The current idea that the only acceptable non-existential wars must be Moral Jihads to be acceptable makes for some interesting diplomatic acrobatics, and has the effect of making them into mini-Crusades.
"Drones and unmanned craft will be a hollow replacement for the human experience."
Remotely manned craft will be much better TOOLS for the WORK ahead, with more rapid development cycles unconstrained by the romance of sending meat tourists.
Never forget that dangerous terrestrial exploration was done when humans and ships were cheap enough to throw away in droves, and because there was no alternative.
Human passengers are a barrier to rapid space exploration.
"but continue to judge it harshly or even prosecute it."
At some point the only defense is violence. Consider the ultimate act of defiance, the kamikaze bombing. It's actually the best tactic for an individual fed up with oppression. There are no personal consequences due to instant painless death, so there is no deterrent to the dedicated.
This country was founded in blood and fire. It was freed by shooting and bayoneting enough British and Hessians that they packed up and left. Freedom is predicated on willingness to kill your oppressor and sometimes die trying.
Things are cozy now. If they cease to be that, kill the human obstacles. Peaceful change is "nice", but if it ceases to be an option then revolt and slay your masters and anyone else who gets in the way.
That's why we have a Second Amendment. A military and police force divided by revolt hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of controlling a country the size of the US without "consent of the governed".
That's a brilliant way to use the system. It also provides cover for sophisticates to operate a parallel "life" not connected to info they are sharing.
Deterrence is only credible if force WILL be used when required, and large arsenals ensure enough weapons to exterminate any opportunists who might jump in.
Deterrence may be obsolete against SOME irrational actors, but don't forget that atmospheric testing PROVED beyond debate that smallish nuclear wars are quite practical. Overlay maps of the aboveground nuke shots over your target country of choice. That's a practical level of war.
In an actual existential war, destroying an enemy country is a reasonable option. Not point targets to make gestures, but the country itself. Suicide bombers are expendable INDIVIDUALS fighting for a CAUSE. We have not yet encountered a "suicide country".
Serious wars are beyond "law" and needn't even reference it except afterwards when the victors can choose what they call justice.
Slashdot Mirror
No point in fights where one gains nothing.
The current idea that the only acceptable non-existential wars must be Moral Jihads to be acceptable makes for some interesting diplomatic acrobatics, and has the effect of making them into mini-Crusades.
Utilitarian war makes sense. Jihad, not so much.
"It is why we are repressing protests in Bahrain."
WE? The rulers of that kingdom and their buddies next door have the controls on that adventure.
Just another schismatic squabble between superstitionists, so why not side with the more useful superstitionists?
The war was in progress, and tweaking the result to benefit the EU and US is reasonable.
War is how humans resolve disputes. There is no Good, no Bad, only Temporary Advantage and Disadvantage just as in Nature.
Bad, bad man!
You should renounce all that evil equipment and give it to me.
"Most like a much larger percentage of your neighbors have guns and no how to hunt."
They'd serve in forming a local militia along the lines of those in Iraq, securing the local area, and killing intruders if necessary.
There is no obligation to save the competition.
"But don't think for a minute that there will be lots of game waiting for your bullets."
If I'm risking starvation, people are "game" or at least potential food for my chickens.
In a truly desperate sustained situation, all civilized rules may be dispensed with.
Most radiation exposure has been modest enough to avoid, including above-ground nuclear detonations in the US.
"We'll also assume you have some non-meat food sources too and won't get a protein overdose related psychosis."
Native Americans often lived on bison meat for extended periods of time. Got evidence for that theory?
You needn't be hardcore to be well-armed any more than you do to have fire extinguishers around the house, shop etc.
If you need either one and don't have it handy you're in a world of shit. :)
Of course I do!
How else can I get my Hug Box paid for by Medicare?
We don't NEED to put humans in space with any urgency. The 1960s space program was Cold War genital display, that is all.
We don't need a manned program. Let others squander the money on space tourists while we grow remote-manned systems and actually explore space.
Or much more horrifying, Giant Raymond Burr in a Speedo.
"Think of hams as radio hackers. Some are heroes, others are hobbyiests, some are both."
They were the first large group of "geeks". Long before PCs existed, the ARRL was active and strong.
http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-history
"TSA to search your pockets and confiscate any electrical devices."
Next on terrorist theater, pack proper electronics in a notebook to spoof avionics test equipment and make landings impactful.
"VOR/DME is still the way to go. ADF will get you by in a pinch, but it can throw you a real curve ball sometimes."
Youngsters with their fancy gadgets.
Back in my day we had a Perspex astrodome, a sextant and a compass and we were GRATEFUL for them.
"Drones and unmanned craft will be a hollow replacement for the human experience."
Remotely manned craft will be much better TOOLS for the WORK ahead, with more rapid development cycles unconstrained by the romance of sending meat tourists.
Never forget that dangerous terrestrial exploration was done when humans and ships were cheap enough to throw away in droves, and because there was no alternative.
Human passengers are a barrier to rapid space exploration.
"but continue to judge it harshly or even prosecute it."
At some point the only defense is violence. Consider the ultimate act of defiance, the kamikaze bombing. It's actually the best tactic for an individual fed up with oppression. There are no personal consequences due to instant painless death, so there is no deterrent to the dedicated.
This country was founded in blood and fire. It was freed by shooting and bayoneting enough British and Hessians that they packed up and left. Freedom is predicated on willingness to kill your oppressor and sometimes die trying.
Things are cozy now. If they cease to be that, kill the human obstacles. Peaceful change is "nice", but if it ceases to be an option then revolt and slay your masters and anyone else who gets in the way.
That's why we have a Second Amendment. A military and police force divided by revolt hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of controlling a country the size of the US without "consent of the governed".
That's a brilliant way to use the system. It also provides cover for sophisticates to operate a parallel "life" not connected to info they are sharing.
You need an ordinary life so you don't arouse interest.
If you do something interesting, invest the work in an alternate, deniable, untraceable life.
Exploit the lack of privacy by being "normally naked". If you are like me, no one is interested in your (figuratively speaking) old gray balls.
"We can do pretty much anything we need to with precision guided conventional weapons."
Except destroy area targets.
"Any time some sumbitch starts thinking that he knows what's good for the rest of humanity"
That's the definition of religion.
Religion IS a danger, because it's not supported by facts, at all. Any falsehood, including belief in deities, is dangerous.
Be careful what you wish for...
The result of a world without nukes would be to make massive, existential, conventional wars practical _again_.
Wars since WWII have been of the recreational variety, and the Cold War was fought in such a restrained manner because of nuclear deterrence.
Deterrence is only credible if force WILL be used when required, and large arsenals ensure enough weapons to exterminate any opportunists who might jump in.
Deterrence may be obsolete against SOME irrational actors, but don't forget that atmospheric testing PROVED beyond debate that smallish nuclear wars are quite practical. Overlay maps of the aboveground nuke shots over your target country of choice. That's a practical level of war.
In an actual existential war, destroying an enemy country is a reasonable option. Not point targets to make gestures, but the country itself. Suicide bombers are expendable INDIVIDUALS fighting for a CAUSE. We have not yet encountered a "suicide country".
Serious wars are beyond "law" and needn't even reference it except afterwards when the victors can choose what they call justice.
Sorry, troll, but you are quite free to COPY that Bugatti for yourself if you do not sell the copy.