5 ms·

He takes the easy way out on the war theory: It would be awful, of course, so let's not think about it. But think about it. Would historical WWII be possible i

He takes the easy way out on the war theory: It would be awful, of course, so let's not think about it. But think about it. Would historical WWII be possible in today's United States? Introduce the draft and send current US population off to die in Europe? I think you'd see intense levels of political resistance, draft dodging and desertion in the field. Fragmentation means you probably can't unite the whole country to die for... whatever anymore.

lettergram 11y ago
Historically, prior to pearl harbor you also would not get the United States population to back you for a war. The political resistance would have likely been armed revolt, the general population was strongly against war. However, after pearl harbor, the average citizen took a blow and was more than willing to fight. They wanted to protect their homes, and they felt if they didn't the Japanese would bring the fight to them.
iandanforth 11y ago
If we generalize to say that foreign threats can be used to create massive economic, policy, and social change through government fiat, then this is absolutely possible. We're still living with the Patriot act after all. Also recall that prior to WWII there were "intense levels of political resistance" but as soon as our territory was directly attacked that changed. (It took 4 days from Pearl Harbor to our declaration of war)
AJ007 11y ago
A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast. Perhaps there is little to nothing to compare with WWII. A war in Europe could happen again but it would be quite different. The use of militarism and nationalism does not require a full scale global war. Certainly it is being used right now in several nations under structural duress. The enemy may be real or imagined, and if you oppose or speak out against the changes you may be the enemy too.
- msandford 11y ago
  > A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast. The problem with this line of thinking is you assume that the enemy doesn't care if there's a world left for them to have greater power/influence/wealth/whatever in. Nobody really wins a nuclear war, some people just lose a little less.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > some people just lose a little less. ..that's how the world works already. Nobody needs a second house or car or whatever as much as some other people need food, clothes, medicine and/or shelter. Does this make the world a shitty place? IMHO yes, and the people who "win" don't really win, not in my books, because they are damaged in wholly other ways I'm not jealous of at all. But here we are, and I think you're imputing pure rationality where there is a lot of narcissism, greed and other defects mixed in. And nuclear war already nearly happened by accident, right? Also, having full control of a small pie which then grows bigger is preferable than being a part of a big pie that's growing where there are competing actors, if you're serious about power. For organizations and their zealots, that can be enough. Scenario A: you have 10000 points, the others have 5000 points Scenario B: You have one point, the others have 0 points One way to look at it, is to say you have 10000 times less points, or 9999 points less, in scenario B over scenario A. (I submit the more intelligent way to look at it is that there are 15000 times less points in the world, or 14999 less, but that is besides the point). But the other way to look at it is to say you have infinitely more points than anyone else, and are now God for eternity, for all practical purposes. That this seems silly or sick to you, that you would rather be a normal person in a decent world, than a ruler with an iron fist in a hellish world, doesn't make it less appealing for those who are already chin deep into things we would also find abhorrent. Never say "nobody" easily, unless it's about something that doesn't really matter.
    - msandford 11y ago
      If the planet is no longer capable of sustaining life after the nuclear war is over -- and I would argue that once you launch a couple of missiles you might as well launch them all, just to be safe -- then yes nobody wins. Your country/continent might die out more slowly than the other ones, but nuclear winter will kill everyone. Now if you have 1000 years of rations saved up sure you might win. You might be the only person left on earth. But is that winning? Maybe somebody thinks so, I guess.
dhimes 11y ago
I don't know. After 9/11 you probably could have convinced Americans to invade anybody.
- bjelkeman-again 11y ago
  They did. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but got invaded because the cabal behind the U.S. President had declared they wanted to invade Iraq already during the Clinton administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
  - mindslight 11y ago
    There's a huge difference between maintaining public support to send a voluntarily conscripted army somewhere, and actually instituting a draft and wartime command economy. Do you think your early 2000's out-of-touch war cheerleader would have been so zealous if their family were forced into the army, or if fuel rationing meant they could only drive one of their SUVs? It is all too easy to be pro-war when its only effect is a new genre of reality TV.
    - abalashov 11y ago
      It is all too easy to be pro-war when its only effect is a new genre of reality TV. This should be framed somewhere.
    - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
      I don't disagree. Which is why I am against professional armed forces and am a proponent of only conscript armies. Sadly enough most (all?) European countries abandoned conscription in the last decade (those that still had it).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 11y ago
Any US politician who votes to reinstitute the draft will automatically activate a huge portion of the young people who normally don't vote as well as the soccer moms (as you pointed out). Those millions of new voters will be be single issue voters and will automatically vote against the politicans who voted for the draft - which the politicians know, and which their opponents knows and will use. The congressional voting turnout was 41.9% in 2014 (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-122.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-122...), which means that even if the politician who proposes this is polling at 100%, they could still be beaten. As a European, who have the remains of a nazi bunker not half a mile from my apartment, I am extraordinarily happy that we can't unite a huge portion of a country to go die anymore. Also even the military doesn't support a draft.
RockyMcNuts 11y ago
You can't just assume a system that makes everyone better off despite increasing differences, or that everybody is happy about it, or that there's a peaceful system for sorting out conflicts amid increasing differences. Of course it always ends in violence. Refragmentation == reemergence of extremism. People asserting stronger identities while technology shrinks the world and brings them into closer economic and information loops is a recipe for conflict. In the old days you could have crazy ideas and no one on the other side of the world gave a hoot. Today you get <pick your favorite 'other'> storming Inland Regional Centers, Federal lands, or malls.

lettergram 11y ago

Historically, prior to pearl harbor you also would not get the United States population to back you for a war. The political resistance would have likely been armed revolt, the general population was strongly against war. However, after pearl harbor, the average citizen took a blow and was more than willing to fight. They wanted to protect their homes, and they felt if they didn't the Japanese would bring the fight to them.

iandanforth 11y ago

If we generalize to say that foreign threats can be used to create massive economic, policy, and social change through government fiat, then this is absolutely possible. We're still living with the Patriot act after all. Also recall that prior to WWII there were "intense levels of political resistance" but as soon as our territory was directly attacked that changed. (It took 4 days from Pearl Harbor to our declaration of war)

AJ007 11y ago

A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast. Perhaps there is little to nothing to compare with WWII. A war in Europe could happen again but it would be quite different. The use of militarism and nationalism does not require a full scale global war. Certainly it is being used right now in several nations under structural duress. The enemy may be real or imagined, and if you oppose or speak out against the changes you may be the enemy too.

msandford 11y ago
> A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast. The problem with this line of thinking is you assume that the enemy doesn't care if there's a world left for them to have greater power/influence/wealth/whatever in. Nobody really wins a nuclear war, some people just lose a little less.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > some people just lose a little less. ..that's how the world works already. Nobody needs a second house or car or whatever as much as some other people need food, clothes, medicine and/or shelter. Does this make the world a shitty place? IMHO yes, and the people who "win" don't really win, not in my books, because they are damaged in wholly other ways I'm not jealous of at all. But here we are, and I think you're imputing pure rationality where there is a lot of narcissism, greed and other defects mixed in. And nuclear war already nearly happened by accident, right? Also, having full control of a small pie which then grows bigger is preferable than being a part of a big pie that's growing where there are competing actors, if you're serious about power. For organizations and their zealots, that can be enough. Scenario A: you have 10000 points, the others have 5000 points Scenario B: You have one point, the others have 0 points One way to look at it, is to say you have 10000 times less points, or 9999 points less, in scenario B over scenario A. (I submit the more intelligent way to look at it is that there are 15000 times less points in the world, or 14999 less, but that is besides the point). But the other way to look at it is to say you have infinitely more points than anyone else, and are now God for eternity, for all practical purposes. That this seems silly or sick to you, that you would rather be a normal person in a decent world, than a ruler with an iron fist in a hellish world, doesn't make it less appealing for those who are already chin deep into things we would also find abhorrent. Never say "nobody" easily, unless it's about something that doesn't really matter.
  - msandford 11y ago
    If the planet is no longer capable of sustaining life after the nuclear war is over -- and I would argue that once you launch a couple of missiles you might as well launch them all, just to be safe -- then yes nobody wins. Your country/continent might die out more slowly than the other ones, but nuclear winter will kill everyone. Now if you have 1000 years of rations saved up sure you might win. You might be the only person left on earth. But is that winning? Maybe somebody thinks so, I guess.

dhimes 11y ago

I don't know. After 9/11 you probably could have convinced Americans to invade anybody.

bjelkeman-again 11y ago
They did. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but got invaded because the cabal behind the U.S. President had declared they wanted to invade Iraq already during the Clinton administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
- mindslight 11y ago
  There's a huge difference between maintaining public support to send a voluntarily conscripted army somewhere, and actually instituting a draft and wartime command economy. Do you think your early 2000's out-of-touch war cheerleader would have been so zealous if their family were forced into the army, or if fuel rationing meant they could only drive one of their SUVs? It is all too easy to be pro-war when its only effect is a new genre of reality TV.
  - abalashov 11y ago
    It is all too easy to be pro-war when its only effect is a new genre of reality TV. This should be framed somewhere.
  - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
    I don't disagree. Which is why I am against professional armed forces and am a proponent of only conscript armies. Sadly enough most (all?) European countries abandoned conscription in the last decade (those that still had it).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 11y ago

Any US politician who votes to reinstitute the draft will automatically activate a huge portion of the young people who normally don't vote as well as the soccer moms (as you pointed out). Those millions of new voters will be be single issue voters and will automatically vote against the politicans who voted for the draft - which the politicians know, and which their opponents knows and will use. The congressional voting turnout was 41.9% in 2014 (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-122.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-122...), which means that even if the politician who proposes this is polling at 100%, they could still be beaten. As a European, who have the remains of a nazi bunker not half a mile from my apartment, I am extraordinarily happy that we can't unite a huge portion of a country to go die anymore. Also even the military doesn't support a draft.

RockyMcNuts 11y ago

You can't just assume a system that makes everyone better off despite increasing differences, or that everybody is happy about it, or that there's a peaceful system for sorting out conflicts amid increasing differences. Of course it always ends in violence. Refragmentation == reemergence of extremism. People asserting stronger identities while technology shrinks the world and brings them into closer economic and information loops is a recipe for conflict. In the old days you could have crazy ideas and no one on the other side of the world gave a hoot. Today you get <pick your favorite 'other'> storming Inland Regional Centers, Federal lands, or malls.