be more proud.

He also just so happens to work at a SS camp near Dachau and assists in overseeing the day-to-day operations of the camp by filing expense reports, noting quantity of materials received, and assisting in construction by overseeing the workers. He also records the amount, quantity, type, and value of goods confiscated from the material shipments. Materials are organized by color coding and he is responsible for maintaining those standards as well, which he works in conjunction with the commandant and the guard force to educate them about any changes in the system, and so he sees many invalids, homosexuals, communists, and mongrels come through the camp.

The job pays OK and it is a government job, so there is likely a solid pension looking at him in about twenty years. The only downside is that he cannot see his family as often as he wishes because he must travel far and live on-site for long periods of time. Before this he used to be a bank clerk before he got "downsized" and found himself working as a laborer, then Hitler promised to bring "jobs, roads, and pride" back to Germany, kick out the Bolsheviks, and take our financial system back from the Jews. Herr Public even read a book by the extremely intelligent and highly successful American business magnate, Henry Ford, that collected newspaper articles about the International Jewry and how they controlled all the money.

Who wouldn't vote for this guy when he's handing out jobs left and right, promising prosperity and a great future, and pulling our nation out of the post-war malaise? Even Henry Ford, the ultimate businessman, agrees with him!

So you don't even need a comprehensive (or coherent) political theory for it to happen, you just need to dehumanize a group of people so much that you stop thinking of them as people and more as net GDP drains, race polluters, "communists", or something of that nature. Once you think of people as a label instead of, well, people, the slippery slope towards Hitlerite-style slave/death camps is not too far away. It actually follows quite logically as the "next step" in such a process and is very difficult to arrest when you can easily rationalize why certain groups of people need to die and other groups do not.

The true horror of Hitlerism is that you, I, or anyone else with two brain cells to rub together could be as seduced by the siren song of concentration camps and slavery as a solution to political problems as much as the next guy.

Could I have a standard MOLLE load for soldiers, air force combat control & marines? Like, grenadiers kit, rifleman kit, etc. But, servicemen/women are allowed to bring additional stuffs on top of general issue.

according to kat the original intention of MOLLE was to have standardized configurations

The configurations would be modified as METT demands. I now think that the main reason for standard configurations is to ease logistics by allowing company and battalion commanders to order "rifleman", "SAW gunner" or "pistolman" sets in bulk and getting the pouches they need to work their jobs without individually searching for NSNs of double and single M16 magazine pouches, 100- and 200-round SAW pouches, grenade pouches, etc. and accidentally ordering like 500 ALICE pouches for your MOLLE vest.

[Kassaran]

"Hey this guy says he's not with IS. All of Syria and I haven't met one IS member yet."

It'll be like hunting Nazis after WW2.

I mean if they all go home and stop being threats, is that so bad? Perhaps by 20 years they'll have committed suicide out of remorse, or realize the error of their ways and live the rest of their lives peacefully?

I mean how many former Nazis turned around and went back to being sadistic assholes?

You're getting into the whole bit about 'how many Nazis actually were Nazis' and all that.

My answer remains the same, a threat is a threat until eliminated. Not neutralized, not appeased, eliminated.

Fortunately this time around, we're actually catching most of the fuckers as they try to sneak out with their own families and other civilians. We've got lists of names of people identified in videos and whatnot, so just like the Nazi's, their own hubris is now getting the better of them. IS was a threat, in a way, but ultimately flawed and incapable of doing what it wanted. I'll be happy to see those who were displaced by their [ISIS's] terrorism returned to their homes, hopefully to repair what they can if they wish to or to begin their lives anew, hopefully with some outside support.

The main issue lies in those that got away, just like with other well known terrorist groups. I personally hope that each member detained is tried as an associate, if not an advocate of the thousands of deaths of civilians and POWs that they carried out. I want them to be sent to the great abyss that lies beyond life with the knowledge they failed, that there is nothing for them, no eternity waiting. I want to see them broken, their resolve shattered, and their fundamental beliefs scattered to the winds. I applaud the efforts of those fighting them and I pray that misfortune takes the lives of the wretches from their number that slip by.

[Gallia-]

ISIL is only a threat if you think that they could actually hurt Saudi Arabia or Iran or something. They were more a "threat" in the sense that they made the CIA's backing of the thousands of randoms difficult because they are chaotic. The only actual threats to the United States are basically Russia and China. The countries in their orbits, Iran and North Korea respectively, are more or less non-threats since they will never be anything more than regional power players and the United States is neither a Middle Eastern nor East Asian country. It is an American, Caribbean, Arctic, and Central Pacific country, though, and China has eyes on the Pacific while Russia has eyes on the Arctic. The USA could easily squish Iran and North Korea if they get too uppity, but it probably won't.

What is actually dangerous is that the USA and friends (NATO) will be expending precious resources, like operational readiness, in playing whack-a-mole with terrorists, to the detriment of being able to confront the two real threats.

If it were possible to do both of these things (let's be real, it's totally possible), that would be the best option, but the USA right now is focused less on Russia/China and more on ISIL/North Korea which are basically forgone conclusions of collapse/replacing their army with a shed full of ICBMs. Iran is not a forgone conclusion, but attacking Russia means you attack Iran, since Iran/Iraq are both in the Russian orbit. Iran by virtue of being a Russian vassal and Iraq by virtue of being an Iranian vassal. It's not clear if Yemen will swing to Saudi or Iranian control, too, which means it is still quite fluid and a sufficient push by either Iran (read: Russia) or the USA could make it go in their favor. Or you could just split Yemen in half again.

Basically the USA should be concentrating on China and Russia, since these are the two power brokers behind the supposed threats of Iran and North Korea that everyone is too afraid to name and shame, as they deserve.

ISIL is mostly America's fault for destabilizing the Middle East and de-legitimizing Ba'athism, too. If 2003 hadn't happened, it's unlikely we would see ISIL today, unless Saddam croaked or something and Iraq descends into civil war again. But the Republican Guard could just as easily crack down on Al-Qa'ida in the meantime past 14 years or so, and you would never see anything like ISIL because all the Al-Qa'ida in Iraq were killed by Mukhabarat for being political threats. Hussein was quite notoriously denounced and despised by Bin Laden, both because he was threatening Bin Laden's homeland in 1991, and because Ba'athism is a secular political system. So they weren't "friends" in the slightest, and they were more like great enemies.

A more likely outcome is that the Mukhabarat launches a major crackdown in the mid to late oughties, and suddenly Al-Qa'ida's eyes and ears in Iraqi Kurdistan and Baghdad disappear overnight. The Ba'athists have no reason to go to Al-Qa'ida because the Americans did not dismantle their country, and every reason to destroy them. Thus, ISIL loses its major support base, Ba'athists, and its major foundation, Al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Thus, ISIL does not exist. Even if Syria falls, Iraq is still OK because the Republican Guard is not the Alawites and Saddam was in no danger of running out of bodies to throw at the problem.

But the USA is in the habit of masochistic relationships with Radical Islamic Terror states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and just generically toxic relationships like Pakistan. 2003 was just another "shot-self-in-foot" decision by the USA.

15 years later the USA still wonders why the Middle East is so fucked up, but it did a bang-up job of mending the Iran-Iraq relationship to stand against the "Gulf Cooperation Council" and of enabling the rise of ISIS by dismantling a functioning state bureaucracy for petty moral reasons, driving the members underground, and forcing them to flee to neighbouring Syria, where these bureaucrats wage an initially highly successful campaign against the "New Iraqi Army".

[Allanea]

One imagines that were they actually "sadistic assholes", they would be utterly incapable of re-integrating into civil society, and this is completely false.

Actual sadistic assholes exist in civil society, too. Many of them work in exactly the sort of positions of power where you don't want such people.

[Gallia-]

One imagines that were they actually "sadistic assholes", they would be utterly incapable of re-integrating into civil society, and this is completely false.

Actual sadistic assholes exist in civil society, too. Many of them work in exactly the sort of positions of power where you don't want such people.

Are you equating an SS man with bad managers? The Nazi regime's actions makes a workplace psychopath look like a schoolyard bully. Anyway, actual sadistic assholes, in how I read it, are people like Dirlewanger. Considering Dirlewanger was a career criminal/rapist*/murderer or whatever, it's hardly accurate to say that the typical SS man was a "sadistic asshole" on par with that. The typical SS man was contorted by his environment: he got caught up in the zeitgeist. Down with Jews, up with Autobahns. Hail Ford, etc.

Dirlewanger was just born evil and stayed evil.

If you want to say that the SS man committed sadistic acts, that is accurate. But the fact that they successfully re-integrated into communities in Canada and America without making lampshades or wallets out of human flesh of their Democrat or Liberal Party leaning neighbours says a lot about how much they actually were "sadistic assholes". Which is to say they weren't "sadistic assholes" at all, but they were men who committed sadistic acts.

The difference is whether it is innate or not. SS men probably never gave up their core beliefs, but they didn't turn their new communities into bastions of Hitlerism with a side of concentration camp. They were just normal guys by all accounts, until some policemen or journos come over and talk to them and they publish a news article that you find out the nice old immigrant man was actually a concentration camp commandant in Ukraine and responsible for killing thousands of people.

The fact that SS men were otherwise normal people is what makes Nazis so terrifying.

Once you start labeling them as cartoon villains, you forget that these were just normal guys who were products of their time and place. And that time and place could very well reappear anywhere in the world, today or tomorrow. Indeed, it has, and there is no inherent reason why it could not happen to the West again. They might not attack Jews, the gays, or the Slavs, but instead they might go after some other group, but the end result is the same: millions of people sent to concentration camps and worked to death, enslaved, or outright exterminated. It could very well happen here.

*Did you know that the label of "rapist" is considered by the normal, average American to be more evil than "Satan", "Hell", and "murderer"? In fact, it is considered "infinitely bad". Nothing else approaches it in American English.

[Allanea]

I'm not thinking of mean managers. I'm thinking of people who are abusive prison guards, for instance. Or serial killers, who sometimes go for decades without being discovered, or sometimes are never discovered at all. I fully believe that if the people who beat restrained prison inmates with clubs or torture old ladies in retirement homes (something that, terrifyingly, happens every day), had the opportunity to shoot the prison inmates legally, or starve the old ladies to death, if they were encouraged to do so, they would.

At the core of the Nazi regime there was a small amount of people who were extremely fanatical about their beliefs, and they are the ones who genuinely made Nazism happen. It's questionable that Nazism was yet another totalitarian ideology like, say, Stalinism. Like you pointed out previously, the main reason Nazism didn't score some heinous murder record by killing off 100 million Slavs or something, they were stopped by the allies. Hitlerism was arguably different in its implications from even such terrible things as Stalinism or whatever. [It's arguably also why it lasted so little.]

If you look at someone like Goering or Hitler or some other specific people in their inner circle, you can totally see how they were like cartoon villains - indeed many cartoon villains are actually inspired by them. These were people who were actually thirsting for the mass-murder of other human beings.

It's not arguable that it's possible for some heinous atrocity to happen again. But for it to happen requires a Hitler and a Himmler.

[Gallia-]

I'm not thinking of mean managers. I'm thinking of people who are abusive prison guards, for instance. Or serial killers, who sometimes go for decades without being discovered, or sometimes are never discovered at all.

Yes this is true.

I fully believe that if the people who beat restrained prison inmates with clubs or torture old ladies in retirement homes (something that, terrifyingly, happens every day), had the opportunity to shoot the prison inmates legally, or starve the old ladies to death, if they were encouraged to do so, they would.

The difference is that they are "encouraged to do so" by social pressure. Serial murderers, rapists, etc. are driven by an intrinsic belief. It depends on whether the killing is intrinsic or extrinsic. Do you kill people because it is your job to do so, or do you kill people because you enjoy doing it and get some gratification or deep pleasure from doing so? The former is less "sadistic asshole" and more frightening, while the latter is "cartoon villain" or "Ted Bundy".

Extrinsic motivation is the most frightening of them all because it means that any normal, rational person can be encouraged to do terrible things with the proper direction without being innately evil.

At the core of the Nazi regime there was a small amount of people who were extremely fanatical about their beliefs, and they are the ones who genuinely made Nazism happen. It's questionable that Nazism was yet another totalitarian ideology like, say, Stalinism. Like you pointed out previously, the main reason Nazism didn't score some heinous murder record by killing off 100 million Slavs or something, they were stopped by the allies. Hitlerism was arguably different in its implications from even such terrible things as Stalinism or whatever. [It's arguably also why it lasted so little.]

Hitlerism lasted so little because it was bombed to death by the air fleets of democracy and bulldozered by the Red Army, not because God ordained that the pre-destined expiry date of Hitlerism was May 1945. The fact that we beat Hitler, in truth, is nothing more than historical accident. There's no guarantee that Hitlerism, or something like Hitlerism, will not take over the world or successfully defeat democracy in the future. That's nonsense.

If you look at someone like Goering or Hitler or some other specific people in their inner circle, you can totally see how they were like cartoon villains - indeed many cartoon villains are actually inspired by them. These were people who were actually thirsting for the mass-murder of other human beings.

Do you know what the word "caricature" means?

Anyway here's the thing, though: To Hitler/Himmler, Jews aren't people. Neither are Slavs. Nor homosexuals. Nor communists. Nor invalids. Nor idiots. They are not "human beings", they are "obstacles". "Obstacles" are removed. Ergo, you build death camps, which is the most expeditious and efficient means of removing obstacles. And anyway, Goering and Hitler are two Nazis out of how many millions of SS and Nazi Party alone? One? Two million? That is not representative.

The average Nazi was just a normal guy who happened to work at a slave camp and thought "Jews/commies/gays/slavs aren't people," which although radical for its time period was not at all difficult to go from logically that "the International Jewry controls the banks," to "the Jews must be destroyed for us to prosper," or whatever. But these people were also able to re-integrate themselves into society too, so their evil was not innate like Dirlewanger or Hitler himself, but rather they were swept up by the time and its politics. Did they perform evil acts? Obviously. Were they innately evil? Not at all.

So I don't think "sadistic asshole" really applies. There was nothing innately evil about being a prison camp guard, except that you thought some groups of people weren't actually people. But that doesn't make it innate evil, since you don't act on it without the ability and the moral support of millions to do so. If you act without regard to moral support, i.e. alone, then yes you are evil because you are performing an evil act of some intrinsic motivation.

If you make an extrinsic ("International Jewry") motivation into an intrinsic one ("Golly, killing Jews sure is fun,") then you become evil.

If you follow an extrinsic motivation, and are able to return to "normal person" mode after the fact, then you are objectively more frightening, because you are an otherwise normal man who did evil things.

I don't think you can argue that cartoon villains are scarier than your neighbor suddenly going from a nice man to wanting to lynch you because he's been caught up in a mob. There is nothing more frightening than a group of normal people pushed to do terrible things, because it is extremely difficult to stop them once they start going. You have to attack the agitator and that can be difficult when he has a group of hundreds or thousands or millions to throw at you. A murderer OTOH can be stopped by a police officer or a judge. The effort to stop Ted Bundy was much less than the effort to stop Hitler.

It's not arguable that it's possible for some heinous atrocity to happen again. But for it to happen requires a Hitler and a Himmler.

Hitler and Himmler rose to power promising everything any successful politician promises, though: prosperity, wealth, and a bright future for you and your children.

Do you think you could foresee Hitler's death camps in 1923? Or Generalplan Ost? You must have a mighty powerful crystal ball if so.

[Allanea]

Hitlerism lasted so little because it was bombed to death by the air fleets of democracy and bulldozered by the Red Army, not because God ordained that the pre-destined expiry date of Hitlerism was May 1945. The fact that we beat Hitler, in truth, is nothing more than historical accident. There's no guarantee that Hitlerism, or something like Hitlerism, will not take over the world or successfully defeat democracy in the future. That's nonsense.

And why do you think Hitlerism was destroyed by the Victorious Allies? The answer is because Hitler insisted on attacking them. And the reason this happened was due to a set of beliefs that were explicitly outlined in Mein Kampf. Hitlerism was fundamentally irrational for a varity of innate reasons, part of them were things that the Nazis believed, and part of them the specific features of how decisionmaking worked in Nazi Germany and who made the decisions.

Extrinsic motivation is the most frightening of them all because it means that any normal, rational person can be encouraged to do terrible things with the proper direction without being innately evil.

But there's little evidence that the average German in the Nazi era, or even the average NSDAP member, was similar to the average concentration camp guard in his psychological makeup.

Horrifying Nazi-grade shit is, while sadly not unique in Nazism, far less frightening to me, than run-of-the-mill oppression, that's almost commonplace.

[Gallia-]

Hitlerism lasted so little because it was bombed to death by the air fleets of democracy and bulldozered by the Red Army, not because God ordained that the pre-destined expiry date of Hitlerism was May 1945. The fact that we beat Hitler, in truth, is nothing more than historical accident. There's no guarantee that Hitlerism, or something like Hitlerism, will not take over the world or successfully defeat democracy in the future. That's nonsense.

And why do you think Hitlerism was destroyed by the Victorious Allies? The answer is because Hitler insisted on attacking them. And the reason this happened was due to a set of beliefs that were explicitly outlined in Mein Kampf. Hitlerism was fundamentally irrational for a varity of innate reasons, part of them were things that the Nazis believed, and part of them the specific features of how decisionmaking worked in Nazi Germany and who made the decisions.

Why do you assume the next Hitler will outright attack the West? Why do you not assume the next Hitler won't simply buy the West with large amounts of money? The key point I'm referring to is not HItlerism specifically, but Hitlerism's mechanism of societal self-improvement: slavery and death camps.

This is agnostic to everything. It's very easy to imagine a democracy or a capitalist state, or possibly both of these, having concentration camps.

Extrinsic motivation is the most frightening of them all because it means that any normal, rational person can be encouraged to do terrible things with the proper direction without being innately evil.

But there's little evidence that the average German in the Nazi era, or even the average NSDAP member, was similar to the average concentration camp guard in his psychological makeup.

Horrifying Nazi-grade shit is, while sadly not unique in Nazism, far less frightening to me, than run-of-the-mill oppression, that's almost commonplace.

Proof you never read my posts? I said that "large groups of normal people whipped into a frenzy" are scarier than "single evil individuals", not "concentration camps are scary". Concentration camps are only scary insofar as you might be sent to one. This is broadly unlikely, even in the PRC or Germany.

When you cannot be afforded the protections of being a majority group member (say, a dhimmi in Saudi Arabia or the UAE; or a gypsy in Europe), that is objectively scarier than being able to trust your neighbor to not report you to the secret police. Or lynch you. Because a demagogue whipped the majority into a frenzy and they took out their frustrations at their society's failures on minority groups. This is far more frightening to me than the NSA monitoring my metadata or having to register firearms with the local sheriff, because it is an actual threat to my existence.

The greatest fear is more "being a minority" than anything else, because a majority can easily be convinced it has zero interest in protecting you.

You don't need to be a "sadistic asshole" to think that we should exterminate all gypsies or welfare recipients or whatever. Normal people had those beliefs too. Normal people can be just as easily swayed to the side of illiberalism and concentration camps as anyone else. That is what makes it so insidious.

Hitlerism is just an easy example because it involved millions of normal people whipped into a frenzy by a handful of demagogues, riding the slippery slope from "deportation" to "death camps" in the span of a decade or so, because the demagogues took advantage of the zeitgeist of the time: anti-Semitism. If it can happen in Germany, or France, it can happen anywhere. You just need hardship, an easy target (minorities work), and a demagogue putting two and two together.

The future concentration camps will probably resemble retirement villages more than Auschwitz, Chinese MMO farms, or North Korean slave camps.

"Hey this guy says he's not with IS. All of Syria and I haven't met one IS member yet."

It'll be like hunting Nazis after WW2.

I mean if they all go home and stop being threats, is that so bad? Perhaps by 20 years they'll have committed suicide out of remorse, or realize the error of their ways and live the rest of their lives peacefully?

There's no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. Bring them all in for trial.

[Allanea]

When you cannot be afforded the protections of being a majority group member (say, a dhimmi in Saudi Arabia or the UAE; or a gypsy in Europe), that is objectively scarier than being able to trust your neighbor to not report you to the secret police. Or lynch you. Because a demagogue whipped the majority into a frenzy and they took out their frustrations at their society's failures on minority groups. This is far more frightening to me than the NSA monitoring my metadata or having to register firearms with the local sheriff, because it is an actual threat to my existence.

IT's the same as terrorism, or anything else.

I don't fear being hit by lightning because - while it is terrible - it is supremely unlikely.

There are complex social and psychological reasons which explain why a modern liberal democracy is not likely to have a Holocaust in the way Germany in the 1930s could have one. I could be put in prison for some nonsense made-up crime (this happens in near every society), of course, or some other foolishness could happen that's much more likely that an a NEW HOLOCAUST.

Discussion of NEW HOLOCAUST is essentially yet another nonsense way to keep citizens away from protesting against the actual flaws that exist in their regular social systems, because are you a Nazi? Our current social system is all that keeps the NEW HOLOCAUST AWAY! NEW HOLOCAUST! WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS!. So actual injustices (including literally the deaths of thousands of innocents) are gotten away with, because at least it's not ZE HOLOCAUST or EURABIA or whatever other bogeyman is invented.

(It should be noted that it's still controversial to this day how aware the average German was what was happening - obviously nobody thought the Jews were being kept in summer camps, but how many people knew they were being methodically killed off is another mater.)

[Gallia-]

Spergen.

Judea claims that its Neue Rokit is the only counter-APS rocket in the world. Is Rafael unaware of BGM-71F-4/5/6, with 3rd, 2nd, and 1st generation CAPS respectively? The TM that lists all the BGM-71 variants and their information (including subvariants like BGM-71F-4) seems to have vanished unfortunately.

When you cannot be afforded the protections of being a majority group member (say, a dhimmi in Saudi Arabia or the UAE; or a gypsy in Europe), that is objectively scarier than being able to trust your neighbor to not report you to the secret police. Or lynch you. Because a demagogue whipped the majority into a frenzy and they took out their frustrations at their society's failures on minority groups. This is far more frightening to me than the NSA monitoring my metadata or having to register firearms with the local sheriff, because it is an actual threat to my existence.

IT's the same as terrorism, or anything else.

I don't fear being hit by lightning because - while it is terrible - it is supremely unlikely.

Taking the "terrorism is the new normal" argument? The difference is that lighting doesn't try to kill you. A lone gunman is frightening. Imagine if you had the misfortune to be caught in Kristallnacht or something, though. True fear is being the target of destruction of a thinking, pack predator group whipped into a frenzy, which is what lynch mobs essentially are. Extend this to the entire state, and you have the horror of the Nazi regime revealed.

Everything else you said is just rambling tbh, and is pretty much wrong anyway.

I fully expect when a particular social group becomes a minority, it will be exploited or oppressed by the majority. Because that is how societies work. Majorities oppress minorities. Extremely so. Quebec and Scotland are the exception, not the rule. Just look at the Native American nations, or how many Aztecs you might find today, or Chti or Louisiana French.

At best, the oppression is soft and involves social workers and boarding schools, like the Australian Stolen Generation. At worst, it is Hitler or the PRC.

Usually it's somewhere between those two and generally awful, but not outright extermination.

[Allanea]

Whether or not lightning tries to kill me is kind of irrelevant when lightning hits you.

Majorities oppress minorities. Extremely so.

Only if we conflate all forms of oppression together. Which we shouldn't.

[Gallia-]

Whether or not lightning tries to kill me is kind of irrelevant when lightning hits you.

Bombs are not natural.

Majorities oppress minorities. Extremely so.

Only if we conflate all forms of oppression together. Which we shouldn't.

TIL Trail of Tears, Stolen Generations, and Russianization weren't oppression.

It is only recently that ethnic majority nation-states have begun to embrace the idea that minority nations need to be protected rather than forcibly assimilated. In fact, it has only been common since the 1960s in the Western world. When these countries become a majority single ethnic group again (perhaps in the case of America or Canada) or when the majority ethnic group changes, they will definitely oppress whoever the minority is, through ethnic cleansing or forced assimilation. This is a good thing from the majority's standpoint, because it consolidates their power over the minorities and ensures that they can better predict behavior of social groups. In real terms, that means you see a reduction in crime and increase in civility. Which is great, as long as you're part of the majority.

But it is not so good for the minorities, who are forced into ghettos and reservations, forcibly evicted, stigmatized by society-at-large, or all of these things at once.

The practice of protecting minorities is much like the welfare state, an aberration of a single time period, and something that will be corrected in the future.

You will need another Counterculture to return to the ideal of protecting minorities from the majority, and it's not obvious that that is inevitable.

[Theodosiya]

Still related. Isn't dehumanizing potential enemies actually very useful? It would make everyone more motivated to eliminate said potential enemies

Also, from your standpoint, Gallia, should minorities be protected or what? Say, you're the president of Indonesia. Regarding Papua, would you deal with it with balanced manner, pure dialogue or pure military force?

[Gallia-]

If I were President of Indonesia I would plead to the Netherlands that they come back and show Indonesians how to govern, or perhaps beseech the UN Security Council to be made a UN Trust Territory for the same purpose.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Gallia would probs start advocating Anarcho-Primitivism soon. After all there were no "politics" to be worried about in 54,004 BC.

[Theodosiya]

My questions now stands for Allanea and everybody else who wants to answer.

[Gallia-]

Gallia would probs start advocating Anarcho-Primitivism soon. After all there were no "politics" to be worried about in 54,004 BC.

Do you seriously think that Clan Ur'nod and the Sky People weren't politicking?

[Allanea]

Bombs are not natural.

So? Why do I care?

If lightning were constantly striking in Ashdod and reaping people left and right I would be bloody terrified of it, natural or not.

TIL Trail of Tears, Stolen Generations, and Russianization weren't oppression.

Conflating 'we have taken some children from their families because our CPS workers are extremely racist'' and ''the holocaust' renders the definition of oppression meaningless. The modern USA mistreats minorities. So does Israel. So does Australia. This however does not mean that modern Americans, Israelis, or Australians are liable to put whatever minroity it is in death chambers.

The practice of protecting minorities is much like the welfare state, an aberration of a single time period, and something that will be corrected in the future.

Welfare states (in the sense of 'some kind of state provision for the indigent so they won't starve') have existed for centuries before the words 'welfare' and 'state'were strung together.

[Theodosiya]

Why, of all things, Israel should keep their minority alive?

[Austrasien]

Still related. Isn't dehumanizing potential enemies actually very useful? It would make everyone more motivated to eliminate said potential enemies?

Virtually all humans are capable of killing in the proper group context and this is almost certainly an innate feature of human psychology. Absolute pacificism is in a way pathological; people who take this to the extreme and refuse to kill even in the correct circumstances tend to be viewed with contempt or with awe. People who kill outside the correct context are similarly pathological and are generally loathed, but quite a lot of people are awestruck by them as well (just look at all the books, movies and Wikipedia pages about serial killers and other mass murderers) though you do not admit this in polite society.

To paraphrase Aristotle they are either beasts or gods.

[Allanea]

My questions now stands for Allanea and everybody else who wants to answer.

The answer is a dual one:

In wartime, you want to dehumanize your enemies at least to some extent, so your soldiers can kill them with ease.

But in peacetime, there are good reasons not to kill off the minorities. In the long-term, having different cultures in your society is economically beneficial, and generally people are economically beneficial (cf. Julian Simon). In wartime, mass-genocide is militarily inefficient.

This might not apply if the minority in question is believed to be harmful (say, if your nation-state believes it is a net drain on the public coffers).

Another issue you need to contend (besides the obvious moral issue of murder being wrong) with is how to kill off your minority group without intimidating your non-minority group members into believing they might be next. (Unless you're Stalin, then you WANT everyone to think they might be next).

In reality, of course, majority and minority membership are social constructs to an extent. Even if someone is a member of a majority ethnic group, they might be a member of a class minority, or religious minority, or whatever. It's even possible for an entirely arbitrary minority to exist.