In the US, there is a doctrine of Posse Comitatus, which prohibits using the US military for police functions, except in extremes in which martial law has been declared.
In those cases where it has been necessary to call up the military, it has almost always been the National Guard, and specifically the Guard of the state in which the unrest is occurring, under command of that Govenor. A couple of cases in which shooting ensued come to mind, a set of coal mine strikes and Kent State.
It causes an awful lot of grief, but local soldiers will fire on local rioters.
The Inca were apparently masters of the game of drafting armies from one area and moving them to another. This is right out of Sun Tsu ... move an army away from its home so they cannot slip away to the comforts thereof. The Inca used captive subjects from one province to control another.
The path to world peace
You don't have to look that far back. The Austro-Hungarians did that as recently as the beginning of XX century. Italian soldiers from Venice stationed in Hungary, Hungarians in Prague, Czechs in Croatia, etc, etc. The idea was different though, the troops did not speak the local language and could not sympathize with the locals. Not that it helped much in the end.The Inca were apparently masters of the game of drafting armies from one area and moving them to another. This is right out of Sun Tsu ... move an army away from its home so they cannot slip away to the comforts thereof. The Inca used captive subjects from one province to control another.
Well, one has to say that while the Emperor Ferdinand was not very popular (March revolution and Metternichs terror regime), his successor Franz Joseph was. There was no need for him to use force of any kind in order to stay in power. He was a rather nice guy actually, pretty sad too.The Austro-Hungarians did that as recently as the beginning of XX century. Italian soldiers from Venice stationed in Hungary, Hungarians in Prague, Czechs in Croatia, etc, etc. The idea was different though, the troops did not speak the local language and could not sympathize with the locals. Not that it helped much in the end.
In the words of the immortal actor, "frankly, my dear, I just don't give a darn."Skipjack wrote:It is good to be prepared for the worst, no question about it. But right now, advertising this sort of thinking can make you rather unpopular on the world stage.In the mean time peace through superior firepower.
There are many ways around Posse Comitatus...the actual law guidance gives the most liberal/used one, it essentially says; if you put it in writing you can use the military. Joint Task Force Six is a great (ongoing) example.Tom Ligon wrote:In the US, there is a doctrine of Posse Comitatus, which prohibits using the US military for police functions, except in extremes in which martial law has been declared.
In those cases where it has been necessary to call up the military, it has almost always been the National Guard, and specifically the Guard of the state in which the unrest is occurring, under command of that Govenor. A couple of cases in which shooting ensued come to mind, a set of coal mine strikes and Kent State.
It causes an awful lot of grief, but local soldiers will fire on local rioters.
The Inca were apparently masters of the game of drafting armies from one area and moving them to another. This is right out of Sun Tsu ... move an army away from its home so they cannot slip away to the comforts thereof. The Inca used captive subjects from one province to control another.
Msimon, it is pointless to discuss peace and deescalation with people like you and some others on this board.
Fact is that China and Taiwan signed a trade agreement (to get back to the original topic) and that is due to the globalization of economies. This is a trend that will continue and ideological boundaries can only slow it down, not prevent it.
Fact is that China and Taiwan signed a trade agreement (to get back to the original topic) and that is due to the globalization of economies. This is a trend that will continue and ideological boundaries can only slow it down, not prevent it.
Skipjack wrote:Msimon, it is pointless to discuss peace and deescalation with people like you and some others on this board.
Fact is that China and Taiwan signed a trade agreement (to get back to the original topic) and that is due to the globalization of economies. This is a trend that will continue and ideological boundaries can only slow it down, not prevent it.
Anyone here ever read "The Rhineman Exchange" ?
I'm glad to hear that globalization prevented WW1.
And WW2? Well it is commonly attributed to perceived weakness.
So what can we learn from that? Economic interests don't prevent war. The best deterrent is a strong hegemon who is tolerable to most nations.
And WW2? Well it is commonly attributed to perceived weakness.
So what can we learn from that? Economic interests don't prevent war. The best deterrent is a strong hegemon who is tolerable to most nations.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There is an idea I've used in several stories, and I still think it is true. What follows is an excerpt from "Payback" (Analog July/August 2009), in a conversation between a Turkish cultural anthropologist and the UN Secretary General (a Nez Perce), trying to understand the motives of Evil Aliens who attacked Earth:
“Do you know what causes wars?” Dr. Sariskal asked.
“I have my own notions, but I’d love to hear yours.”
“Wars have been blamed on arms races, and on failure to arm. They have been blamed on starvation and on plenty. They have been blamed on people hating others they have little in common with, but more wars occur between close neighbors of similar culture. An angry populace may make it easy to go to war, but that is not why they start. The basic truth is, war is caused by exactly one condition: the leadership of at least one side sees an advantage in going to war. That is the sole common cause of all wars.”
Since the thread is supposed to be about achieving world peace, I would suggest that preventing war means preventing leaders from having any reason to believe they will benefit from it. The reason globalization of the economy tends to promote peace is that, on the whole, war hurts a globalized economy, and so erodes the support of leaders that encourage it. But this is not universally true. Local politics are what really motivate leaders. If their countries do not feel they benefit from the global economy, they may rile the population with talk of war, or acts of war. This is why we are having trouble with Iran and North Korea, and have testy relations with Russia. Local politics in response to the attack of the US by Al Qaeda caused the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq despite the inevitable negative impact on our economy and relations with other governments. Local politics caused the Taliban to rise to power and offer sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Local politics, with ambitions to expand "local" to include the entire ME, drove Saddam's reign.
“Do you know what causes wars?” Dr. Sariskal asked.
“I have my own notions, but I’d love to hear yours.”
“Wars have been blamed on arms races, and on failure to arm. They have been blamed on starvation and on plenty. They have been blamed on people hating others they have little in common with, but more wars occur between close neighbors of similar culture. An angry populace may make it easy to go to war, but that is not why they start. The basic truth is, war is caused by exactly one condition: the leadership of at least one side sees an advantage in going to war. That is the sole common cause of all wars.”
Since the thread is supposed to be about achieving world peace, I would suggest that preventing war means preventing leaders from having any reason to believe they will benefit from it. The reason globalization of the economy tends to promote peace is that, on the whole, war hurts a globalized economy, and so erodes the support of leaders that encourage it. But this is not universally true. Local politics are what really motivate leaders. If their countries do not feel they benefit from the global economy, they may rile the population with talk of war, or acts of war. This is why we are having trouble with Iran and North Korea, and have testy relations with Russia. Local politics in response to the attack of the US by Al Qaeda caused the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq despite the inevitable negative impact on our economy and relations with other governments. Local politics caused the Taliban to rise to power and offer sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Local politics, with ambitions to expand "local" to include the entire ME, drove Saddam's reign.