Originally Posted by Justin '77

You figure it'd take a whole quarter of what they spend now? That's still a massive chunk of change.

I'm considering that we'd still be paying interest on all the debt racked up from previous wars. Take that out and it's probably more like 10-15%. So, somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 a year per citizen to reasonably prevent invasion or major terrorist attack. That's less than car insurance. Which makes sense, since people are way more likely to be involved in a car accident than a terrorist attack.

The suspect in the Holocaust memorial shooting (in which one security guard was killed) was an 88-year-old white supremist.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The suspect in the Holocaust memorial shooting (in which one security guard was killed) was an 88-year-old white supremist.

Yep. Again, I don't see holocaust denial as being the center of a conservative revolution creating a 4T transformation. Still, like shooting an abortion doctor or someone maintaining a speed trap, we have conservatives out there that are angry to the point of violence. Such actions might be noted as part of the spiral.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The suspect in the Holocaust memorial shooting (in which one security guard was killed) was an 88-year-old white supremist.

It's bizarre to think that this may be the one of the last GIs ever to make national headlines for an act committed in the present day. And it's even more disturbing to reflect on the fact that a significant part of the generation that fought the war thought the U.S. was on the wrong side.

-----

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The suspect in the Holocaust memorial shooting (in which one security guard was killed) was an 88-year-old white supremist.

I heard about this on the radio, checked my blogs, and immediately came here. I'm furious. The staff at the Holocaust museum in DC were extremely kind to me and a ragtag group of friends who were exploring the Capital area last Fourth of July weekend. (To give some context, we were a group of young African American folks, dressed for the hot weather, with no indication of educational or socioeconomic status... and our tour guide was, ahem, pretty loud.) They are one of the only institutions on the Mall that let us use their restroom without paying for entry. We were so grateful until we decided to stop for lunch there, and I was excited about going back with friends from my grad program this year.

NOTHING, but nothing, makes me angrier than anti-Semitism... not even slavery, Jim Crow, or racism. I have a personal stake in this; many of my best friends and mentors throughout childhood were Jewish, and many of my current friends and advisors are Jewish. A Jewish shopkeeper took in my great-grandmother when she fled to the North with her three young sons during the Red Summer of 1919. She lived above his store with his family until she could get her own place; he hired her three boys to work in the shop. Here in SE Michigan, Jews were the only people who would sell homes to African American middle class families. You can trace our outmigration over the past 100 years to that of Detroit-area Jews. (So of course, African-American anti-semites really, really tick me off. Classic case of "oppressed mimicking the oppressor.")

When I taught mostly African American kids in Detroit, I always taught a unit on the Holocaust, even when some Afrocentric parents complained to the principal. When I called and wrote to our local Jewish community, they helped with arranging a field trip to the local Holocaust museum, and a survivor came for lunch and conversation with the entire fifth grade.

I hate that my Jewish friends have to deal with this symbolic act of violence. I hate that the guard who was targeted and killed just happened to be black. And I also am feeling a little more conspicuous today: I've never met an anti-Semite who didn't think that we were subhuman, too.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yep. Again, I don't see holocaust denial as being the center of a conservative revolution creating a 4T transformation. Still, like shooting an abortion doctor or someone maintaining a speed trap, we have conservatives out there that are angry to the point of violence. Such actions might be noted as part of the spiral.

I can only hope these are isolated individuals, Bob, like there were during the Clinton presidency. IIRC, that was the last time there was a spate of abortion clinic violence, and of course, the OKC bombing.

But I began monitoring fringe blogs and websites last year while volunteering for the Obama campaign... I was a little worried back then. The speech on some of those sites is absolutely frightening.

I am thankful for the First Amendment, and think that these sites should be allowed. This way, the authorities can more easily monitor people who might decide they want to take out their frustrations on the nearest available scapegoated target. I am not advocating the punishment of "thoughtcrime"; far from it. I am just interested in saving lives.

The invective of "leaders" on both sides of the aisle needs to be watched as well. I wouldn't put it past this country to become the 21st century answer to the Weimar Republic, if conditions were dire enough.

Originally Posted by MJC

It's bizarre to think that this may be the one of the last GIs ever to make national headlines for an act committed in the present day. And it's even more disturbing to reflect on the fact that a significant part of the generation that fought the war thought the U.S. was on the wrong side.

Well, the Boomers have been saying that the "Greatest Generation" wasn't so great after all, which is why they rebelled so spectacularly.

As for fighting on the wrong side, Phil Roth's alternate history novel The Plot Against America definitely makes a chilling case for an United States government that sympathizes with the Third Reich.

Again, while a tragedy, this is another isolated incident and doesn't represent a trend toward the type of violence we saw in the 1960's. I would be very surprised if it happened, because I don't think the Millenial gen has the stomach for it. They have no doubt heard stories of that earlier time and decided against a repeat. Although in some ways I don't think a revolution in this country is impossible. Given the circumstances, it could happen. But remember that when there is one you don't always get something better in its place. Think Cuba.

Earlier in the Unravelling, the Progressive Moral Philospher and Incendiary Puerilette, Ms. J. Reno, informed us to be on guard for those who would obtain and/or store such objects as the Constitution, the Bible, firearms-- I think we ought watch the markets for Commercial Republican purchases or barterings of:


Sacred Texts {I would be more liberal and add such as the Orang-outang Theology of On the Origin of Species and Feynman's Lectures, etc. as well as the I-Ching and the KJV.}


Constitutions (National and for the Several States, Town Charters, etc.) {Again, I would liberally add any and all interest in Political Writing earlier than "That Man"}

Machinery that would advance a projectile: atlatl to Uzi, crossbow to slingshot.

The Spiral of Commerce in any and all would be a sign of things to come; a citizenry well divined, well read, and well armed is most horrible to contemplate in this late Unravelling, much less in the Coming Crisis.((((((shudder)))))) A restoration of Consumer Spending might not be advisable if it spent on things that hie a Commercial Republican cochlear advance.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

No nation with nuclear weapons and ICBMs need ever maintain a significant army. Such weapons are more than sufficient to deter attack by anything other than terrorists and a conventional army is pointless overkill against terrorist groups. The U.S. military could be stripped down to nuclear missiles, subs, spec ops and drones and we would still be unconquerable and we'd spend about a quarter of what we currently do.

Of course, such a military would not allow for imperial adventures, nor would it fatten the wallets of a galaxy of government contractors -- thus, the bloated, wasteful, belligerent military we actually have. The military I describe above in no way constitutes "disarmament" since the capacity for the U.S. to defend itself would not change in the slightest.

Ah, but you forget - the nukes and missiles and other items you claim we could make do with (and not need anything else) are almost always the first things the apostles of unilateral dsiarmament demand we get rid of, to be rapidly followed by the items you want to get rid of. All for the sake of world peace, of course - even if everyone else remains armed, often to the teeth.

An 88-year-old, violent neo-Nazi would have to be very lonely. To give you some idea of how old he is, he is older than this vile creature convicted and hanged for, among other things, for having dogs attack prisoners in Nazi prison camps. I can hardly imagine a more horrific way to die; crocodiles drown their victims, and big cats have the decency for a quick kill at the neck. Dogs, wolves, and bears rip a large victim victim to pieces. That's one thing that Holocaust deniers deny: the almost pure injustice that is Nazism.

My sympathy goes out to the innocent victim of a mad act.

.....

For a real menace to America as 4T violence we can ignore the ideologies of the last 4T. What goes on in Mexico, the war between drug traffickers and the police, could spill into any American city. We already have the gangs whose leaders are flush with cash but empty of morals and have copious weaponry and armor at their disposal. The decapitated body of a human being being dangled from an overpass in Mexico is disgusting in the extreme. If it is your town's chief of police, a district attorney, or a school principal so displayed from an American overpass.... God help us.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Ah, but you forget - the nukes and missiles and other items you claim we could make do with (and not need anything else) are almost always the first things the apostles of unilateral dsiarmament demand we get rid of, to be rapidly followed by the items you want to get rid of. All for the sake of world peace, of course - even if everyone else remains armed, often to the teeth.

Yes, but between total disarmament and the invasion and occupation of large parts of the middle east, there is the option of actual defense. You seem unwilling to consider that option and prefer to joust with an imaginary legion of pacifists.

Unless, of course, I'm misreading you and you would actually favor a 75% cut in the military budget. Somehow, I doubt that, though.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Yes, but between total disarmament and the invasion and occupation of large parts of the middle east, there is the option of actual defense. You seem unwilling to consider that option and prefer to joust with an imaginary legion of pacifists.

Unless, of course, I'm misreading you and you would actually favor a 75% cut in the military budget. Somehow, I doubt that, though.

I always viewed our nukes as being more of a final option or a final resort.

As I see it, the "lone wolf" type of terrorist such as this museum shooting is what is most likely to plague America in the 4T. We are in what in eight stroke terms is called a moral crises. It is likely that marginal individuals will act on the "word of their inner god" moreso than the bleatings of a Hitler, Mao or a Manson.

And that makes for a more difficult security situation. There's just no perfect protection from private thoughts.
It is quite likely that as pragmantic X'ers come to dominate midlife and protected millies come of age in a dangerous world, that the ensuing survivalist/outer driven gestault will carry far enough into the recovery so as the lead to a yearning for the awakening possibly before the X'ers start disappearing into history.
But we are learning to live an outerly aware life as needs to be done by a people who are early in a 4T.

Paul Krugman of the NY Times talks about the far right spiral of violence and main steam conservatism's support of it in The Big Hate He mentions Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as part of the picture, and mentions the recent museum and abortion murders.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Yes, but between total disarmament and the invasion and occupation of large parts of the middle east, there is the option of actual defense. You seem unwilling to consider that option and prefer to joust with an imaginary legion of pacifists.

Unless, of course, I'm misreading you and you would actually favor a 75% cut in the military budget. Somehow, I doubt that, though.

How about maintaining our present level of forces, but deployed to defend the North American continent (at least I would hope Canada would be with us on this! Otherwise, we would have to abandon Alaska and Hawaii, as well as Puerto Rico, et al.)? It could be called 'defensive militarism' - something the Eastern Roman Empire was familiar with.

I'll leave advocating an at least 75 % slashing of the defense budget to you.

Also, I thought of one other objection to a 'nukes only' defensive strategy - a moral one. There you're talking about threatening the near-annihilation of Humanity if we're ever invaded. Even Khrushchev backed off from that idea, when it was presented to him in 1961.

If we made that threat our sole defense, it would multiply the world's already bitter hatred for us, that we would be saying that we're capable of such a thing. It would also announce that we had become a nation of cowards who no longer dared to face an enemy on the battlefield, but hid behind our nukes instead. Add (amply justified!) contempt to bitter hatred at that point.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I always viewed our nukes as being more of a final option or a final resort.

Really, they're a never resort. By having them, you make it too costly for anyone to attack in the first place. As an offensive weapon, nukes are useless. Using them against someone who has nukes is suicidal and using them against someone who doesn't is monstrous overkill.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Really, they're a never resort. By having them, you make it too costly for anyone to attack in the first place. As an offensive weapon, nukes are useless. Using them against someone who has nukes is suicidal and using them against someone who doesn't is monstrous overkill.

What happens if someone calls your bluff, and you have nothing else (as you advocate.)?

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

How about maintaining our present level of forces, but deployed to defend the North American continent

Against what, exactly?

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Also, I thought of one other objection to a 'nukes only' defensive strategy - a moral one. There you're talking about threatening the near-annihilation of Humanity if we're ever invaded.

This threat is implicit in the mere ownership of a large number of nuclear weapons. You don't need to state the threat at all.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

If we made that threat our sole defense, it would multiply the world's already bitter hatred for us, that we would be saying that we're capable of such a thing.

Everyone already knows we are. I think the world would rejoice to know that we no longer possessed an offensive military. The only thing we use all those troops for is to attack countries that can't meaningfully fight back.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

It would also announce that we had become a nation of cowards who no longer dared to face an enemy on the battlefield, but hid behind our nukes instead.

Look at things from the perspective of the average citizen of a developing world country without nukes. Which would you prefer, an unassailable nuclear power that minds it own business or one that rains "mere" conventional bombs on you whenever they don't like your government? I know which one I'd pick.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Against what, exactly?

Against anyone minded to attack us - a list which would grow exponentially if they thought they could get away with it.

I think the world would rejoice to know that we no longer possessed an offensive military.

They'd rejoice, then they'd attack.

Bottom line; you would be asking the American people to trust people whom you seem to realize, as I do, hate us with every fiber of their being, always have, and always will, to refrain from doing something about that bitter hatred, given half a chance. I know better.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Really, they're a never resort. By having them, you make it too costly for anyone to attack in the first place. As an offensive weapon, nukes are useless. Using them against someone who has nukes is suicidal and using them against someone who doesn't is monstrous overkill.

Well, if that's the case, why are you advocating that we turn nukes into our primary weapons. You do realize, we would have to use one from time to time as well.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, if that's the case, why are you advocating that we turn nukes into our primary weapons? You do realize, we would have to use one from time to time as well.

Try: our ONLY weapons, in his scenario! Same Achilles' heel problem, of course!

"Not a good idea" doesn't even BEGIN to describe that plan.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, if that's the case, why are you advocating that we turn nukes into our primary weapons. You do realize, we would have to use one from time to time as well.

Why? Are you saying that the US would get invaded "from time to time"?

By who and why?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why? Are you saying that the US would get invaded "from time to time"?

By who and why?

No, I was saying we would have to launch a nuke from time to time to keep segments of the world and its crazies in line. Plus, a nation without troops acting as buffers would also require a standing pre-emptive war type policey. We'd have to bsically nuke invasion forces before they attempted a large scale invasion. We don't want to nuke invasion forces on our own turf. Something tells me, Americans wouldn't like getting nuked by their own nukes. So, we'd have to nuke Russia before it invaded Alaska or Canada.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

No, I was saying we would have to launch a nuke from time to time to keep segments of the world and its crazies in line.

Hm. The whole point of a noninterventionist foreign policy is that why should we care what 'crazies' in the rest of the world are doing. They leave us alone, we leave them alone. Nuking people not attacking you -- no matter how weird and smelly and noisy they are -- is sort of counter-the-point.

Plus, a nation without troops acting as buffers would also require a standing pre-emptive war type policey. We'd have to bsically nuke invasion forces before they attempted a large scale invasion.

Fortunately, the USA doesn't need to make any buffers of its own. If you look to your left, and then to your right, you might notice a pair of large wet patches that go way, way off beyond the horizon. Unless you fear the Mexican or Canadian armies (not to diminsh the threat from the Great White North) of invasion, you've got nothing even remotely nearby to buffer from. The USA is in a pretty uniquely awesome position from that standpoint, and there's no reason not to make the most of the benefits nature has provided you.