Conquer Club

I understand what Patches is saying - regardless of whatever bookish legitimacy we assign to the expropriation or repatriation of property ... rights, law and legitimacy is meaningless in the absence of (a) a regime to enforce it through violence, (b) the sudden death of all humans who are inclined to risk the safety of others to disobey the law (which is unlikely).

I don't think he's suggesting a survival of the fittest regime in international law, just that an egalitarian regime still requires violence to enforce its egalitarianism.

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Basically, this is a story where ARG declares its own sovereignty and claims lands which its military could not prevent foreign armed forces from taking. The question becomes: "is right by conquest legitimate?"

Given history, the answer to that question is a resounding "yes".....

Think of it this way: if my friends and I busted into your family's house, shot your parents and asked them to leave, would I then have a legitimate claim to your property?

In the absence of any police or governing body to intervene and I lack the will to kill you and your bushwacking friends? Yep, the property is now yours. At least until someone else comes along and takes the house from you and your friends.....

Wait, why do your parents lose their legitimate claim to their property if they lack effective enough means of rightfully reclaiming it?

If you have a legitimate claim to property, it's still your property until you voluntarily exchange the property rights to someone else. Exchanges made under duress aren't legitimate; otherwise, there would be no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate...

You can make whatever laws, contracts or agreements you want, but if you don't have the ability or the will to back up those claims with force, then you don't really have anything, do you?

Force, the will and ability to use it, is the basis for which all things are "legitimate".

The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned. The use of force/ enforcement is a separate issue. Enforcement can be used for restoring or protecting your legitimate claims, but it never grants you the "basis for legitimacy." Enforcement can be used to carry out the laws of a dictator as well, and according to your logic, Stalin had legitimate claim on the lives of all he purged and relocated because "might makes right (essentially)." Legitimacy and enforcement are distinct concepts...

For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.


It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

patches70 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:What of rights, then? Do they exist? Or can they be merely taken away by force?

Consider, GreecePwns, the US Constitution and all the "rights" we in the US enjoy. How is it that we came about having them?

Had the Founding Fathers lost the Revolution they would have been hung from the gallows and with their deaths so would have died the Declaration and our supposed "rights".

All rights are ultimately won on the battlefield. Once won, those rights can be passed down to future generations, but to gain those rights in the first place it takes force.
You can claim rights come from God, or a piece of paper, but when a fellow puts a gun in your face God ain't gonna save you and that piece of paper won't stop that bullet. You have to be prepared to defend your rights.

Rights are not won. They're enforced.

Rights aren't something that are gained. They're just a concept, an idea, which already exists.

patches70 wrote:Take BBS example, he and his buddies kill my parents and take their house, has my property rights been lost? Let's say "no", then what am I to do about it? Should I go to BBS and say "Oh, legally this property is rightfully mine. You and your friends will have to leave now". If he tells me to piss off, then what? Wave a piece of paper in his face?

If there are police I'd call them and they would use force to uphold my property rights by taking BBS and his buddies under arrest, if they resisted the police would just shoot them. Application of force both.

Without the benefit of police, army or anyone else to uphold my property rights, it would then fall upon myself to uphold those property rights myself. It would take the will and capacity for me to use violence to secure what is "rightfully" mine.

Without the ability to apply force, rights will always be arbitrary and in the hands of the meanest dog on the block. We like to think of ourselves as "civilized" and everyone voluntarily respects each other's rights, but underlying all the rights we enjoy is the threat of application of force from police, militia or armed forces protecting those rights. Force, violence and the threat of violence is the power that upholds "legitimacy". It's only legitimate because of that force. All the philosophical musings make no difference to people who don't give a crap about your philosophical musings on the nature and origin of rights. In those times, against those people, violence is the only option left, save giving up your claim all together. That's always and option as well.

When the day comes that mankind no longer needs that threat of violence to protect what is right and proper, is the day mankind finds Utopia. I doubt it will be coming in the near future.......

No, legitimacy is totally different and independent from enforcement.

If I'm a dictator, and I have my army take 80% of everyone's wealth without their permission, my actions are not legitimate simply because my goons beat people up and took their stuff. Your position holds no distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy, and legitimacy is not arbitrary because it's grounded in rightfulness. If we take property rights and voluntary exchange to be the basis of legitimate title transfers, then hey, we have a reasonable standard for legitimacy.

How is the ability to engage in involuntary exchanges (i.e. theft) a reasonable standard for legitimate claims to property?

saxitoxin wrote:I understand what Patches is saying - regardless of whatever bookish legitimacy we assign to the expropriation or repatriation of property ... rights, law and legitimacy is meaningless in the absence of (a) a regime to enforce it through violence, (b) the sudden death of all humans who are inclined to risk the safety of others to disobey the law (which is unlikely).

I don't think he's suggesting a survival of the fittest regime in international law, just that an egalitarian regime still requires violence to enforce its egalitarianism.

Legitimacy and rights are still meaningful concepts, even in the absence of (a)... (I'm not sure what you mean by (b), but it sounds exciting) because we still have notions of property rights and legitimacy even without (a) a regime through violence.


For example, if I took your pen, would you really require a "regime to enforce [your property rights] through violence" in order to restore your property?

Careful BBS, you're straying dangerously close to the common sense answer of considering the opinions of the Falkland Islanders.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.


It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

That's an interesting scenario.

If they did it would instantly reveal the location of all their nuclear weapons, since they're all stored on a single submarine, which would invite a devastating counter strike on Britain, or at least an attack to take-out the oil platforms in the North Sea, by one of the other nuclear powers; it would be an unheard-of opportunity for another nuclear power to suddenly know the precise location of every weapon of a second nuclear power. At the very least it would inspire Brazil to restart their nuclear weapons program, and probably Venezuela to start one. While the mullahs and imams dukes and viscounts running Britain are irrational enough to do it, for the last two reasons I don't think the U.S. would permit the UK to launch.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned. The use of force/ enforcement is a separate issue. Enforcement can be used for restoring or protecting your legitimate claims, but it never grants you the "basis for legitimacy." Enforcement can be used to carry out the laws of a dictator as well. Legitimacy and enforcement are distinct concepts...

For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

What's legitimate and what's not legitimate is decided by TPTB. China walks in and takes Tibet. We say it's not legitimate, the Chinese say otherwise.
Israel took Jerusalem and now claim it as theirs and call it legitimate, others disagree.

Russia marched across Eastern Europe and brought down the Iron Curtain. To the Russians it was legitimate, to the US it was not. The US either lacked the will or the force required to see otherwise, so therefore Russian dominance over Eastern Europe was in effect quite legitimate. At least, until Russia not longer had the will or ability to hold on to those claims of "legitimacy" and lost their territories. Those who took the territories (the people living there) claim their own right to do so. And so it is, what is legitimate one day is not the next. It all depends on who has the will and ability to see to their claim.

I suppose you might just be playing devil's advocate. The Right of Conquest and the Spoils of War have always been legitimate prizes throughout history. France and England took spoils from Germany after WWI and called it legitimate and in doing so seeded the future war. At the time, Germany lacked the ability to apply force to dispute the allies legitimate claims and it took the Huns a good 20+ years before they could do something about.
The US attacked Iraq and called it legitimate, and it was, did not Congress vote to use force? It became quite legitimate as far as the US was concerned.
The US (and Europe) bombed the hell out of Libya and called it legitimate. And so it is. Ole Gadaffi lay dead now, sodomized just before he was killed and it is all legit.
Saddam Hussein, legitimate leader of Iraq captured and tried. He was entirely correct when he said the Iraqi court which tried him did not have the legitimate right tto try him, for all the good that did Saddam as history shows us. He lacked the ability to apply force to uphold his legitimate claim where as the court that tried him had all the force required to try, convict and hang him dead.


In two sides of a dispute both are going to say they have a legitimate claim. Who is right? Who is wrong? Well, after they fight, the one left standing must be right....LOL

I'm not arguing the merits or the morality or the ethics of such, only that it exists and is a fundamental truth. I know you already know these things.

As to Trade and Theft being the same thing, there are certain....extreme Libertarian views (and anarchist, Marxist and other such philosophies) that argue Property is Theft. To them that's a legitimate claim. Depends on ones philosophy, Trade and Theft might just be the same thing. I don't happen to believe that, BTW, but if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be. Unless of course, I could muster a greater amount of force to prove them wrong.....

BBS wrote:The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned.

Tell that to the native Americans.....
Or any of the other multitude of peoples displaced, massacred and their property taken and the action called "legal" and "legitimate".

BBS wrote:For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

It's that easy? Hmmm, if in your example of you and your buddies taking over my parents house, if I stormed in there and wasted you all (a legitimate use of force would you say?) and your family after the fact takes exception that I shot you and your buddies dead, they might feel they have a legitimate reason to exact "justice" (revenge) upon me. No matter my claims of the "legitimacy" of me using force upon you to protect my property rights.
Hell, a court of law would label me a "vigilante" and toss me right in prison for that.
An illegitimate use of force they'd call it.

BBS wrote:If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

When the US does it, it's legitimate. When Iran does it, it's "aggression" and illegal. When the UK took colonies, forcibly and using force to hold those colonies, it was legitimate. The US in it's Revolution is considered by Americans as "legitimate" where as to the Brits, it was treason and thus not legitimate.

It's all in the details and depends from which angle you view it. Philosophically you can make a determination of what is and isn't legitimate, but all that means absolutely nothing if you do not have the ability to apply it. Without the force backing the claim of legitimacy, then whatever it is one thinks is legitimate won't be for very long. Someone else enacting their own "legitimate" claim will just come in and take it from you, and afterward call it "legal".

That's just how it is. I find it naive of people to not understand the role of violence in the application of natural rights, legal rights and all other things men and nations label as "legitimate".

A mob boss would consider it a legitimate use of force to waste the deadbeat who skipped out on his loanshark. The State would have another view of this I'd wager.
It's all in the pudding.

saxitoxin wrote:I understand what Patches is saying - regardless of whatever bookish legitimacy we assign to the expropriation or repatriation of property ... rights, law and legitimacy is meaningless in the absence of (a) a regime to enforce it through violence, (b) the sudden death of all humans who are inclined to risk the safety of others to disobey the law (which is unlikely).

I don't think he's suggesting a survival of the fittest regime in international law, just that an egalitarian regime still requires violence to enforce its egalitarianism.

This is correct.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.


It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

That's an interesting scenario.

If they did it would instantly reveal the location of all their nuclear weapons, since they're all stored on a single submarine, which would invite a devastating counter strike on Britain, or at least an attack to take-out the oil platforms in the North Sea, by one of the other nuclear powers; it would be an unheard-of opportunity for another nuclear power to suddenly know the precise location of every weapon of a second nuclear power. At the very least it would inspire Brazil to restart their nuclear weapons program, and probably Venezuela to start one. While the mullahs and imams dukes and viscounts running Britain are irrational enough to do it, for the last two reasons I don't think the U.S. would permit the UK to launch.

If ARG invaded the seas nearby Proper UK (i.e. by Continental Europe), then NATO would definitely get involved. Since ARG would want to avoid that likelihood, I wouldn't expect them to attack those oil platforms.

Wait... you just said "an attack... by one of the other nuclear powers." Why would any country join ARG in their war against UK, and most likely NATO (unless the US calls for peace)???

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned. The use of force/ enforcement is a separate issue. Enforcement can be used for restoring or protecting your legitimate claims, but it never grants you the "basis for legitimacy." Enforcement can be used to carry out the laws of a dictator as well. Legitimacy and enforcement are distinct concepts...

For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

What's legitimate and what's not legitimate is decided by TPTB. China walks in and takes Tibet. We say it's not legitimate, the Chinese say otherwise.
Israel took Jerusalem and now claim it as theirs and call it legitimate, others disagree.

Russia marched across Eastern Europe and brought down the Iron Curtain. To the Russians it was legitimate, to the US it was not. The US either lacked the will or the force required to see otherwise, so therefore Russian dominance over Eastern Europe was in effect quite legitimate. At least, until Russia not longer had the will or ability to hold on to those claims of "legitimacy" and lost their territories. Those who took the territories (the people living there) claim their own right to do so. And so it is, what is legitimate one day is not the next. It all depends on who has the will and ability to see to their claim.

I suppose you might just be playing devil's advocate. The Right of Conquest and the Spoils of War have always been legitimate prizes throughout history. France and England took spoils from Germany after WWI and called it legitimate and in doing so seeded the future war. At the time, Germany lacked the ability to apply force to dispute the allies legitimate claims and it took the Huns a good 20+ years before they could do something about.
The US attacked Iraq and called it legitimate, and it was, did not Congress vote to use force? It became quite legitimate as far as the US was concerned.
The US (and Europe) bombed the hell out of Libya and called it legitimate. And so it is. Ole Gadaffi lay dead now, sodomized just before he was killed and it is all legit.
Saddam Hussein, legitimate leader of Iraq captured and tried. He was entirely correct when he said the Iraqi court which tried him did not have the legitimate right tto try him, for all the good that did Saddam as history shows us. He lacked the ability to apply force to uphold his legitimate claim where as the court that tried him had all the force required to try, convict and hang him dead.


In two sides of a dispute both are going to say they have a legitimate claim. Who is right? Who is wrong? Well, after they fight, the one left standing must be right....LOL

I'm not arguing the merits or the morality or the ethics of such, only that it exists and is a fundamental truth. I know you already know these things.

As to Trade and Theft being the same thing, there are certain....extreme Libertarian views (and anarchist, Marxist and other such philosophies) that argue Property is Theft. To them that's a legitimate claim. Depends on ones philosophy, Trade and Theft might just be the same thing. I don't happen to believe that, BTW, but if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be. Unless of course, I could muster a greater amount of force to prove them wrong.....

BBS wrote:The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned.

Tell that to the native Americans.....
Or any of the other multitude of peoples displaced, massacred and their property taken and the action called "legal" and "legitimate".

BBS wrote:For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

It's that easy? Hmmm, if in your example of you and your buddies taking over my parents house, if I stormed in there and wasted you all (a legitimate use of force would you say?) and your family after the fact takes exception that I shot you and your buddies dead, they might feel they have a legitimate reason to exact "justice" (revenge) upon me. No matter my claims of the "legitimacy" of me using force upon you to protect my property rights.
Hell, a court of law would label me a "vigilante" and toss me right in prison for that.
An illegitimate use of force they'd call it.

BBS wrote:If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

When the US does it, it's legitimate. When Iran does it, it's "aggression" and illegal. When the UK took colonies, forcibly and using force to hold those colonies, it was legitimate. The US in it's Revolution is considered by Americans as "legitimate" where as to the Brits, it was treason and thus not legitimate.

It's all in the details and depends from which angle you view it. Philosophically you can make a determination of what is and isn't legitimate, but all that means absolutely nothing if you do not have the ability to apply it. Without the force backing the claim of legitimacy, then whatever it is one thinks is legitimate won't be for very long. Someone else enacting their own "legitimate" claim will just come in and take it from you, and afterward call it "legal".

That's just how it is. I find it naive of people to not understand the role of violence in the application of natural rights, legal rights and all other things men and nations label as "legitimate".

A mob boss would consider it a legitimate use of force to waste the deadbeat who skipped out on his loanshark. The State would have another view of this I'd wager.
It's all in the pudding.

I know how it works, patches, and I'm not naive about that. We're talking about legitimacy. rights, and enforcement, so keep it relevant please.

Here's the problem. I'm applying these concepts using methodological individualism (basically, at the individual level), and I'm coming from a position which distinguishes between "legitimate" and "illegitimate," explains the difference between enforcement and the idea of rights (e.g. property rights), and understands the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchanges. Your position just smooshes all those together without explaining why. You just keep saying, "well, use of force is the justification." Your position can't tell the difference between theft and voluntary trade... (that still makes no sense).


Your position is basically "it's legitimate because the nation-state says so," which is just as nonsensical as the "divine right of the king" or the "Mandate of Heaven" claim. If you're going to appeal to authority, I can still ask the question: why? So, you're still lacking good reasons for your argument.

Just because nation-states invade land, kill a bunch of people, and sign treaties with parties under duress, it still doesn't follow that the exchange was legitimate or voluntary. Why? Because we can hold the actions of governments to an objective standard, e.g. property rights, voluntary exchange, etc. If we agree on these things, then we have a standard of legitimacy, and can then distinguish between armed robbery and trade.

As to Trade and Theft being the same thing, there are certain....extreme Libertarian views (and anarchist, Marxist and other such philosophies) that argue Property is Theft. To them that's a legitimate claim. Depends on ones philosophy, Trade and Theft might just be the same thing. I don't happen to believe that, BTW, but if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be. Unless of course, I could muster a greater amount of force to prove them wrong.....

Force doesn't change the logic or reasons for one's legitimate claims.

"if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be."

You understand that such an action is not just, right? You can tell the difference between just and unjust, correct? If yes, then how so?

(If you say, "it's just because I can't effectively defend my property," or "because they took it by stronger force," then you have no meaningful concept of justice. Justice would equal injustice from such a position. That's contradictory, which is what's been driving me crazy about your arguments ITT)

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.


It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

That's an interesting scenario.

If they did it would instantly reveal the location of all their nuclear weapons, since they're all stored on a single submarine, which would invite a devastating counter strike on Britain, or at least an attack to take-out the oil platforms in the North Sea, by one of the other nuclear powers; it would be an unheard-of opportunity for another nuclear power to suddenly know the precise location of every weapon of a second nuclear power. At the very least it would inspire Brazil to restart their nuclear weapons program, and probably Venezuela to start one. While the mullahs and imams dukes and viscounts running Britain are irrational enough to do it, for the last two reasons I don't think the U.S. would permit the UK to launch.

If ARG invaded the seas nearby Proper UK (i.e. by Continental Europe), then NATO would definitely get involved. Since ARG would want to avoid that likelihood, I wouldn't expect them to attack those oil platforms.

Wait... you just said "an attack... by one of the other nuclear powers." Why would any country join ARG in their war against UK, and most likely NATO (unless the US calls for peace)???

Argentina doesn't have the capability to attack the UK proper. But, it's in the interest of all other nuclear powers, including the US, to see reverse proliferation and this would be a handy excuse to roll-back one state.

In my mind, I would expect Russia might be interested in taking out Clyde, Scotland - where Britain's unloaded nukes are stored - in the interest of international peace and stability in the face of an illegal first-use of nukes against a non-nuclear weapons state. It would be hard to imagine other NATO countries would have the political will to stand behind the UK in such a scenario and would probably signal a stand-down to let Russia engage in a limited attack on the UK (perhaps including an airburst over the North Sea to render the oil platforms unusable and cut-off Britain's supply of oil).

The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

I don't remember who it was, I think one of the JCS chairmen, who got in trouble back in the '70's for letting slip in an interview with some newspaper that the U.S. actually had no plans to ever use nuclear weapons to defend any of its allies; they would only ever use them if North America were attacked. (Seymour Hersh mentioned it in his book "The Samson Option" -- I'll see if I can find it.*)

* I was incorrect, it was Secretary of State Christian Herter who said "we won't engage in nuclear war unless we're in danger of all-out devastation ourselves." Hersh says this slip was the impetus for the start of the French nuclear program.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.


If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

saxitoxin wrote:I don't remember who it was, I think one of the JCS chairmen, who got in trouble back in the '70's for letting slip in an interview with some newspaper that the U.S. actually had no plans to ever use nuclear weapons to defend any of its allies; they would only ever use them if North America were attacked. (Seymour Hersh mentioned it in his book "The Samson Option" -- I'll see if I can find it.)

Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.


If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

It would be no gamble for Argentina. They've just had 20% of their population wiped out. Argentina wouldn't be able to protect themselves against Uruguay at that point. Russia would be the one on the offensive. They would have a fast window of opportunity to eliminate a regional competitor (UK) with no political or military blow-back.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

I just edited my post. It's on page 75 of The Samson Option.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.


If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

It would be no gamble for Argentina. They've just had 20% of their population wiped out. Argentina wouldn't be able to protect themselves against Uruguay at that point. Russia would be the one on the offensive. They would have a fast window of opportunity to eliminate a regional competitor (UK) with no political or military blow-back.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

I just edited my post. It's on page 75 of The Samson Option.

In sudden change of heart, I just decided that I DISAGREE. And NO, I will not back down. Damn your page 75!

Argentina has announced it will allow non-citizens to begin voting in elections.

I wonder why occupational authorities in Malvinas don't follow suit and allow non-citizens to vote in their so-called "democracy"?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... -olds-vote

saxitoxin wrote:Argentina has announced it will allow non-citizens to begin voting in elections.

I'm not a citizen of a lot of countries. I demand my vote.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Argentina has announced it will allow non-citizens to begin voting in elections.

I'm not a citizen of a lot of countries. I demand my vote.

You can have it in Argentina. Now will the "Falklands" let Argentines vote?

saxitoxin wrote:Now will the "Falklands" let Argentines vote?

I'm not sure how the Falklands have ever stopped Argentinians from voting.

New documents from South Atlantic War declassified - Reagan demanded Britain submit Isles Malvinas to UN control on the eve of British sneak attack on Puerto Soledad.

The papers detail how Thatcher urgently sought U.S. President Ronald Reagan's support when Argentina's intentions became clear, and reveal Thatcher's exasperation with Reagan when he suggested that Britain negotiate rather than demand Argentinian withdrawal.

The documents describe an unusual late night phone call from Reagan to Thatcher on May 31, 1982 — while British forces were beginning the battle for control of the Falklands capital — in which the president pressed the prime minister to put the islands in the hands of international peacekeepers rather than press for an Argentinian surrender.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... ml?cmp=rss

saxitoxin wrote:New documents from South Atlantic War declassified - Reagan demanded Britain submit Isles Malvinas to UN control on the eve of British sneak attack on Puerto Soledad.

The papers detail how Thatcher urgently sought U.S. President Ronald Reagan's support when Argentina's intentions became clear, and reveal Thatcher's exasperation with Reagan when he suggested that Britain negotiate rather than demand Argentinian withdrawal.

The documents describe an unusual late night phone call from Reagan to Thatcher on May 31, 1982 — while British forces were beginning the battle for control of the Falklands capital — in which the president pressed the prime minister to put the islands in the hands of international peacekeepers rather than press for an Argentinian surrender.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... ml?cmp=rss

Insert speculation on Thatcher's ideal man, and how the Argentinians fall below her standard; therefore, war.

Reagan 'demanded'. Really?

I do like one reader's reply though:

Thatcher's response to the Falklands crisis was entirely legitimate, in fact she had no other option. Roughly 2,000 islanders had fallen into the hands of an aggressive fascist dictatorship which had murdered 70,000 of its own people in extra-judicial killings. What NATO-backed western liberal democracy could ever allow that to happen without reaching for the military solution, if the opponent refused to accept only a complete withdrawal? She was lucky in so many regards though. She had the best-trained military in the world at her disposal and, more importantly, the British aircraft carriers that were due to be removed from service some months after the invasion were still serviceable at that point. The really shocking thing to emerge in these newly declassified documents is the position of the US. It seemed ready to place its utterly misguided and paranoid policy of backing any regime in South America as long as it wasn't 'communist' ahead of supporting its oldest and closest ally. As if the British government was ever going to send 250 military personel to die in the South Atlantic before handing the islands over to a joint US/Brazilian peace force just to appease a fascist junta (the US attempt at a late diplomatic solution).

Chariot of Fire wrote:Reagan 'demanded'. Really?

I do like one reader's reply though:

Thatcher's response to the Falklands crisis was entirely legitimate, in fact she had no other option. Roughly 2,000 islanders had fallen into the hands of an aggressive fascist dictatorship which had murdered 70,000 of its own people in extra-judicial killings. What NATO-backed western liberal democracy could ever allow that to happen without reaching for the military solution, if the opponent refused to accept only a complete withdrawal? She was lucky in so many regards though. She had the best-trained military in the world at her disposal and, more importantly, the British aircraft carriers that were due to be removed from service some months after the invasion were still serviceable at that point. The really shocking thing to emerge in these newly declassified documents is the position of the US. It seemed ready to place its utterly misguided and paranoid policy of backing any regime in South America as long as it wasn't 'communist' ahead of supporting its oldest and closest ally. As if the British government was ever going to send 250 military personel to die in the South Atlantic before handing the islands over to a joint US/Brazilian peace force just to appease a fascist junta (the US attempt at a late diplomatic solution).

the accepted figure is 13,000 persons killed during the National Reorganization Initiative, which is as unfortunate as the 3,500 British citizens murdered and disappeared in the UK - as a result of conflict with British government troops and pro-government death squads (i.e. UDF) - during the same period

next, I should like to play -



inflating the figure by 600% must be racially motivated to maximize the perception of Latin society as less civilized than Anglo-European; therefore, the reader's opinion is racist and can be ignored

the UK must hand over Isles Malvinas immediately and it should also enter negotiations regarding the peaceful transfer of Cornwall to Argentina, as compensation for losses Argentina incurred during the '82 conflict