NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

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.

If lightning were constantly striking in Ashdod and reaping people left and right, it wouldn't be natural now would it?

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.

Sure. OK. I believe you.

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.

That's great but states in general have never faced the problem of negative global population growth.

It is true that moral economies existed, but that was before profit motive existed. Moral economies cannot exist because the ideals behind them are dead, having been replaced by capitalist profit motive. What will likely happen is that people who are successful and well paid will fortify themselves in ever increasingly small portions of "civilization", while the majority of people are just sort of left to die in slums or retirement homes, because profit.

[The Manticoran Empire]

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

It is and it is common practice. Nations of all ideologies will portray their enemies as beasts to rile up the general population. The Rape of Belgium is perhaps the most famous propoganada campaign in recent history, convincing millions to sign up in the British and French armies and millions more to devote themselves to winning the war. A key aspect of warfare that is inevitably overlooked is Media. Information acquisition and dissemination. Many nations have, in times of war, suspended certain rights, such as free press, in order to maintain morale. Germany in both World Wars routinely reported victories on the Western Front, even though they were losing. Russia did the same, again despite their defeats. In both World Wars, the enemy was depicted as subhuman monsters, lacking any morality and deserving of death. The Germans compared Americans to gangsters. The Americans compared the Nazis to apes.
So, yes, it is beneficial to portray your enemy as subhuman. It is also beneficial to not tell your people the truth when you are fighting a war, lest they turn against you.

[Theodosiya]

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

It is and it is common practice. Nations of all ideologies will portray their enemies as beasts to rile up the general population. The Rape of Belgium is perhaps the most famous propoganada campaign in recent history, convincing millions to sign up in the British and French armies and millions more to devote themselves to winning the war. A key aspect of warfare that is inevitably overlooked is Media. Information acquisition and dissemination. Many nations have, in times of war, suspended certain rights, such as free press, in order to maintain morale. Germany in both World Wars routinely reported victories on the Western Front, even though they were losing. Russia did the same, again despite their defeats. In both World Wars, the enemy was depicted as subhuman monsters, lacking any morality and deserving of death. The Germans compared Americans to gangsters. The Americans compared the Nazis to apes.
So, yes, it is beneficial to portray your enemy as subhuman. It is also beneficial to not tell your people the truth when you are fighting a war, lest they turn against you.

What if it done before, during and after conflict?

[Allanea]

If lightning were constantly striking in Ashdod and reaping people left and right, it wouldn't be natural now would it?

You know precisely what I meant:

What makes an event frightening (to a rational human being, one who is not suffering from a phobia) is a combination of how likely it is to occur, and how horrible it is. I'm not afraid of being shredded alive by an anti-tank landmine in my back yard because there are no minefields in Ashdod, whereas I find the idea of being held at knifepoint somewhat unnerving, precisely because it has happened to me before and I believe it's more likely to happen to me again than random terrorist nonsense, and millions of times more likely than the ghost of Ben-Gurion turning Israel into a one-party system and having me tortured as a political or religious minority.

That's great but states in general have never faced the problem of negative global population growth.

That's not the same as saying ít is an aberration of a single time period.

[Allanea]

[
So, yes, it is beneficial to portray your enemy as subhuman. It is also beneficial to not tell your people the truth when you are fighting a war, lest they turn against you.

What if it done before, during and after conflict?[/quote]

There's a Scylla-and-Charybdis going on here.

On one hand, you want your soldiers to throw themselves at the enemy and stab them with no fear or regret. The less moral compunctions soldiers feel about killing, the more likely they are to kill when necessary, and the less likely they are to have nightmares about it afterwards.

On the other hand, if your soldiers will butcher all enemy soldiers and civilians on sight because it amuses them, it might run into whatever post-war reconstruction goals you have for your enemy, and make it difficult to have peaceful relations with your neighbor if you suddenly decide that is the way you want to go. Additionally, extreme brutality is often counter-effective militarily.

[Gallia-]

If lightning were constantly striking in Ashdod and reaping people left and right, it wouldn't be natural now would it?

You know precisely what I meant:

What makes an event frightening (to a rational human being, one who is not suffering from a phobia) is a combination of how likely it is to occur, and how horrible it is.

No, it isn't. I know how to avoid lightning because I am not a dunce. I know when tornadoes and hurricanes are going to be dangerous and I need to evacuate. I do not know when a mugger is going to turn into a murderer or a rapist. What makes an event frightening, then, is whether or not there is intellect behind it. Intellect brings chaotic/spontaneous action rather than easily mentally modeled and predicted action.

I'd be much more afraid of a mugger with a knife than potentially cutting myself while carving an avocado. Both of these are stressful events but I suspect that avocado does not wish me harm, and I do not know the mugger's intentions in the slightest so it is more difficult to predict how to respond. The problem is not that it is unlikely. You cannot get killed more than once. Nor is it how horrible it is. Being crushed by a truck is probably not substantially worse than being amputated by a bomb. What actually makes an event frightening is whether or not there is intelligence and malice behind the act, or whether the act is simply random.

A hurricane or a tornado is far less frightening than a man in a car trying to hit you. Or a man with a gun shooting at you. A hurricane or a tornado does not follow you and attempt to kill you. You can easily escape from a tornado or a hurricane, unless it surprises you I guess. It is much more difficult to escape from someone who is intent on killing people.

If you treat intelligent, malicious actions as random events, you get security theater and a schizophrenic policy that doesn't actually help keep anyone safe. Just look at the state of Western counter-terrorists, and no Israel is not "Western". Israel is "Israeli". Stuff like the TSA doesn't work but absorbs a bunch of money that could be better spent giving the FBI or some other group that actually knows what they're doing a bigger counter-terrorist budget. Or better yet, let the FBI arrest terrorists without needing to set up elaborate and expensive "stings" where they need to entrap someone by trying to sell them a brick of modeling clay pretending to be C4.

It is very easy to determine how lightning strikes people, when lightning is liable to strike people, and what it looks like when it is about to strike. We know how to avoid it. We also know how to predict the paths of tornadoes and hurricanes to alert people ahead of time. We know nothing of these things about terrorists, because terrorists are unique individuals or groups with intelligence. They are not tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, or earthquakes. They are people with plans, resources, and motivations.

The same fear of malicious intelligence applies to frenzied mobs wanting to lynch someone as much as it does terrorists wanting to bomb a shopping mall. Or a nation of people coerced into giving power to a man who wants to kill millions.

That's great but states in general have never faced the problem of negative global population growth.

That's not the same as saying ít is an aberration of a single time period.

Except it is. It's an aberration of the time period of positive population (thus, tax revenue) growth. Once your retiree population is growing faster than your working age population, there's no reason to pay for welfare. Because you can't.

Austerity will unfortunately continue until we figure out how to make people factories. So it will continue forever.

[Gallia-]

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.

Wow train loads that could be used for ammunition instead used for Jews. That is an interesting take. This is like something Viyk would write.

[Austrasien]

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.

Wow train loads that could be used for ammunition instead used for Jews. That is an interesting take. This is like something Viyk would write.

Hitler's depravity knew no bounds.

D:<

[Gallia-]

>be railhead
>ammo dump
>sitting for days
>no trains to move

mfw (:

because less nazi bulit

[Purpelia]

Austerity will unfortunately continue until we figure out how to make people factories. So it will continue forever.

We already know how to mass produce people. It's easy. We do it to animals all the time. The problem is not making more bodies but using them productively. And this is something we also know exactly how to do but refuse due to the cult of free trade. The trend of austerity ends once the west sees a revival of authoritarian protectionism which is inevitable.

[Allanea]

If you treat intelligent, malicious actions as random events, you get security theater and a schizophrenic policy that doesn't actually help keep anyone safe. Just look at the state of Western counter-terrorists, and no Israel is not "Western". Israel is "Israeli". Stuff like the TSA doesn't work but absorbs a bunch of money that could be better spent giving the FBI or some other group that actually knows what they're doing a bigger counter-terrorist budget. Or better yet, let the FBI arrest terrorists without needing to set up elaborate and expensive "stings" where they need to entrap someone by trying to sell them a brick of modeling clay pretending to be C4.

Except that terrorism is random as far as my personal security is concerned. A bomb-wielding terrorist is no more likely to target the shopping mall, bus, or plane that I use than he is to target any other bus or plane. If I had some knowledge that - for some deranged reason - a Hamas suicide bomber is headed towards my house specifically, I might be afraid. But since terrorists are no more interested in killing me than in any other random Jew (or really, any other random Israeli, since terrorists have no means to distinguish Israeli-Arabs from Israeli Jews on the spot), terrorism is essentially random.

More to the point, the people likely to become terrorists are usually incompetent and idiotic. With a few highly publicized exceptions, most terrorist attacks end in spectacular, tragicomic failure. The low likelihood of terrorists murdering Allanea the player is a reflection of the fact that terrorists are typically a combination of illiterate, cowardly, and stupid.

[The Manticoran Empire]

It is and it is common practice. Nations of all ideologies will portray their enemies as beasts to rile up the general population. The Rape of Belgium is perhaps the most famous propoganada campaign in recent history, convincing millions to sign up in the British and French armies and millions more to devote themselves to winning the war. A key aspect of warfare that is inevitably overlooked is Media. Information acquisition and dissemination. Many nations have, in times of war, suspended certain rights, such as free press, in order to maintain morale. Germany in both World Wars routinely reported victories on the Western Front, even though they were losing. Russia did the same, again despite their defeats. In both World Wars, the enemy was depicted as subhuman monsters, lacking any morality and deserving of death. The Germans compared Americans to gangsters. The Americans compared the Nazis to apes.
So, yes, it is beneficial to portray your enemy as subhuman. It is also beneficial to not tell your people the truth when you are fighting a war, lest they turn against you.

What if it done before, during and after conflict?

That has been known to happen. Particularly during the "European Cold War" of the late 19th and early 20th century. The period between the Franco-Prussian War and World War One saw several nations engaged in a propaganda war with each other, particularly Austria-Hungary and Serbia. However, a more display would be North Korea. Even before the Korean War in 1950, North Korea filled their citizens minds with tales of American depravity and the cruelty of Capitalists. During the war, North Korean media was flooded by tales of American atrocities. Today, North Korea has a museum dedicated to exaggerated or outright fictional American war crimes. And this can be extremely beneficial. If your populace has been convinced they don't need free press before the war, they won't notice when the war ends that the government still controls their news.

[Gallia-]

If you treat intelligent, malicious actions as random events, you get security theater and a schizophrenic policy that doesn't actually help keep anyone safe. Just look at the state of Western counter-terrorists, and no Israel is not "Western". Israel is "Israeli". Stuff like the TSA doesn't work but absorbs a bunch of money that could be better spent giving the FBI or some other group that actually knows what they're doing a bigger counter-terrorist budget. Or better yet, let the FBI arrest terrorists without needing to set up elaborate and expensive "stings" where they need to entrap someone by trying to sell them a brick of modeling clay pretending to be C4.

Except that terrorism is random as far as my personal security is concerned.

Which honestly makes it more frightening. Homicide and suicide tend to be confined to specific subgroups of society, which means that as long as you're not one of those subgroups, you are much safer from crime. Terrorism's randomness and abruptness offers no such protection, so all members of society are equally at risk for terrorism, with the risk rising as large groups of people congregate.

Perhaps you could make the argument that living in a rural community vs. a major city makes you less vulnerable to society, but that is not a good argument since rural communities tend to be less than well of.

A bomb-wielding terrorist is no more likely to target the shopping mall, bus, or plane that I use than he is to target any other bus or plane.

Which really just makes the need for competent and capable counter terrorist agencies all the more important.

If I had some knowledge that - for some deranged reason - a Hamas suicide bomber is headed towards my house specifically, I might be afraid. But since terrorists are no more interested in killing me than in any other random Jew (or really, any other random Israeli, since terrorists have no means to distinguish Israeli-Arabs from Israeli Jews on the spot), terrorism is essentially random.

Which, again, makes it more frightening. White males in America are more likely to blow their brains out with pistols. Black males in America are more likely to be stabbed or shot. Both groups are equally likely to be run over by a bus driver by a white supremacist or a Saudi fanatic.

More to the point, the people likely to become terrorists are usually incompetent and idiotic. With a few highly publicized exceptions, most terrorist attacks end in spectacular, tragicomic failure. The low likelihood of terrorists murdering Allanea the player is a reflection of the fact that terrorists are typically a combination of illiterate, cowardly, and stupid.

You are wrong. Three of the biggest terrorists of our modern age were quite literate, intelligent, fairly competent individuals who were able to evade detection for years at a time. Kaczynski and Bin Laden for decades, Breivik for two and a half or so.

Breivik was neither stupid nor illiterate. He has an above average IQ, at least, and was quite literate. Kaczynski was not stupid, either. He was a genius level IQ and mathematician PhD before he became a militant environmentalist, wrote his manifesto (which Brevik plagiarized portions of), and began sending bombs to random people. And Kaczynski's manifesto was hardly poorly received among highly intelligent American academics, some of who felt that he was right in his pessimism over industrial society. Further, his manifesto was rather sane and coherent, hardly what you would expect of someone who is "illiterate, cowardly, and stupid". Bin Laden was hardly an idiot too, considering he built a terror ring that managed to fight the United States for several decades, masterminded 9/11 and Beirut, and was at least above average IQ as well.

So I don't really see your argument holding much water. Because a few terrorist foot soldiers are illiterate, cowardly, and stupid (how is a terrorist illiterate if they need to use text to communicate!?), that clearly translates to every terrorist being a buffoon? Of course not. The successful terrorists are frightening because they are a malicious intellect. The buffoon terrorists are entrapped by the FBI while the really damaging terrorists manage to sneak by them, although 9/11 was mostly due to legal bungling than actual incompetence on part of the FBI.

e: Of course we can argue whether or not anarcho-primitivism and "highly intelligent" belong in the same category at all. Perhaps "highly delusional", but not necessarily insane or irrational. At least no more than Whig history.

[Allanea]

You are wrong. Three of the biggest terrorists of our modern age were quite literate, intelligent, fairly competent individuals who were able to evade detection for years at a time. Kaczynski and Bin Laden for decades, Breivik for two and a half or so.

Breivik was neither stupid nor illiterate. He has an above average IQ, at least, and was quite literate. Kaczynski was not stupid, either. He was a genius level IQ and mathematician PhD before he became a militant environmentalist, wrote his manifesto (which Brevik plagiarized portions of), and began sending bombs to random people. And Kaczynski's manifesto was hardly poorly received among highly intelligent American academics, some of who felt that he was right in his pessimism over industrial society. Further, his manifesto was rather sane and coherent, hardly what you would expect of someone who is "illiterate, cowardly, and stupid". Bin Laden was hardly an idiot too, considering he built a terror ring that managed to fight the United States for several decades, masterminded 9/11 and Beirut, and was at least above average IQ as well.

These three individuals are not representatives of the average terrorist, and they're hardly representative of the average terrorist. Kaczynski particularly was not very successful as far as the raw number of killings goes (he killed 3 people and injured 23, hardly record-setting stuff). Al-Qaeda could not possibly have masterminded the Beirut bombing since it occured before the group was founded.

The average terrorist is in fact stupid, illiterate (usually mind you not in the literal sense), and incompetent.

Being personally frightened that a terrorist might strike you personally is quite irrational, unless your name is Salman Rushdie or something.

[Gallia-]

You are wrong. Three of the biggest terrorists of our modern age were quite literate, intelligent, fairly competent individuals who were able to evade detection for years at a time. Kaczynski and Bin Laden for decades, Breivik for two and a half or so.

Breivik was neither stupid nor illiterate. He has an above average IQ, at least, and was quite literate. Kaczynski was not stupid, either. He was a genius level IQ and mathematician PhD before he became a militant environmentalist, wrote his manifesto (which Brevik plagiarized portions of), and began sending bombs to random people. And Kaczynski's manifesto was hardly poorly received among highly intelligent American academics, some of who felt that he was right in his pessimism over industrial society. Further, his manifesto was rather sane and coherent, hardly what you would expect of someone who is "illiterate, cowardly, and stupid". Bin Laden was hardly an idiot too, considering he built a terror ring that managed to fight the United States for several decades, masterminded 9/11 and Beirut, and was at least above average IQ as well.

These three individuals are not representatives of the average terrorist, and they're hardly representative of the average terrorist. Kaczynski particularly was not very successful as far as the raw number of killings goes (he killed 3 people and injured 23, hardly record-setting stuff). Al-Qaeda could not possibly have masterminded the Beirut bombing since it occured before the group was founded.

Did I say "Al-Qa'ida"? No, I said Bin Laden.

The average terrorist is in fact stupid, illiterate (usually mind you not in the literal sense), and incompetent.

Then what sense of "illiterate" did you mean if you did not mean "illiterate"?

Being personally frightened that a terrorist might strike you personally is quite irrational, unless your name is Salman Rushdie or something.

Amazing. Do you think I go outside wearing an EOD suit? Because you're completely correct. You're right. You win!

[North Arkana]

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

It is and it is common practice. Nations of all ideologies will portray their enemies as beasts to rile up the general population. The Rape of Belgium is perhaps the most famous propoganada campaign in recent history, convincing millions to sign up in the British and French armies and millions more to devote themselves to winning the war. A key aspect of warfare that is inevitably overlooked is Media. Information acquisition and dissemination. Many nations have, in times of war, suspended certain rights, such as free press, in order to maintain morale. Germany in both World Wars routinely reported victories on the Western Front, even though they were losing. Russia did the same, again despite their defeats. In both World Wars, the enemy was depicted as subhuman monsters, lacking any morality and deserving of death. The Germans compared Americans to gangsters. The Americans compared the Nazis to apes.
So, yes, it is beneficial to portray your enemy as subhuman. It is also beneficial to not tell your people the truth when you are fighting a war, lest they turn against you.

Problem is that the Rape of Belgium actually happened...

[Allanea]

Did I say "Al-Qa'ida"? No, I said Bin Laden.

Who was (unless you possess some truly unusual historical evidence) probably not involved either. Mostly because he was in Afghanistan on entirely different business.

Then what sense of "illiterate" did you mean if you did not mean "illiterate"?

The dictionary one:

1 :having little or no education; especially :unable to read or write an illiterate population

That's to say, extremely uneducated people - like Brejvik! - are often referred to as illiterate even when they can actually put letters on paper. The average Palestinian terrorist is exactly in this category.

It's broadly irrelevant that there are some Bin Ladin's out there, because the culture and social structure of the countries that generate most terrorists do not enable them to have the support structure that would make them reliably deadly in such away as to genuinely endanger Western civilization.

[Allanea]

Problem is that the Rape of Belgium actually happened...

Yes. WW1 German nationalism was a truly terrible thing, possibly a softcore edition of what happened later.

But this doesn't detract from the fact that Entente military propaganda sought to play up the events for its own interest.

[Gallia-]

Did I say "Al-Qa'ida"? No, I said Bin Laden.

Who was (unless you possess some truly unusual historical evidence) probably not involved either. Mostly because he was in Afghanistan on entirely different business.

Whoops, yeah, I was conflating it with the embassy bombings.

That's to say, extremely uneducated people - like Brejvik! - are often referred to as illiterate even when they can actually put letters on paper. The average Palestinian terrorist is exactly in this category.

It's broadly irrelevant that there are some Bin Ladin's out there, because the culture and social structure of the countries that generate most terrorists do not enable them to have the support structure that would make them reliably deadly in such away as to genuinely endanger Western civilization.

Then you might as well argue that nothing short of general nuclear war is a non-threat that shouldn't be addressed. Given the lax standards of American counter-terrorism, you could just abolish the entire DHS, TSA, and go back to pre-9/11 standards of everything, and no one would notice a thing. It's not like security theater is doing anything that will prevent another Lockerbie, unlike the case in Israel where CTs are proactive and responsive to terror, Western CTs are broadly reactive due to legal complications and lack of money.

The CIA might have information on a terror attack several days before it happens but can't act on it because there was some dumb law prevents them from sharing information with the FBI. Then 9/11 happens. RIP >3,000 people.

In Israel you'd see a cooperation between all sorts of intelligence agencies and the military to black bag the terrorists, shoot them with Hellfires, or something to dismantle the plot. Not in the West, where red tape trumps common sense!

[Allanea]

Actually, the West is doing something that addresses a lot of the issue. It's just it's not DHS or TSA that do it.

[Gallia-]

Bombing ISIS isn't really helping that much. Like I said, they're just going to play whack-a-mole for the next few years, and expend all operational readiness bombing terrorists, instead of keeping the Russians out of NATO or the PRC contained.

Unless you mean something else, counter-terrorism isn't exactly the job of the DoD. It can certainly lend support, but counter-terrorism is the purview of the CIA and America's intelligence agencies, ultimately. Much like it was in the 1970s when the communists were terrorizing all sorts of stuff with the backing of the KGB. Except now it's radical Islamic fanatics backed by Saudi princes and Qatari magnates, or lone wolf bombers/shooters like McVeigh and Breivik. The CIA should get more money for CT, while the DoD backs away from the "bombing ISIS" and focuses more on putting tank divisions in Europe again and getting Burkes to run rings around Chinese sandbars.

That would be the ideal because it clearly delineates roles. The DOD tackles states and major armies, the CIA/FBI/NSA tackle FIS and terrorists who are too small fry to focus a carrier battlegroup on, but they assist each other because the CIA maintains intelligence sources in the PRC and Russia, while the FBI roots out spy rings and Russian/Chinese agents, and the DoD sometimes gives Predator drones or Tomahawk missiles to either. You'd have to nix Posse Comitatus, but that is a bad law made to weaken the United States by subversive Confederates anyway.

You might want to split the NSA into two though, since its missions of protecting American communications and capturing enemy signals are mutually exclusive.

[Allanea]

Bombing terrorists is superbly helpful because to carry out serious terrorist attacks you need to have training facilities, infrastructure, etc. All of this is stuff you can blow up.

You're forever going to play 'whack-a-mole' simply because after today's terrorists there are going to be other terrorists, and after Radical Islam stops being relevant in a few decades there's going to be some other new stupidity. Maybe communism again.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with whacking moles.

[Gallia-]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with whacking moles.

Sure there isn't.

[Allanea]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with whacking moles.

Sure there isn't.

Who_cares.

[Gallia-]

Sure there isn't.

Who_cares.

People who want to play "whack-a-mole", since that requires spare parts, repairs, training, and missiles too. Also, people who want to be able to put Russia and China back in their place when they get uppity.

But we've long established you're a defeatist.