About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the best I ever saw on this subject...


Post 61

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A nuclear war won't destroy the Earth. Just the nations that fight it. There's a brief description of a four-year timeline at: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

Scott

Post 62

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

I am at midnight, Aug 6/7. It’s an interesting outline. Much like General Hackett’s The Third World War.

(To clarify, my advice to walk away from the fallout is for the context of a single future terrorist incident. In a full exchange, underground for as long as possible is best.)

Jon

Post 63

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

>http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html
>2040: Some of the surviving nations have emerged by now as major powers, including...New Zealand...

Excellent!

- Daniel

Post 64

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That sounds thrilling - Maori as major powers... lol

Post 65

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert:
>that sounds thrilling - Maori as major powers...

It's an ill nuclear wind etc...;-)

- Daniel

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When you join the Army, you give up some of your constitutionally guaranteed rights. 

No, you do not.

If they are constitutionally guaranteed then...WTF?

Explain yourself.


Another reason is hygiene.
No, it is not.

WTF?

Explain yourself.


What aspect of combat requires the ability to march in step

Uuuuuh....study military history!

 
It has about as much value as synchronized swimming.

Synchronization? Is that not good in the military arts?


 
To make this indoctrination easier, they randomly wake you in the night to assemble outside in uniform.  They say that this is to prepare you for what it will be like if you go into combat.

Duh! War is not 9 to 5.

 And basic training is basic TRAINING!



But, this is disingenuous
How so?

Explain yourself.


 
They can't prepare you for that in 8 weeks of basic training and 8 weeks of infantry training. 

War? No one can prepare you for war. It is training not preparation. 



 
We were told that the Army psychologists had determined that the average soldier only needed 3 hours of sleep a night

If you get that 3 hours, count you blessings!



 
The only good I got out of basic training was losing 25 pounds in 8 weeks.

Well, good for you! I am sure Oprah and the men who served with you, feel the same.



 
and lousy food in small quantities.

I never wanted nor complained. My fellow soldiers took care of me. Do not bad mouth Army cooks.



 
When you join the Army, you give up some of your constitutionally guaranteed rights.  You are told this up front, before you are sworn in

Again, No and no. Who told you this? Inquiring minds want to know.





I find myself agreeing with Andy and MSK. (Hell has frozen over!)


gw


 





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 2:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy Postema wrote: ... Soviet Union was a real threat to us.  It was not armed to the hilt with nuclear warheads for nothing. 
 Apparently, it was not armed at all.  You must be the last person on Earth not to know that most of the Cold War experienced by Americans was defined by the government in Washington. 

Yes, the communists would have liked to have conquered the world.  All they lacked was the ability. 

The Cold War was basically a hoax perpetrated by the leaders of the USSR and the USA.  When the jig was up, the Soviets paid the piper.

The USA won because it is more capitalist. 

To believe otherwise is to grant the premise that faith and force actually work, that evil is efficacious.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 8:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael: “The Cold War was basically a hoax…”

Tell that to the Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, the shot dead East Berliners with their fingers stuck in the razor wire.


Post 69

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Michael's premise is that the U.S.S.R. was never armed well enough to take on a major western power. They however effectively plowed through lesser armed countries and built their empire that way.

I might be giving him a little too much credit there but that's my take on it.

---Landon


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 1:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Britain wasn’t armed well enough to occupy all of North America. So I suppose the need for the War of Independence was all a hoax put on us by France.

I can’t stand revisionist fantasy horseshit. Russia had vast war-making capacity, and not because we helped her. She was a huge threat to Germany, that’s why Hitler tried to neutralize her. She well could have rolled all the way to Gibraltar. Then, Europe would have been hers, including Germany, and all the industrial capacity that goes with it. At the end of 1945 she was an enormous power with many more tanks and soldiers on the ground than her potential adversaries. Stalin stayed cool only because Truman had the balls to tell him we would nuke them to hell in a heartbeat. Oh, but she was evil, and evil is impotent. What crap! I’d like to see Michael (not really) in an alley being held up at gunpoint. “Give you my wallet? Fuck you! You are evil and evil is impotent. BANG.

Jon


Post 71

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it amounts more to Russia being experts about picking their battles.  As much as I hate to admit it I think the west could learn something about millitary strategy from our evil enemies.

Go offensively after smaller lesser armed countries, and if a bigger country comes after you, drag them deep into your territory and push them back at their weakest.

Couldn't feed their own citizens but damn they were good at anything having to do with people dying.

---Landon


Post 72

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LE: I think Michael's premise is that the U.S.S.R. was never armed well enough ...

Yes. Thank you.

LE: Couldn't feed their own citizens but damn they were good at anything having to do with people dying.

Once more.

JL: "I’d like to see Michael (not really) in an alley being held up at gunpoint. “Give you my wallet? Fuck you! You are evil and evil is impotent. BANG."

Walking up a blind alley without effective countermeasure would be evil in the first place, so the robbery would be consequential to my idiocy.  There are exceptions in a world of predators, but basically, awareness is everything.  I would hand over the wallet.  Property is not worth dying for. I know that is anathema to an Objectivist and I use that work properly: the Objectivist fetish for property is religious, not rational.

 


Post 73

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 9:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi all, I'm so glad I discovered this thread – I’ve been lurking about this site for awhile & this definitely caught my eye. Nice timing.
I’ve just joined the Territorials here in New Zealand (Reserves) & I’d like to believe that I joined to, amongst other things, help defend our little democracy & help our allies. I’m quite willing to respectfully follow others, even in the name of the Queen, as long as I know they have the proven skill & fight for freedom, democracry & capitalism ; )
I don’t trust my ‘innate’ war-fighting knowledge or that of my videogaming friends to come up with the right stuff to combat an organised enemy force.

Andy Postema, Robert Winefield & others - I'm loving your replies here - Though I do believe that soldiers can act rationally/objectively & I'm not sure what is meant by the feminisation of the army either?

re: Charles Upham, I’d have to agree with you Andy Postema that it was Upham’s tactical skill, passionate hatred of the Nazis & the heat of the moment which led to his impressive feats.
Nice to see him mentioned, I recommend his biography – Mark of the Lion, if you’re interested in him

Robert:
>that sounds thrilling - Maori as major powers...
Damn right, IN YOUR FACE!!!! ; )

Post 74

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael Marotta:

"To believe otherwise is to grant the premise that faith and force actually work, that evil is efficacious."

In the short term, unfortunately, evil does work.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathon,

Congratulations and I wish you the utmost enjoyment of your time in the service. Enjoyment? Yes, because I'm one of those people who wants soldiers only ever to train for combat and never have occasion to use it. And hell, if you can't have fun throwing hand grenades at targets what the hell is wrong with you? :-)

As a New Zealander though, I worry a little about your civilian commander-in-chief. The Labour party has a long history of gutting the military to fund social-engineering and then committing it wholesale to the first fight that comes along cf WWII.

Now that Helen Cluck has stripped the airforce of it's fighter bombers and seems unlikely to equip the army with Heavy Artillery, body armour, Tanks etc. you may end up in a situation where your unit is subordinate to some Allied formation - who, like Helen Cluck, is less mindful of the value of your commitment to defend NZ (and your own life) than you are.

That is the main reason I came to the conclusion never to join the NZ military - even as a Territorial - and I did give it some amount of thought 7 years ago. I have no qualms about fighting. I do have qualms about committing myself to a period of service in which I could be asked to fight for my life in a war I have moral objections to, with cheap and inferior weapons, simply because some bitch wanted to spend a $7 billion tax surplus on voter bribes rather than equipment that would help me stay alive.

With respect to what Andy and Michael said - they are correct in part. In your own little part of the war you can make objective decisions. But you have no control over what part of the greater war your own personal war serves. And therein lies the trap of soldiering. By dint of the code of military justice - which seeks to protect the integrity of the command structure - you forfeit objective control of your decisions to a higher rank - who may be a civilian who bribed 51% of the voting-age morons in the country to bring her to power.

And that is why I say you loose your power to think objectively when you enlist. Objectivism teaches you (among other things) to look at both the woods and the trees so that you might form conclusions and at the same time check their voracity. As a private soldier you can only see the trees.

So be careful if the time comes that your unit goes to fight one of Labour's or National's  wars. Do not stick your head up unless you know the potential gain is worth the risk. Believe me, when it comes to the current crop of NZ politicians, the only one looking to the welfare of a serving soldier - is that individual soldier.


Post 76

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael M,
 
I wrote:
Soviet Union was a real threat to us.  It was not armed to the hilt with nuclear warheads for nothing.
You responded:
Apparently, it was not armed at all.  You must be the last person on Earth not to know that most of the Cold War experienced by Americans was defined by the government in Washington. 

Yes, the communists would have liked to have conquered the world.  All they lacked was the ability. 

The Cold War was basically a hoax perpetrated by the leaders of the USSR and the USA.  When the jig was up, the Soviets paid the piper.

The USA won because it is more capitalist. 

To believe otherwise is to grant the premise that faith and force actually work, that evil is efficacious.
Overlooking the gratuitous insult and that everything you said is nothing but assertion, let me grant you arguendo that by hoax you actually mean hoax and that I'm a dupe because I fell for it.  I have some questions.

1.  Were all of the millions of people directly involved in the Cold War in on the hoax, were they dupes like me, or some of each?

2.  Even if millions were not in on the hoax, there must've been at least thousands.  How did so many conspirators maintain their silence over the past six decades?

3.  Because the Cold War was a hoax, doesn't that make each Cold War president from Truman through Bush Sr. a criminal for sending Americans to their death to defend against a threat they knew didn't exist?

4.  Who among the Americans and the Soviets set up this hoax and how did they persuade two generations of politicians, bureaucrats, and soldiers following them to maintain it?

5.  Qui bono?  Who benefited from such an elaborate, deeply choreographed fraud that cost trillions of dollars to sustain over several decades?

Just curious.

Andy


Post 77

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael M,

Now a serious question.  When does indulging a fantasy such as the armed forces of the Soviet Union never existed go from the irrational to an immoral evasion?  If a belief in the righteousness of capitalism can only be sustained by denying the reality of the deadliest armed threat that ever existed to it, what's the point?

Andy


Post 78

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Excellent comment on Stalin's war machine of WWII.  To emphasize your point, the Soviets produced and put into the field the massive amount materiel they did against the Nazis while uprooting their entire industry in western Russia and moving to the Urals and beyond.  To think that they could not have produced even more during the relative quiescence of the Cold War is odd, especially when they diverted so much of the economy to their war machine.

Jonathan,

Amen.

Robert W,
By dint of the code of military justice - which seeks to protect the integrity of the command structure - you forfeit objective control of your decisions to a higher rank - who may be a civilian who bribed 51% of the voting-age morons in the country to bring her to power.
I agree that's a risk a soldier takes.  But then, that's a risk anyone takes joining a hierarchal organization, like Microsoft for instance.  If your trust in the integrity of your bosses is broken, you can quit.  If that happens to a soldier in the heat of battle, I'll agree that's not an easy choice.  The consequences either way are severe, but he agreed to run that risk.  That said, a soldier can in almost every other circumstance quit without harsh consequences.

Andy 


Post 79

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Q: Qui bono?

A: Cold or hot, war is the health of the state.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.