Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Anslol]

Will the carrier group even get in range in time to assist them? I mean if so, great but eh...

Also, the Naval railgun doesn't do brawling. It doesn't have to.

That thing can hit a target 2 miles away with a slug moving near Mach 8. It laughs are brawling.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

If there aren't cruise missile submarines there already, I'll eat my arse.

[Felix Rasker]

Regardless of this Syria debate,

Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.

I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."

I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.

It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.

You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily.   A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.

The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.

And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.

It's pretty simple, really: the average, well-adjusted human feels sadness at the suffering of another. In fact, the DSM classifies a lack of empathy and disdain of close attachments as serious signs of sociopathy, the height of abnormality.

The problem is that the deaths and the destruction won't be yours to own. It won't be your backyard being invaded by foreign nations and blown to pieces, illegally, over a geopolitical hand of poker. Watching somebody die is much different than just hearing "x number of y people were killed today."

It's not isolated to just this one incident, I'm just explaining why it continues to happen without opposition.

As for the 'cold' attitude of people here - I would wager that very few here have actually seen what a situation like Syria looks like on the ground. Those that have would likely consider any means necessary to prevent it from happening on their own soil. Those who haven't are capable of intellectualising it. In addition it is all happening so very far away to a people that haven't been humanised by our media for decades.

Of course not. People who spout off bravado about how little they care have A) never witnessed wartime deaths and B) have nothing to lose by acting tough. In reality, if they had to see somebody die in a sarin gas attack, they'd be humanitarians tomorrow.

Ironically, if it happened here, those same people would be shouting "terrorism" at the top of their lungs.

Is it a bad idea to start this mess? Absolutely. But adding the attitude of "fuck them, they're not my people" is not only tragic, it also makes you part of the problem.

[Gottii]

Anslol, a carrier battlegroup can be just about anywhere in the world in about 48-72 hrs, give or take, thats theyre big advantage.  Nimitz class carriers are insanely fast when they want to be. 

And 2 miles is literally point blank range for naval surface engagements.  Thats knife fight range.  Most engagements are far over the horizon. The rail guns would likely have almost no meaningful impact on any engagement of modern vessels. 

And yes, the Chinese and Russian vessels arent a real threat to the US navy if things went hot, and they know it.  Its kabuki theater for their allies.   

(written by a former navy intel specialist)

[Anslol]

@ Gottii- ...welp, I can literally not argue with you due to your background LOL. Thanks for the info!

@ Felix- I'm sorry, it's bravado and being 'part of the problem' to be practical and realistic about the situation? We didn't say that this isn't a tragedy. It sucks that it happens. I don't want to see it happen again. But we, the U.S., cannot afford another possible war. Hell, the American people demand no action at all. We got too much shit to deal with.

@ Pieter- Will record.

[Shiori]

As far as I know, the US Navy won't have railguns in service until 2025.

But then, the design specs will include 5m accuraccy at an effective range of 200nmi, and 6 shots per minute.

[Felix Rasker]

@ Felix- I'm sorry, it's bravado and being 'part of the problem' to be practical and realistic about the situation? We didn't say that this isn't a tragedy. It sucks that it happens. I don't want to see it happen again. But we, the U.S., cannot afford another possible war. Hell, the American people demand no action at all. We got too much shit to deal with.

If you'd read the post, you might notice my complaint isn't that you, or anyone else thinks this is a bad idea. My complaint is that Vik, among others, prefaced that with indifference towards murder. You "+1'd" that without making a distinction, ergo, I assumed you agreed.

[Anslol]

As far as I know, the US Navy won't have railguns in service until 2025.

But then, the design specs will include 5m accuraccy at an effective range of 200nmi, and 6 shots per minute.

...I'm sorry...you mean...nautical miles?...like...200+ MILE RANGE????

[Anslol]

More +1 for the sentiment versus just not caring if people died. I'm more for our politicians actually caring about the people who put them in office.

It sucks that it happened, but we can't keep gallivanting like this.

[orange]

Part of the problem is that what is being offered is not about removing Assad from power and making efforts to create a semi-democratic state(s).  In order to avoid another Iraq, the POTUS and SecState are offering limited strikes as punishment for the use of Chemical Weapons.

The strikes will not help the FSA, they will not prevent Assad from continuing to kill his own people.  It will only add to the death toll and may cause Assad and his allies to target US allies.

Said another way, the current path is the worst of both worlds - it is ineffective intervention with high potential for disastrous escalation.

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

Part of the problem is that what is being offered is not about removing Assad from power and making efforts to create a semi-democratic state(s).  In order to avoid another Iraq, the POTUS and SecState are offering limited strikes as punishment for the use of Chemical Weapons.

The strikes will not help the FSA, they will not prevent Assad from continuing to kill his own people.  It will only add to the death toll and may cause Assad and his allies to target US allies.

Said another way, the current path is the worst of both worlds - it is ineffective intervention with high potential for disastrous escalation.

+1.

And actual full intervention would be just as bad, and probably way worse.

[orange]

It would no doubt be hard and contain all the challenges of Iraq and then some, but the political objective/desired end state would be clear.

I am not in favor of half measures, from health care or education reform to war.  Those who embrace half measures are not interested in actually fixing the problems, but maintaining the status quo.

[Vikarion]

Of course not. People who spout off bravado about how little they care have A) never witnessed wartime deaths and B) have nothing to lose by acting tough. In reality, if they had to see somebody die in a sarin gas attack, they'd be humanitarians tomorrow.

Ironically, if it happened here, those same people would be shouting "terrorism" at the top of their lungs.

Is it a bad idea to start this mess? Absolutely. But adding the attitude of "fuck them, they're not my people" is not only tragic, it also makes you part of the problem.

Ok. I don't think I'm doing a tough guy act. I've known some fairly tough guys in my life, and, generally, they were not without feelings, at least as far as I was able to tell.

I strongly believe that being angry, or happy, or anything else, is not a good premise upon which to make decisions. If you have to sacrifice one life to save several, does feeling guilty help you? Does worrying about what the sacrificed person might feel help you? No. Five for one is a better situation than five lost. Five lives for one is the correct choice to maximize human well-being whether you feel happy, sad, indifferent, or angry. The only thing an emotional response will do is cloud your judgment.

The argument seems to be that I am wrong and bad for simply thinking it through and not feeling. I'm sorry. I don't feel. I can't seem to feel for them. And, when September 11th happened, as far as terrorist incidents go, I felt excitement, maybe a touch of anger, and not much else. I was excited to see something historic happening, and a little angry that someone had dared to attack us, including me by extension. I joined in the "outrage", because that's what it seems people do, for reasons that I have trouble fathoming, sometimes.

Is this cruel? Of course not. I didn't do anything. Yet people seem to become upset if you don't care along with them, as if that means I favor the other side. That's not the case. I simply don't approach a situation with this sort of contagious suffering and happiness the rest of you seem to - from my perspective - suffer from. But can you argue that a more dispassionate and calculated approach to the September 11th attacks would have been worse?

My point isn't how little I feel, it's that decisions should not be based on feelings. Events and actions should be treated, in my mind, like business decisions, or mathematical equations. You figure out what your goal is, you calculate the costs and contingencies, and then you execute. Maybe you need diplomacy and charm, maybe violence, maybe you need to sacrifice some things that you want less than your goal - whatever you need to do, you do. And then you have what you want.

But when I see something like the Syria situation, it looks to me like we are engaging in some sort of collective insanity. See, violence is expensive. On the personal level, it can often result in fines, jail, death, or, at the least, resentment and burned bridges. On the national level, it means millions and billions in money, countless hours of the lives of productive men, thousands to millions of deaths (permanent end to unique resources), and the destruction of even more vital infrastructure.

So, you give me a supposedly "moral" goal: try to reduce the suffering in the world, and maximize the happiness. Right, ok. And then you are upset when I dispassionately point out that any intervention in Syria likely results in higher costs then are reasonable? Not upset over my conclusion - I welcome the contest intellectually on a cost/benefit basis - but upset because I "don't care about the Syrians"?

And why is it worse to be gassed, as opposed to shot, or starved to death, or drowned, or any number of other deaths?

To me, you might well spend the money more profitably elsewhere. If you want to increase human happiness around the world, how about cracking down on the child sex trade? How about funding schools and businesses in Africa and Latin America? How about restoring America's flagging public education? How about taking some of the money devoted to the military, and using it to create an Infrastructure Corps to build the necessary public works for people to be happy and healthy? There are spots on this planet where digging a hole to dump sewage in will genuinely raise the standard of living. They have even been on the news, if that is what is important to you.

Yes, I rate very highly on any real test of sociopath/psychopath traits (lack of empathy, emotional shallowness, etc) I've cared to take. But I also rate low on tests for more narcissistic, sadistic, and anti-social traits. I'm not here to advocate murder - killing people seems like a genuinely unwise idea to me most of the time. I'm just looking at the goal you say you want, and concluding that your means for getting you there...won't. At least not as well as others could. I think that that's the issue, not whether I can feel for others.

[Lyn Farel]

I don't see the fuss about sociopaths. I hear they constitute like 1/5 of the population.

[Felix Rasker]

Of course not. People who spout off bravado about how little they care have A) never witnessed wartime deaths and B) have nothing to lose by acting tough. In reality, if they had to see somebody die in a sarin gas attack, they'd be humanitarians tomorrow.

Ironically, if it happened here, those same people would be shouting "terrorism" at the top of their lungs.

Is it a bad idea to start this mess? Absolutely. But adding the attitude of "fuck them, they're not my people" is not only tragic, it also makes you part of the problem.

I strongly believe that being angry, or happy, or anything else, is not a good premise upon which to make decisions. If you have to sacrifice one life to save several, does feeling guilty help you? Does worrying about what the sacrificed person might feel help you? No. Five for one is a better situation than five lost. Five lives for one is the correct choice to maximize human well-being whether you feel happy, sad, indifferent, or angry. The only thing an emotional response will do is cloud your judgment.

The argument seems to be that I am wrong and bad for simply thinking it through and not feeling. I'm sorry. I don't feel. I can't seem to feel for them. And, when September 11th happened, as far as terrorist incidents go, I felt excitement, maybe a touch of anger, and not much else. I was excited to see something historic happening, and a little angry that someone had dared to attack us, including me by extension. I joined in the "outrage", because that's what it seems people do, for reasons that I have trouble fathoming, sometimes.

Is this cruel? Of course not. I didn't do anything. Yet people seem to become upset if you don't care along with them, as if that means I favor the other side. That's not the case. I simply don't approach a situation with this sort of contagious suffering and happiness the rest of you seem to - from my perspective - suffer from. But can you argue that a more dispassionate and calculated approach to the September 11th attacks would have been worse?

My point isn't how little I feel, it's that decisions should not be based on feelings. Events and actions should be treated, in my mind, like business decisions, or mathematical equations. You figure out what your goal is, you calculate the costs and contingencies, and then you execute. Maybe you need diplomacy and charm, maybe violence, maybe you need to sacrifice some things that you want less than your goal - whatever you need to do, you do. And then you have what you want.

But when I see something like the Syria situation, it looks to me like we are engaging in some sort of collective insanity. See, violence is expensive. On the personal level, it can often result in fines, jail, death, or, at the least, resentment and burned bridges. On the national level, it means millions and billions in money, countless hours of the lives of productive men, thousands to millions of deaths (permanent end to unique resources), and the destruction of even more vital infrastructure.

So, you give me a supposedly "moral" goal: try to reduce the suffering in the world, and maximize the happiness. Right, ok. And then you are upset when I dispassionately point out that any intervention in Syria likely results in higher costs then are reasonable? Not upset over my conclusion - I welcome the contest intellectually on a cost/benefit basis - but upset because I "don't care about the Syrians"?

And why is it worse to be gassed, as opposed to shot, or starved to death, or drowned, or any number of other deaths?

Cold calculation is fine in certain instances. This is absolutely not one of them.

The situation in Syria is just part of the epidemic of global ignorance of basic human rights. The motive behind it all is just social control and profiting off of war, but the result is the systematic dampening of decency. All the problems you mentioned, environmental damage, education, marital rights, these are all clouded not by the use of empathy and emotional generosity, but by the suppression of them.

The Civil Rights movement wasn't based in the economic world, or numeric evidence, it was based on simple decency. The value that freedom has in our society. The majority of people are too afraid to say something, or they're convinced they shouldn't care about foreign issues, and that emotionlessness is what allows these kinds of decisions to continue being made.

Empathy is what causes the small amounts of generosity and quality of life in the world to exist. Cold calculation and "working by the numbers" is what allows slave labor in Dubai, the invasion of Grenada, Iran-Contra, and a million other tragedies.