It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[jhkim]

To a certain extent, I'm only playing this card because it's one I think you understand more. While I only speak to myself, I value anonymity because it teaches people to value the argument and focus on making arguments focused on universal appeal, not the presenter.

That's cool. I also prefer to value the argument, but in practice, I find that anonymous Internet debate breaks down into ad-hominem at least as often as discussion with known people. I respect other people's anonymity, but it's not what I choose.

The very idea of riots or protests accomplishing things comes from a safety bubble where a caring public even exists, and where a rule of law is fundamentally on the side of the population to a large degree. At what point in time can claims of racism or discrimination be dismissed or treated as irrelevant? When can an individual or his culture be blamed? Because if you get more and more angry at smaller and smaller problems, you're going to smash the entire system which was the only thing that even gave time for those issues to even matter in any way on a public level.

I generally agree with you that outrage over smaller and smaller issues is a problem. I think social media especially encourages people to ever more outrage and clickbait. I don't think it will smash the entire system, but it's certainly making a lot of people's lives more miserable. That's independent of liberal/conservative.

On a side note,

The Russians could hope to get a return on their military investment by conquering neighboring countries, mostly that is European countries, they don't seem interested in tangling with China or Iran, but the Europeans keep tempting them with their low military spending and lack of preparedness, their main war plan is to call upon the United States for help if they should be attacked. I think the German Chancellor Merkle should know better as she grew up in East Germany, but she doesn't seem to, I guess she is counting on the good ole USA to come to her rescue should she need rescuing.

The UK and France are both nuclear powers on their own, with about 500 warheads between them. That's much less than the 6000 warheads the U.S. -- but really, I don't think it takes more than a dozen nuclear weapons to deter a country from invading you.

[Tom Kalbfus]

That's cool. I also prefer to value the argument, but in practice, I find that anonymous Internet debate breaks down into ad-hominem at least as often as discussion with known people. I respect other people's anonymity, but it's not what I choose.


I generally agree with you that outrage over smaller and smaller issues is a problem. I think social media especially encourages people to ever more outrage and clickbait. I don't think it will smash the entire system, but it's certainly making a lot of people's lives more miserable. That's independent of liberal/conservative.

On a side note,


The UK and France are both nuclear powers on their own, with about 500 warheads between them. That's much less than the 6000 warheads the U.S. -- but really, I don't think it takes more than a dozen nuclear weapons to deter a country from invading you.

The proved quite useful in protecting South Vietnam from communist incursion and those nukes Ukraine had, stopped the Russians cold from invading that country and stealing land. You know Ukraine is the site of Chernobyl don't you?

[oggsmash]

The proved quite useful in protecting South Vietnam from communist incursion and those nukes Ukraine had, stopped the Russians cold from invading that country and stealing land. You know Ukraine is the site of Chernobyl don't you?

  Pretty sure Ukraine has no nukes.  Belarus is the site of Chernobyl.   I think there is some treaty signed by several countries to act if Ukraine is invaded by a nuclear power, but like a restraining order, that paper is not worth shit when shots are fired.  Ukraine does have nuclear power plants though, and they are likely similar design to Chernobyl (which has shitty safety and max power, one of the biggest problems is graphite as a moderator, their attack subs have some REALLY unsafe shit going on).   But a nuclear plant is not a nuclear weapon.  No idea about Vietnam, and too lazy to google.

[jhkim]

Pretty sure Ukraine has no nukes.  Belarus is the site of Chernobyl.   I think there is some treaty signed by several countries to act if Ukraine is invaded by a nuclear power, but like a restraining order, that paper is not worth shit when shots are fired.  Ukraine does have nuclear power plants though, and they are likely similar design to Chernobyl (which has shitty safety and max power, one of the biggest problems is graphite as a moderator, their attack subs have some REALLY unsafe shit going on).   But a nuclear plant is not a nuclear weapon.  No idea about Vietnam, and too lazy to google.

Chernobyl is in Ukraine, but you are close in that it is right on the edge of the Belarussian border. You are correct that Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, though. Ukraine did have a bunch of Soviet nuclear weapons deployed within its borders, but in 1994, it agreed to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and destroyed all those nuclear weapons in exchange for favorable treaty rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

South Vietnam definitely never had nuclear weapons. Even if it did have them, it's questionable whether it would use nuclear weapons against other Vietnamese. Nuclear weapons aren't much use in a civil war -- since it would immediately turn all of the populace against the side using them. However, they are a deterrent against foreign invasion.

[oggsmash]

Yeah couldnt remember, the Town I grew up in had kids from Belarus live here a few months of the year  back when they screwed the pooch, to allow the kids time away from the irradiated areas because I guess the village they were from got the worst of the contamination.   I conflated it, and it has been since '92 that we studied the incident report in detail.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Chernobyl is in Ukraine, but you are close in that it is right on the edge of the Belarussian border. You are correct that Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, though. Ukraine did have a bunch of Soviet nuclear weapons deployed within its borders, but in 1994, it agreed to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and destroyed all those nuclear weapons in exchange for favorable treaty rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

South Vietnam definitely never had nuclear weapons. Even if it did have them, it's questionable whether it would use nuclear weapons against other Vietnamese. Nuclear weapons aren't much use in a civil war -- since it would immediately turn all of the populace against the side using them. However, they are a deterrent against foreign invasion.

The united states had nuclear weapons and was right there and didn't use them, so it raises they question of using them as a substitute for conventional military force if the United States didn't use them to defend South Vietnam.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Yeah couldnt remember, the Town I grew up in had kids from Belarus live here a few months of the year  back when they screwed the pooch, to allow the kids time away from the irradiated areas because I guess the village they were from got the worst of the contamination.   I conflated it, and it has been since '92 that we studied the incident report in detail.

Germany doesn't have nukes anymore than South Vietnam had, and Germany is not spending enough on its military, Germany of all countries should know what happens to countries that are too stingy on military spending like France and Poland in the 1930s and 40s. Merkle lived in a communist occupied country for half her life and she still doesn't get it! Why couldn't Germans be thus dumb during World War II, the smart ones were fighting our soldiers, and then they put on their stupid caps when they became our allies.

[oggsmash]

Germany doesn't have nukes anymore than South Vietnam had, and Germany is not spending enough on its military, Germany of all countries should know what happens to countries that are too stingy on military spending like France and Poland in the 1930s and 40s. Merkle lived in a communist occupied country for half her life and she still doesn't get it! Why couldn't Germans be thus dumb during World War II, the smart ones were fighting our soldiers, and then they put on their stupid caps when they became our allies.

  Merkle IS a communist.  She gets it.

[jhkim]

South Vietnam definitely never had nuclear weapons. Even if it did have them, it's questionable whether it would use nuclear weapons against other Vietnamese. Nuclear weapons aren't much use in a civil war -- since it would immediately turn all of the populace against the side using them. However, they are a deterrent against foreign invasion.

The united states had nuclear weapons and was right there and didn't use them, so it raises they question of using them as a substitute for conventional military force if the United States didn't use them to defend South Vietnam.

Isn't that what I said? I'm not sure I understand the difference in our positions. I agree that in Vietnam, as a civil war, nuclear weapons are of questionable utility. However, I do think that they are a deterrent. For example, if Iraq had had nuclear weapons in 2003, I don't think that we would have invaded them. It was considered crucial to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons.

Germany doesn't have nukes anymore than South Vietnam had, and Germany is not spending enough on its military, Germany of all countries should know what happens to countries that are too stingy on military spending like France and Poland in the 1930s and 40s. Merkle lived in a communist occupied country for half her life and she still doesn't get it! Why couldn't Germans be thus dumb during World War II, the smart ones were fighting our soldiers, and then they put on their stupid caps when they became our allies.

We've spent decades encouraging both Germany and Japan *not* to build up their militaries -- it was part of the treaties we forced on them after winning WWII. We still have something like a hundred thousand troops stationed in those two countries. The main reason that they depend on us for protection is because we forced our protection on them. That said, I am in favor of steadily withdrawing U.S. troops from constantly occupying foreign countries.

[Shrieking Banshee]

That's cool. I also prefer to value the argument, but in practice, I find that anonymous Internet debate breaks down into ad-hominem at least as often as discussion with known people. I respect other people's anonymity, but it's not what I choose.

That's pretty much the case, yeah, but it equalizes things to at least a certain degree.

I think social media especially encourages people to ever more outrage and clickbait.

Social media only accelerated a ball that was already rolling. Universities and liberal media encourage this sort of thing allot, and by targetting groups of insecure young adults and inundating them with agitprop by intellectually dishonest cowards.

My problem with so much liberalism (progressivism especially and SJWs in specific) is that it doesn't see itself just as another value system (capable of infringing and destroying other valuable value systems) but just as a purely objective non-value state. By positioning itself as such it allows its followers to avoid real examination of their own thought process. It has just enough self-analysis for self-validation, but not any for self-doubt.

I don't think it will smash the entire system, but it's certainly making a lot of people's lives more miserable.

Anything in large enough quantities can smash things.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Isn't that what I said? I'm not sure I understand the difference in our positions. I agree that in Vietnam, as a civil war, nuclear weapons are of questionable utility. However, I do think that they are a deterrent. For example, if Iraq had had nuclear weapons in 2003, I don't think that we would have invaded them. It was considered crucial to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons.


We've spent decades encouraging both Germany and Japan *not* to build up their militaries -- it was part of the treaties we forced on them after winning WWII. We still have something like a hundred thousand troops stationed in those two countries. The main reason that they depend on us for protection is because we forced our protection on them. That said, I am in favor of steadily withdrawing U.S. troops from constantly occupying foreign countries.

The Germans that started World War II are now mostly dead  and I think the Germans who are alive should learn from the history their dead relatives have created. All countries have histories they are not entirely proud of. The Germans had Nazis, we have had slavery, but just as I don't feel responsible for slavery, I don't think most Germans should feel responsible for World War II or the Holocaust, I despise those Germans that did that, but those Germans are dead or soon will be, the Germans that are alive today are not those Germans, that was another century and it is time we turn the page on the history book.

[Shrieking Banshee]

To a certain degree living in perpetual self-loathing is unhealthy. I mean there is genocide in Judaic lore. Take it on the chin and move on.

[Spinachcat]

The supreme court just gave half of Oklahoma to the native Americans.

LOL. We're approaching peak stupidity.

I wonder if the US citizens in east Oklahoma are ready to become subjects of a stone age tribe.

[Tom Kalbfus]

LOL. We're approaching peak stupidity.

I wonder if the US citizens in east Oklahoma are ready to become subjects of a stone age tribe.

We don't need to create enemy countries by balkanizing ourselves for the benefit of liberal anti-Americans, that is what Israel did with regard to the Palestinians, did it buy them any peace?

[Spinachcat]

The USA balkanizing is much different issue than Israel/Palestine, but I can agree there could be some parallels.

Would a balkanized America be peaceful? Good question.

Much depends on the division of the previous nation's wealth and its natural resources.

This Oklahoma situation is quite strange and it will be interesting to see how it develops. It's quite possible it will be a nothingburger, just an odd legal ruling with extremely limited effect, or it could become a culture war flashpoint.

I'm surprised we haven't heard commentary from US citizens whose homes are now legally considered tribal lands and not part of the USA anymore. Maybe it will become the next Las Vegas?