5-Jul-18 World View -- Al-Assad's attacks on Daraa threaten clashes with Israel and Jordan on Syria's border

[John]

Code: Select all

                                            Deaths
War                         Pop(M)  Deaths per 100K Crisis?
--------------------------- ------ ------- -------- -------
King Philip's War (1675-76)   0.05     800  1538    Yes
Revolutionary War (1775-83)   2.5    4,435   177.4  Yes
War of 1812 (1812-15)         9.8    2,260    23.6
Mexican War (1846-48)        23.2    1,733     7.5      
Civil War (1861-65)          34.4  283,394   823.8  Yes      
Spanish-American War (1898)  76.2      385     0.5      
World War I (1917-18)       100     53,513    53.5      
World War II (1941-46)      132    292,131   221.3  Yes
Korean War (1950-53)        151     33,667    22.3      
Vietnam War (1964-73)       203     47,393    23.3      
Persian Gulf War (1991)     249        148     0.1      

Interestingly, about the same number of Americans were killed in the
Civil War and WW II, but it was a smaller percentage of a much larger
population in WW II. However, that's not surprising since the Civil
War was fought on American soil, but WW II was not.

Another difference is that the child mortality rate in the 1860s was
around 50%, while it was around 2% in the 1940s, meaning that 25 times
as many children lived to grow up and be old enough to be used as
cannon fodder in war.

[Cynic Hero 86]

Code: Select all

                                            Deaths
War                         Pop(M)  Deaths per 100K Crisis?
--------------------------- ------ ------- -------- -------
King Philip's War (1675-76)   0.05     800  1538    Yes
Revolutionary War (1775-83)   2.5    4,435   177.4  Yes
War of 1812 (1812-15)         9.8    2,260    23.6
Mexican War (1846-48)        23.2    1,733     7.5      
Civil War (1861-65)          34.4  283,394   823.8  Yes      
Spanish-American War (1898)  76.2      385     0.5      
World War I (1917-18)       100     53,513    53.5      
World War II (1941-46)      132    292,131   221.3  Yes
Korean War (1950-53)        151     33,667    22.3      
Vietnam War (1964-73)       203     47,393    23.3      
Persian Gulf War (1991)     249        148     0.1      

Interestingly, about the same number of Americans were killed in the
Civil War and WW II, but it was a smaller percentage of a much larger
population in WW II. However, that's not surprising since the Civil
War was fought on American soil, but WW II was not.

Another difference is that the child mortality rate in the 1860s was
around 50%, while it was around 2% in the 1940s, meaning that 25 times
as many children lived to grow up and be old enough to be used as
cannon fodder in war.

Actually Civil war Casualties were much higher, your number I think is the number for union military deaths, I was mentioning total deaths on both sides since both sides were Americans as well as civilian deaths and deaths from disease and food shortages. The Total Casualties were much higher for the civil war even though the population was much smaller than it was 80 years later.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Defense against enemy attack is legitimate, however Assad has not attacked anyone outside of Syria's borders. The concept of sovereignty is that nations can do whatever they want within their borders as long as they do not endanger the independence or existence of other nations.

That may be YOUR concept of sovereignty, but that is not the accepted (utilized) definition of the concept. Your concept is rather "adolescent", shall we say. It's grasped at as a defense by those who'd rather stay out too late on a weeknight.

"Sovereignty" is an ad hoc concept. To some, sovereignty is much like "personal space", or "personhood" (corporation). A "threatening" person can, and will, be "taken out", regardless of their "personal sovereignty" by those interested in not having a threatening person in the vicinity.

I would respectfully suggest that you not base your policies on definitions that are "wishes and hopes". It would be lovely, or horrific, if the world actually worked according to your personal definitions of things, but it doesn't, so policies based on non-agreed-to definitions are inherently flawed, and produce wild unintended consequences, of course.

Now, NOT smacking down some threatening person in ones vicinity is also a legitimate choice! It may very well be wiser to not whack them. That is up to history to decide, not me or any other person.

..we can all make our case for how some situation should be handled, but we really should "MAKE A CASE" instead of simply claiming "absolute definitional certainty/superiority" (which is just a variation of "appeal to authority").

Come on, dude! You know this stuff!

Aloha! <shaka nui!>

OK, fish I guess I have to use a past example from our own country's history to get you to understand. Not the last crisis, WW2 or its origins, but the crisis era before that, the civil war. Simply Put the Civil War between north and south wouldn't have happened at all had prophet generation idealists simply respected the law, and the slaveholders rights under the law. Instead abolitionists rammed their preferences down the south's throat, that is what caused the war. Just Think about that over 600,000 military dead, several hundred thousand civilian dead, several hundred thousands more dead from famine and disease, probably a million or two wounded. Casualties so high that even when the NEXT crisis war, WW2 came and had IT'S final butchers bill (American casualties only), it was less than the levels of the civil war, not just regarding percentage in population but even in absolute numbers. Just think that all of that could have been avoided if idealists simply respected the rule of law. Idealists like today's boomer ideologues are inherently selfish. Non-boomers and non-ideologues understand that without Laws, there is no civilization.

You do realize that the function of a "Crisis War" is the "culling" of the "human herd",.. right?

I'm certainly not condoning genocide, or "human culling", but that's the result of a "larger process" that we "pitiful humans" just get swept up in and have to endure (at least until we get quite a bit smarter).

No "law" can trump what a huge mass of human beings want to do. Period.

I personally agree that nations SHOULD be allowed to do internally whatever they want to do, but they should also fear the wrath of their neighbors as there HAS to be a "relief valve" for dealing with "intolerable" behavior. And there MUST be some motivation to not be "that (bad) guy" that agitates MY (neighboring) nations people into internal unruliness.

<shaka!>

[John]

> You do realize that the function of a "Crisis War" is the
> "culling" of the "human herd",.. right?

I was going to write something in your "War - what is it good for"
topic, but never got around to it. Now I see that you've said it very
well.

[Cynic Hero 86]

That may be YOUR concept of sovereignty, but that is not the accepted (utilized) definition of the concept. Your concept is rather "adolescent", shall we say. It's grasped at as a defense by those who'd rather stay out too late on a weeknight.

"Sovereignty" is an ad hoc concept. To some, sovereignty is much like "personal space", or "personhood" (corporation). A "threatening" person can, and will, be "taken out", regardless of their "personal sovereignty" by those interested in not having a threatening person in the vicinity.

I would respectfully suggest that you not base your policies on definitions that are "wishes and hopes". It would be lovely, or horrific, if the world actually worked according to your personal definitions of things, but it doesn't, so policies based on non-agreed-to definitions are inherently flawed, and produce wild unintended consequences, of course.

Now, NOT smacking down some threatening person in ones vicinity is also a legitimate choice! It may very well be wiser to not whack them. That is up to history to decide, not me or any other person.

..we can all make our case for how some situation should be handled, but we really should "MAKE A CASE" instead of simply claiming "absolute definitional certainty/superiority" (which is just a variation of "appeal to authority").

Come on, dude! You know this stuff!

Aloha! <shaka nui!>

OK, fish I guess I have to use a past example from our own country's history to get you to understand. Not the last crisis, WW2 or its origins, but the crisis era before that, the civil war. Simply Put the Civil War between north and south wouldn't have happened at all had prophet generation idealists simply respected the law, and the slaveholders rights under the law. Instead abolitionists rammed their preferences down the south's throat, that is what caused the war. Just Think about that over 600,000 military dead, several hundred thousand civilian dead, several hundred thousands more dead from famine and disease, probably a million or two wounded. Casualties so high that even when the NEXT crisis war, WW2 came and had IT'S final butchers bill (American casualties only), it was less than the levels of the civil war, not just regarding percentage in population but even in absolute numbers. Just think that all of that could have been avoided if idealists simply respected the rule of law. Idealists like today's boomer ideologues are inherently selfish. Non-boomers and non-ideologues understand that without Laws, there is no civilization.

You do realize that the function of a "Crisis War" is the "culling" of the "human herd",.. right?

I'm certainly not condoning genocide, or "human culling", but that's the result of a "larger process" that we "pitiful humans" just get swept up in and have to endure (at least until we get quite a bit smarter).

No "law" can trump what a huge mass of human beings want to do. Period.

I personally agree that nations SHOULD be allowed to do internally whatever they want to do, but they should also fear the wrath of their neighbors as there HAS to be a "relief valve" for dealing with "intolerable" behavior. And there MUST be some motivation to not be "that (bad) guy" that agitates MY (neighboring) nations people into internal unruliness.

<shaka!>

There wouldn't have been a civil war between North and South had abolitionist idealist leaders simply respected the slaveholders rights under the law. We probably would have fought another war with Britain instead, the french invaded mexico around the same time the civil war was being fought so we might have went to war with France to expel them.

[Guest 24]

Yes there would have been.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

...

There wouldn't have been a civil war between North and South had abolitionist idealist leaders simply respected the slaveholders rights under the law. We probably would have fought another war with Britain instead, the french invaded mexico around the same time the civil war was being fought so we might have went to war with France to expel them.

Interesting theory, and potential story.

Write it up. Make it more interesting by accounting for all the forces in society at the time. I'd love to read such a cool story.

..actually, perhaps I should start an "Alternate History" thread over in "The Mixer"! Whatcha think?

Mahaloz dude! Aloha nui. <shaka!>

[Tom Mazanec]

...

There wouldn't have been a civil war between North and South had abolitionist idealist leaders simply respected the slaveholders rights under the law. We probably would have fought another war with Britain instead, the french invaded mexico around the same time the civil war was being fought so we might have went to war with France to expel them.

Interesting theory, and potential story.

Write it up. Make it more interesting by accounting for all the forces in society at the time. I'd love to read such a cool story.

..actually, perhaps I should start an "Alternate History" thread over in "The Mixer"! Whatcha think?

Mahaloz dude! Aloha nui. <shaka!>

GREAT! I love the concept of alternate history.