4 ms·

I think that, as societies, we really need to reflect and debate on what counts as war. The US hasn't been involved in a total war, which I define as one in wh

I think that, as societies, we really need to reflect and debate on what counts as war. The US hasn't been involved in a total war, which I define as one in which both sides face the prospect of annihilation, since WWII. Since then, the West has been involved in countless conflicts that are, to varying degrees, removed from an existential threat. If we are truly fighting for survival, then I'm okay with forgoing certain rights in service to that fight. If it's just minor armed conflicts in service of political goals, as most wars since WWII have been, I'm not.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America was at risk of 'total annihilation' in WWII, at best the axis powers could have kept the country on the N. American continent, but even that wasn't a likely outcome. Our economy was just too strong for them to overcome. That said, I tend to classify battles against nation-states 'wars' and battles against non-soverign groups and individuals as 'law enforcement.' To the extent that a group can declare 'war' on the US its really a statement about rejecting some sort of legal enforcement authority rather than trying to destroy the country.
- repsilat 14y ago
  By that definition (the possibility of annihilation) I only count two - the Cold War and the American Civil War. I don't like the definition, though - the US certainly was at war in WWII. Somewhat unrelated, but I'd really like to see the War Powers Resolution get to the Supreme Court. It would be nice to either have it acted upon or thrown out instead of having it just sit there being ignored.
  - accountswu 14y ago
    The cold war didn't kill many Americans, it was mostly about Americans killing Latin Americans or Koreans or Vietnamese or Laotians or Cambodians either directly by napalm or by puppet dictators that were installed after CIA-backed coups, such as the original 9/11: the 9/11/1973 coup against President Allende of Chile (or 1953 Iran or 1954 Guatemala or 1964 Brazil). The Russians weren't in Cuba for no reason, we were in their backyard before they started their attempts to close the "doomsday gap" (quoting that term from Dr. Strangelove). Quoting Blum: Let's also not forget that Eastern Europe became communist because Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism forever, and that the Russians in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World War II the Soviet Union was determined to close down the highway.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  We know Germany was working on the Bomb before the Allies, so I think it's safe to say that, had the war followed a different path, it could have easily resulted in an existential threat to North America. Regardless, I'm not so much interested in the definition of war, as I am in the question of what kind of war justifies limits on civil liberties. WWII did; Afghanistan does not. Regardless of whether military action is undertaken against a nation-state or non-state actor, it is the threat to society that I feel should dictate the degree to which civil liberties are sacrificed for military advantage.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America was at risk of 'total annihilation' in WWII, at best the axis powers could have kept the country on the N. American continent, but even that wasn't a likely outcome. Our economy was just too strong for them to overcome. That said, I tend to classify battles against nation-states 'wars' and battles against non-soverign groups and individuals as 'law enforcement.' To the extent that a group can declare 'war' on the US its really a statement about rejecting some sort of legal enforcement authority rather than trying to destroy the country.

repsilat 14y ago
By that definition (the possibility of annihilation) I only count two - the Cold War and the American Civil War. I don't like the definition, though - the US certainly was at war in WWII. Somewhat unrelated, but I'd really like to see the War Powers Resolution get to the Supreme Court. It would be nice to either have it acted upon or thrown out instead of having it just sit there being ignored.
- accountswu 14y ago
  The cold war didn't kill many Americans, it was mostly about Americans killing Latin Americans or Koreans or Vietnamese or Laotians or Cambodians either directly by napalm or by puppet dictators that were installed after CIA-backed coups, such as the original 9/11: the 9/11/1973 coup against President Allende of Chile (or 1953 Iran or 1954 Guatemala or 1964 Brazil). The Russians weren't in Cuba for no reason, we were in their backyard before they started their attempts to close the "doomsday gap" (quoting that term from Dr. Strangelove). Quoting Blum: Let's also not forget that Eastern Europe became communist because Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism forever, and that the Russians in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World War II the Soviet Union was determined to close down the highway.
redthrowaway 14y ago
We know Germany was working on the Bomb before the Allies, so I think it's safe to say that, had the war followed a different path, it could have easily resulted in an existential threat to North America. Regardless, I'm not so much interested in the definition of war, as I am in the question of what kind of war justifies limits on civil liberties. WWII did; Afghanistan does not. Regardless of whether military action is undertaken against a nation-state or non-state actor, it is the threat to society that I feel should dictate the degree to which civil liberties are sacrificed for military advantage.