US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3583

On April 11 2016 08:01 oneofthem wrote:
because of the shifted baseline with war it can be jarring to talk about just use of nuclear weapons. the major division of opinion comes with whether this shift is adopted or not.

On April 11 2016 07:02 KwarK wrote:

Are we buying into the idea that the people of Japan and Germany had no idea what was going on during WW2 now? Perhaps you'd like to explain the innocence of the Wehrmacht next.

On April 11 2016 06:44 OtherWorld wrote:

It's pretty sad that studying at the university makes you forget simple facts, then. The fact that Japan was ready to surrender. That the figures given to estimate the human cost of an invasion were pulled out of thin air. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rushed to end the war before the Soviets could be part of the peace agreement, no matter at what cost. That Manhattan Project's chief himself said that the bombing was unnecessary to the war effort. And so forth.

The atomic bombing was a war crime, though it must be recognized that if it wouldn't have happened, a perhaps even worse atomic bombing would have happened at some point in the future. But that's no justification. And as always, the one who wins writes history.

Well, you see, that kind of mentality is exactly what allowed Hiroshima/Nagasaki to happen, as well as well as the regular bombings of Japanese, French and German cities (which are no better than the atomic bombings, don't get me wrong). That mentality that "they deserve it". "They started that war, they should have known better".

Well, breaking news, but a civilian who gives no fucks about politics, a children who doesn't even realize what's happening, a mother who does extra work producing bullets at a factory while her enlisted husband is dying somewhere, are not responsible for the deadly sport called War that governments like to play. And if you don't feel sorry for them, then I have to question your humanity.

On April 11 2016 08:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:

This is disingenuous at best. Japan, prior to Hiroshima was not at all prepared to unconditionally surrender. Indeed, just under two weeks prior (July 26th), PM Suzuki and the civilian government expressly rejected the Potsdam declaration for unconditional surrender, and the military government was much more reticent about unconditional surrender as well.

http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm

The exchange between the Japanese ambassador to the USSR and Tojo, just weeks before Hiroshima, should illustrate the mindset of the Japanese government just prior to the nuclear bombings. Even with the total destruction of the IJN, near total blockade and starvation in the Home Islands, shortage of all strategic resources, and Allied air supremacy, they believed they could reach a negotiated peace settlement (with the intention of not only keeping the emperor but the "Imperial Way", and independent armed forces and no-occupation), despite being the unilateral aggressor in the region and conducting themselves absolutely horrendously in terms of war conduct (to which the Chinese nation and Allied PoWs can attest to).

Additionally, "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire", by Richard Frank, is an excellent piece of historiography, which even more readily shatters the notion that Japan was willing to surrender unconditionally, and shows the Japanese leadership's complete and utter lack of grasp on reality.

The projected casualty numbers were not "pulled out of thin air", but were projected from the incredibly bloody invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa (the latter being used as the basis for how the Japanese populace would react to an Allied/US amphibious landing, which is to say fanatically), and from the intelligence regarding the massive mobilization efforts on the Home Islands (both from aerials and cracked Japanese codes). You can just look at the vast amounts of materiel that was turned over to the Allies post-war on the Home Islands. Another, massive Okinawa was not something the US sought, in the blood that would be spilled (both civilian and military), which would in total number in the millions. Neither could the US or Allies countenance a continuation of the Japanese government and mentality that facilitated the Pacific War, and the Japanese atrocities that were committed regularly throughout the theater. Look, there was a Japanese soldier in the Philippines that refused to surrender for thirty years, and conducted a guerrilla war until 1974 when his former commanding officer (who had since became a bookseller) had to fly out to personally relieve him of duty. This was the type of fanatical mindset and war the Allies in the Pacific fought, and were expecting to face on the Home Islands.

Hence the two atomic bombs as a means to avoid it. Nagasaki was, in this context, just as necessary as Hiroshima, in that the Japanese experience with their nuclear program had them disbelieve the notion that the US had actually developed an atomic bomb, or had multiple bombs (as the record following Hiroshima shows). Nagasaki was necessary, then, to disabuse them of this notion.


Now that being said, another important factor leading to the final surrender of Japan without a full invasion of Kyushu was the entry of the Soviet Union (both dashing the Japanese hopes of the USSR mediating a settlement, and presenting the threat of a...highly unlikely Soviet invasion of Japan [though given the non-existence of the IJN, I suppose it becomes a mildly credible threat]). The debate currently is whether or not the Soviet entry would be enough to force a Japanese unconditional surrender by itself, or if an invasion of the Home Islands beyond Okinawa would be necessary in the absence of the atomic bombs. That's much more difficult a question, but from what I've read, I stand relatively firmly on the "No" side. And in which case, it's a question of which is more humane: prolonging the war and blockade/strategic bombing of Japan (and the large human costs to Japanese civilians such would entail) and the initiation of Operation Downfall (and the massive human cost that would entail for the US and Japan), or the strategic use of nuclear weapons, the latter is the more justifiable choice. Neither being pretty choices, but WWII was nothing if not ugly and vile (see China, see the Holocaust, see Germany in the USSR, etc.) and I find the decision understandable and in general, coldly humane in the utilitarian sense.


It is not that I don't feel sorry for the innocent civilians and children caught up in the bombings and war (I cry every re-watch of Grave of the Fireflies), but in which case you must hold the 30s and 40s Japanese government at fault for instigating multiple aggressive wars and bringing their nation to such straits by sheer stupidity and aggressive imperialism. Japan had MANY outs to avoid the total war that it found itself embroiled into, instead consistently choosing one insane escalation after another, over peace.

EDIT: Note, as someone born in China, I believe Japanese atrocities are self-evident. That being said, an "eye for an eye" is not an acceptable attitude to take regarding war crimes, but to say that the Japanese occupations of Korea and China, or Unit 731 or treatment of POWs period should not morally adjust the attitudes and the appropriate use of force towards a country seems somewhat silly to me. Assassinating Gandhi and assassinating Hitler are not morally equivalent, after all.

President Barack Obama says if the US followed Australia and introduced mandatory voting at elections it would have a transformative impact on America.

The president, speaking to students at the University of Chicago Law School, said the US has some of the lowest voting rates of any advanced democracy in the world.

“Australia has got mandatory voting,” Mr Obama said on Friday.

“You start getting 70-80 per cent voting rates, that’s transformative.”

In the 2013 federal election in Australia voter turnout for the lower house of parliament was 93.34% and 94% in the Senate, according to the Australian Electoral Commission. In the 2010 election the figures were 93.22% and 93.83% respectively.

This compares with just 36% of America’s voting-eligible population casting ballots at the crucial mid-term elections in 2014 –the lowest turnout in more than 70 years, despite control of Congress being up for grabs and state governor races contested.

Just 53.6% of voting-age Americans voted at the 2012 presidential election.

“We really are the only advanced democracy on earth that systematically and purposely makes it really hard for people to vote,” Mr Obama said.

On April 11 2016 12:05 GoTuNk! wrote:


Your last point is super important. The allied leadership had to choose between nuking the opposing forces or an invasion that would most likely end up in a blood shed with a higher body count but, more important, would CERTAINLY end with more dead troops from your side.

Not to mention that second guessing the heroic efforts during WW2 by the allies to stop a categorically evil entity from basically overtaking the world is just lame. It's not like they had any simple choices and could see the future.

On April 11 2016 13:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I don't really agree with compulsary voting here, it would favour the democrats heavily so it's clear why Obama is talking it up.

On April 11 2016 13:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:

"Categorically evil" is a joke within context. Germany? Yes, absolutely...with the value of hindsight. At the time, a lot of the information about the holocaust and the concentration camps was viewed as hyperbole, muddled in a vast amount of propaganda and counter-intelligence work. And, sadly, the anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was not isolated to Germany, they just took it further than anyone expected or imagined.

And regarding Japan in particular, yes, they launched a massive war for imperialistic ambitions. And before the World Wars, the greatest Imperial empire was Britain, the last massive campaign of conquest was Napoleon's, and the last (and bloodiest, before WW1) war fought for ethnic suppression and subjugation was the American civil war.

The Allies were at least comparatively better than Japan, but they also set plenty of examples for Japan to follow.

On April 11 2016 14:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:


And any form of socialism is bad because communism failed in the USSR /sarcasm.

It's about execution, and I think it could be done in a way to benefit the welfare of society. My perspective is a bit of a utopian one, and thus it'd have be carefully planned and done in a fair and unbiased way. Of course if we just changed to it overnight and delegated the power to some random people there would likely be issues. That isn't to say something like this can't work.

Assume that an individual, Clem, is a member of a socialist commune. Assume that there are 1,000 members of the commune and that the output is divided equally among the members. (For the sake of simplicity we will ignore matters such as capital investment.) Let’s say that the production of the commune totals 100,000 bushels of wheat a year, or an average of 100 bushels per member. At a price of, say, $5.00 per bushel total receipts for the commune are $500,000, or $500 per member. The question is: How is Clem likely to behave? Will he work hard? Will he shirk?

Let’s assume that Clem is both naturally industrious and socially conscientious. He is concerned about the overall good of the commune. As a result, Clem works very hard and increases his production from 100 to 150 bushels of wheat a year. This increases the annual output of the commune from 100,000 to 100,050 bushels. At $5.00 per bushel the income of the commune increases from $500,000 to $500,250. Since total income is divided equally among the members, the income of each member rises from $500 to $500.25 a year. Thus, because of his extra work Clem’s production increased 50 per cent. But his income increased by a mere 25C or by 0.05 per cent. Moreover, the income of the other 999 members also increased by 25c even though they did not work any harder and their productivity did not increase.

Clearly, Clem’s activities benefited everyone in the commune except himself Everyone else had his income increase without increasing his work. But Clem’s income increased only 25c despite increasing his work load by 50 per cent. While the benefits of the extra production were diffused throughout the commune, the costs were concentrated on Clem. Given the distributional policies of the socialist commune it is clear that Clem’s decision to increase his work was “irrational,” and it is highly unlikely that he would continue his Stakhanovite exertions, thereby subjecting himself to continued exploitation by the other members of the commune. In short, the distributional policies of socialism penalize industrious behavior.

Deeper insight into socialist incentives can be obtained by looking at the situation from a different angle. Assume that the conditions of the commune are the same as described above. But now assume that instead of increasing his production Clem begins to slough off, to shirk. Assume that he cuts his production from the aver age of 100 bushels a year to only 50. What are the effects? The total output of the commune drops from 100,000 bushels to 99,950 bushels. Its total receipts therefore fall from $500,000 to $499,750. As a result each member’s income declines by 25c, from $500 to $499.75. Yet, they have not, we are assuming, reduced their work loads. Clem’s income is also reduced 25C. But he has cut his work load in half. This is a great deal for Clem! He has obtained a 50 per cent increase in leisure at a cost to himself of only 25c, or a 0.05 per cent reduction in income. In short, since the cost of Clem’s shirking is diffused among all the members of the commune while the benefits are channeled to Clem, socialism crates a strong incentive to shirk. The problem, of course, is that there is no mason why this is limited to Clem. It applies with equal force to all members of the commune. But if all members shirk, little or nothing will be produced and the commune will quickly find itself in dire straits.

The basic problem of socialism is the imbalance or asymmetry it creates between costs and benefits. At times the costs are diffused throughout the entire community while the benefits are concentrated on one or a few members. At other times it is the costs that are concentrated while the benefits are diffused. The result is that socialism, by its very nature, rewards sloth and indolence and penalizes diligence and hard work. It therefoR establishes incentives that are incompatible with its self-proclaimed goal of material prosperity. The inherent di lemma of socialism is that individuals who respond “rationally” to the incentives confronting them will produce results that are “irrational” for the community as a whole.

The Solution

The solution to the dilemma of socialist incentives lies in what economists call “internalizing the externalities,” i.e., making sure that both the costs and benefits of individual actions are borne by the individual and do not spill onto “society” as a whole. There are two distinct methods by which this can be accomplished: private property or coercion.

Assume that instead of living in a commune Clem lives in a market society and owns his own farm. If Clem would increase his production, just as he did in the commune, from 100 to 150 bushels, he would receive the full benefit of the additional output. The result, again assuming $5 per bushel, is that Clem’s income would increase not by a mere 25C but by $250, going from $500 to $750 per year. Conversely, by reducing his production from 100 to only 50 bushels, Clem’s income would fall not by 25C but by $250, dropping from $500 per year to only $250. Thus, private property automatically “internalizes the externalities,” i.e., it channels both the costs and the benefits of each individual’s actions onto that particular individual. In doing so it creates incentives that automatically penalize indolence and reward hard work and productivity. These are the exact opposite of the incentives generated by socialism.

To permit private property would be to acknowledge the failure of socialism. As a result, socialist systems have allowed private property only grudgingly and on a very restricted basis. Rather than admit failure socialists have usually opted for the other means to internalize externalities: coercion. To counteract the incentive to shirk, the socialist rulers can establish production quotas for Clem and the other members of the commune and then threaten them with penalties for failure to meet the quotas. Since coercion will stimulate production only if the penalties are severe enough to counteract the incentive to shirk, socialism must reduce the population to virtual slavery. But even if coercion does stimulate production the increase will be far less than under private property. Since it insures that each producer will receive the total value of his production, private property pro vides the incentive to maximize production. Coercion, on the other hand, is only able to establish the incentive to produce the minimum required to avoid punishment. It is no accident that socialism ends up enslaving its workers. Nor is it an accident that free men have always been more productive than slaves.
Source

On April 11 2016 06:44 OtherWorld wrote:

It's pretty sad that studying at the university makes you forget simple facts, then. The fact that Japan was ready to surrender. That the figures given to estimate the human cost of an invasion were pulled out of thin air. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rushed to end the war before the Soviets could be part of the peace agreement, no matter at what cost. That Manhattan Project's chief himself said that the bombing was unnecessary to the war effort. And so forth.

The atomic bombing was a war crime, though it must be recognized that if it wouldn't have happened, a perhaps even worse atomic bombing would have happened at some point in the future. But that's no justification. And as always, the one who wins writes history.

On April 11 2016 14:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:


And any form of socialism is bad because communism failed in the USSR /sarcasm.

It's about execution, and I think it could be done in a way to benefit the welfare of society. My perspective is a bit of a utopian one, and thus it'd have be carefully planned and done in a fair and unbiased way. Of course if we just changed to it overnight and delegated the power to some random people there would likely be issues. That isn't to say something like this can't work.