7 ms·
My favorite analogy for US security policy during the past two decades is a huge allergic reaction. It seems quite likely that allergies are caused by the immun
by zeteo 13y ago
My favorite analogy for US security policy during the past two decades is a huge allergic reaction. It seems quite likely that allergies are caused by the immune system lacking antagonists and instead latching onto factors that are not real threats [1]. Similarly, the early '90s saw serious reductions in objective threats that US security was organized to deal with, internal (a sustained decline in crime [2]) and external (the disappearance of a second superpower). The resulting reaction is... what else if not allergic? Police is more militarized than ever and drives tanks into the living rooms of nonviolent offenders. The military's budget is unprecedentedly large and it hunts down shepherds in the Afghan hills at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per kill. Any claim that such threats are comparable with those that were adequately met in the '80s (crack epidemic, nuclear-tipped ICBMs etc.) is nothing short of risible. Yet the response is, if anything, even more aggressive than it was back then.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crim...
- Sven7 13y agoIt we accept this analogy, the question that arises is - if nature hasn't figured out how to eliminate allergies over millions of years of evolution, what magic do we expect a government to perform?
- macspoofing 13y agoWell, an analogy can only take you so far.
- Amadou 13y agoNot everyone is susceptible to allergic reactions. Without modern medicine, the people who are susceptible tend to die relatively quickly. Seems like the analogy leads to the decline of the united states and the rise of some other country that doesn't suffer from this particular affliction. They will probably have other problems though.
- gcb0 13y agoSo the corrupt govt challenge is to be a benign allergy?
- zipfle 13y agoThe hygiene hypothesis "is used to explain the increase in allergic diseases that has been seen since industrialization, and the higher incidence of allergic diseases in more developed countries." This is to say that it's a relatively recent problem; one that has not applied selective pressure over the millions of years of evolution you're talking about, but rather the past ~200 years or so. My non-biologist understanding is that you can expect evolution to a relatively good job of adapting to slowly changing conditions over a long period by selecting for the vanishingly small number of mutations that happen to be beneficial. My citizen understanding of government is that we should expect more of it than that, or it will continue to suck.
- joesb 13y agoYou don't need magic, you only need to be able to think; nature cannot think. Otherwise you would see nature making spacecraft or using binary search everywhere.
- mattdw 13y agoAssuming those would be beneficial adaptations, which is arguable :). Why binary search when you can pattern-match?
- bigiain 13y agoMay I propose "Acquired democracy deficiency syndrome"?
- samstave 13y agoThe little humans have recently developed "Useless People Pestering Imminent Totalitarian International Expansion Syndrome" U.P.P.I.T.I.E.S.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- knowaveragejoe 13y agoWhile I agree largely in sentiment, you're incorrect about some things. For example, military spending during WW2 absolutely dwarfs spending on the current two wars.
- markdown 13y agoWell those wars actually had armies fighting back. The current "wars" ended a decade ago. What you have now is extremely dangerous police work, not war. You have thousands of tanks, armoured vehicles, and aircraft against disorganized groups of criminals on bicycles wielding decade-old guns and DIY bombs.
- mcantelon 13y agoWar against China will make up for that.
- yk 13y agoHow do you want to fight a war against China? Not that I think it is impossible, in fact I think the world looks increasingly like 1913. ( Shifting power centers, convenient located powder kegs and large scale military alliances to ensure that everyone gets pulled into a war.) But there is simply not a staging area, so that it would be rather complicated to have a large war.
- knowaveragejoe 13y agoI don't think it would happen. With some exceptions, both countries enjoy economic activity with one another.
- Gormo 13y agoThis will never happen. Nothing outside of purely symbolic rhetoric can posit China as an actual adversary of the United States. A war between the US and China would destroy the world; not with weapons and violence, but with the catastrophic collapse of global trade and finance that would immediately accompany it. The economic viability of the United States and the economic viability of China are so closely intertwined today that any idea of open hostility between the two is quite absurd. Regardless of rhetoric, the US will only continue harassing sclerotic third-world countries with negligible relevance to the American economy.
- rorrr2 13y agoIt's not a reaction. It's a well-planned mission to make hundreds of billions of dollars by scaring the population with relatively trivial terrorists acts into spending said billions without much resistance on the weapons and programs nobody really needs.
- samstave 13y agoEXACTLY!!! People who are not truly paying attention are under the impression this is all a mistaken over-reaction and we have had "some bad apples" that have more-or-less accidentally brought us into this situation. Anyone who, in the past 40 years, has pointed out the concerted and deliberate efforts of the MIC to ring us here have been dismissed as "wild conspiracy theorists" -- now though, its just to difficult to keep people from the truth. This is why the distractions have been larger and larger -- but they are coming to a head. The problem is that the MIC is so extraordinarily well funded and well positioned - that now they are looking for the excuse to use their totalitarian machine against all Humanity. They want the next war. It plays into their next agenda: depopulation.
- sxtxixtxcxh 13y agodepopulation? who will pay the taxes?
- samstave 13y agoThere is no need for slaves to pay taxes.
- gaelian 13y agoI am generally reluctant to buy into theories about giant conspiracies, not because I think people in power aren't capable of desiring such things, but because I don't think they're capable of pulling it off. However, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. All you need is a group of actors in a similar position/industry, each motivated by their own self-interest and following what is to them, the path of least resistance to their goal. From the outside then, it can look more or less like a big conspiracy and indeed I’d be willing to accept that there may be many minor conspiracies playing out (of the ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ kind). I don't think anyone is wanting the next war, IMO more likely what has happened is around about the wrap up of Gulf War 2, people in relevant industries started to realise that there won't be that many more fortuitously sized 'sandboxable' (if I may coin a term) hot wars that profit can consistently be extracted from. So what do you do instead? Get on the surveillance gravy train. It certainly seems like a pretty good gig doesn't it? Huge amounts of government spending up for grabs, very little informed oversight or ability for anyone to argue that too much is being spent. It's a government contractor's (or a government offical taking the revolving door's) dream. I wouldn't credit them with enough foresight to be thinking about depopulation. It's all just about next quarter's profits.