|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That isn't even an issue compared to what we would do with that many people in our military, or how other states perceived it. [...] Also, we can tell other states that we aren't going to use this new military capability, but they have no reason to believe us, and would be foolish to. |
Other countries manage just fine with similar systems. What makes the US particularly inept such that we would be unable to adapt? And what makes you think adopting a system that would make us much less likely to engage in military aggression would make other nations any more fearful of our capabilities than they already are? |
Other smaller states sure. In 2010 there were 11,014,176 males between 20-24 years old. Currently China has the largest army in the world (in terms of manpower) with 2,285,000 people. If we were the size of Korea or Israel, then we could have this conversation, but we are not. If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
The only time we've actually ever been invaded was by the British. Unless Canada or Mexico want to invade us, it is not very possible for a large scale invasion to occur. |
Why are external invasions the only thing worth considering? What about internal revolts like the Civil War? Because I can tell you, whatever one might think about the British, I'd take them over the Confederates.
| Leon wrote: |
| Very few states have the capability to move large numbers of men across oceans effectively, and if they had the capability to invade us, they would also have the capability strike us with missiles, etc., that would render a militia worthless. If we were actually invaded, we possess the technology to inflict unacceptable damage to any other country in the world in a very short time period. A militia that is limited to the home front is not very worthwhile in the case of America, regardless of whether we reduce our main armed forces or not. |
If you take nukes off of the table, the weaponry of the United States, while impressive, would be no where near as casually efficacious against a first world power as it is at destabilizing third-world cesspits, and if nukes are on the table, then you're essentially advocating a nuclear holocaust in response to foreign troops setting foot on American soil. And what are you going to do in case of a serious domestic revolt, nuke your own territory?
| Fox wrote: |
As technology progresses, boots on the ground become less and less relevant. How many people did we use in Libya, and with drones, your militia could still be in the states and bombing other countries. I don't think this is the best solution to this problem. |
Libya is a perfect example of why a strong defensive army is valuable; Libya descended into a cesspit of chaos in no small part because it's defensive "boots on the ground" were inadequate to the task. You're a master of accidental self-refutation, Leon.
Besides, none of this even begins to touch on the fact that the real objectives of my proposal have little to do with actual concern over America being invaded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
The only time we've actually ever been invaded was by the British. Unless Canada or Mexico want to invade us, it is not very possible for a large scale invasion to occur. |
Why are external invasions the only thing worth considering? What about internal revolts like the Civil War? Because I can tell you, whatever one might think about the British, I'd take them over the Confederates.
| Leon wrote: |
| Very few states have the capability to move large numbers of men across oceans effectively, and if they had the capability to invade us, they would also have the capability strike us with missiles, etc., that would render a militia worthless. If we were actually invaded, we possess the technology to inflict unacceptable damage to any other country in the world in a very short time period. A militia that is limited to the home front is not very worthwhile in the case of America, regardless of whether we reduce our main armed forces or not. |
If you take nukes off of the table, the weaponry of the United States, while impressive, would be no where near as casually efficacious against a first world power as it is at destabilizing third-world cesspits, and if nukes are on the table, then you're essentially advocating a nuclear holocaust in response to foreign troops setting foot on American soil. And what are you going to do in case of a serious domestic revolt, nuke your own territory?
| Fox wrote: |
As technology progresses, boots on the ground become less and less relevant. How many people did we use in Libya, and with drones, your militia could still be in the states and bombing other countries. I don't think this is the best solution to this problem. |
Libya is a perfect example of why a strong defensive army is valuable; Libya descended into a cesspit of chaos in no small part because it's defensive "boots on the ground" were inadequate to the task. You're a master of accidental self-refutation, Leon.
Besides, none of this even begins to touch on the fact that the real objectives of my proposal have little to do with actual concern over America being invaded. |
Massively increasing the number of soldiers and arms in a country will prevent civil war? What do you think the confederate soldiers were doing before the war? They were of course soldiers. Libya is different because it is in a region where there is a mass of foreign soldiers who are in the region who joined in, that isn't the case in our region.
In the case of a serious domestic result why would you assume that the militia wouldn't use their training and arms against the government. If the militia is formed with every male, any serious revolt would have to include them.
Despite being logistically almost impossible, what would a foreign state gain from invading the US?
You would give us the worlds largest militia to prevent foreign adventurism? It just seems like a strange way to go about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Massively increasing the number of soldiers and arms in a country will prevent civil war? |
Do you see Switzerland as a huge civil war risk?
| Leon wrote: |
| What do you think the confederate soldiers were doing before the war? They were of course soldiers. |
Conscription?
| Leon wrote: |
| Libya is different because it is in a region where there is a mass of foreign soldiers who are in the region who joined in, that isn't the case in our region. |
I hate, hate, hate the lazy, bullshit handwaving people pull on issues like this. You're drawing a concrete, absolute boundary of kind based on the vaguest and least defensible of conceptual foundations here, despite the fact that the United States had, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, a catastrophic Civil War of its own. The same goes for the arbitrary references to nation size; it's tiresome when people say inane things like, "Oh, the US can't have a decent single payer healthcare system because it's bigger than other nations," and it's just as tiresome when you apply the same vague, indefensible principle here.
| Leon wrote: |
| In the case of a serious domestic result why would you assume that the militia wouldn't use their training and arms against the government. If the militia is formed with every male, any serious revolt would have to include them. |
Part of the point of militia participation is to give men a positive sense of association with the government instead of an hostile one; causing them to identify with the national government instead of either in spite of it or in opposition to it.
| Leon wrote: |
| Despite being logistically almost impossible, what would a foreign state gain from invading the US? |
Awesome, we need no domestic defensive force at all, because Leon just doesn't see the point in invading America. Think of all the money we can save, because no one will ever engage in the 100% pointless task of invading us. We're logically invulnerable!
| Leon wrote: |
| You would give us the worlds largest militia to prevent foreign adventurism? It just seems like a strange way to go about it. |
#3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Massively increasing the number of soldiers and arms in a country will prevent civil war? |
Do you see Switzerland as a huge civil war risk? |
No, but do I think it has to do with their national service system, no. Do try a little harder.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What do you think the confederate soldiers were doing before the war? They were of course soldiers. |
Conscription? |
Not the officers. Do you think your hypothetical militia would have stood fast, or would have joined the forces of the states were they were stationed?
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Libya is different because it is in a region where there is a mass of foreign soldiers who are in the region who joined in, that isn't the case in our region. |
I hate, hate, hate the lazy, bullshit handwaving people pull on issues like this. You're drawing a concrete, absolute boundary of kind based on the vaguest and least defensible of conceptual foundations here, despite the fact that the United States had, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, a catastrophic Civil War of its own. The same goes for the arbitrary references to nation size; it's tiresome when people say inane things like, "Oh, the US can't have a decent single payer healthcare system because it's bigger than other nations," and it's just as tiresome when you apply the same vague, indefensible principle here. |
Except that what I said was absolutely true, and was a major factor in Libya that wouldn't affect us. You are being pretty lazy with concepts here, failing to explain why we should have the world's largest militia because we had a civil war under completely different circumstances more than a hundred years ago. Not only is this a vague justification to do something, you completely fail to show how it would actually accomplish what you describe. In a geopolitical sense America is an island, with only America and Canada bordering it, compared to Libya which was in one of the least stable places in the world which is full of foreign fighters who will come in large numbers to any kind of fight like this, yeah the Libya comparison can't be taken seriously.
Yes it is possible the US will devolve into a civil war, so what? We can't make massive policy changes for every vague possible outcome. As to the numbers thing, of course it absolutely matters. This isn't the same thing as single payer, this is building infrastructure for more than 10 million new recruits to use for training, buying massive stocks of weapons and ammo for training, having to train massive numbers of people to train the new recruits, etc. Of course all of this is simpler for smaller nations. It's not arbitrary, it's key. What's to keep this militia system from turning into a police state anyways, I mean the most recent "revolution" we put down was the Occupy movement. If we have all these new tools what makes you so sure we won't start looking for ways to use them. This is a poorly thought out idea.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| In the case of a serious domestic result why would you assume that the militia wouldn't use their training and arms against the government. If the militia is formed with every male, any serious revolt would have to include them. |
Part of the point of militia participation is to give men a positive sense of association with the government instead of an hostile one; causing them to identify with the national government instead of either in spite of it or in opposition to it. |
Yes that's nice, but in practice how would you guarantee that. Is this some of the handwaving BS you were describing earlier? Of all the Singaporean, Korean, and Malaysian men who have done or are doing their national service, I wouldn't say that this has been the case. Sure you could say that your militia service would be different, but since it hasn't been tried before, all it is on your part is an assumption.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Despite being logistically almost impossible, what would a foreign state gain from invading the US? |
Awesome, we need no domestic defensive force at all, because Leon just doesn't see the point in invading America. Think of all the money we can save, because no one will ever engage in the 100% pointless task of invading us. We're logically invulnerable! |
Snark aside, theoretically all we need are the nukes, but yeah look at how many wars the UK was in, and how many times it was invaded. No it's not impossible, and yes of course no one is arguing that we don't need some sort of army, but we don't need a massive militia to defend ourselves either. Also, if you've seen the movie Red Dawn, Americans are intrinsically able to form militias after being invaded, so we have that covered.
| Leon wrote: |
| You would give us the worlds largest militia to prevent foreign adventurism? It just seems like a strange way to go about it. |
#3.[/quote]
Stop being lazy Fox, you say that numbers don't matter, explain why the couple of thousand, ten thousands, not sure, conscripts in Switzerland are the same as more than 10 million conscripts in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leon implies militia increases civil war risk, shrugs when given concrete counter example. Leon says Confederate soldiers were soldiers pre-war, redefines "soldier" to mean "officer" when confronted with conscription. Leon questions whether military service can inspire national loyalty, uses South Korea as a counter example (seriously?). Leon's Libya and small-nation hand-waving is not accepted, he replies with a bizarrely wordy, "Nuh uh," which adds zero real supporting content. All while ignoring the core social basis for my case.
What am I supposed to say? I do not see any threat to my proposition here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
r2b2ct
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Step #1: Declare all male adult members of society in good standing (non-felons) members of the national militia.
Step #2: Introduce the basic income, not under its own name, but as income derived from militia service.
Step #3: Amend the Constitution to make clear the militia cannot be deployed overseas under any circumstances.
This would solve a lot of problems in one small package of policies. |
Why only males? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Leon implies militia increases civil war risk, shrugs when given concrete counter example. Leon says Confederate soldiers were soldiers pre-war, redefines "soldier" to mean "officer" when confronted with conscription. Leon questions whether military service can inspire national loyalty, uses South Korea as a counter example (seriously?). Leon's Libya and small-nation hand-waving is not accepted, he replies with a bizarrely wordy, "Nuh uh," which adds zero real supporting content. All while ignoring the core social basis for my case.
What am I supposed to say? I do not see any threat to my proposition here. |
1) No, I don't think there is a credible civil war risk at all, at this moment, in American history. But, if there was one, how could you be sure that the militia would follow the government line. If we used your formation, every able bodied male, than any major civil unrest would have to either be made up of almost entirely women, or include large numbers of militia fighters.
2) I'm not sure how much were formally soldiers, but according to this, only about 20% were conscripted.
http://vaudc.org/confed_vets.html
I can not find the right combination of google search terms that show what percent of confederate soldiers were former American soldiers.
3) Is it still currently fostering the Korean youths loyalty like it did when the country was dirt poor? Also, South Koreans have an actual credible threat to unify against when they are in the army. You have not shown how this would work in America at all.
4) I know we are arguing about hypothetical America where all things are possible, including basic wages for every male, but to act like suddenly creating a new organization for more than 10 million people would not be logistically, at best, extremely difficult is not being honest. Some things deserve being dismissed as silly, so I guess if you want to call that hand waving so be it. Libya and America are not the same or a good comparison, (waves hand contemptuously), In an actual civil war there is no way to be sure which side the militia would fight on, (waves hand contemptuously), creating an organization this size when there is no pressing nation need for it would be a logistical and political nightmare which no other country of our size has attempted, (waves hand contemptuously), and so on and so forth. Surely a creative guy like yourself could think of an easier way to provide a basic income, foster feelings of togetherness, and benefit the community than this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Mandatory military service for all (perhaps police service for those with extreme physical handicap or religious/moral reservations about military service). Tack on passing a basic IQ test as a further requirement for voting rights, and we'd be well on our way to having a functional republic once again. |
Any other Jim Crow laws anyone would like to restore? |
Your ignorance of Jim Crow aside, explain to me how it's good and reasonable that someone who is physically incapable of making intelligent decisions should have power over others via the voting booth and political office, ya know, areas where intelligent decision-making matters.
|
You seem to have missed the lesson on Jim Crow relating to stripping away voting rights through the use of poll taxes and literacy tests was taught, but we'll let that go for now.
It is startling to come across someone in the second decade of the 21st Century who would so blithely take away someone's right to vote on the grounds of an 'intelligence test'. Voting, to my mind, is a matter of judgment, not intelligence. For example, Ted Cruz who is by all accounts highly intelligent, chose to shut down the government over the debt ceiling and risk defaulting on the national debt. That was an unwise strategy by the judgment of the majority of the public. Even, one might say, a feeble-minded strategy.
I would argue that an adult resident at the 'Asylum for Feeble Minded Children', as it was called, has a natural right to protect his/her interests as a human being, IQ notwithstanding. (In my 20 years in the community that served the School I didn't meet anyone who went out of their way to encourage the residents to vote, but there was an awareness and acceptance of their right to vote.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I do not want us engaged in overseas adventurism. [...] If we cannot deploy the militia overseas, and the professional army finds recruiting brutally difficult in normal times due to the fact that both the income and the aesthetics provided by militia participation reduce interest in joining, then we aren't going to see another Iraq. |
While I share your goal, I suppose I'm simply less optimistic about the chances of economic persuasion rather than personal safety triumphing more successfully over nationalistic fervor. Interesting take, nonetheless.
| Leon wrote: |
| If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you. |
If you can't see how keeping our armed forces home rather than displaying our already vastly superior military might all around the globe works directly against your complaint here, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| You seem to have missed the lesson on Jim Crow relating to stripping away voting rights through the use of poll taxes and literacy tests was taught, but we'll let that go for now. |
There's no need to continue to display your ignorance of the subject. Jim Crow laws were never applied in the manner I am suggesting, as they targeted specific segments of the population rather than the whole and exempted others based solely on heredity. That is in no way descriptive of my proposal.
| Quote: |
| Voting, to my mind, is a matter of judgment, not intelligence. |
Amazing. I don't think we have any more to say to each other on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you. |
If you can't see how keeping our armed forces home rather than displaying our already vastly superior military might all around the globe works directly against your complaint here, then I'm not sure what to tell you. |
Oh, do your militia's also come with a constitutional amendment to only be used domestically like Fox's? There are so many hypothetical militias running around it's hard to keep track of them all.
You just told me you know nothing about security dilemmas or international relations, it's ok, most people don't. This is 101 stuff, but basically since the international system is in a state of anarchy there is no central force to maintain order or enforce rules each state is responsible for their own security. Since it is impossible to ever truly know other states intentions, i.e. many states have said that they are only defensive or just want some living space only to attack when it was strategic, states judge other militaries by capability rather than stated intentions. If we increase our military by such an exponential amount, then other countries will, by dictates of history and basic IR theory, increase their capabilities and work to balance against us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
1) No, I don't think there is a credible civil war risk at all, at this moment, in American history. |
I'm not thinking purely in the moment.
| Leon wrote: |
| But, if there was one, how could you be sure that the militia would follow the government line. |
Militia participation would provide both psychological and economic links directly to the broader nation and its government. Does that mean we can be certain no militia member will ever turn against the government? Of course not, but it strongly disincentivizes it, and whatever sub-portion of the militia were to "go rogue" so to speak, it would almost surely be outweighed by those that did not, unless their cause was blatantly, obviously, and fundamentally just, in which case the entire militia turning against the government would be an obvious good thing. The primary goal vis a vis civil wars, though, is to head off such events before they even begin. The Swiss militia is not likely to turn against the Swiss government, the able-bodied men of South Korea are not likely to rise up and overthrow their national government, and I strongly suspect the same would be true of a broad, universal American militia.
| Leon wrote: |
2) I'm not sure how much were formally soldiers, but according to this, only about 20% were conscripted.
http://vaudc.org/confed_vets.html
I can not find the right combination of google search terms that show what percent of confederate soldiers were former American soldiers. |
Your position was that Confederate soldiers were soldiers before the Civil War broke out. You must subtract not merely conscripts, but also volunteers and new recruits.
| Leon wrote: |
| 3) Is it still currently fostering the Korean youths loyalty like it did when the country was dirt poor? |
Young Korean men still seem quite loyal to their country to me. By contrast, young Korean women, who go through no such conscription process, seem loyal to little but their own egos. My experiences here in Korea are actually part of what have shaped my views on this.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, South Koreans have an actual credible threat to unify against when they are in the army. You have not shown how this would work in America at all. |
Against what credible threat are the Swiss united?
| Leon wrote: |
| I know we are arguing about hypothetical America where all things are possible, including basic wages for every male, but to act like suddenly creating a new organization for more than 10 million people would not be logistically, at best, extremely difficult is not being honest. |
Plenty of things worth doing are difficult. Of course there would be challenges in the actual implementation of the militia itself, but nothing insurmountable, and a few generations later it will be sound tradition.
| Leon wrote: |
| Surely a creative guy like yourself could think of an easier way to provide a basic income, foster feelings of togetherness, and benefit the community than this. |
It's not as easy as you'd think, especially since my goals are not limited to that, but also involve matters such as promotion of family life and addressing the ever-increasing feminization of our society. A poster above asked, "Why only males?" I had thought the answer to that would be obvious, just as I thought it would be obvious that an alternative endeavor would be much harder to utilize towards this end. I'm aiming at quite a few birds with a single stone here, so while you might disagree with my idea, disparaging the "creativity" involved seems unjust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you. |
If you can't see how keeping our armed forces home rather than displaying our already vastly superior military might all around the globe works directly against your complaint here, then I'm not sure what to tell you. |
Oh, do your militia's also come with a constitutional amendment to only be used domestically like Fox's? There are so many hypothetical militias running around it's hard to keep track of them all.
You just told me you know nothing about security dilemmas or international relations, it's ok, most people don't. This is 101 stuff, but basically since the international system is in a state of anarchy there is no central force to maintain order or enforce rules each state is responsible for their own security. Since it is impossible to ever truly know other states intentions, i.e. many states have said that they are only defensive or just want some living space only to attack when it was strategic, states judge other militaries by capability rather than stated intentions. If we increase our military by such an exponential amount, then other countries will, by dictates of history and basic IR theory, increase their capabilities and work to balance against us. |
Leon,
The US is militarily supreme and the world has not armed itself to the teeth in response. Only China and Russia remain vigilant.
Reviving the state militias would be de-escalation. It would be prioritizing homeland defense again instead of Imperialism in the name of the memory of 9-11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
1) No, I don't think there is a credible civil war risk at all, at this moment, in American history. |
I'm not thinking purely in the moment. |
Yes, I can tell. But we can not try to preempt every single possible threat. I think arguing we need a militia in case of a civil war is not credible.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| But, if there was one, how could you be sure that the militia would follow the government line. |
Militia participation would provide both psychological and economic links directly to the broader nation and its government. Does that mean we can be certain no militia member will ever turn against the government? Of course not, but it strongly disincentivizes it, and whatever sub-portion of the militia were to "go rogue" so to speak, it would almost surely be outweighed by those that did not, unless their cause was blatantly, obviously, and fundamentally just, in which case the entire militia turning against the government would be an obvious good thing. The primary goal vis a vis civil wars, though, is to head off such events before they even begin. The Swiss militia is not likely to turn against the Swiss government, the able-bodied men of South Korea are not likely to rise up and overthrow their national government, and I strongly suspect the same would be true of a broad, universal American militia. |
In recent times, the only body that overthrows democratically elected governments are militaries. I mean lets not forget that is how the current president of Korea's father gained power, or Egypt, or Argentina, or etc. etc. You can make a case for this, but the civil war thing is not a strong point in your favor.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
2) I'm not sure how much were formally soldiers, but according to this, only about 20% were conscripted.
http://vaudc.org/confed_vets.html
I can not find the right combination of google search terms that show what percent of confederate soldiers were former American soldiers. |
Your position was that Confederate soldiers were soldiers before the Civil War broke out. You must subtract not merely conscripts, but also volunteers and new recruits. |
If you thought that I implied that they were all soldiers before hand, than perhaps I'm guilty of not communicating clearly.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| 3) Is it still currently fostering the Korean youths loyalty like it did when the country was dirt poor? |
Young Korean men still seem quite loyal to their country to me. By contrast, young Korean women, who go through no such conscription process, seem loyal to little but their own egos. My experiences here in Korea are actually part of what have shaped my views on this. |
We must know different Korean women. Question, is nationalism, to you, an end or a means? Also, in your view, is nationalism a neutral, positive, or negative thing?
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, South Koreans have an actual credible threat to unify against when they are in the army. You have not shown how this would work in America at all. |
Against what credible threat are the Swiss united? |
Historically, quite a lot. They are a landlocked small country in Europe.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I know we are arguing about hypothetical America where all things are possible, including basic wages for every male, but to act like suddenly creating a new organization for more than 10 million people would not be logistically, at best, extremely difficult is not being honest. |
Plenty of things worth doing are difficult. Of course there would be challenges in the actual implementation of the militia itself, but nothing insurmountable, and a few generations later it will be sound tradition. |
Challenges, well we are getting a little bit closer to honesty.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Surely a creative guy like yourself could think of an easier way to provide a basic income, foster feelings of togetherness, and benefit the community than this. |
It's not as easy as you'd think, especially since my goals are not limited to that, but also involve matters such as promotion of family life and addressing the ever-increasing feminization of our society. A poster above asked, "Why only males?" I had thought the answer to that would be obvious, just as I thought it would be obvious that an alternative endeavor would be much harder to utilize towards this end. I'm aiming at quite a few birds with a single stone here, so while you might disagree with my idea, disparaging the "creativity" involved seems unjust. |
Yes, I did pick up on the idea that if males are the only people to receive the basic wage it would push females into marrying. If it's unjust so be it. Its a clumsy approach, argued on unsound ground. If you want to make these points don't dance around the issue by talking about vague threats to civil war or defense. Talk about how it will address the feminization or adventurism or whatever in specific ways. At the moment, the multiple birds with a single stone metaphor is apt, because if we treat it as an actual literal image you see how foolish and ineffective it is to use a single stone when trying to kill multiple birds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you. |
If you can't see how keeping our armed forces home rather than displaying our already vastly superior military might all around the globe works directly against your complaint here, then I'm not sure what to tell you. |
Oh, do your militia's also come with a constitutional amendment to only be used domestically like Fox's? There are so many hypothetical militias running around it's hard to keep track of them all.
You just told me you know nothing about security dilemmas or international relations, it's ok, most people don't. This is 101 stuff, but basically since the international system is in a state of anarchy there is no central force to maintain order or enforce rules each state is responsible for their own security. Since it is impossible to ever truly know other states intentions, i.e. many states have said that they are only defensive or just want some living space only to attack when it was strategic, states judge other militaries by capability rather than stated intentions. If we increase our military by such an exponential amount, then other countries will, by dictates of history and basic IR theory, increase their capabilities and work to balance against us. |
Leon,
The US is militarily supreme and the world has not armed itself to the teeth in response. Only China and Russia remain vigilant.
Reviving the state militias would be de-escalation. It would be prioritizing homeland defense again instead of Imperialism in the name of the memory of 9-11. |
In Gelded Goat's hypothetical militia, I think based on his description, they would be used overseas with the idea being that it would be politically less possible to use the military if everyone's kids had a chance of going. If it were to be some kind of national reserve that trains once a month, like in Fox's version, I think it would still create some security dilemma, but obviously not as much.
Why do you think Iran is (probably) trying to get Nuclear weapons, or North Korea has them. My post was mainly referring to China, and to Russia somewhat, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
