3 ms·

Let's see, the last war the US fought in order to gain land (or at least resources and infrastructure) was ... Iraq! If it weren't for the political and interna

Let's see, the last war the US fought in order to gain land (or at least resources and infrastructure) was ... Iraq! If it weren't for the political and international consequences, then Neutron Bombs would have been very useful in that conflict. The fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more about the competency of my country's leaders than it does their intentions.

jordan0day 16y ago
Well, people can (and certainly will) debate about the purposes of the Iraq war until they're blue in the face, but I don't think anyone would argue that the USA invaded Iraq because Americans want to move there. Perhaps I didn't state my point appropriately, but my argument was more directed at statements like the one by Kruschev that kwantam quoted.
- commieneko 16y ago
  I understand your main point, I was just addressing the notion that a infrastructure preserving bomb would be of no tacticle use to the US. Strategically it IS of no use tovthe US, but that is another discussion... That aside, the point of the bomb was not simply to keep land livable for the victors to homestead, but to preserve the infrastructure during a conflict, including large numbers of the civil population not located directly on top of an unfortunately tactical spot. Gotta have someone left to work those still standing oil rigs...
jerf 16y ago
"fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more..." Or, in other words, you have a mental model of the purposes of the war which predicts certain actions, and then, when that model is falsified by virtue of your predictions failing, it's not that your model is wrong, it's that the leaders who were successful up to that point (despite, quite likely, your model not permitting that either) suddenly becoming stupid. You've gone unfalsifiable. (I'm calling this out because it's a pretty popular position. I'm not claiming the stated ends are necessarily exactly the true ends, either, but, actions speak louder than words. Putative motivations need to explain what actually happened, not what could have happened in a parallel universe.)
- commieneko 16y ago
  If you think you can model human activities with logic, or even self interest, well, I don't know what to say. Spend some time away from your models and read a little history. No assessment of history can be prove in the terms you are usedctovthinking in, much less within the lifetimes of the participants. That doesn't mean there is no value in discussing, and even arguing about motives, dreams, and delusions...
  - jerf 16y ago
    Yes, you would think that, since you're trying to jam your models on top of history and then rewriting whatever is necessary to make it fit. Your process produces bad results. However, that is not because history is impossible to analyze, it is because you are doing it wrong. Examining history with open eyes and looking to actions over words is very educational, but requires you to drop a lot of preconceived notions and current political fads, which, I'm afraid, your point fell squarely into. (In fact if you really want to understand it you need to learn about the political fads of the relevant time as well, which turns out to be pretty decent inoculation against the fads of today.) You may considering starting with the history of Europe, especially around the time of the domination of the Church. Most people are pretty dispassionate about it now, so we can actually have decent discussions without too much interference from modern political fads, we have a lot of information about it, and it provides clear examples of both the religious and secular authorities claiming their actions are about one thing (the will of God or the various rights of the secular authorities) when in fact the correct way to understand the situation is as a power struggle between the two with almost no real ethical concerns about their stated goals from either side. Without that understanding the period makes no sense and I can see why you'd claim history is some sort of weird nonsensical mess, but it really isn't that complicated, just immensely full of details. Actions, actions, actions.
    - commieneko 16y ago
      I don't have any models that try and explain history and I can't begin to imagine what a result of such a process might be. Stuff like Asimovian Psychohistory are fun to think about, but it is a fictional story telling device. And that's a hint. History and politics are storytelling. Often based on "true events" only as far as convenient to the storyteller. To make any useful sense of history, or politics, or nearly any "soft" process, humans apply a variety of heuristics, some based on experience, and others on evolution, that frankly no one really understands. At least in the sense of a testable or prediction making model. If someone makes a statement, or tells me a story, I have to examine the context and the past narrative of events in order to make a judgement about its veracity. The details of how that judgement come to pass are as unknown as the nature of natural language, and I suspect they are related. In other words, my process doesn't get "bad" results, it gets no results. But I do get a heuristic that is somehow useful. Sometimes. Trying to argue about events like this, outside of the limited terms of those heuristics is pointless. How many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin. Instead, as in a courtroom drama (another story!), we look for means, motive, and opportunity. And then like any good jury, we apply our various and variable heuristics and come up with our own story. Which is a guess. Whether or not you believe the story I told, within the context of rather different discussion, is irrelevant, just as how you feel about the innocence of today's murder de jour is irrelevant. Unless you are on the jury. And the jury of history on this isn't born yet. Instead we are Rashomon like witnesses to contemporary events. And speaking of irrelevant, this discussion has strayed from from its roots. While it's been fun, I'm done. Good day...

jordan0day 16y ago

Well, people can (and certainly will) debate about the purposes of the Iraq war until they're blue in the face, but I don't think anyone would argue that the USA invaded Iraq because Americans want to move there. Perhaps I didn't state my point appropriately, but my argument was more directed at statements like the one by Kruschev that kwantam quoted.

commieneko 16y ago
I understand your main point, I was just addressing the notion that a infrastructure preserving bomb would be of no tacticle use to the US. Strategically it IS of no use tovthe US, but that is another discussion... That aside, the point of the bomb was not simply to keep land livable for the victors to homestead, but to preserve the infrastructure during a conflict, including large numbers of the civil population not located directly on top of an unfortunately tactical spot. Gotta have someone left to work those still standing oil rigs...

jerf 16y ago

"fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more..." Or, in other words, you have a mental model of the purposes of the war which predicts certain actions, and then, when that model is falsified by virtue of your predictions failing, it's not that your model is wrong, it's that the leaders who were successful up to that point (despite, quite likely, your model not permitting that either) suddenly becoming stupid. You've gone unfalsifiable. (I'm calling this out because it's a pretty popular position. I'm not claiming the stated ends are necessarily exactly the true ends, either, but, actions speak louder than words. Putative motivations need to explain what actually happened, not what could have happened in a parallel universe.)

commieneko 16y ago
If you think you can model human activities with logic, or even self interest, well, I don't know what to say. Spend some time away from your models and read a little history. No assessment of history can be prove in the terms you are usedctovthinking in, much less within the lifetimes of the participants. That doesn't mean there is no value in discussing, and even arguing about motives, dreams, and delusions...
- jerf 16y ago
  Yes, you would think that, since you're trying to jam your models on top of history and then rewriting whatever is necessary to make it fit. Your process produces bad results. However, that is not because history is impossible to analyze, it is because you are doing it wrong. Examining history with open eyes and looking to actions over words is very educational, but requires you to drop a lot of preconceived notions and current political fads, which, I'm afraid, your point fell squarely into. (In fact if you really want to understand it you need to learn about the political fads of the relevant time as well, which turns out to be pretty decent inoculation against the fads of today.) You may considering starting with the history of Europe, especially around the time of the domination of the Church. Most people are pretty dispassionate about it now, so we can actually have decent discussions without too much interference from modern political fads, we have a lot of information about it, and it provides clear examples of both the religious and secular authorities claiming their actions are about one thing (the will of God or the various rights of the secular authorities) when in fact the correct way to understand the situation is as a power struggle between the two with almost no real ethical concerns about their stated goals from either side. Without that understanding the period makes no sense and I can see why you'd claim history is some sort of weird nonsensical mess, but it really isn't that complicated, just immensely full of details. Actions, actions, actions.
  - commieneko 16y ago
    I don't have any models that try and explain history and I can't begin to imagine what a result of such a process might be. Stuff like Asimovian Psychohistory are fun to think about, but it is a fictional story telling device. And that's a hint. History and politics are storytelling. Often based on "true events" only as far as convenient to the storyteller. To make any useful sense of history, or politics, or nearly any "soft" process, humans apply a variety of heuristics, some based on experience, and others on evolution, that frankly no one really understands. At least in the sense of a testable or prediction making model. If someone makes a statement, or tells me a story, I have to examine the context and the past narrative of events in order to make a judgement about its veracity. The details of how that judgement come to pass are as unknown as the nature of natural language, and I suspect they are related. In other words, my process doesn't get "bad" results, it gets no results. But I do get a heuristic that is somehow useful. Sometimes. Trying to argue about events like this, outside of the limited terms of those heuristics is pointless. How many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin. Instead, as in a courtroom drama (another story!), we look for means, motive, and opportunity. And then like any good jury, we apply our various and variable heuristics and come up with our own story. Which is a guess. Whether or not you believe the story I told, within the context of rather different discussion, is irrelevant, just as how you feel about the innocence of today's murder de jour is irrelevant. Unless you are on the jury. And the jury of history on this isn't born yet. Instead we are Rashomon like witnesses to contemporary events. And speaking of irrelevant, this discussion has strayed from from its roots. While it's been fun, I'm done. Good day...