Starvation Blockade

[dan2100]

See http://mises.org/daily/4308

I'm sure some here wouldn't mind starvation blockades.

[BaalChatzaf]

See http://mises.org/daily/4308

I'm sure some here wouldn't mind starvation blockades.

Starvation (if it could actually be done) is a nifty weapon. No radioactive fallout. And it can be done at a distance. I think starvation is an elegant form of warfare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

See http://mises.org/daily/4308

I'm sure some here wouldn't mind starvation blockades.

Starvation (if it could actually be done) is a nifty weapon. No radioactive fallout. And it can be done at a distance. I think starvation is an elegant form of warfare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not surprised a statist would see the world that way. Naturally, too, it helps to get people to die for a cause by painting it in terms of "victory or defeat" -- with the latter usually equated with "death" or "extermination," of course. (Aside from this, isn't one of the problems inherent in always looking for total defeat -- which aside from making the winning state stronger against its own subject populace -- never mind the enemy and the enemy's subject populace -- but also tends to make it easier for the enemy of the enemy, which is not necessarily a friend or ally long-term, to grow?)

Also, aren't there, in war as in the rest of life, different levels of operation? Perhaps the most important of these is probably the moral level. Were this not so, too, even militaristic elites wouldn't bother trying to prove their military operations are moral and just while those of their enemy or enemies are, of course, immoral and unjust. Were this not so, then the biggest, most well equipped, best trained military would always win and all wars would have fairly predictable outcomes. E.g., the British would've kept all of Ireland, the US would've won in Vietnam, the Soviets would've never left Afghanistan, and the Nationalists would've probably ground into dust the Communists in China. (Of course, I'm oversimplifying a little. These defeats were more complicated than simply purely moral ones, but the moral level certainly seems to have played a major role and it's even easier to see this, in these examples, because the bigger, more well equipped, better trained military lost.)

I don't even think I would call attention to things like http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/withoutfiringashot.php to you. What would be the point?

[George H. Smith]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Given your One Law of War, Al Qaida and the Taliban would be fully justified in using nukes or another WMDs against the U.S., in an effort to exterminate every American. Is that your position? Or does your One Law of War apply only to our side?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

See http://mises.org/daily/4308

I'm sure some here wouldn't mind starvation blockades.

Starvation (if it could actually be done) is a nifty weapon. No radioactive fallout. And it can be done at a distance. I think starvation is an elegant form of warfare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

Medieval siege warfare. Flipping diseased bodies over the walls was sometimes done too. Cutting off or poisoning the water supplies.

--Brant

we could have starved many tens of millions of Japanese to death instead of bombing them--or invading them--into submission with a naval/air blockade.

[Brant Gaede]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Given your One Law of War, Al Qaida and the Taliban would be fully justified in using nukes or another WMDs against the U.S., in an effort to exterminate every American. Is that your position? Or does your One Law of War apply only to our side?

Ghs

Bob does not respond with any understanding from a process of ratiocination and he merely keeps repeating himself, like Xray and her all values are subjective. In this respect, he reminds me of bayonet training where you lunge at and stab the target dummy yelling "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob does not respond with any understanding from a process of ratiocination and he merely keeps repeating himself, like Xray and her all values are subjective. In this respect, he reminds me of bayonet training where you lunge at and stab the target dummy yelling "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

--Brant

I do understand. We are in the fight of our lives individually and collectively. So the proper mind set is kill, kill, kill. At the end of the fight the winner will be the one left standing. Who do you want that one to be?

I can tell you this: in a mortal struggle the first things to jettison are mercy, compassion and morality. These things inhibit our ability to fight mortal combat. When one is in the fight for one's life there are two alternatives: win and live or lose and die. Which shall it be?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Bob does not respond with any understanding from a process of ratiocination and he merely keeps repeating himself, like Xray and her all values are subjective. In this respect, he reminds me of bayonet training where you lunge at and stab the target dummy yelling "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

--Brant

I do understand. We are in the fight of our lives individually and collectively. So the proper mind set is kill, kill, kill. At the end of the fight the winner will be the one left standing. Who do you want that one to be?

I can tell you this: in a mortal struggle the first things to jettison are mercy, compassion and morality. These things inhibit our ability to fight mortal combat. When one is in the fight for one's life there are two alternatives: win and live or lose and die. Which shall it be?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Like I said. Anyway, if I move to Panama will it still be my fight?

I'm afraid you don't know who and what the enemy is. Our enemy is our slow self-eviseration in unnecessary conflicts and necessary ones fought wrongly.

--Brant

know where the war is

know what the war is about

[syrakusos]

War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality.

It is exactly and precisely in an emergency that one needs morality. Bob, for all of your intelligence, you never integrated the essentials of Objectivism into your personal philosophy. Your personal philosophy was set and hardened before you found Ayn Rand's ideas. (Granted, that even Ayn Rand occasionally erred in understanding or applying Objectivism... and Marx was not a Marxist.)

[syrakusos]

A Force More Powerful

A Force More Powerful, a three-hour documentary series, explores one of the 20th century's most important but least-understood stories - how nonviolent power has overcome oppression and authoritarian rule all over the world.

Here at http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org

A couple of years back, completing my bachelor's in criminology, I took an elective in History of Modern Europe and I offered the lyrics to Bob Dylan's "Chimes of Freedom" with my own images from modern Europe accompanying the text. For "... the warrior whose strength is not to fight" I put the King of Denmark who resisted the Nazi Germans. That episode has fallen from front place in the new website. (Originally, this was a PBS/WGBH presentation.) Whether the king actually wore a Yellow Star ("Jude") has become a debate in urban legend. (Read here on Snopes.com.)

Ayn Rand demonstrated and proved from a new set of axioms that evil is powerless.

As for the starvation blockade, yes, Europe, including England, was ready for war. Oddly enough, I credit the United States for making that possible, if not inevitable. It was a brain drain. All the smart people -- certainly millions of individualists -- came here. That left the idiots, collectivists, and other flotsam behind in Europe. The outcome was inevitable.

Similarly, I point out that our porous borders made violence south of the border more likely.

(BTW -- as for starvation blockades, all that does is raise the price of food, which in turn incentivizes enterprising blockade runners.)

Edited May 9, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Philip Coates]

> War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. [bC]

Did you miss the fact that only when the U.S. decided to minimize slaughtering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and began to try to minimize "collateral damage" instead try to get the people of the country to work with us, that we started being able to isolate and hunt down terrorists and insurgents?

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand demonstrated and proved from a new set of axioms that evil is powerless.

She tried, sort of. There is nothing to a "new set of axioms" because there can't be any. The axioms in Objectivism relate to reality and consciousness. Period. There are no more or any new for axioms cannot be proved nor can they prove so you contradict yourself.

Evil per se may be powerless, but what if good and evil coexist in a person? He can therefore sanction his own evil thus evil becomes powerful even without the existential sanction she dwelt on. Regardless, her idea of powerlessness referred to creation and maintenance of positive values, but destructive power can hardly be described as lacking power. Her central esthetic and philosophical theme of the powerlessness of evil needed much greater detailed and nuanced exposition than she ever gave it.

--Brant

[dan2100]

> War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. [bC]

Did you miss the fact that only when the U.S. decided to minimize slaughtering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and began to try to minimize "collateral damage" instead try to get the people of the country to work with us, that we started being able to isolate and hunt down terrorists and insurgents?

This was a lesson, too, that many foreign anti-terrorist efforts learned long ago -- though one many forget because they don't study history. One of the better strategies in fighting terrorism is a combination of reducing overall "collateral damage" -- even if this means the anti-terrorist forces take more casualties -- and recognizing that some terrorist groups might have legitimate grievances. The former part of this strategy was used successfully in Northern Ireland. This means, yes, more British troops are casualties, but it keeps civilian casualties low -- hence making civilians less supportive of terrorists.

The latter was especially successful in the Philippines, according to my readings, because it tends to isolate the more extreme terrorist groups from the moderate ones with the latter tending to give up violence, negotiate, and break off relations with the former -- further isolating the former.

BC's strategy is probably a surefire way of getting civilians completely behind the terrorists -- choosing the lesser of two evils -- and also of uniting terrorist and even just non-terrorist but anti-occupation groups together. This is aside from the sheer immorality of it. (Of course, it should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Rand, that morality and practicality are not completely unrelated.)

[Chris Grieb]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I hate to tell everyone but I think Ayn Rand would agree with Ba'al.

[BaalChatzaf]

I hate to tell everyone but I think Ayn Rand would agree with Ba'al.

How about that. And I am not even an Objectivist. I am just being logical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

> War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. [bC]

Did you miss the fact that only when the U.S. decided to minimize slaughtering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and began to try to minimize "collateral damage" instead try to get the people of the country to work with us, that we started being able to isolate and hunt down terrorists and insurgents?

This was a lesson, too, that many foreign anti-terrorist efforts learned long ago -- though one many forget because they don't study history. One of the better strategies in fighting terrorism is a combination of reducing overall "collateral damage" -- even if this means the anti-terrorist forces take more casualties -- and recognizing that some terrorist groups might have legitimate grievances. The former part of this strategy was used successfully in Northern Ireland. This means, yes, more British troops are casualties, but it keeps civilian casualties low -- hence making civilians less supportive of terrorists.

The latter was especially successful in the Philippines, according to my readings, because it tends to isolate the more extreme terrorist groups from the moderate ones with the latter tending to give up violence, negotiate, and break off relations with the former -- further isolating the former.

BC's strategy is probably a surefire way of getting civilians completely behind the terrorists -- choosing the lesser of two evils -- and also of uniting terrorist and even just non-terrorist but anti-occupation groups together. This is aside from the sheer immorality of it. (Of course, it should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Rand, that morality and practicality are not completely unrelated.)

When we nuked Japan in 1945 did all the Japanese adults become Bushido Samari? No. When we wrecked Germany in WW2 did all the Germans become Nazis? No. We hit them so hard and beat them senseless and they became good little Japanese and Germans. When we occupied them they kissed out butts. If you beat someone thoroughly enough he will either die or obey you.

These counter example indicate that your position might be faulty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I hate to tell everyone but I think Ayn Rand would agree with Ba'al.

She wouldn't have been so presumptuous to have mixed up the strategic with the tactical as Ba'al continually does.

--Brant

[dan2100]

> War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. [bC]

Did you miss the fact that only when the U.S. decided to minimize slaughtering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and began to try to minimize "collateral damage" instead try to get the people of the country to work with us, that we started being able to isolate and hunt down terrorists and insurgents?

This was a lesson, too, that many foreign anti-terrorist efforts learned long ago -- though one many forget because they don't study history. One of the better strategies in fighting terrorism is a combination of reducing overall "collateral damage" -- even if this means the anti-terrorist forces take more casualties -- and recognizing that some terrorist groups might have legitimate grievances. The former part of this strategy was used successfully in Northern Ireland. This means, yes, more British troops are casualties, but it keeps civilian casualties low -- hence making civilians less supportive of terrorists.

The latter was especially successful in the Philippines, according to my readings, because it tends to isolate the more extreme terrorist groups from the moderate ones with the latter tending to give up violence, negotiate, and break off relations with the former -- further isolating the former.

BC's strategy is probably a surefire way of getting civilians completely behind the terrorists -- choosing the lesser of two evils -- and also of uniting terrorist and even just non-terrorist but anti-occupation groups together. This is aside from the sheer immorality of it. (Of course, it should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Rand, that morality and practicality are not completely unrelated.)

When we nuked Japan in 1945 did all the Japanese adults become Bushido Samari? No. When we wrecked Germany in WW2 did all the Germans become Nazis? No.

I never said everyone would be converted. The point is the more innocent deaths are seen as caused by a belligerent, the more this will help that belligerent's adversaries. That doesn't mean conversion per se, but it can mean support or lessening opposition to the other side. A good case of this seems to be what happened in the Soviet Union. The Nazis did their best to turn people that might have been allies against them -- even if these same people were not good little Soviets much less wholehearted Stalinists.

And one can make a good case that had conditional surrender been sought after, then the war might have ended earlier -- perhaps a year or more earlier. How many innocent lives might have been saved? (As an aside, too, if the focus is on World War Two, one should look closely at the cases of Italy and Finland. The more limited wars pursued against both -- much more limited in the latter case, of course, as the Soviets didn't occupy all of Finland -- made them much more amenable to quitting the war. Had, for example, the Soviets pursued a policy of annihilation in Finland, I think it's safe to say the Finns would've put up more a fight.) So much for total war here...

We hit them so hard and beat them senseless and they became good little Japanese and Germans. When we occupied them they kissed out butts. If you beat someone thoroughly enough he will either die or obey you.

These counter example indicate that your position might be faulty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Also, if the strategy of killing civilians works so well, why didn't Nazi Germany win the Battle of Britain, especially after it went from attacking ostensibly military targets, such as bombing airfields, to raiding cities? If your view were correct, this should have brought Britain to its knees or at least softened it up -- maybe even bringing it to sue for peace. Why didn't this happen?

And let me ask, if someone attacked America enough, would you eventually cower, kiss their butts, and be a good little subject?

[Christopher]

I've always found it an absurd reduction to say that "kill kill kill" is a path towards valuing life. By that justification, we have a right to nuke New York if a criminal in New York would threaten our life as we walked out on the street.

If there's no such thing as limits and no issues with collateral damage, we would be justified in nuking countries to kill individuals. And given that those who live "collaterally" in these countries would know we have this trait, they would be justified in pre-emptively nuking us. Stupid stupid stupid.

[dan2100]

I've always found it an absurd reduction to say that "kill kill kill" is a path towards valuing life. By that justification, we have a right to nuke New York if a criminal in New York would threaten our life as we walked out on the street.

If there's no such thing as limits and no issues with collateral damage, we would be justified in nuking countries to kill individuals. And given that those who live "collaterally" in these countries would know we have this trait, they would be justified in pre-emptively nuking us. Stupid stupid stupid.

Yes. I speculate that such an attitude maybe comes from fear -- not reason. And, indeed, the person who advocates the view most vocally here seems extremely fear-driven to me.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Dan Ust

[dan2100]

I think I'm not alone in not being surprised by your response.

And you should not be. War is an emergency and in an emergency the first things to ditch are compassion, mercy and morality. What is left is victory or defeat. In the pursuit of victory, any means not fatal to our side are fair means. There is really only One Law of War ---- Win it. And god damn the collateral damages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I hate to tell everyone but I think Ayn Rand would agree with Ba'al.

I don't know about that, but were it true, it wouldn't mean the position is correct or even consistent with Objectivist core principles.