ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Like so many countries before, throughout the period of recorded civilisation, the U.S is to me, slowly but surely, slipping into that ever fatal state.
<i>"The end justifies the means."</i>
For those who weren't paying attention (and this wasn't aimed at you Rob, more a generalised statement) it never works.
<!--quoteo(post=1570123:date=Oct 15 2006, 09:47 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 15 2006, 09:47 PM) [snapback]1570123[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[clipped to save space, click the little arrowy thing]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1,2: "could be in radiation danger" is not the same as "will be killed. they <i>will</i> fall down."
3,4: fear is the absence of rational thought. you seem unable to comprehend this. please pick up a psychology book and look under the chapter for "irrational behavior."
5: I live on campus. Pedestrian traffic has the right of way.
My parents left me to my own devices when in violation of the moral code. The most common was confinement. The direct cause of any fear was silence, I swiftly killed it with a stereo.
Chainsaw.
In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him.
<!--quoteo(post=1570186:date=Oct 16 2006, 11:55 AM:name=Shockwave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shockwave @ Oct 16 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]1570186[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Like so many countries before, throughout the period of recorded civilisation, the U.S is to me, slowly but surely, slipping into that ever fatal state.
<i>"The end justifies the means."</i>
For those who weren't paying attention (and this wasn't aimed at you Rob, more a generalised statement) it never works. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with ya. My country is damned. But not because we're doing what we're doing overseas. Alot of that has to do with not keeping what we're doing under wraps. I have an idea that a few of our 20 billion intelligence agencies in this country are too big for a world without the soviet union, and intelligence officers are increasing tempted to fill in a bored schedule- that's probably Tom Clany style paranoia.
Anyway, between world sentiment, our inability to either become self-reliant or embrace a truly free market economy, rising unrest on the homefront, and a pathetic excuse for public education trying to train our future citizens, I feel it looks pretty bleak.
However, I'm content to ride it straight into the ground. Should be fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1570189:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1570189[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 1,2: "could be in radiation danger" is not the same as "will be killed. they <i>will</i> fall down." <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before, a tactical nuke produces less radiation and thereby less of a chance of a large number of satellites going down. Of course they are going to... but it's just a damn satellite. We can make more.
Course, this is assuming you manage to time the blast so that it doesn't knock any out. But alas, as with any decision, you need to way the losses against the gains. I just said it was something I'd think to be worth it; doesn't mean it would actually happen.
And you're right, the two statements aren't equal, but they're close enough that you're just nitpicking to be a pain in my backside.
<!--quoteo(post=1570189:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1570189[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 3,4: fear is the absence of rational thought. you seem unable to comprehend this. please pick up a psychology book and look under the chapter for "irrational behavior." <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fear is not the absense of rational thought, it's not even really a concrete idea in any sense. It describes and entire catagory of emotion. The word "rational" is also thrown around alot but not really concrete. "Rational" is like "moral;" It can mean totally different things for different cultures or people. I'm sure what Christians think of as rational seems pretty crazy to Athiests. Maybe I also don't care what psychologists think. /me shrugs I like my way better.
I don't have a psychology book handy, but I do have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear" target="_blank">wikipedia handy</a>. Says "Fear is a basic emotional sensation and response system ("feeling") initiated by an aversion to some perceived risk or threat."
I'm sure we'd all agree that <i>not</i> putting your hand on a hot stove is a pretty rational thing to do by our standards. It can also be said that we may "fear the consequences" of putting our hand on a hot stove. Therefore, fear leads to rational thought, eh?
<!--quoteo(post=1570189:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1570189[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 5: I live on campus. Pedestrian traffic has the right of way.
My parents left me to my own devices when in violation of the moral code. The most common was confinement. The direct cause of any fear was silence, I swiftly killed it with a stereo.
Chainsaw.
In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great job at taking an example out of context, deciding it somehow doesn't apply to you, and thereby concluding that the entire argument is wrong.
You may have the right of way as a walker, but blindly walking into the street is not a smart thing to do. If you're dead, the settlement from the lawsuit won't matter much to you.
I suppose a chainsaw could be used to destroy heights, but then again, someone who religiously saws down trees because he/she is afraid of heights may have a few other things going on upstairs. :/
"In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him."
<!--quoteo(post=1570200:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:43 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 16 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]1570200[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him."
Exactly. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and with the usa taking the alpha spot and yelling "we can kill you!" kind of makes everyone else think it's time for a new alpha, no?
<!--quoteo(post=1570318:date=Oct 17 2006, 12:57 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 17 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]1570318[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and with the usa taking the alpha spot and yelling "we can kill you!" kind of makes everyone else think it's time for a new alpha, no? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then attack us. I've never played down a good rise to power.
If members of our own country are really upset with the way things are going, it is there consititutional responsibility to rise up and replace the government that's offending them so. That's been a pretty baseline point in our culture.
I'd expect nothing less from people outside. I would also expect us to do nothing less than defend our spot on top of the hill at all costs.
Fear and intimidation doesn't work in the long run. If you scare them now you may stop them temporarily, but in the end it will only lead to renewed hate, even deeper-seated than before. It's like peeing your pants to keep warm. It works well for a moment, but a short while later everything just gets even worse.
If you MUST take the forceful approach, the only proper way of handling things is this: Call Moskva. Call Beijing. Call London, Paris, call <insert capital of all the other nations with nukes>. Tell them not to worry when they see missiles rising high above the north pole, they're not meant for them. Then nuke North Korea. Nuke it completely and totally. Nuke it down to bedrock. Hell, nuke the bedrock away too just to be safe. Throw in a few dirty bombs to ensure that the entire country is fatally irradiated for centuries if not millenia to come. THAT is the only way you're going to "deal" with North Korea by force. You are not going to intimidate them into submission. If you want war, you must want total war (guess whom I stole that quote from). That's your only real option.
Do you really want that sort of blood on your hands? To not only be the only nation that has ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger, but to also have been the nation that INITIATED a nuclear war? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be?
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1570402:date=Oct 18 2006, 12:39 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 18 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1570402[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do you really want that sort of blood on your hands? To not only be the only nation that has ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger, but to also have been the nation that INITIATED a nuclear war? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course.... "Been there, done that." does apply, you know lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1570402:date=Oct 18 2006, 07:39 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 18 2006, 07:39 AM) [snapback]1570402[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Fear and intimidation doesn't work in the long run. If you scare them now you may stop them temporarily, but in the end it will only lead to renewed hate, even deeper-seated than before. It's like peeing your pants to keep warm. It works well for a moment, but a short while later everything just gets even worse.
If you MUST take the forceful approach, the only proper way of handling things is this: Call Moskva. Call Beijing. Call London, Paris, call <insert capital of all the other nations with nukes>. Tell them not to worry when they see missiles rising high above the north pole, they're not meant for them. Then nuke North Korea. Nuke it completely and totally. Nuke it down to bedrock. Hell, nuke the bedrock away too just to be safe. Throw in a few dirty bombs to ensure that the entire country is fatally irradiated for centuries if not millenia to come. THAT is the only way you're going to "deal" with North Korea by force. You are not going to intimidate them into submission. If you want war, you must want total war (guess whom I stole that quote from). That's your only real option.
Do you really want that sort of blood on your hands? To not only be the only nation that has ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger, but to also have been the nation that INITIATED a nuclear war? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say that's the only way. And intimidation can go a long way for a long time. I think I should define what I really mean, because there's a few different kinds.
What you're probably thinking is the classic bully. He rules with the iron fist because he has so little self-confidence that he must fill a gaping void in his own psyche by "owning," others. This last part is the part that breeds the hatred. He threatens with no provocation, dispenses punishment for no reason and in an unequal manner. He does this because he is unstable.
Now, the kind of intimidation you'd get in, say, military training, is places all subjects equally in the crapper. You get punished hard and fast according to strict set of rules, and you're not generally "picked on" with no purpose. (A trainer may single out a certain trainee to use as example because the trainer believes his victim either needs more incentive to work harder or can handle the stress whereas others can't. In any case, the individual in-equality in force has been justified by the trainer and has probably been used many times previous to great effect.)
This kind of intimidation is what keeps people in check. On a large scale, you can think of this as the feeling you get when there are police lights in your rear view. I guess if you're a total bad-######, you're not intimidated by cops, but to those of us who are not full of ourselves <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> , we're intimidated by what the cop represents: punishment. We know we were probably doing something wrong and we're about to get the whip cracked on us.
That's the kind of thing I want to happen in North Korea in the <i>long</i> run. In the short run, I think a little "scare the crap out of them so they're stunned," is in order.
Whether or not you think the US has been following a policy of bully or equality intimidation is really another discussions, but consider this:
The Roman Empire was successful at least initially because they conquered lands, allowed the conquered to continue living with their own religions as Roman citizens. Some of the harshes punishments in history were dealt out to those who crossed Roman law, but for a long time, the punishment was equal among the populace.
It wasn't until entire nations and races of people were subjected as second class citizens, given raw deals and double crossed that the major revolts started and the empire finally fell.
Many of those living in the colonies before our revolution from the British Empire had no desire to be called "Americans." They thought themselves just as British as those from the motherland. It wasn't until they perceived the threat of being lowered to a second class status in the empire that they started the first of revolt.
Mahatma Gandhi considered himself a British citizen until he traveled into India and was met with the senseless discrimination. I say senseless because to pin a negative on the word "discriminate" is silly at best, and a rapage of humanity at worst. Everyone is discriminated in some way; if we were all the same, communism would work. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It's when you fail to adaquately explain to the person you are discriminating against why you are doing so, and then go on to convince them that the discrimination is justified, that you get into trouble.
For instance, if I were the CEO of a tech company, and one of my workers with a degree in psychology and communication was working on creating motherboards for computers, I may say to him or her, "Why are you working here? You know more about people than you do about hardware. Why dont you come design user interfaces for us?"
If not convinced that he or she is more qualified for user interfaces than motherboards, I may get slapped with a discrimination charge.
Wow, I kinda went away and just kept on typing there... Sorry for the long windedness. I guess my point is that using a combination of the intelligent application of force and brilliant social manuevering, a regime can last forever.
<!--quoteo(post=1570427:date=Oct 18 2006, 11:56 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 18 2006, 11:56 AM) [snapback]1570427[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]a regime can last forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> and i was here thinking we had a dynamic and democratic government, guess i missed the memo
<!--quoteo(post=1570427:date=Oct 18 2006, 06:56 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 18 2006, 06:56 PM) [snapback]1570427[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]It's when you fail to adaquately explain to the person you are discriminating against why you are doing so, and then go on to convince them that the discrimination is justified, that you get into trouble.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And that's what BM and I are saying - dropping bombs and leaflets will not sway the north koreans. YOU may not see yourself as the bully, but they will. And it'll breed hate and resentment all the same.
<!--quoteo(post=1570442:date=Oct 18 2006, 02:42 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 18 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1570442[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And that's what BM and I are saying - dropping bombs and leaflets will not sway the north koreans. YOU may not see yourself as the bully, but they will. And it'll breed hate and resentment all the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess we can agree to disagree? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Dropping bombs and leaflets is not a long term solution to convince them that to come over to the dark side; it's a short term solution to get us into a position to implement a long term solution. Basically just to give them pause long enough so that we can get into their heads.
Sort of like slapping someone who's in a panic. Only I guess this time, the person's in a fit of rage.
I don't advocate just harassing them for no reason, I hope that's not what you thought I meant... I <b>do</b> advocate a massive show of force to set an example. Afterwards, they need to understand that the show of force was punishment for their behavior. It's pointless unless they understand that.
1) Last I heard, NK's missile tests had failed, and they still don't have a working long-range delivery system.
2) NK just today announced that they considered UN sanctions an act of war
3) ICBMs are old school. These days, SLBMs are the new ICBM. Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. They have the same range as ICBMs (about 12 thousand kilometers), can carry large payloads (IIRC the Trident II carries up to about 3.8 megatons split over 8 warheads that can hit different targets, or one target), and can be launched from anywhere in the world where there is water (quite a bit). So there are no worries about having to launch over the North Pole anymore. And SLBMs aren't exactly new either, the US has had them for a very long time.
4) NK doesn't have *ANY* first strike capability currently, at least against the US. They could probably cause major damage to South Korea, but the damage would be isolated. The US has enough long-range nuclear capabilities to wipe out every last person in NK if they really wanted to. Of course, there would be significant collateral damage to surrounding countries.
5) The US could easily obtain air and sea superiority around NK. They have the capacity these days to pretty much set up a no-fly zone over the entire country of NK.
6) The situation since the Korean war has changed significantly. US technology has advanced greatly, and I'm not convinced that North Korea's has. Also, South Korea today is a hell of a lot more advanced than they were back then, and has a hell of a lot more money to play with. North Korea doesn't have that much money due to limited foreign trade.
7) Expanding on number 6, the South's army is roughly the same size as the North's when you compare reserve forces. ~6 million for North and ~5.2 million for South. And you can bet South Korea's is better equipped. In full-scale war, I think that South Korea could hold their own, WITHOUT involvement from the US, Canada, and other countries. Don't forget, if it comes down to it, China probably won't help out the North this time around. Neither will Russia, which also helped the North last time.
Also note that at the start of the Korean war, NK took SK completely by surprised, and had a much larger army. Since they've been at war for half a century, and there's the DMZ that needs crossing, any surprise by either side is pretty much impossible.
If it came down to it, SK plus NATO could roll right over NK. The question would be popular rebellion, like you see in Iraq. I'd argue that conditions in Iraq were better pre-war than post. In NK, they're already all dirt poor with pretty much no services (See the earlier posted light map). The US might make huge inroads if they took to goodwill gestures in the north to keep the population happy. If you're practically starving under your current regime, and the US starts supplying you food and medical supplies, you might be hesitant to take up arms against them, even if you've been conditions to think they're pure evil.
Another thing to consider is the battle lines in the Korean war were relatively fluid; there was no DMZ, and NK's surprise attack took them far into South Korea. This time around, there is the DMZ, and satellites can spot movement. There is no surprise.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that North Korea is currently a significant threat. I still think that increasingly strong action should be taken against them. Sanctions for now (act of war be damned), future nuclear tests need to be met with armed opposition (a US no-fly zone with targeted bombing of suspected NK nuclear facilities would be a start). Hopefully, a US air campaign would be enough to cripple the NK nuclear program without landing any troops on the ground, and would discourage NK from retaliating.
Sanctions are going to hurt NK a lot, and it's a good start. But if they really do go forward with a second test, they need to be met with force to show that the world is serious.
<!--quoteo(post=1570448:date=Oct 18 2006, 10:34 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 18 2006, 10:34 PM) [snapback]1570448[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I guess we can agree to disagree? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Dropping bombs and leaflets is not a long term solution to convince them that to come over to the dark side; it's a short term solution to get us into a position to implement a long term solution. Basically just to give them pause long enough so that we can get into their heads.
<b><u>Sort of like slapping someone who's in a panic. Only I guess this time, the person's in a fit of rage.</u></b>
I don't advocate just harassing them for no reason, I hope that's not what you thought I meant... I <b>do</b> advocate a massive show of force to set an example. Afterwards, they need to understand that the show of force was punishment for their behavior. It's pointless unless they understand that. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Sort of like slapping someone who's in a fit of rage."
I don't claim to be an expert on human behaviour, but if someone was in a fit of rage and I'd slap him, the LAST thing I'd expect him to do would be to stop and consider his actions. I'd expect him to explode and start lashing out at everyone with the reckless abandon and complete disregard to his own safety that only an utterly enraged man displays.
<!--quoteo(post=1570577:date=Oct 19 2006, 07:11 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 19 2006, 07:11 PM) [snapback]1570577[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> "Sort of like slapping someone who's in a fit of rage."
I don't claim to be an expert on human behaviour, but if someone was in a fit of rage and I'd slap him, the LAST thing I'd expect him to do would be to stop and consider his actions. I'd expect him to explode and start lashing out at everyone with the reckless abandon and complete disregard to his own safety that only an utterly enraged man displays. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's just the sort of behavior we want to see, ya see? It's all about uncontrolled outbursts.
Actually, I give up, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. I can't try to explain myself in any way I haven't already, so we'll call this one a victory for my enemies. I'm just glad Nem0 didn't join the fight or I really woulda been outgunned. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Comments
<i>"The end justifies the means."</i>
For those who weren't paying attention (and this wasn't aimed at you Rob, more a generalised statement) it never works.
1,2:
"could be in radiation danger" is not the same as "will be killed. they <i>will</i> fall down."
3,4:
fear is the absence of rational thought. you seem unable to comprehend this. please pick up a psychology book and look under the chapter for "irrational behavior."
5:
I live on campus. Pedestrian traffic has the right of way.
My parents left me to my own devices when in violation of the moral code. The most common was confinement. The direct cause of any fear was silence, I swiftly killed it with a stereo.
Chainsaw.
In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him.
Like so many countries before, throughout the period of recorded civilisation, the U.S is to me, slowly but surely, slipping into that ever fatal state.
<i>"The end justifies the means."</i>
For those who weren't paying attention (and this wasn't aimed at you Rob, more a generalised statement) it never works.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with ya. My country is damned. But not because we're doing what we're doing overseas. Alot of that has to do with not keeping what we're doing under wraps. I have an idea that a few of our 20 billion intelligence agencies in this country are too big for a world without the soviet union, and intelligence officers are increasing tempted to fill in a bored schedule- that's probably Tom Clany style paranoia.
Anyway, between world sentiment, our inability to either become self-reliant or embrace a truly free market economy, rising unrest on the homefront, and a pathetic excuse for public education trying to train our future citizens, I feel it looks pretty bleak.
However, I'm content to ride it straight into the ground. Should be fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1570189:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1570189[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
1,2:
"could be in radiation danger" is not the same as "will be killed. they <i>will</i> fall down."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before, a tactical nuke produces less radiation and thereby less of a chance of a large number of satellites going down. Of course they are going to... but it's just a damn satellite. We can make more.
Course, this is assuming you manage to time the blast so that it doesn't knock any out. But alas, as with any decision, you need to way the losses against the gains. I just said it was something I'd think to be worth it; doesn't mean it would actually happen.
And you're right, the two statements aren't equal, but they're close enough that you're just nitpicking to be a pain in my backside.
<!--quoteo(post=1570189:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1570189[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
3,4:
fear is the absence of rational thought. you seem unable to comprehend this. please pick up a psychology book and look under the chapter for "irrational behavior."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fear is not the absense of rational thought, it's not even really a concrete idea in any sense. It describes and entire catagory of emotion. The word "rational" is also thrown around alot but not really concrete. "Rational" is like "moral;" It can mean totally different things for different cultures or people. I'm sure what Christians think of as rational seems pretty crazy to Athiests. Maybe I also don't care what psychologists think. /me shrugs I like my way better.
I don't have a psychology book handy, but I do have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear" target="_blank">wikipedia handy</a>. Says "Fear is a basic emotional sensation and response system ("feeling") initiated by an aversion to some perceived risk or threat."
I'm sure we'd all agree that <i>not</i> putting your hand on a hot stove is a pretty rational thing to do by our standards. It can also be said that we may "fear the consequences" of putting our hand on a hot stove. Therefore, fear leads to rational thought, eh?
<!--quoteo(post=1570189:date=Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Oct 16 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1570189[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
5:
I live on campus. Pedestrian traffic has the right of way.
My parents left me to my own devices when in violation of the moral code. The most common was confinement. The direct cause of any fear was silence, I swiftly killed it with a stereo.
Chainsaw.
In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great job at taking an example out of context, deciding it somehow doesn't apply to you, and thereby concluding that the entire argument is wrong.
You may have the right of way as a walker, but blindly walking into the street is not a smart thing to do. If you're dead, the settlement from the lawsuit won't matter much to you.
I suppose a chainsaw could be used to destroy heights, but then again, someone who religiously saws down trees because he/she is afraid of heights may have a few other things going on upstairs. :/
"In any society with an alpha male; the easiest way to replace him: prove that you are stronger, kill him."
Exactly.
[edit]typo heaven[/edit]
Exactly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and with the usa taking the alpha spot and yelling "we can kill you!" kind of makes everyone else think it's time for a new alpha, no?
and with the usa taking the alpha spot and yelling "we can kill you!" kind of makes everyone else think it's time for a new alpha, no?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then attack us. I've never played down a good rise to power.
If members of our own country are really upset with the way things are going, it is there consititutional responsibility to rise up and replace the government that's offending them so. That's been a pretty baseline point in our culture.
I'd expect nothing less from people outside. I would also expect us to do nothing less than defend our spot on top of the hill at all costs.
If you MUST take the forceful approach, the only proper way of handling things is this:
Call Moskva. Call Beijing. Call London, Paris, call <insert capital of all the other nations with nukes>. Tell them not to worry when they see missiles rising high above the north pole, they're not meant for them. Then nuke North Korea. Nuke it completely and totally. Nuke it down to bedrock. Hell, nuke the bedrock away too just to be safe. Throw in a few dirty bombs to ensure that the entire country is fatally irradiated for centuries if not millenia to come.
THAT is the only way you're going to "deal" with North Korea by force. You are not going to intimidate them into submission. If you want war, you must want total war (guess whom I stole that quote from). That's your only real option.
Do you really want that sort of blood on your hands? To not only be the only nation that has ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger, but to also have been the nation that INITIATED a nuclear war? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be?
Do you really want that sort of blood on your hands? To not only be the only nation that has ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger, but to also have been the nation that INITIATED a nuclear war? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course.... "Been there, done that." does apply, you know lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Fear and intimidation doesn't work in the long run. If you scare them now you may stop them temporarily, but in the end it will only lead to renewed hate, even deeper-seated than before. It's like peeing your pants to keep warm. It works well for a moment, but a short while later everything just gets even worse.
If you MUST take the forceful approach, the only proper way of handling things is this:
Call Moskva. Call Beijing. Call London, Paris, call <insert capital of all the other nations with nukes>. Tell them not to worry when they see missiles rising high above the north pole, they're not meant for them. Then nuke North Korea. Nuke it completely and totally. Nuke it down to bedrock. Hell, nuke the bedrock away too just to be safe. Throw in a few dirty bombs to ensure that the entire country is fatally irradiated for centuries if not millenia to come.
THAT is the only way you're going to "deal" with North Korea by force. You are not going to intimidate them into submission. If you want war, you must want total war (guess whom I stole that quote from). That's your only real option.
Do you really want that sort of blood on your hands? To not only be the only nation that has ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger, but to also have been the nation that INITIATED a nuclear war? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say that's the only way. And intimidation can go a long way for a long time. I think I should define what I really mean, because there's a few different kinds.
What you're probably thinking is the classic bully. He rules with the iron fist because he has so little self-confidence that he must fill a gaping void in his own psyche by "owning," others. This last part is the part that breeds the hatred. He threatens with no provocation, dispenses punishment for no reason and in an unequal manner. He does this because he is unstable.
Now, the kind of intimidation you'd get in, say, military training, is places all subjects equally in the crapper. You get punished hard and fast according to strict set of rules, and you're not generally "picked on" with no purpose. (A trainer may single out a certain trainee to use as example because the trainer believes his victim either needs more incentive to work harder or can handle the stress whereas others can't. In any case, the individual in-equality in force has been justified by the trainer and has probably been used many times previous to great effect.)
This kind of intimidation is what keeps people in check. On a large scale, you can think of this as the feeling you get when there are police lights in your rear view. I guess if you're a total bad-######, you're not intimidated by cops, but to those of us who are not full of ourselves <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> , we're intimidated by what the cop represents: punishment. We know we were probably doing something wrong and we're about to get the whip cracked on us.
That's the kind of thing I want to happen in North Korea in the <i>long</i> run. In the short run, I think a little "scare the crap out of them so they're stunned," is in order.
Whether or not you think the US has been following a policy of bully or equality intimidation is really another discussions, but consider this:
The Roman Empire was successful at least initially because they conquered lands, allowed the conquered to continue living with their own religions as Roman citizens. Some of the harshes punishments in history were dealt out to those who crossed Roman law, but for a long time, the punishment was equal among the populace.
It wasn't until entire nations and races of people were subjected as second class citizens, given raw deals and double crossed that the major revolts started and the empire finally fell.
Many of those living in the colonies before our revolution from the British Empire had no desire to be called "Americans." They thought themselves just as British as those from the motherland. It wasn't until they perceived the threat of being lowered to a second class status in the empire that they started the first of revolt.
Mahatma Gandhi considered himself a British citizen until he traveled into India and was met with the senseless discrimination. I say senseless because to pin a negative on the word "discriminate" is silly at best, and a rapage of humanity at worst. Everyone is discriminated in some way; if we were all the same, communism would work. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It's when you fail to adaquately explain to the person you are discriminating against why you are doing so, and then go on to convince them that the discrimination is justified, that you get into trouble.
For instance, if I were the CEO of a tech company, and one of my workers with a degree in psychology and communication was working on creating motherboards for computers, I may say to him or her, "Why are you working here? You know more about people than you do about hardware. Why dont you come design user interfaces for us?"
If not convinced that he or she is more qualified for user interfaces than motherboards, I may get slapped with a discrimination charge.
Wow, I kinda went away and just kept on typing there... Sorry for the long windedness. I guess my point is that using a combination of the intelligent application of force and brilliant social manuevering, a regime can last forever.
and i was here thinking we had a dynamic and democratic government, guess i missed the memo
[...]It's when you fail to adaquately explain to the person you are discriminating against why you are doing so, and then go on to convince them that the discrimination is justified, that you get into trouble.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's what BM and I are saying - dropping bombs and leaflets will not sway the north koreans. YOU may not see yourself as the bully, but they will. And it'll breed hate and resentment all the same.
And that's what BM and I are saying - dropping bombs and leaflets will not sway the north koreans. YOU may not see yourself as the bully, but they will. And it'll breed hate and resentment all the same.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess we can agree to disagree? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Dropping bombs and leaflets is not a long term solution to convince them that to come over to the dark side; it's a short term solution to get us into a position to implement a long term solution. Basically just to give them pause long enough so that we can get into their heads.
Sort of like slapping someone who's in a panic. Only I guess this time, the person's in a fit of rage.
I don't advocate just harassing them for no reason, I hope that's not what you thought I meant... I <b>do</b> advocate a massive show of force to set an example. Afterwards, they need to understand that the show of force was punishment for their behavior. It's pointless unless they understand that.
1) Last I heard, NK's missile tests had failed, and they still don't have a working long-range delivery system.
2) NK just today announced that they considered UN sanctions an act of war
3) ICBMs are old school. These days, SLBMs are the new ICBM. Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. They have the same range as ICBMs (about 12 thousand kilometers), can carry large payloads (IIRC the Trident II carries up to about 3.8 megatons split over 8 warheads that can hit different targets, or one target), and can be launched from anywhere in the world where there is water (quite a bit). So there are no worries about having to launch over the North Pole anymore. And SLBMs aren't exactly new either, the US has had them for a very long time.
4) NK doesn't have *ANY* first strike capability currently, at least against the US. They could probably cause major damage to South Korea, but the damage would be isolated. The US has enough long-range nuclear capabilities to wipe out every last person in NK if they really wanted to. Of course, there would be significant collateral damage to surrounding countries.
5) The US could easily obtain air and sea superiority around NK. They have the capacity these days to pretty much set up a no-fly zone over the entire country of NK.
6) The situation since the Korean war has changed significantly. US technology has advanced greatly, and I'm not convinced that North Korea's has. Also, South Korea today is a hell of a lot more advanced than they were back then, and has a hell of a lot more money to play with. North Korea doesn't have that much money due to limited foreign trade.
7) Expanding on number 6, the South's army is roughly the same size as the North's when you compare reserve forces. ~6 million for North and ~5.2 million for South. And you can bet South Korea's is better equipped. In full-scale war, I think that South Korea could hold their own, WITHOUT involvement from the US, Canada, and other countries. Don't forget, if it comes down to it, China probably won't help out the North this time around. Neither will Russia, which also helped the North last time.
Also note that at the start of the Korean war, NK took SK completely by surprised, and had a much larger army. Since they've been at war for half a century, and there's the DMZ that needs crossing, any surprise by either side is pretty much impossible.
If it came down to it, SK plus NATO could roll right over NK. The question would be popular rebellion, like you see in Iraq. I'd argue that conditions in Iraq were better pre-war than post. In NK, they're already all dirt poor with pretty much no services (See the earlier posted light map). The US might make huge inroads if they took to goodwill gestures in the north to keep the population happy. If you're practically starving under your current regime, and the US starts supplying you food and medical supplies, you might be hesitant to take up arms against them, even if you've been conditions to think they're pure evil.
Another thing to consider is the battle lines in the Korean war were relatively fluid; there was no DMZ, and NK's surprise attack took them far into South Korea. This time around, there is the DMZ, and satellites can spot movement. There is no surprise.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that North Korea is currently a significant threat. I still think that increasingly strong action should be taken against them. Sanctions for now (act of war be damned), future nuclear tests need to be met with armed opposition (a US no-fly zone with targeted bombing of suspected NK nuclear facilities would be a start). Hopefully, a US air campaign would be enough to cripple the NK nuclear program without landing any troops on the ground, and would discourage NK from retaliating.
Sanctions are going to hurt NK a lot, and it's a good start. But if they really do go forward with a second test, they need to be met with force to show that the world is serious.
I guess we can agree to disagree? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Dropping bombs and leaflets is not a long term solution to convince them that to come over to the dark side; it's a short term solution to get us into a position to implement a long term solution. Basically just to give them pause long enough so that we can get into their heads.
<b><u>Sort of like slapping someone who's in a panic. Only I guess this time, the person's in a fit of rage.</u></b>
I don't advocate just harassing them for no reason, I hope that's not what you thought I meant... I <b>do</b> advocate a massive show of force to set an example. Afterwards, they need to understand that the show of force was punishment for their behavior. It's pointless unless they understand that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Sort of like slapping someone who's in a fit of rage."
I don't claim to be an expert on human behaviour, but if someone was in a fit of rage and I'd slap him, the LAST thing I'd expect him to do would be to stop and consider his actions. I'd expect him to explode and start lashing out at everyone with the reckless abandon and complete disregard to his own safety that only an utterly enraged man displays.
"Sort of like slapping someone who's in a fit of rage."
I don't claim to be an expert on human behaviour, but if someone was in a fit of rage and I'd slap him, the LAST thing I'd expect him to do would be to stop and consider his actions. I'd expect him to explode and start lashing out at everyone with the reckless abandon and complete disregard to his own safety that only an utterly enraged man displays.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's just the sort of behavior we want to see, ya see? It's all about uncontrolled outbursts.
Actually, I give up, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. I can't try to explain myself in any way I haven't already, so we'll call this one a victory for my enemies. I'm just glad Nem0 didn't join the fight or I really woulda been outgunned. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<b>F</b>ight/F<b>L</b>ight?[F] _