Many people crow about how technology is making geography obsolescent. Better tanks, better guns, computers, stealth capabilities, and the myriad other advantages are pointed to as examples of how America is becoming too advanced to worry about petty geopolitical concerns. However, there is no technology that inspires this kind of puerile arrogance like American space capabilities. What the arrogant do not realize is that space has its own geopolitics; utilization and weaponization of space may overcome geopolitical obstacles and conditions on earth, but is subject to geopolitical equivalents in space.
The Decisive Advantages of Space Power
The capacity of space power to overcome earthly obstacles is indeed amazing. Many of the necessities to which geography was an impediment (communication, transportation and range, for instance) are to a significant degree conquered by space power. In no institution do the effects of space power show themselves more prominently, or are more indispensable, than in the U.S. military.
As the potency of space power becomes increasingly clear, the military is making great efforts to integrate space technology with their conventional forces.[1] Military operations have made the move from being simply supported by space assets, to becoming “space-enabled”; that is, space has become so integrated into the military that it is unable to function properly without benefits of space power.[2] Since “Operation Desert Storm”, often called the “first space war”, use of space technology has increased exponentially.[3] In “Operation Iraqi Freedom” the U.S. military used forty-two percent times the amount of bandwidth dedicated to the use of space technology than “Operation Desert Storm”.[4]
Space power is better able to answer the timeless questions of warfighting information requirements, namely: Where am I? Where are my allies? Where is the enemy?[5] (Incidentally, these questions are also questions of geography.) Through satellite technology, warriors have better situational awareness than ever before, and consequently a decisive advantage on the battlefield.
A technology that has gained much recognition because of its use for situational awareness in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is Blue Force Tracking (BFT).[6] This technology tracks friendly units at the brigade level and below, and makes that information available to the units that need it.[7] This capability was utilized most notably in the capture of Saddam Hussein, but its true value was proven by its effectiveness in preventing fratricide at the tactical and individual soldier level.[8]
This is just one of many U.S. space advantages. Satellites and space technology provide more than just improved situational awareness. They give greater precision in locating targets, enabling more effective and efficient use of munitions.[9] They can detect and defend against nuclear missile attacks.[10] Radar sensing from space is sufficient to enable tracking of small, mobile targets on both the ground and the air, and over much larger areas.[11] Most importantly, American forces in the field enjoy a greater resilience from “interference”, adverse weather, and attempted deception through the great diversity of sensing means and abilities.[12]
A nation’s strength is in more than its force of arms, however. It must be economically prosperous and have a stable, peaceful society. The advantage of U.S. space power is more than just military; the immense infrastructure in space is also beneficial to the civil and economic sectors of society.[13] Without the bounty of civilian endeavors to fund a military, and, more specifically, a space program, America would not enjoy the advantages that it does.[14]
The United States of America currently enjoys “supremacy in space, and in the employment of space-based technologies.”[15] However, what this does not say is that having supremacy in space means having supremacy on the Earth:
"Space power is… about planning, coordinating, and delivering overwhelming firepower and dominant maneuver in the conventional battlespace, and about providing critical intelligence and command and control in the irregular battle. Space power keeps our footprint small and light, while allowing us to be agile and flexible, and making our air, land, and sea power more effective and lethal. Lastly, space power… [opens up] more strategic and operational options for our civilian leadership and military commanders; it provides us with a decisive qualitative and quantitative edge over our adversaries.[16]"
Space frees the U.S. from geographical concerns and increases the wealth and strength of the nation. To control space is to dominate the Earth.
The Vulnerabilities of Space Power
Despite the overwhelming advantages that space power provides, it does not bestow omnipotence on the wielder. There are some significant drawbacks and weaknesses to reliance on space power.
Space power and capabilities are incredibly expensive. The current budget at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in excess of seventeen billion dollars[17], and that is only a civilian space program. New technology and capabilities in space will be prohibitively expensive, as the costs will go beyond the significant amount of funds that are already dedicated to space. The American space program, then, is vulnerable to economic assault or simple recession.
Take, for instance, the Reagan-era “Brilliant Pebbles” space program, which called for multiple small missile interceptors to orbit the earth.[18] Unfortunately, studies showed that in a best case scenario it would take one thousand six hundred of the little interceptors to take down a single nuclear missile.[19] This program was recently proposed again, and the estimated cost for orbiting just a thousand of the interceptors was around sixteen billion dollars.[20] It would therefore cost nearly twenty-two billion dollars just to defeat a single missile.
Development of space power comes with a hefty opportunity cost. Resources are limited, and dedicating them to space power means cutting costs in other areas. Conventional forces are hit the hardest: armed forces cannot afford the costs incurred by sustaining large numbers of troops.[21] Fewer bodies mean a lessened capability for ground coverage, patrols, and occupation. It also means that military forces deprived of their connection to space are more vulnerable to geopolitical conditions.
Space assets are vulnerable to the ground forces, even, or perhaps especially, to asymmetrical or irregular military forces, such terrorist or special forces.[22] Utilizing space power requires stations on earth; ground stations are vulnerable to attack from the ground. While destruction or hostile takeover of such stations would not destroy space infrastructure, it would render space assets inaccessible, and therefore useless.
It is possible to hide from satellites by exploiting blind spots in coverage, such as underwater, underground structures, and maskirovka. In fact, a strategic emphasis on stealthy forces, such as submarines, would not defeat American supremacy in space so much as avoid it.[23] The result is much the same. Some terrain is difficult for satellite imagery to penetrate, such as in Afghanistan, and building decoy or underground structures can deceive or defeat attempts at sensing. Utilizing such cheap counters, while not perfect, go a long way in reducing the advantages of space power.
American space power, while supreme now, is not guaranteed to remain so. Space is not the exclusive province of America, and other nations, covetous of the benefits of space, are even now venturing into space.[24] Neither is space power “a substitute for all forms of military capacity nor for the economic, diplomatic, and political power on which not only American security in general but space power specifically depends.”[25] These are the greatest weaknesses of space power, namely that it is dependent on other factors, is not itself a solution to every geopolitical problem, and any nation with the will and means can make a bid to challenge America’s absolute power in space. However, there is one more weakness.
The Geopolitics of Space: The Greatest Strength and Weakness of Space Power
To say that outer space has its own geopolitics seems disingenuous; after all, geopolitics deals with the mutual influences of earth and man on one another, and what results from this interaction. The connection fails at a cursory examination: space is not the earth. The impulse to view it like this must be overcome; for space is no longer an unreachable and unusable void. In many ways, space is the new sky, and, by extension, space power is the new air power.
The development of space power may influence the United State’s alliances and destabilize the international order.[26] There is no telling what reaction developing space weapons and power will provoke from allies and enemies alike. Will allies become alienated by an even more powerful America, or will they be comforted? Will enemies view it as a threat and respond, or will they be pacified? No matter what their reaction, there is one indisputable fact: space affects geopolitics on earth, and therefore is itself part of geopolitics.
Militarizing space could be provocative to other nations. “The deployment of space weapons… would accordingly increase sensitivity to vulnerability and needlessly heighten fears and tension.”[27] This heightened fear, the argument goes, would lead to an inevitable first strike, crippling America’s capabilities right when they were needed the most.[28] Although this concern is rather pessimistic, the lesson it provides is to use prudence and caution while developing space power so that a potentially stabilizing defense policy does not backfire because of geopolitical implications.
Furthermore, space power is not, as its names implies, of a solely military nature. It has influence on a broad spectrum of national interests, both civilian and military. Commander John Klein of the United States Navy writes, “[The] moniker space power is an ill-suited strategic context for considering the diverse national interests and activities in space. For many countries - especially the United States - activities in space affect their diplomatic, information, military, and economic interests.”[29] Space and space power has become intimately involved in the U.S. national interests and must therefore figure a large part in geopolitical considerations.
Just as space influences geopolitics on earth, so too do earthly politics affect the arena of space. Even those nations unable to field a space program can still affect U.S. policy in space through attacks on ground facilities that communicate with satellites and through other tactics designed to negate the advantages of American space power.[30]
Those nations with the wealth, technology and ambition necessary to venture a space program are even more pertinent to the geopolitics of space. Opposing space programs and power can threaten U.S. superiority in space, and thereby affect behavior and policy. The threat of force by other nations in space also brings into relief the purely geographic concerns of space: the locations of assets, virtual chokepoints, fields of vision, distance and obstacles and advantages of the different areas of space.
The recent Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test illustrates the political and geographical concerns of space. On January 11th, 2007 the Chinese launched their first successful anti-satellite missile, destroying one of their own low-orbit weather satellites.[31] Many experts contend that the Chinese weapon is primitive, and only able to engage larger, lower-altitude targets efficiently.[32] Indeed, “the same technology [Chinese ASAT capability] is unlikely to guarantee results at much higher altitudes, the communications and navigational satellites are probably still safe…[as are] the satellites collecting electronic intelligence.”[33] The importance of geography in this case is obvious: the higher the satellites are in space, the more safe they are.
However, developing space power and weapons has an effect on more than just the practical demands of defense. They can have a far-reaching impact on both domestic and international politics. For instance, regard the political consequences of the Chinese ASAT missile test, reported in the Washington Times:
"The Bush administration has suspended plans to develop space ventures with China, including joint exploration of the moon, in reaction to Beijing’s Jan. 11 test of an anti-satellite weapon that left orbiting debris threatening U.S. and foreign satellites…suspension is meant to signal U.S. displeasure with the anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) test, as well as Beijing’s failure to provide an explanation for its space arms program.[34]"
While this response is not cataclysmic, it does indicate a further estrangement between two of the most powerful nations on earth, brought about by conflicting space policies.
Part of the theory of geopolitics is that environmental conditions have a profound effect on the development of a people and their culture.[35] While man has been superficially aware of space ever since he could look up at the stars, it is only recently that society has become space-conscious. That is to say, man has gained an understanding of space as a place that can be conquered and used for his purpose, as opposed to some nebulous place as distant from the real world as an abstract thought. The new consciousness of space influences the formation and character of man in much the same that climate and terrain have for centuries.
Space power can have an intoxicating effect on the human psyche. While pursuing its interests in space, the U.S. must be wary of overblown or ideological thinking. There are already murmurings of using space power as a means to pacify the earth and achieve utopian goals such as ending armed conflict, and ushering in an era of peace and prosperity underneath the benevolent hegemonic power of America.[36] Approaching space power through this frame will undoubtedly lead to conflict, both domestically and abroad, and may result in a number of undesirable consequences, the worst of which would be war. However, this reaction to the new possibilities of space does illustrate just how profound an impact the introduction of a new geographical condition can have on the character of a nation.
Space power unable to affect geopolitics would be nothing more than an impotent curiosity. However, that is the paradox of space power. Without it its influence in geopolitics, it would be next to useless, but its entrance into the geopolitical realm makes it vulnerable to geopolitical considerations. Therefore, its strength is also its greatest weakness.
Conclusions
Space is an open playing field (and it will be until mankind starts constructing space navies), and the geopolitical conflicts and rules that would normally play themselves out on earth, but cannot because of America’s smothering supremacy, will now play themselves out in space. New rules and constraints will form once space becomes more crowded, and a significant part of what makes space power so effective (namely, that the United States is the only one who has it) will be lost. The only solution is to be constantly several steps ahead of competitors, and to maintain an edge in technology, integration, proliferation and, most importantly, the capacity to defend the American infrastructure.
Space power is inherently geopolitical, both in what it affects, and what affects it. When applied to earth, space power overcomes geographic obstacles, and decisively enhances the military, economic, and civil sectors of society. The United States of America owes much of its current influence, strength and prosperity to its space programs. Space power is as vulnerable to conventional geopolitical power as geopolitical power is vulnerable to it. In the end, space power is not revolutionary to the theory of geopolitics; it is merely a new, albeit important, consideration. A powerful new piece has been added to the game, but the rules remain the same.
[1] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 156.
[2] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 86.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 89.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Mickey McCarter, “Bigger Role for Blue Force Tracking,” Military Information Technology 8, no. 4 (2004), http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=504#top.
[8] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 89.
[9] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[10] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006):86.
[11] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 143.
[14] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameter 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[15] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[16] John B. Sheldon, “Selling U.S. Space Power Short,” The Space Review (September 4, 2007), http://www.thespacereview.com/article/948/1.
[17] Michael D. Griffin, complier, “N.A.S.A. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Summary,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html.
[18] Theresa Hitchens, “Return of the Star Warriors,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63, no.1 (2007): 77.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[22] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 160-161.
[25] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[26] Steven Lambakis, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics,” Policy Review 105 (2001): 43.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[30] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[31] Bill Gertz, “Officials fear a war in space by China,” The Washington Times, January 29, 2007, Front Page.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[34] Bill Gertz, “US halts cooperation in space with China,” The Washington Times, February 5, 2007, Front Page.
[35] Geopolitics. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geopolitics.
[36] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Women, Contraception and Social Change
As I was perusing America Online one morning, I bumped into one of their articles on "health". More specifically, it was on the new breakthroughs in women's contraception. It spoke about five new advances in birth control systems. As disgusting and disturbing as it was to read, it did bring into sharp relief the dreadful consequences that contraception has wrought on our society. I know that writing about this on my blog is not nearly the national forum to call for social change as, say, the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal is, however, I cannot let the unbounded enthusiasm of this article pass without making something of a squawk. I plan on saying more than just- "Contraception is bad, and for these reasons." Instead I want to briefly speak about the nearly catastrophic and revolutionary changes it has brought about in our society, and then, condemn them. (I know I will be called unenlightened and primitive. I look forward to it. )
"What captured the attention of most women was the "pill"- a new method of pregnancy protection that promised to revolutionize a women's sex life. And it did." Besides just illustrating the classic problem with science (that they are more concerned with seeing if they can do something, rather than thinking if they should), this quote captures the blind enthusiasm that people have for contraception. It speaks matter-of-factly about the sexual revolution and assumes it a beneficial thing. However, no-one asks what the sexual revolution did to the family.
I am not going to sit here and write that everyone was happy in 1950, and that we should go back to that. After all, the modern age had to come from somewhere. However, in the days before the sexual revolution, divorce rates were low and so were single and teen pregnancies. Now we have more than half of married couples divorcing and single pregnancy is skyrocketing.
Why?
The answer to a large degree is contraception. It undermines sexual morality by making fornication so easy, accessible and, most importantly, consequence-free (by which I mean pregnancy-free). In days gone by, women were afraid to have pre-marital sex, for fear of becoming pregnant and taking that stigma upon themselves. As a result, it just didn't happen.
Many women claim today that men are pigs, that they do not listen and that they are only interested in one thing. Well, I ask, why shouldn't they be? Sex outside of marriage isn't the best way to get a man to respect a woman, and the more women flaunt that, the more men will view them as objects. And not just individual women, either, a man who has gotten consequence- free sex since a young adult will have trouble seeing any woman as more than just something with which he can sate his lust. These men marry women, just as much as any other man. Is it any wonder that the institution of marriage is failing?
I am not saying that it isn't to a large degree man's fault, or that men have some sort of right to behave like barbarians. However, traditionally men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. If a women says "No!" then it will not happen. The power to say no can change a society. If women start to have nothing to do with immoral men, men will behave morally, and start living up to the standards that women set for them. Contraception gets in the way of that social change.
"What captured the attention of most women was the "pill"- a new method of pregnancy protection that promised to revolutionize a women's sex life. And it did." Besides just illustrating the classic problem with science (that they are more concerned with seeing if they can do something, rather than thinking if they should), this quote captures the blind enthusiasm that people have for contraception. It speaks matter-of-factly about the sexual revolution and assumes it a beneficial thing. However, no-one asks what the sexual revolution did to the family.
I am not going to sit here and write that everyone was happy in 1950, and that we should go back to that. After all, the modern age had to come from somewhere. However, in the days before the sexual revolution, divorce rates were low and so were single and teen pregnancies. Now we have more than half of married couples divorcing and single pregnancy is skyrocketing.
Why?
The answer to a large degree is contraception. It undermines sexual morality by making fornication so easy, accessible and, most importantly, consequence-free (by which I mean pregnancy-free). In days gone by, women were afraid to have pre-marital sex, for fear of becoming pregnant and taking that stigma upon themselves. As a result, it just didn't happen.
Many women claim today that men are pigs, that they do not listen and that they are only interested in one thing. Well, I ask, why shouldn't they be? Sex outside of marriage isn't the best way to get a man to respect a woman, and the more women flaunt that, the more men will view them as objects. And not just individual women, either, a man who has gotten consequence- free sex since a young adult will have trouble seeing any woman as more than just something with which he can sate his lust. These men marry women, just as much as any other man. Is it any wonder that the institution of marriage is failing?
I am not saying that it isn't to a large degree man's fault, or that men have some sort of right to behave like barbarians. However, traditionally men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. If a women says "No!" then it will not happen. The power to say no can change a society. If women start to have nothing to do with immoral men, men will behave morally, and start living up to the standards that women set for them. Contraception gets in the way of that social change.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Support For Kosovar Independence Aids Our Enemies.
For the past several weeks the news in
The
The
Second, our position has been that Kosovo should be independent because of the Serbian atrocities committed upon the Kosovar Albanians. The Albanian however did the same thing to the Serbs during World War II, and the Serbs did the same thing again to the Albanians in 1870, and the list goes on and on. Why are we making the decision for them? It is near impossible to argue that it is a necessity to
Why are we aiding the Kosovar Albanians? They have been wronged by the Serbs this is true, but the Ukrainians have been wronged by the Russians, and the Hutus killed the Tutsis and we haven’t intervened. We need more precise means of judging what conflicts we should and shouldn’t be involved in and generally, our own self interest should figure into our decisions rather prominently, along with the general welfare of others.
Added to this, our foreign policy for the past decade and a half has been aimed at aiding Muslim nations. There was or liberation of
Kosovo is the equivalent of a Serbian Jerusalem. For
Sunday, February 24, 2008
On The Political Conditions in War
Taken From: Seabury and Codevilla's WAR: ENDS AND MEANS
The Fog of Wars
War is more than who has the superior force; it is also about leadership, and what leaders will do under the stress of a moment. It is about a leader’s ability to see when and where to apply the proper amount of force.
“Thus Tolstoy concludes, victory and defeat are not to be understood as consequences of rationally managed physical and political engagements, rather, they are the consequences of profoundly more-psychological conditions.”
Battle is neither controllable nor completely uncontrollable; instead one must do one’s best to effect and direct the chaos.
Conditions during war are not static, but dynamic. Seemingly rich and powerful regimes can fall apart under bad management (ie, Ottoman Empire), and an advantage can be turned against a nation if the enemy makes a powerful counter-measure (ie, German Submarine Warfare in WWI).
“The fog of war is thickest for those least willing or able or able to impose their will on events, and it is most transparent for those most able to affect the conditions in which they operate.”
What makes the fog?
“The fog is the result of the unpredictable interactions of incalculable human factors… This is because one’s own intentions and plans are all one can be sure of.”
The Reasons No-One Can Predict the Nature of War:
1) Wars are contests between active wills
2) Those who initiate war conceal their intentions and capabilities, and once war starts it tends to take on a concealed life of its own.
3) No-one can foretell which side will more quickly change its own ways to minimize the other’s strengths.
4) The scope, intensity and purpose depend to some extent on how hard the other side tries and on the degree to which the war engages the nation’s energies and ingenuity.
5) The principle reason for the fog of war is that so much depends on human purpose, and human purpose is so variable.
Piercing the Fog
The Fog of War can be pierced only by leaders since it results from the turbulent human emotions; it can only be pierced by the assertion of human qualities that master these emotions.
All attempts to pierce the fog of war must be based on the knowledge of the enemy.
Rehearsed attacks can be useful, but they cost time. Also, if too rehearsed, they becoming rigid inflexible, which can be a problem in situations where the conditions are different than anticipated. (This highlights the necessity of good intelligence.)
Victory
Victory is the whole point of war, and it means the forceful application of one’s will on another.
The traditional concept of victory is putting the enemy military into a position where they can no longer handle the pressure, both military and political.
The best way to secure victory is land forces, who will put the bayonet to the back of the enemy to compel obedience, and who can then determine the fundamental political decisions of who gets what when, where and how much. Though even this ultimate method is not infallible, as there remains the possibility for rebellion. However, most rebellions fail unless done in tandem with outside conflict, or a morally weak enemy.
On the other hand, if you are losing the primary objective is to avoid occupation or disarmament at all costs. The losing party must minimize the damage, and live by the code conserve, retreat and fortify.
The Political Conditions of Battle
Important political decisions are who will fight? Who will lead? How? What will the plan be?
Who will fight?
In western civilization, military service has been regarded either as art of citizenship or something that the taxpayer is obliged to foot the bill for.
There are several different categories of purchased troops:
1) Actual mercenaries.
2) Janissaries (captured and brainwashed children, usually enemy children.)
3) Imperial power putting its own officers over conquered nation’s units.
4) Armies purchased by alliance (sometimes to fight, sometimes to deter war)
a. Not usually a good idea for two reasons
i. They allied armies are more likely to lose, because they don’t have a stake.
ii. If they win, they may not be willing to give up what they’ve won to ally, and may turn against him, stronger than they were originally.
5) Domestic troops who are not compelled by civil authority to join the army, and are instead paid handsomely to ensure loyalty and quantity to the sovereign.
In America a small, professional army of life-long members was not sufficient after WWII. The draft was instated, but was soon abolished because of western principles of classical liberalism, pragmatism and ideals (people should join because of patriotism, not compulsion.) and they turned the US Army into a volunteer force. The consequences of which are as follows:
1) Disproportionate minorities in the ranks.
2) Upper middle class don’t sign up
a. This means that there is a rift between policy makers and policy enforcers
b. The makers have a major disconnect with the military realities of their decisions
3) There are women in the military.
Why does Western Civilization discourage the use of female soldiers:
1) Sexual attraction and its essential distraction
2) Special attention to lovers undermines unit cohesion
3) Women are the living assurance that society will survive
In America, women have been integrated into the armed forces, but not into combat units. They have been so because of egalitarian ideals and the constant need for recruits in a volunteer force.
Who will lead?
Government in wartime has both a civilian and military aspect. Its primary task is to balance the task of war between the two.
There is a fluid connection between the actual conduct of battles and the political aims of a war. This means politicians and their aims must be sensitive to the course of a battle.
The quest for a battlefield victory may overwhelm the political leadership, who then abdicate power and become impotent observers. Conversely, the civilian authority may saddle the military leadership with political strategic objectives that they see as impossible to accomplish.
Even when political military relations are good, political leaders may end up subordinating the higher political goals of war to immediate battlefield success.
Excessive involvement of political leadership can also hamstring or usurp the necessary functions of the field commander, by adding complications, conditions, and confusion. This is a problem that modern communications only exasperates.
“There is only one sound principle: Authority must be proportionate to responsibility. The person in charge of planning must be the responsible for making it succeed.”
Leadership
Leadership is more than just a flow of orders or commands to the battle.
No operations is likely to succeed if the people who are supposed to make it work don’t want to do it, or are otherwise discouraged, disconsolate, morally defeated, sullen, lazy, etc., etc.
The essence of leadership, then, is to keep up morale, namely by:
1) Having troops fear their own commander more than the enemy.
2) Rewarding troops who do well.
3) Reminding the troops of the value of their actions.
4) Making their survival conditional on staying loyal to the group (Cortez sinking his ships when he reached the new world.)
Morale is also dependent on the “habit of loyalty”:
1) Close units that stick together for each other’s sake.
2) Cultural programming (Japanese in WWII)
Morale also depends on faith in leaders and on hope of victory. If these things disappear, soldiers tend to think they have been sold out and give up.
Leadership consists of providing and personifying answers to the questions that move people. The leader must show he knows where he is going, how to get there, and that it is worth reaching that goal. Most importantly, he must be loyal to those who have been loyal to him, and reward those who fight for him.
Strategy
Strategy is using specific acts to produce specific results leading to a direct outcome.
To make strategy is to answer five main questions:
1) What do I want?
2) What do I have to do to get it?
3) What will my opponent do to stop me?
4) What resources do I have to defeat my enemy?
5) Am I willing to do what is necessary in good time to win?
One must be absolutely clear about the goal, and be certain about all the questions, including “what constitutes a victory?” and “who is an enemy?” in addition to those above, which can be difficult considering the human inclination to want it all, before one enters combat.
In war, intentions don’t count as much as calculations.
Sometimes it is necessary to take the enemies strategy into account, or your actions may become irrelevant.
One must put oneself in the enemies’ shoes to try and understand his intentions and strategy but both under and over-estimating his abilities can lead to catastrophe.
Realism is necessary, not only in estimating forces but in regard to time.
The effect of forces also depends on the tempo of operations.
The whole point of strategy is to figure out what will defeat the enemy and doing it.
Strategy consists of a commitment to whatever is necessary in order to make the plan work, with the limits of prudence. Trying to carry out a strategy on the cheap is courting disaster.
Making Peace
Fighting stops when one of the parties in war changes its objectives enough that mutual satisfaction can occur without further violence.
Making peace is harder than war because of all the possibilities of deception and betrayal.
The ending of a war requires an agreement between the winner and the loser.
Negotiations
Surrendering is a complex matter, and as such, negotiations are necessary.
Negotiations are not necessarily a harbinger of peace. Negotiations can be:
1) The stronger dictating terms to the weaker.
2) The losing party buying time, to rebuild or improve their bargaining position.
3) Negotiations, due to near parity, can help decide who has won or lost.
4) Actually working towards peace.
5) Deciding to what degree the loser must capitulate.
Armistices are acts of faith, whether good or bad. One never knows if the opponent is going to kill you.
The whole point of negotiations is to discover what both parties are willing to kill and die for, and to make a deal with the other side to get the most out of them.
Things to remember about negotiations:
1) Any small power drawn into peace negotiations with a big power should hold onto its weapons, otherwise it might lose any ability to hold on.
2) Negotiations between undefeated antagonists rarely end a struggle.
3) Nothing greases peace negotiations like the appearance of a larger third enemy, or of a bigger fish to fry.
Capitulation
There are six rings of capitulation, and they are as follows:
1) The first ring is the best circumstances, where the defeated party must merely give up its objectives. This can cause significant political backlash, bit isn’t nearly as bad as the other options.
2) The second ring is, the defeated party must give up both its objectives and its form of government.
3) In the third ring, the previous apply, and there is the added condition of occupation. In this ring, the occupation is deliberately benign. Thought the occupier may rule more justly and charitably than the previous rulers, the nature of occupation is such that a major disruption occurs in the way of life, especially in regards to the economy, with results such as recession and widespread hunger.
4) The fourth category include all of the above in addition the occupation viewing it as their duty to cleanse the defeated society of the element responsible for the war, punishing it and exacting reparations. This means an massive increase of prostitution, cronyism, denouncements and self-deprecation all to gain the occupier’s favor, and therefore, enough food to survive.
5) The fifth ring is much more common, and includes the privation and degradation from above but it also includes the intention to severely punish, exploit and radically reform the defeated society. The horrors are much worse. Rape, murder, and starvation are characteristic. There is still some control and protection from the occupiers.
6) This is the worse kind of capitulation, and only differs quantitatively from previous ring. A vengeful occupier will want to simply eradicate or change in a revolutionary way resulting in the deaths of a third or more of the population. This is accomplished by genocide, usually carried out through enforced mass starvation.
The degree of severity following a surrender depends on the character of the winning troops, the level of hatred that built up during the war, the level of their discipline and most importantly, what the policy of the winning side will be.
The Fog of Wars
War is more than who has the superior force; it is also about leadership, and what leaders will do under the stress of a moment. It is about a leader’s ability to see when and where to apply the proper amount of force.
“Thus Tolstoy concludes, victory and defeat are not to be understood as consequences of rationally managed physical and political engagements, rather, they are the consequences of profoundly more-psychological conditions.”
Battle is neither controllable nor completely uncontrollable; instead one must do one’s best to effect and direct the chaos.
Conditions during war are not static, but dynamic. Seemingly rich and powerful regimes can fall apart under bad management (ie, Ottoman Empire), and an advantage can be turned against a nation if the enemy makes a powerful counter-measure (ie, German Submarine Warfare in WWI).
“The fog of war is thickest for those least willing or able or able to impose their will on events, and it is most transparent for those most able to affect the conditions in which they operate.”
What makes the fog?
“The fog is the result of the unpredictable interactions of incalculable human factors… This is because one’s own intentions and plans are all one can be sure of.”
The Reasons No-One Can Predict the Nature of War:
1) Wars are contests between active wills
2) Those who initiate war conceal their intentions and capabilities, and once war starts it tends to take on a concealed life of its own.
3) No-one can foretell which side will more quickly change its own ways to minimize the other’s strengths.
4) The scope, intensity and purpose depend to some extent on how hard the other side tries and on the degree to which the war engages the nation’s energies and ingenuity.
5) The principle reason for the fog of war is that so much depends on human purpose, and human purpose is so variable.
Piercing the Fog
The Fog of War can be pierced only by leaders since it results from the turbulent human emotions; it can only be pierced by the assertion of human qualities that master these emotions.
All attempts to pierce the fog of war must be based on the knowledge of the enemy.
Rehearsed attacks can be useful, but they cost time. Also, if too rehearsed, they becoming rigid inflexible, which can be a problem in situations where the conditions are different than anticipated. (This highlights the necessity of good intelligence.)
Victory
Victory is the whole point of war, and it means the forceful application of one’s will on another.
The traditional concept of victory is putting the enemy military into a position where they can no longer handle the pressure, both military and political.
The best way to secure victory is land forces, who will put the bayonet to the back of the enemy to compel obedience, and who can then determine the fundamental political decisions of who gets what when, where and how much. Though even this ultimate method is not infallible, as there remains the possibility for rebellion. However, most rebellions fail unless done in tandem with outside conflict, or a morally weak enemy.
On the other hand, if you are losing the primary objective is to avoid occupation or disarmament at all costs. The losing party must minimize the damage, and live by the code conserve, retreat and fortify.
The Political Conditions of Battle
Important political decisions are who will fight? Who will lead? How? What will the plan be?
Who will fight?
In western civilization, military service has been regarded either as art of citizenship or something that the taxpayer is obliged to foot the bill for.
There are several different categories of purchased troops:
1) Actual mercenaries.
2) Janissaries (captured and brainwashed children, usually enemy children.)
3) Imperial power putting its own officers over conquered nation’s units.
4) Armies purchased by alliance (sometimes to fight, sometimes to deter war)
a. Not usually a good idea for two reasons
i. They allied armies are more likely to lose, because they don’t have a stake.
ii. If they win, they may not be willing to give up what they’ve won to ally, and may turn against him, stronger than they were originally.
5) Domestic troops who are not compelled by civil authority to join the army, and are instead paid handsomely to ensure loyalty and quantity to the sovereign.
In America a small, professional army of life-long members was not sufficient after WWII. The draft was instated, but was soon abolished because of western principles of classical liberalism, pragmatism and ideals (people should join because of patriotism, not compulsion.) and they turned the US Army into a volunteer force. The consequences of which are as follows:
1) Disproportionate minorities in the ranks.
2) Upper middle class don’t sign up
a. This means that there is a rift between policy makers and policy enforcers
b. The makers have a major disconnect with the military realities of their decisions
3) There are women in the military.
Why does Western Civilization discourage the use of female soldiers:
1) Sexual attraction and its essential distraction
2) Special attention to lovers undermines unit cohesion
3) Women are the living assurance that society will survive
In America, women have been integrated into the armed forces, but not into combat units. They have been so because of egalitarian ideals and the constant need for recruits in a volunteer force.
Who will lead?
Government in wartime has both a civilian and military aspect. Its primary task is to balance the task of war between the two.
There is a fluid connection between the actual conduct of battles and the political aims of a war. This means politicians and their aims must be sensitive to the course of a battle.
The quest for a battlefield victory may overwhelm the political leadership, who then abdicate power and become impotent observers. Conversely, the civilian authority may saddle the military leadership with political strategic objectives that they see as impossible to accomplish.
Even when political military relations are good, political leaders may end up subordinating the higher political goals of war to immediate battlefield success.
Excessive involvement of political leadership can also hamstring or usurp the necessary functions of the field commander, by adding complications, conditions, and confusion. This is a problem that modern communications only exasperates.
“There is only one sound principle: Authority must be proportionate to responsibility. The person in charge of planning must be the responsible for making it succeed.”
Leadership
Leadership is more than just a flow of orders or commands to the battle.
No operations is likely to succeed if the people who are supposed to make it work don’t want to do it, or are otherwise discouraged, disconsolate, morally defeated, sullen, lazy, etc., etc.
The essence of leadership, then, is to keep up morale, namely by:
1) Having troops fear their own commander more than the enemy.
2) Rewarding troops who do well.
3) Reminding the troops of the value of their actions.
4) Making their survival conditional on staying loyal to the group (Cortez sinking his ships when he reached the new world.)
Morale is also dependent on the “habit of loyalty”:
1) Close units that stick together for each other’s sake.
2) Cultural programming (Japanese in WWII)
Morale also depends on faith in leaders and on hope of victory. If these things disappear, soldiers tend to think they have been sold out and give up.
Leadership consists of providing and personifying answers to the questions that move people. The leader must show he knows where he is going, how to get there, and that it is worth reaching that goal. Most importantly, he must be loyal to those who have been loyal to him, and reward those who fight for him.
Strategy
Strategy is using specific acts to produce specific results leading to a direct outcome.
To make strategy is to answer five main questions:
1) What do I want?
2) What do I have to do to get it?
3) What will my opponent do to stop me?
4) What resources do I have to defeat my enemy?
5) Am I willing to do what is necessary in good time to win?
One must be absolutely clear about the goal, and be certain about all the questions, including “what constitutes a victory?” and “who is an enemy?” in addition to those above, which can be difficult considering the human inclination to want it all, before one enters combat.
In war, intentions don’t count as much as calculations.
Sometimes it is necessary to take the enemies strategy into account, or your actions may become irrelevant.
One must put oneself in the enemies’ shoes to try and understand his intentions and strategy but both under and over-estimating his abilities can lead to catastrophe.
Realism is necessary, not only in estimating forces but in regard to time.
The effect of forces also depends on the tempo of operations.
The whole point of strategy is to figure out what will defeat the enemy and doing it.
Strategy consists of a commitment to whatever is necessary in order to make the plan work, with the limits of prudence. Trying to carry out a strategy on the cheap is courting disaster.
Making Peace
Fighting stops when one of the parties in war changes its objectives enough that mutual satisfaction can occur without further violence.
Making peace is harder than war because of all the possibilities of deception and betrayal.
The ending of a war requires an agreement between the winner and the loser.
Negotiations
Surrendering is a complex matter, and as such, negotiations are necessary.
Negotiations are not necessarily a harbinger of peace. Negotiations can be:
1) The stronger dictating terms to the weaker.
2) The losing party buying time, to rebuild or improve their bargaining position.
3) Negotiations, due to near parity, can help decide who has won or lost.
4) Actually working towards peace.
5) Deciding to what degree the loser must capitulate.
Armistices are acts of faith, whether good or bad. One never knows if the opponent is going to kill you.
The whole point of negotiations is to discover what both parties are willing to kill and die for, and to make a deal with the other side to get the most out of them.
Things to remember about negotiations:
1) Any small power drawn into peace negotiations with a big power should hold onto its weapons, otherwise it might lose any ability to hold on.
2) Negotiations between undefeated antagonists rarely end a struggle.
3) Nothing greases peace negotiations like the appearance of a larger third enemy, or of a bigger fish to fry.
Capitulation
There are six rings of capitulation, and they are as follows:
1) The first ring is the best circumstances, where the defeated party must merely give up its objectives. This can cause significant political backlash, bit isn’t nearly as bad as the other options.
2) The second ring is, the defeated party must give up both its objectives and its form of government.
3) In the third ring, the previous apply, and there is the added condition of occupation. In this ring, the occupation is deliberately benign. Thought the occupier may rule more justly and charitably than the previous rulers, the nature of occupation is such that a major disruption occurs in the way of life, especially in regards to the economy, with results such as recession and widespread hunger.
4) The fourth category include all of the above in addition the occupation viewing it as their duty to cleanse the defeated society of the element responsible for the war, punishing it and exacting reparations. This means an massive increase of prostitution, cronyism, denouncements and self-deprecation all to gain the occupier’s favor, and therefore, enough food to survive.
5) The fifth ring is much more common, and includes the privation and degradation from above but it also includes the intention to severely punish, exploit and radically reform the defeated society. The horrors are much worse. Rape, murder, and starvation are characteristic. There is still some control and protection from the occupiers.
6) This is the worse kind of capitulation, and only differs quantitatively from previous ring. A vengeful occupier will want to simply eradicate or change in a revolutionary way resulting in the deaths of a third or more of the population. This is accomplished by genocide, usually carried out through enforced mass starvation.
The degree of severity following a surrender depends on the character of the winning troops, the level of hatred that built up during the war, the level of their discipline and most importantly, what the policy of the winning side will be.
Outline: Toppling the Chinese Regime Using Economic Measures
1) Chinese Economic Weaknesses
a) The Chinese Economy is Dependent on Unsustainable growth.
i) While the posted growth of the Chinese economy seems amazing, it is an illusion. Their economy may have grown 11.9% in 2007[1], but what they don’t tell you is that the Chinese economy must grow 7.0% per year in order to keep pace with new and laid-off workers[2].
ii) Economic growth is the result of investment and “fiscal stimulus”.[3] The central government provides for two-thirds of investment in the economy, and they are running out of money.[4] If it continues to spend at its current rate, the government will go bankrupt in around 5 years.[5]
b) Export Driven Economy[6]
i) China’s growth is dependent on their ability to conquer export markets and undercut competitors.
ii) Exports are primarily consumer goods.
c) Industrial Economic Model
i) China has become the world’s “factory floor.”[7] They are a heavy duty industrial economy. They are dependent on factories, cheap unskilled labor, and cheap raw materials.
(1) The Chinese get a significant portion of raw materials from Africa for which they get a huge discount for providing weapons and infrastructure to dictatorial regimes (the infrastructure obviously benefits them as well, by making exploitation and transportation of natural resources easier.)[8]
d) The “China Price”
i) In order to undercut and dominate foreign export markets, the Chinese must be able to charge less for their products, around 30% less than competitors. The “China Price” is absolutely essential to Chinese domination of export markets, by extension, the health of their economy. In order to offer this low price, it means keeping costs down. The following tactics are used[9]:
(1) Exploited, Disciplined, and Well Trained Work Force
(a) Non-Union
(b) Low Safety and Health Regulations
(c) Reserve Army of Labor
(i) Unemployment is 25% which is a little more than 100 million unemployed workers.[10] This keeps wages very low, because there is much more supply than there is demand.
(2) Foreign Direct Investment[11]
(a) Modernizes and keeps China’s Factories High-Tech and thereby competitive
(b) Cutting Edge Managerial Strategies from Foreign Investment Firms
(3) Industrial Network Clustering[12]
(a) Highly Centralized and Highly Efficient Manufacturing Block
(4) Elaborate, Government-Sanctioned System of Counterfeiting and Piracy
(a) China’s entrepreneurs use pirated and counterfeit “factors of production,” thereby significantly cutting costs.[13]
(b) Chinese government tacitly accents to the black industry because it creates jobs, keeps inflation low, and generates billions of dollars in export revenues.[14]
(i) It is legal to export counterfeit and knock-off goods from China.[15]
(5) Massive Government Subsidies to Targeted Industries[16]
(a) Direct and Indirect subsidies are given by the government to key “Pillar Industries.” These are the largest businesses in China, which includes the energy industry.
(b) The government also erects a complex web of trade barriers that protect their more vulnerable industries, like agriculture, and fledgling industries.
(c) Lastly, the banks in China provide capital and credit to their businesses, without any expectation that it be repaid.
(i) 490 billion dollars are on the Chinese banks books as “unrecoverable.” According to the U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commission Chinese banks are for all intensive purposes “insolvent.”[17]
e) Trade Surplus with U.S.
i) The United States has a 202 billion trade deficit with China. This accounts for 25% of the U.S.’s total trade deficit.[18]
ii) The Chinese economy is dependent on the U.S. consumer, who buys a huge portion of its goods. In this way, the U.S. has massive power over their economy.[19]
iii) This trade deficit is one the main factors of Chinese economic growth.[20]
f) Deficit Government Spending
i) Chinese Banks are nationalized, which means state-owned and operated. The government therefore, in order to stave off collapse, must take responsibility for the unrecoverable loans that it forced the banks to give.[21]
ii) Increased spending on the military brings no real economic benefit.[22]
iii) Massive public works campaign, such as the Three Gorges Dam, allows the government to try and control and stimulate the economy by spending government money.[23]
g) Bank System Near Collapse
i) The unrecoverable “loans” that Chinese banks have given have made them essentially bankrupt. However, because a banking system is necessary, the government props them up at huge expense to itself and the economy.[24]
h) Corruption
i) The corruption of Chinese Communist Party officials is good for us in three ways:
(1) The officials overtax the peasants to maintain their lavish lifestyles. They confiscate land and give it to corporations, for which they get a kickback. Obviously, they alienate government from its people.[25]
(2) An official that takes bribes for someone is willing to take bribes from anyone.
(3) They squirrel their ill gotten gains away, usually in Swiss bank accounts. This takes extremely large amounts of money out of the Chinese economy.[26]
i) WTO
i) The World Trade Organization could be China’s best friend or its worst enemy.
(1) On the one hand, the membership in the World Trade Organization can result in a better economy and richer, and happier, citizens.[27]
(2) On the other hand, a stipulation of WTO membership is that China must slacken their protectionism and unscrupulous business practices. While they are complying, it isn’t very enthusiastically. If they continue running their economy the way that they have, then WTO membership will ruin them.[28]
2) Analysis of Weaknesses
a) Political stability is dependent on economic growth.
i) Their products are real things, unlike a service economy, and made in a centralized place, like a factory.
(1) They are therefore easily targeted.
(2) The Chinese are not the only industrializing country. India and Taiwan could easily pick up any Chinese slack.
ii) There is still considerable unrest due to unemployment. Their magnificent rate of growth just keeps their collective heads above water.
iii) Increasing the “China Price” will, provided it is increased enough, cause a catastrophic collapse of the Chinese economy. That price is the sole reason consumers buy from China. Most of the world is horrified by the human rights violations and the barbarity of the Chinese regime.
b) Arrogance
i) As I have shown, the Chinese adopt economical policies that create illusionary growth and faux prosperity. However, they fool themselves into thinking that the good times will never end.
ii) Despite their dependence on the trade deficit with America, they still steal American secrets and counterfeit its products. China also pegs its money’s value below ours, using a “fixed exchange rate” which allows their exports to stay competitive. This causes extensive damage to the American economy, and destroys America’s industrial base.[29] They seem to think that they are entitled to the money America gives.
c) Internal Unrest
i) The arrogance and tyranny of the Chinese regime has alienated and angered millions Chinese subjects. This has resulted in an astronomically high number of protests, riots and strikes (100,000 annually).[30] This situation could be exploited with agents of influence, who could train and direct the riot into a rebellion.
3) Economic Warfare Strategy
a) Operational Concept
i) Increase Trade Surplus
ii) Undermine “China Price”
iii) Increase Internal Dissension
iv) Increase External Pressure on Crippled Chinese Economy
v) Result: Collapsed Economy and Civil Unrest Catalyzes Regime Change
b) Implementation
i) Increase Trade Surplus
(1) Brings About Further Chinese Prosperity
(2) Makes Rising Costs Affordable
(3) This will reaffirm their feeling of entitlement and blind them to coming economic crisis. Making the crisis a surprise will increase its effectiveness.
ii) Increase Internal Costs and Undermine the “China Price”
(1) Organize Labor and Unemployed
(a) Bring American labor organizers into the clandestine service, and use them to organize Chinese labor.
(b) Infiltrate experts in insurgency to start armed Chinese rebellions.
(2) Rotating Sabotage of INC
(a) In order to increase the “China Price”, manufacturing costs must be raised. The centralized nature of the industrial base makes sabotage easier, safer, and more effective.
(3) Flood Market with Supposed “Chinese” Fakes
(a) Chinese fakes are already a scourge, and in some of the worst cases, they have caused deaths.[31] Poor international public opinion will hurt Chinese business, prompting the government to crackdown on counterfeiting. This will have the following results:
(i) It will decrease counterfeit export revenue.
(ii) Many small businesses will begin to have to pay for their own development costs, which would diminish their ability to compete with western businesses. This would eventually lead to their going out of business in the long term, but in the short-term would increase overhead costs which would be passed on to consumers.
(4) Bribe Chinese Officials to Enforce Law
(a) This makes sure that the policy-makers and the enforcers are on the same page, and that anti-counterfeiting is actually enforced.
(b) Enforcing environmental and safety regulations, such as they are, will increase costs for factories.
(c) Businesses thrive on the corruption of government officials. Unfriendly officials make business more difficult.
(5) Make Energy Expensive
(a) Chinese System Wasteful Of Energy
(i) China uses four times more water than the world average to produce a single unit of GDP.[32]
(ii) Water prices are artificially low; they are sold at half the price of their actual price.[33]
(b) Reliant on Dams for Cheap Electricity
(i) Sabotaging the damns will dramatically increase energy overhead.
(ii) Their dams are already collapsing due to poor maintenance (averaging 71 collapses annually[34]). With a little effort Chinese water and electricity supplies could be dramatically reduced, and the costs associated with them will rise.
c) Increase External Pressure on Crippled Chinese Economy
i) Slowly Lower Trade Deficit
(1) Once the Chinese economic infrastructure has been sufficiently damaged, lowering the trade deficit with them will put overwhelming pressure on an already over-taxed system.
(2) In order to survive, Chinese industries will lay off workers. As the economy continues to worsen, more and more people will be affected. With support they will rise and overthrow the government.
ii) Encourage Trade and Contracts with India and Taiwan
(1) To keep our economy healthy, and to further damage the Chinese, we will encourage trade with India and Taiwan by granting Most Favored Nation and Free Trade Agreements with both.
(2) Both nations will be able to pick up the Chinese slack, and they are much more comfortable trading partners, with few human rights violations and democratic governments.
(3) Their trade practices are fair.
iii) Increase African Raw Material Costs
(1) Due to blatant and horrible human rights violations, it would be plausible for the U.S. to send peacekeepers into these African nations, and cut off the oil and cheap raw materials these rogue states supply to China.
(2) Using the U.N. would fail because the Chinese would veto any action against their puppets. However, with proper public relations, this could be used as a weapon against them.
iv) Topple Faltering Chinese Banks
(1) Famed economic consultant Laurence Brahm said, “The Chinese government is not stupid enough to allow the state-owned banking system to collapse.”[35] Despite exhibiting a stunning ignorance of the workings of the market, Brahm highlights an interesting point. Instead of being to rely on healthy bank system, despite economic failure, China will have to continually prop up the banks, investing resources that could be put to better use counteracting the causes of their economic crash. The banking system is a parasite instead of a boon.
v) Stop Foreign Direct Investment
(1) Though we can’t account for other countries investors, American private investment is essential to keeping Chinese products competitive. We could block, or at least discourage, investment in China through government law and/or regulation.
(2) Even without government interference, perceptive investors will see the way the eastern wind is blowing, and take their business elsewhere.
d) Result: Collapsed Economy and Civil Unrest End Regime
i) One of four end results:
(1) Inability to control provinces, and rioting in Beijing prompts the Politburo to leave China.
(2) A more directed revolution will overthrow the government, Mao style.
(3) The Politburo will remain in power, but with significant policy changes.
(4) Nothing will essentially change, but due to the myriad of economic problems China faces, it will eventually lead to collapse anyway. The economic warfare waged against China will quicken its demise, though it may cause untold devastation in its death throes.
ii) In any of these cases, the mission is accomplished, though with varying degrees of success.
[1] http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/19/business/yuan.php
[2] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; pg. xix
[3] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; pg. xx
[4] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg. 181-183
[5] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg. 186
[6] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 2
[7] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 2
[8] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 4, pg. 77
[9] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 2-3
[10] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 6
[11] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 12
[12] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 15
[13] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 17
[14] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 2, pg. 26
[15] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 2, pg. 40-42
[16] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 18-19
[17] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 181
[18] http://worldnews.about.com/od/china/a/china_trade.htm
[19] http://worldnews.about.com/od/china/a/china_trade_3.htm
[20]The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 11, pg. 204-206
[21] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 181-183
[22] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 181
[23] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 175
[24] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 6, pg 141-143
[25] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 9, pg. 164-171
[26] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 9, pg. 157-171
[27] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 9, pg 194-198
[28] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 9, pg 199-203
[29] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 18
[30] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 9, pg. 158
[31] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 2, pg. 22
[32] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 8, pg. 154
[33] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 8, pg. 153
[34] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 7, pg. 136
[35] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Brown, Chapter 6, pg. 142
a) The Chinese Economy is Dependent on Unsustainable growth.
i) While the posted growth of the Chinese economy seems amazing, it is an illusion. Their economy may have grown 11.9% in 2007[1], but what they don’t tell you is that the Chinese economy must grow 7.0% per year in order to keep pace with new and laid-off workers[2].
ii) Economic growth is the result of investment and “fiscal stimulus”.[3] The central government provides for two-thirds of investment in the economy, and they are running out of money.[4] If it continues to spend at its current rate, the government will go bankrupt in around 5 years.[5]
b) Export Driven Economy[6]
i) China’s growth is dependent on their ability to conquer export markets and undercut competitors.
ii) Exports are primarily consumer goods.
c) Industrial Economic Model
i) China has become the world’s “factory floor.”[7] They are a heavy duty industrial economy. They are dependent on factories, cheap unskilled labor, and cheap raw materials.
(1) The Chinese get a significant portion of raw materials from Africa for which they get a huge discount for providing weapons and infrastructure to dictatorial regimes (the infrastructure obviously benefits them as well, by making exploitation and transportation of natural resources easier.)[8]
d) The “China Price”
i) In order to undercut and dominate foreign export markets, the Chinese must be able to charge less for their products, around 30% less than competitors. The “China Price” is absolutely essential to Chinese domination of export markets, by extension, the health of their economy. In order to offer this low price, it means keeping costs down. The following tactics are used[9]:
(1) Exploited, Disciplined, and Well Trained Work Force
(a) Non-Union
(b) Low Safety and Health Regulations
(c) Reserve Army of Labor
(i) Unemployment is 25% which is a little more than 100 million unemployed workers.[10] This keeps wages very low, because there is much more supply than there is demand.
(2) Foreign Direct Investment[11]
(a) Modernizes and keeps China’s Factories High-Tech and thereby competitive
(b) Cutting Edge Managerial Strategies from Foreign Investment Firms
(3) Industrial Network Clustering[12]
(a) Highly Centralized and Highly Efficient Manufacturing Block
(4) Elaborate, Government-Sanctioned System of Counterfeiting and Piracy
(a) China’s entrepreneurs use pirated and counterfeit “factors of production,” thereby significantly cutting costs.[13]
(b) Chinese government tacitly accents to the black industry because it creates jobs, keeps inflation low, and generates billions of dollars in export revenues.[14]
(i) It is legal to export counterfeit and knock-off goods from China.[15]
(5) Massive Government Subsidies to Targeted Industries[16]
(a) Direct and Indirect subsidies are given by the government to key “Pillar Industries.” These are the largest businesses in China, which includes the energy industry.
(b) The government also erects a complex web of trade barriers that protect their more vulnerable industries, like agriculture, and fledgling industries.
(c) Lastly, the banks in China provide capital and credit to their businesses, without any expectation that it be repaid.
(i) 490 billion dollars are on the Chinese banks books as “unrecoverable.” According to the U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commission Chinese banks are for all intensive purposes “insolvent.”[17]
e) Trade Surplus with U.S.
i) The United States has a 202 billion trade deficit with China. This accounts for 25% of the U.S.’s total trade deficit.[18]
ii) The Chinese economy is dependent on the U.S. consumer, who buys a huge portion of its goods. In this way, the U.S. has massive power over their economy.[19]
iii) This trade deficit is one the main factors of Chinese economic growth.[20]
f) Deficit Government Spending
i) Chinese Banks are nationalized, which means state-owned and operated. The government therefore, in order to stave off collapse, must take responsibility for the unrecoverable loans that it forced the banks to give.[21]
ii) Increased spending on the military brings no real economic benefit.[22]
iii) Massive public works campaign, such as the Three Gorges Dam, allows the government to try and control and stimulate the economy by spending government money.[23]
g) Bank System Near Collapse
i) The unrecoverable “loans” that Chinese banks have given have made them essentially bankrupt. However, because a banking system is necessary, the government props them up at huge expense to itself and the economy.[24]
h) Corruption
i) The corruption of Chinese Communist Party officials is good for us in three ways:
(1) The officials overtax the peasants to maintain their lavish lifestyles. They confiscate land and give it to corporations, for which they get a kickback. Obviously, they alienate government from its people.[25]
(2) An official that takes bribes for someone is willing to take bribes from anyone.
(3) They squirrel their ill gotten gains away, usually in Swiss bank accounts. This takes extremely large amounts of money out of the Chinese economy.[26]
i) WTO
i) The World Trade Organization could be China’s best friend or its worst enemy.
(1) On the one hand, the membership in the World Trade Organization can result in a better economy and richer, and happier, citizens.[27]
(2) On the other hand, a stipulation of WTO membership is that China must slacken their protectionism and unscrupulous business practices. While they are complying, it isn’t very enthusiastically. If they continue running their economy the way that they have, then WTO membership will ruin them.[28]
2) Analysis of Weaknesses
a) Political stability is dependent on economic growth.
i) Their products are real things, unlike a service economy, and made in a centralized place, like a factory.
(1) They are therefore easily targeted.
(2) The Chinese are not the only industrializing country. India and Taiwan could easily pick up any Chinese slack.
ii) There is still considerable unrest due to unemployment. Their magnificent rate of growth just keeps their collective heads above water.
iii) Increasing the “China Price” will, provided it is increased enough, cause a catastrophic collapse of the Chinese economy. That price is the sole reason consumers buy from China. Most of the world is horrified by the human rights violations and the barbarity of the Chinese regime.
b) Arrogance
i) As I have shown, the Chinese adopt economical policies that create illusionary growth and faux prosperity. However, they fool themselves into thinking that the good times will never end.
ii) Despite their dependence on the trade deficit with America, they still steal American secrets and counterfeit its products. China also pegs its money’s value below ours, using a “fixed exchange rate” which allows their exports to stay competitive. This causes extensive damage to the American economy, and destroys America’s industrial base.[29] They seem to think that they are entitled to the money America gives.
c) Internal Unrest
i) The arrogance and tyranny of the Chinese regime has alienated and angered millions Chinese subjects. This has resulted in an astronomically high number of protests, riots and strikes (100,000 annually).[30] This situation could be exploited with agents of influence, who could train and direct the riot into a rebellion.
3) Economic Warfare Strategy
a) Operational Concept
i) Increase Trade Surplus
ii) Undermine “China Price”
iii) Increase Internal Dissension
iv) Increase External Pressure on Crippled Chinese Economy
v) Result: Collapsed Economy and Civil Unrest Catalyzes Regime Change
b) Implementation
i) Increase Trade Surplus
(1) Brings About Further Chinese Prosperity
(2) Makes Rising Costs Affordable
(3) This will reaffirm their feeling of entitlement and blind them to coming economic crisis. Making the crisis a surprise will increase its effectiveness.
ii) Increase Internal Costs and Undermine the “China Price”
(1) Organize Labor and Unemployed
(a) Bring American labor organizers into the clandestine service, and use them to organize Chinese labor.
(b) Infiltrate experts in insurgency to start armed Chinese rebellions.
(2) Rotating Sabotage of INC
(a) In order to increase the “China Price”, manufacturing costs must be raised. The centralized nature of the industrial base makes sabotage easier, safer, and more effective.
(3) Flood Market with Supposed “Chinese” Fakes
(a) Chinese fakes are already a scourge, and in some of the worst cases, they have caused deaths.[31] Poor international public opinion will hurt Chinese business, prompting the government to crackdown on counterfeiting. This will have the following results:
(i) It will decrease counterfeit export revenue.
(ii) Many small businesses will begin to have to pay for their own development costs, which would diminish their ability to compete with western businesses. This would eventually lead to their going out of business in the long term, but in the short-term would increase overhead costs which would be passed on to consumers.
(4) Bribe Chinese Officials to Enforce Law
(a) This makes sure that the policy-makers and the enforcers are on the same page, and that anti-counterfeiting is actually enforced.
(b) Enforcing environmental and safety regulations, such as they are, will increase costs for factories.
(c) Businesses thrive on the corruption of government officials. Unfriendly officials make business more difficult.
(5) Make Energy Expensive
(a) Chinese System Wasteful Of Energy
(i) China uses four times more water than the world average to produce a single unit of GDP.[32]
(ii) Water prices are artificially low; they are sold at half the price of their actual price.[33]
(b) Reliant on Dams for Cheap Electricity
(i) Sabotaging the damns will dramatically increase energy overhead.
(ii) Their dams are already collapsing due to poor maintenance (averaging 71 collapses annually[34]). With a little effort Chinese water and electricity supplies could be dramatically reduced, and the costs associated with them will rise.
c) Increase External Pressure on Crippled Chinese Economy
i) Slowly Lower Trade Deficit
(1) Once the Chinese economic infrastructure has been sufficiently damaged, lowering the trade deficit with them will put overwhelming pressure on an already over-taxed system.
(2) In order to survive, Chinese industries will lay off workers. As the economy continues to worsen, more and more people will be affected. With support they will rise and overthrow the government.
ii) Encourage Trade and Contracts with India and Taiwan
(1) To keep our economy healthy, and to further damage the Chinese, we will encourage trade with India and Taiwan by granting Most Favored Nation and Free Trade Agreements with both.
(2) Both nations will be able to pick up the Chinese slack, and they are much more comfortable trading partners, with few human rights violations and democratic governments.
(3) Their trade practices are fair.
iii) Increase African Raw Material Costs
(1) Due to blatant and horrible human rights violations, it would be plausible for the U.S. to send peacekeepers into these African nations, and cut off the oil and cheap raw materials these rogue states supply to China.
(2) Using the U.N. would fail because the Chinese would veto any action against their puppets. However, with proper public relations, this could be used as a weapon against them.
iv) Topple Faltering Chinese Banks
(1) Famed economic consultant Laurence Brahm said, “The Chinese government is not stupid enough to allow the state-owned banking system to collapse.”[35] Despite exhibiting a stunning ignorance of the workings of the market, Brahm highlights an interesting point. Instead of being to rely on healthy bank system, despite economic failure, China will have to continually prop up the banks, investing resources that could be put to better use counteracting the causes of their economic crash. The banking system is a parasite instead of a boon.
v) Stop Foreign Direct Investment
(1) Though we can’t account for other countries investors, American private investment is essential to keeping Chinese products competitive. We could block, or at least discourage, investment in China through government law and/or regulation.
(2) Even without government interference, perceptive investors will see the way the eastern wind is blowing, and take their business elsewhere.
d) Result: Collapsed Economy and Civil Unrest End Regime
i) One of four end results:
(1) Inability to control provinces, and rioting in Beijing prompts the Politburo to leave China.
(2) A more directed revolution will overthrow the government, Mao style.
(3) The Politburo will remain in power, but with significant policy changes.
(4) Nothing will essentially change, but due to the myriad of economic problems China faces, it will eventually lead to collapse anyway. The economic warfare waged against China will quicken its demise, though it may cause untold devastation in its death throes.
ii) In any of these cases, the mission is accomplished, though with varying degrees of success.
[1] http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/19/business/yuan.php
[2] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; pg. xix
[3] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; pg. xx
[4] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg. 181-183
[5] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg. 186
[6] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 2
[7] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 2
[8] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 4, pg. 77
[9] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 2-3
[10] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 6
[11] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 12
[12] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 15
[13] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 17
[14] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 2, pg. 26
[15] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 2, pg. 40-42
[16] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 18-19
[17] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 181
[18] http://worldnews.about.com/od/china/a/china_trade.htm
[19] http://worldnews.about.com/od/china/a/china_trade_3.htm
[20]The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 11, pg. 204-206
[21] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 181-183
[22] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 181
[23] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 8, pg 175
[24] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 6, pg 141-143
[25] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 9, pg. 164-171
[26] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 9, pg. 157-171
[27] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 9, pg 194-198
[28] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Chang; Chapter 9, pg 199-203
[29] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 1, pg. 18
[30] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 9, pg. 158
[31] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 2, pg. 22
[32] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 8, pg. 154
[33] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 8, pg. 153
[34] The Coming China Wars; Peter Navarro; Chapter 7, pg. 136
[35] The Coming Collapse of China; Gordon Brown, Chapter 6, pg. 142
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Excuse Me But, That's "Far Right, Inc."
My Opponent's Views [sic]:
Capital punishment -- destruction of a human life with independent thought who is not, at the time of his destruction, causing direct harm to anyone. Therefore there is no cause to kill him except vengeance, which serves no useful purpose.
Abortion -- separation of two humans, one of which is causing direct physical trauma to the other until the time of separation. If it is incapable of attaining life without taking it from the other, it is never a human life with independent thought in the first place. The purpose of this prevention of life is to end the trauma it is causing to the woman carrying it, at her behest. The exception, when the fetus attains human life, falls at the juncture of what is called "viability," and abortion ceases to be optional; instead, intact extraction (birth) replaces it, in the interests of preserving the now-present second human life.
Assisted suicide -- in cases where a human life is guaranteed to end in an arbitrarily short span and every remaining moment is to be filled with enormous physical pain beyond the ability of medicine to alleviate, that human should be allowed to use their independent thought to choose a quicker, less painful end.
Condemnation of racism -- where all functioning humans with independent thought are inherently equal, the color of a person's skin should not be relevant to anyone but themselves.
Evolutionary theory -- not to be confused with the observed biological process of evolution, this probably relates specifically to the evidence that mankind is part of a transitional genetic expansion of primates? Since all known life is merely a biochemical reaction inside organic compounds, "life" being an arbitrary distinction in and of itself, there is no inherent contradiction between this and the other positions beyond a simple and equally-arbitrary distinction that function within the cerebral cortex -- the thinking part of the brain -- defines human life. This provides no objective distinction between humans and other similarly-evolved species, but since we are the ones defining the subjectivity, that's irrelevant.
On the whole, I see no contradictions in this set of ideas unless -- as is a typical neoconservative tactic -- strawman arguments are applied and unlikely scenarios developed in order to provide a complex circumstance in which a contradiction may be found. As such, simple rationality dictates that each case be afforded its own merit and not address such issues with blanket acceptance or denial.
I responded:
Capital punishment: If what is right is dependent on how useful it is, or what its consequences are, then what is right is also useless. Capital punishment is just: they should be subject to the same things that they illegally subjected others to. Vengeance does serve a purpose, if it consoles the families of the murdered, if it re-enforces social ethic and structure, and if it is also just, as previously mentioned.
Abortion: As per usual, the argument for abortion is nearly incomprehensible. Pro-death people seem to be always grasping at straws as far as this goes, because it is so hard to disprove something so obvious. Watch:A person is a person no matter what their ability to think, to walk, to act, to see, to breathe, etc. It is not these things that make us human. I could sit here and make the argument that no man is able to think independently, because we are merely comprised of other's influence on us. Carrying a child isn't traumatic, it is a beautiful, natural part of the human condition, granted one that isn't easy. (However, really nothing worth having in life is easy.) However, to make the argument that something natural is traumatic, and should be destroyed is essentially rejecting your own humanity. Just because someone is bothersome or annoying, doesn't give you the right to take them out which is what, at its heart, abortion is all about. I would like to point out that your perceptions are so screwed up that you would rather give the death sentence to an infant than to a murderer. It is at this point that I stop thinking of you as an adult who is able to think clearly about anything, and start talking to you like an idiot.
Assisted suicide: Yes, I can see why we would want to encourage people to take the quicker, easier, and more cowardly path. Not to mention that it de-values human life, and glorifies death.
Condemnation of racism- No one is equal. Not one. If you honestly think that, you are a moron. Do you:a) think differently than someone?b) have more strength than someone?c) are you smarter than someone?d) are you a worse writer than someone?... and the list goes on. I have just proven to you that we are not all equal. However, I find the "independent thought" thing interesting. I guess it would be ok if we started capping retards, autistic people, and people with down's syndrome. Maybe even really stupid people? Why not?Another thing that you don't realize is that every human being, from conception till death is capable of rational and "independent" thought, therefore, by your own definition, you're wrong. And what the hell does that relative comment mean? How can something be relevant to someone without it affecting others? Either a person's skin color has meaning or it doesn't, it can't be both. Seriously, who the hell taught you to think?
Evolutionary theory: Oh, I see you are trying to bully me by showing off your science terms. Unlike most Americans though, I don't bow to the alter of science, and your pathetic attempts at obfuscation are woefully inadequate. You see, a human life isn't the sum of its genetic material, because of our ability to rise above it. It is precisely our capacity for "independent" thought that shows us how much greater we are than mere genetics. What defines human life is that we are able to selflessly love, reason, and act against instinct. None of these things are in our genetics, and each are unique to man. These are "subjective" distinctions, but objective fact. Luckily, though, you managed to avoid talking about how you can explain the complete lack of a fossil record, the sheer logical idiocy, and the miserable consequences of evolution.
I am actually more of a traditional conservative, but thanks for playing. Just because I am for this war, doesn't mean I am for all war, and that we should try to export American democracy abroad. I just think, in this case, that it might work, more or less. By the way, do you even know what a neo-conservative is, by definition? What is there intellectual heritage? What is being "mugged by reality"?
Strawman arguments are used by Plato and Aristotle, so you haven't a leg to stand on there. Also, that isn't what strawman means. A strawman means poorly describing an opponents argument and then disproving that, instead of actually debating that person. An effective rhetorical device, but one which, unfortunately for you, was not used here. Lucky for me I have just demonstrated how each of those things is wrong on its own, and, perhaps you might have picked up on some themes, like: human dignity, the sacredness of human life, justice, and the fact that you're an idiot. As there are discernable themes, that mean that they are both wrong in themselves, but are also connected in their wrongness. I don't really expect you to get it.
You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I have said previously, but that is pretty typical of liberals.
I don't reject science, in fact, it is clear that science has provided many a good thing for our society. However, I don't view science as the arbiter of right and wrong, or look to it to answer transcendental questions: it is quite unable to do so. Science is able to, with much deliberation, give us answers to factual questions, ie "what is an atom?" or "what does the atom do?"; on the other hand it fails utterly to answers questions such as "what does the atom MEAN?" or "What SHOULD we do with an atom?". So, when I made that statement, I was merely saying that science is useless for political debate, because the latter questions are political, and as theory and evidence in science are dynamic, it is unable to give us even clear and standard answers to the questions that we as a society need to answer. Furthermore, your inability to see the constraints of science leads me to believe that you are the one who is incapable of holding reasonable discussions, because science deals with fact, not reason.
I don't really see how any of my statements can be accused of the product of a deluded mind, as they are completely in line with both the objective reality, with the added benefit of agreement with the traditional and philosophical disussions of truth and ethics. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, Augustine, Arendt, and even Hegel can be said to agree with my interpretation. So much for your imaginary world.
I am not racist, I was merely pointing out the logcial fallacies in your own arguments. We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, and each one of us has undeniable human dignity, which I thought I made clear in my previous post, which I am beginning to suspect you didn't even really read.
I have no problem, nor do I deride the mentally handicapped. In fact, I was pointing out that by your standards of what makes a person, and therefore, who it is and isn't permissble to kill (namely "independent thinking", which, I might add, is a pretty idiotic standard for what makes a person) would include the mentally handicapped. (Speaking of which, if you are so concerned about helping the helpless, you might want to look to the womb.) It is liberals who historically have been for the culling of undesirables, not traditional conservatives. (don't even try to bring up the Nazis-they weren't far right. The were SOCIALISTS. In fact, your precious planned parenthood shares their heritage with the Nazis.)
You should try to look to the meanings of words before you freak out about them. You have taught yourself to think of vengeance as pejorative, without really looking at why. One way or another though, I did manage to prove that it isn't pointless as far as the death penalty goes.
As for my callousness, I will acknowledge that when I start ripping innocent children out of their mother's womb.
I want what is best for both woman and men, however, I don't acknowledge that they know what that is. Only a well formed conscience can discern what is morally right and good. Unfortunatly, most people nowadays don't have well formed consciences. Take yourself for example. Nonetheless, I don't believe that letting women kill their children is good for them, and just like I would try to stop a woman from taking drugs, becoming a prostitute, or killing themselves, so I will try to stop them from abortion. I do it because I want to keep them from damaging themselves. If that makes me a misogynist, then I am ok with that.
As per usual, I have taken the time to show you the myriad of ways you are wrong, replying in detail to your objections and accusations, whilst you have chosen to go the path of labeling me as your way of arguing. Why don't you show me how I am wrong, show me how I am callous, instead of attempting to win by ignoring everything except that which re-affirms your position? That is mental laziness.
I see no evidence that conservatism is dead, or dying. Good luck with that, though.
Oh, and that's Far Right, Inc.
Capital punishment -- destruction of a human life with independent thought who is not, at the time of his destruction, causing direct harm to anyone. Therefore there is no cause to kill him except vengeance, which serves no useful purpose.
Abortion -- separation of two humans, one of which is causing direct physical trauma to the other until the time of separation. If it is incapable of attaining life without taking it from the other, it is never a human life with independent thought in the first place. The purpose of this prevention of life is to end the trauma it is causing to the woman carrying it, at her behest. The exception, when the fetus attains human life, falls at the juncture of what is called "viability," and abortion ceases to be optional; instead, intact extraction (birth) replaces it, in the interests of preserving the now-present second human life.
Assisted suicide -- in cases where a human life is guaranteed to end in an arbitrarily short span and every remaining moment is to be filled with enormous physical pain beyond the ability of medicine to alleviate, that human should be allowed to use their independent thought to choose a quicker, less painful end.
Condemnation of racism -- where all functioning humans with independent thought are inherently equal, the color of a person's skin should not be relevant to anyone but themselves.
Evolutionary theory -- not to be confused with the observed biological process of evolution, this probably relates specifically to the evidence that mankind is part of a transitional genetic expansion of primates? Since all known life is merely a biochemical reaction inside organic compounds, "life" being an arbitrary distinction in and of itself, there is no inherent contradiction between this and the other positions beyond a simple and equally-arbitrary distinction that function within the cerebral cortex -- the thinking part of the brain -- defines human life. This provides no objective distinction between humans and other similarly-evolved species, but since we are the ones defining the subjectivity, that's irrelevant.
On the whole, I see no contradictions in this set of ideas unless -- as is a typical neoconservative tactic -- strawman arguments are applied and unlikely scenarios developed in order to provide a complex circumstance in which a contradiction may be found. As such, simple rationality dictates that each case be afforded its own merit and not address such issues with blanket acceptance or denial.
I responded:
Capital punishment: If what is right is dependent on how useful it is, or what its consequences are, then what is right is also useless. Capital punishment is just: they should be subject to the same things that they illegally subjected others to. Vengeance does serve a purpose, if it consoles the families of the murdered, if it re-enforces social ethic and structure, and if it is also just, as previously mentioned.
Abortion: As per usual, the argument for abortion is nearly incomprehensible. Pro-death people seem to be always grasping at straws as far as this goes, because it is so hard to disprove something so obvious. Watch:A person is a person no matter what their ability to think, to walk, to act, to see, to breathe, etc. It is not these things that make us human. I could sit here and make the argument that no man is able to think independently, because we are merely comprised of other's influence on us. Carrying a child isn't traumatic, it is a beautiful, natural part of the human condition, granted one that isn't easy. (However, really nothing worth having in life is easy.) However, to make the argument that something natural is traumatic, and should be destroyed is essentially rejecting your own humanity. Just because someone is bothersome or annoying, doesn't give you the right to take them out which is what, at its heart, abortion is all about. I would like to point out that your perceptions are so screwed up that you would rather give the death sentence to an infant than to a murderer. It is at this point that I stop thinking of you as an adult who is able to think clearly about anything, and start talking to you like an idiot.
Assisted suicide: Yes, I can see why we would want to encourage people to take the quicker, easier, and more cowardly path. Not to mention that it de-values human life, and glorifies death.
Condemnation of racism- No one is equal. Not one. If you honestly think that, you are a moron. Do you:a) think differently than someone?b) have more strength than someone?c) are you smarter than someone?d) are you a worse writer than someone?... and the list goes on. I have just proven to you that we are not all equal. However, I find the "independent thought" thing interesting. I guess it would be ok if we started capping retards, autistic people, and people with down's syndrome. Maybe even really stupid people? Why not?Another thing that you don't realize is that every human being, from conception till death is capable of rational and "independent" thought, therefore, by your own definition, you're wrong. And what the hell does that relative comment mean? How can something be relevant to someone without it affecting others? Either a person's skin color has meaning or it doesn't, it can't be both. Seriously, who the hell taught you to think?
Evolutionary theory: Oh, I see you are trying to bully me by showing off your science terms. Unlike most Americans though, I don't bow to the alter of science, and your pathetic attempts at obfuscation are woefully inadequate. You see, a human life isn't the sum of its genetic material, because of our ability to rise above it. It is precisely our capacity for "independent" thought that shows us how much greater we are than mere genetics. What defines human life is that we are able to selflessly love, reason, and act against instinct. None of these things are in our genetics, and each are unique to man. These are "subjective" distinctions, but objective fact. Luckily, though, you managed to avoid talking about how you can explain the complete lack of a fossil record, the sheer logical idiocy, and the miserable consequences of evolution.
I am actually more of a traditional conservative, but thanks for playing. Just because I am for this war, doesn't mean I am for all war, and that we should try to export American democracy abroad. I just think, in this case, that it might work, more or less. By the way, do you even know what a neo-conservative is, by definition? What is there intellectual heritage? What is being "mugged by reality"?
Strawman arguments are used by Plato and Aristotle, so you haven't a leg to stand on there. Also, that isn't what strawman means. A strawman means poorly describing an opponents argument and then disproving that, instead of actually debating that person. An effective rhetorical device, but one which, unfortunately for you, was not used here. Lucky for me I have just demonstrated how each of those things is wrong on its own, and, perhaps you might have picked up on some themes, like: human dignity, the sacredness of human life, justice, and the fact that you're an idiot. As there are discernable themes, that mean that they are both wrong in themselves, but are also connected in their wrongness. I don't really expect you to get it.
My opponent responded:
"I don't bow to the alter of science"
Wonderful. A rejection of science renders any rational discussion impossible, since you permit yourself the egocentric freedom to subjectively arbitrate what constitutes "fact." Since your arguments therefore apply only to an imaginary world of your own design, they have no relevant refutation to the rest of reality. I therefore stand by my objective analysis based in empiricism and logic, and pity your waste of a Saturday night composing drivel. Although it is certainly yours to waste, given the magical thinking that defines the parameters of your reality. It was curiously satisfying to note your embrace of racism and derision of the mentally-challenged coupled with scientific laziness, pointless vengeance, callousness, and misogyny. All of which I have come to expect from the Far Right.
Enjoy the demise of conservativism. I certainly am! :)
I respond:You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I have said previously, but that is pretty typical of liberals.
I don't reject science, in fact, it is clear that science has provided many a good thing for our society. However, I don't view science as the arbiter of right and wrong, or look to it to answer transcendental questions: it is quite unable to do so. Science is able to, with much deliberation, give us answers to factual questions, ie "what is an atom?" or "what does the atom do?"; on the other hand it fails utterly to answers questions such as "what does the atom MEAN?" or "What SHOULD we do with an atom?". So, when I made that statement, I was merely saying that science is useless for political debate, because the latter questions are political, and as theory and evidence in science are dynamic, it is unable to give us even clear and standard answers to the questions that we as a society need to answer. Furthermore, your inability to see the constraints of science leads me to believe that you are the one who is incapable of holding reasonable discussions, because science deals with fact, not reason.
I don't really see how any of my statements can be accused of the product of a deluded mind, as they are completely in line with both the objective reality, with the added benefit of agreement with the traditional and philosophical disussions of truth and ethics. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, Augustine, Arendt, and even Hegel can be said to agree with my interpretation. So much for your imaginary world.
I am not racist, I was merely pointing out the logcial fallacies in your own arguments. We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, and each one of us has undeniable human dignity, which I thought I made clear in my previous post, which I am beginning to suspect you didn't even really read.
I have no problem, nor do I deride the mentally handicapped. In fact, I was pointing out that by your standards of what makes a person, and therefore, who it is and isn't permissble to kill (namely "independent thinking", which, I might add, is a pretty idiotic standard for what makes a person) would include the mentally handicapped. (Speaking of which, if you are so concerned about helping the helpless, you might want to look to the womb.) It is liberals who historically have been for the culling of undesirables, not traditional conservatives. (don't even try to bring up the Nazis-they weren't far right. The were SOCIALISTS. In fact, your precious planned parenthood shares their heritage with the Nazis.)
You should try to look to the meanings of words before you freak out about them. You have taught yourself to think of vengeance as pejorative, without really looking at why. One way or another though, I did manage to prove that it isn't pointless as far as the death penalty goes.
As for my callousness, I will acknowledge that when I start ripping innocent children out of their mother's womb.
I want what is best for both woman and men, however, I don't acknowledge that they know what that is. Only a well formed conscience can discern what is morally right and good. Unfortunatly, most people nowadays don't have well formed consciences. Take yourself for example. Nonetheless, I don't believe that letting women kill their children is good for them, and just like I would try to stop a woman from taking drugs, becoming a prostitute, or killing themselves, so I will try to stop them from abortion. I do it because I want to keep them from damaging themselves. If that makes me a misogynist, then I am ok with that.
As per usual, I have taken the time to show you the myriad of ways you are wrong, replying in detail to your objections and accusations, whilst you have chosen to go the path of labeling me as your way of arguing. Why don't you show me how I am wrong, show me how I am callous, instead of attempting to win by ignoring everything except that which re-affirms your position? That is mental laziness.
I see no evidence that conservatism is dead, or dying. Good luck with that, though.
Oh, and that's Far Right, Inc.
Executive Summaries of Geopolitical Readings: Part 2
The Importance of Maritime Chokepoints, Reynolds B. Peele
Thesis: “This article examines some historical and theoretical aspects of maritime chokepoints; assesses current issues and foreign policy concerns regarding their security, and evaluates US strategy as it relates to free access to sea lines of communication. “
Thesis: “This article examines some historical and theoretical aspects of maritime chokepoints; assesses current issues and foreign policy concerns regarding their security, and evaluates US strategy as it relates to free access to sea lines of communication. “
Mahan and Seapower
- Mahan’s analysis of history convinced him that the lines communication determined the outcome of many battles and campaigns.
- The essence of Mahan’s theory was that a nation could be strong and prosper only if it had the ability to protect the seas from any threat, and that Seapower was the only way to do this.
- Three attributes of nations bordering the sea:
Production, with the necessity of exchanging products
Shipping, whereby the exchange is carried on
Colonies [in other words: bases, economic, military, or both], which facilitate and enlarge the operations of shipping and tend to protect it multiplying points of safety
- Commerce and war making Ability are intimately related; trade dictates naval strategy.
Therefore physical presence at specific locations to facilitate trade and defend trade routes is essential. - Mercantile nations must hold in force chokepoints through which commercial shipping must pass.
Geography and Strategy
- Geopolitics is defined as the study of the influence of geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state.
- Geography is highlighted in strategic discussions because it helps the participants understand strategic requirements and relationships.
- Military might is subject to the constraints and dictates of geography.
Mahan Updated
- The correlation between commerce and war making continues to shape U.S. policy, especially when considering that we import more than 9.8 million barrels of gasoline a day and our exports make up 3.3% of all tonnage shipped in a year.
- Keeping the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) open is a strategic concern, and an international right that must be jealously guarded against ANY infringement.
- Closed SLOCs will also mean significantly decreased US military response times, hindering our ability to project power and avert disasters.
Regional Threats
- Unrest and conflict in the Middle East, North Korea, South American Banana Republics, the Balkans, the Spratly Islands (South China Seas), and humanitarian issues in Africa all have the potential to affect our ability to use the SLOC.
Strategy and Sea Lines of Communication
- “The three essential components of US National Security Strategy- peacetime engagement, deterrence and conflict prevention and fighting and winning the nation’s wars- all assume that we can deploy forces to any part of the world in a timely fashion.”
- SLOC are essential geopolitical considerations for economic and military strategy, and US maritime forces will guarantee unhindered SLOC passage.
Conclusions
- “The political, economic, and military importance of SLOC has remained fundamentally unchanged since Mahan shaped the issue more than a century ago.”
Hamstringing the Navy through budget cuts interferes with their ability to hold SLOCs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
