Friday, August 17, 2018
WMDs prove the opposite
Back in 2008 when I was STARTING to open my mind but hadn't gone all the way because I hadn't unplugged the TV, I wrote this piece on non-intervention.
= = = = = START REPRINT:
Here is a three-minute segment of a CBS news program in 1951. Ed Murrow took bits and pieces from Robert Taft and Harry Truman, the probable candidates in '52, and created a "debate" on our role in the world. Taft was the last major candidate who believed in supporting America's direct interests. Of course he didn't get the nomination in '52, and we haven't had a real nationalist since then.
Today the parties have more or less reversed, though both sides have become blurry and squishy. In general the Bush-McCain side wants us to intervene everywhere all the time, while the Obama side wants us to intervene almost everywhere for a slightly different, and perhaps slightly smaller, set of reasons.
Transcribing Taft:
"Either we have to assume that the Russians are not going to attack Western Europe, or we have to assume that they are. If they are not going to attack, then our buildup is unnecessary. If they are planning an attack, why should they bother to wait three years while we build up a great army to oppose them? They would attack now."
Thinking in terms of modern Russia or Persia, we have to remember that these countries know how to play chess. If we are doing something that makes emotional sense but doesn't make strict military sense, perhaps we should ask whether the opponent has led us into this move. If we are spending our military into bankruptcy for a purpose that looks good but is strictly unachievable (eg a Young Democracy In The Broader Middle East) perhaps this is exactly what Russia wants us to do. = = = = = END REPRINT. I won't reprint the whole thing because I was still making some lethally stupid media-driven assumptions about Islam, which I couldn't shake off until I unplugged the TV in 2010. I was also falsely assuming that Russia was a real enemy. The Taft argument is still powerful. When TV and politicians fearmonger about a "threat" posed by an "enemy", you have to ask why the threat hasn't been implemented yet. I was thinking about this in connection with "cyberthreats" and EMP. "Cyberthreats" are pretty much this decade's rerun of EMP, which was a popular "threat" in the 80s and 90s. Some people are still convinced that Russia, or other Current Enemy, is getting ready to set off a small nuke in the air. EMP and its relative the 'dirty nuke' have always been achievable. There's more than enough enriched uranium outside of official channels to make these weapons. EMP has been possible and achievable for many decades but it HASN'T BEEN USED. In fact it hasn't even been THREATENED. The same goes for "cyberthreats". Hacking is certainly a weapon, and it's certainly achievable. Lots of small criminals use identity theft and blackmail tricks. Some of those criminals are in Russia, some in US, most in third-world countries. But the only nation-level cyberhacks have been made by NSA. First against Russian oil refineries in the '80s, later against Persia's uranium factories. Taft conclusion: There are no enemies who want to use these weapons. The "enemies" are false-flag hobgoblins constfucted by the crappy magicians of Deepstate. = = = = = ** Constfucted: Beautiful accidental portmanteau word! I won't correct the typo.
Thinking in terms of modern Russia or Persia, we have to remember that these countries know how to play chess. If we are doing something that makes emotional sense but doesn't make strict military sense, perhaps we should ask whether the opponent has led us into this move. If we are spending our military into bankruptcy for a purpose that looks good but is strictly unachievable (eg a Young Democracy In The Broader Middle East) perhaps this is exactly what Russia wants us to do. = = = = = END REPRINT. I won't reprint the whole thing because I was still making some lethally stupid media-driven assumptions about Islam, which I couldn't shake off until I unplugged the TV in 2010. I was also falsely assuming that Russia was a real enemy. The Taft argument is still powerful. When TV and politicians fearmonger about a "threat" posed by an "enemy", you have to ask why the threat hasn't been implemented yet. I was thinking about this in connection with "cyberthreats" and EMP. "Cyberthreats" are pretty much this decade's rerun of EMP, which was a popular "threat" in the 80s and 90s. Some people are still convinced that Russia, or other Current Enemy, is getting ready to set off a small nuke in the air. EMP and its relative the 'dirty nuke' have always been achievable. There's more than enough enriched uranium outside of official channels to make these weapons. EMP has been possible and achievable for many decades but it HASN'T BEEN USED. In fact it hasn't even been THREATENED. The same goes for "cyberthreats". Hacking is certainly a weapon, and it's certainly achievable. Lots of small criminals use identity theft and blackmail tricks. Some of those criminals are in Russia, some in US, most in third-world countries. But the only nation-level cyberhacks have been made by NSA. First against Russian oil refineries in the '80s, later against Persia's uranium factories. Taft conclusion: There are no enemies who want to use these weapons. The "enemies" are false-flag hobgoblins constfucted by the crappy magicians of Deepstate. = = = = = ** Constfucted: Beautiful accidental portmanteau word! I won't correct the typo.
Labels: Constfucts and variables
¶ 11:22 PM
