China and Russia attack US satellites every day: Space Force general says(maggrand.com)
maggrand.com
China and Russia attack US satellites every day: Space Force general says
https://maggrand.com/china-and-russia-attack-us-satellites-every-day-space-force-general-says/
13 comments
You might be right, but the argument that we should tolerate China or Russia lasering our satellites because the US probably does things its citizens don't know about seems like it's missing something.
It's missing the history of independent nation states at peace i.e. this kind of "gunboat" diplomacy is as old as civilization itself and no major power have been able to curtail it's hawks from pulling stunts even when they wanted to and they rarely do.
State belligerence feels like such an intractable problem.
Did we overdo it in Yugoslavia? Did we underdo it in Syria? Are we always damned if we do, damned if we don't?
Do Russia and China simply care less than we do about avoiding violence?
Why does it happen that in our universe offense is so much easier than defense?
If I were military I'd die of stomach ulcers in a year.
Did we overdo it in Yugoslavia? Did we underdo it in Syria? Are we always damned if we do, damned if we don't?
Do Russia and China simply care less than we do about avoiding violence?
Why does it happen that in our universe offense is so much easier than defense?
If I were military I'd die of stomach ulcers in a year.
> Do Russia and China simply care less than we do about avoiding violence?
Are you asking this because they fucked with satellites presumably spying on them?
Are you asking this because they fucked with satellites presumably spying on them?
No, much more generally. Russia recently annexed Crimea and assassinated people in England. China's taking ocean, islands, maybe some of India, makes a lot of noise as if it will take Taiwan. Whereas we (at least used to) try to keep the peace, they seem to simply not give a fuck.
Using Yugoslavia as a counterpoint... The conflict created an open slave market where UN soldiers were ordered to guard against "war" but otherwise not get involved. This eventually grew into a European trade network that has enslaved hundreds of thousands of Eastern European women. Dwarfing any war casualty statistics from the war. European politicians have largely been able to brush this under the rug by using ethnicity as a wedge since the perpetrators are technically refugees and not white.
My point is, of all your examples this is the darkest humanitarian crisis but also the least obvious when looked through this kind of framing.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1209085.stm
2. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/29-haynes158upalrev1779...
My point is, of all your examples this is the darkest humanitarian crisis but also the least obvious when looked through this kind of framing.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1209085.stm
2. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/29-haynes158upalrev1779...
I was interested to know how this fit together with Yugoslavia's ethnic conflict. Looks like it didn't really: It was just convenient chaos?
Who were enslaved? From [2],
> The women, who came primarily from Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania, were available in large part due to the collaps-ing socialist economies in their home countries
Who were the slavers?
> Although men of different ethnic groups did do business there, as often as not they were not even from Bosnia, undermining the claim that the market would create interethnic harmony amongst Bosnians. Rather, Serbs from Serbia; Croats from Croatia; and internationals from Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria were the groups actually taking advantage of the unregulated market by engaging in mutually beneficial organized crime and smuggling.
Who were the buyers?
> Traffickers used Arizona Market as a hub for women trafficked into the rest of the Former Yugoslavia and on to Western Europe, Israel, and Turkey.69
The BBC also says NATO troops and/or peacekeepers were customers. That sounds like the basic "power corrupts" story.
The point is, this doesn't seem to have run along the ethnic lines of the conflict.
Who were enslaved? From [2],
> The women, who came primarily from Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania, were available in large part due to the collaps-ing socialist economies in their home countries
Who were the slavers?
> Although men of different ethnic groups did do business there, as often as not they were not even from Bosnia, undermining the claim that the market would create interethnic harmony amongst Bosnians. Rather, Serbs from Serbia; Croats from Croatia; and internationals from Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria were the groups actually taking advantage of the unregulated market by engaging in mutually beneficial organized crime and smuggling.
Who were the buyers?
> Traffickers used Arizona Market as a hub for women trafficked into the rest of the Former Yugoslavia and on to Western Europe, Israel, and Turkey.69
The BBC also says NATO troops and/or peacekeepers were customers. That sounds like the basic "power corrupts" story.
The point is, this doesn't seem to have run along the ethnic lines of the conflict.
>I was interested to know how this fit together with Yugoslavia's ethnic conflict. Looks like it didn't really: It was just convenient chaos?
The historical origin of these ethnic conflicts goes back to the Ottoman empire conquering Slavic lands for the purpose of slave trade, particularly sex slaves. That this demand was ultimately driven by Albanian, Turkish, and Italian pimps has historical precedent. However whether this is a historical re-emergence or "convenient chaos" is orthogonal to my assertion. For example, it's the western European politicians who were hesitant to prosecute Albanian nightclubs because it would be politically incorrect. Just like it was politically correct to intervene in Yugoslavia. Different sides of the same coin. There's a realpolitik component to this softpower approach that's a real meatgrinder arguably worse than "war".
The historical origin of these ethnic conflicts goes back to the Ottoman empire conquering Slavic lands for the purpose of slave trade, particularly sex slaves. That this demand was ultimately driven by Albanian, Turkish, and Italian pimps has historical precedent. However whether this is a historical re-emergence or "convenient chaos" is orthogonal to my assertion. For example, it's the western European politicians who were hesitant to prosecute Albanian nightclubs because it would be politically incorrect. Just like it was politically correct to intervene in Yugoslavia. Different sides of the same coin. There's a realpolitik component to this softpower approach that's a real meatgrinder arguably worse than "war".
> whether this is a historical re-emergence or "convenient chaos" is orthogonal to my assertion.
Agreed. I wasn't really responding to your thesis. More like: Your post raised questions for me, which I then sought to answer. Basically, my post was a tangent.
But ok. What was your thesis? Let me play back the thread:
Jeff_Brown said something like (paraphrasing), "China and Russia are now being aggressive in pursuit of their narrow national interests. The West used to use force more to 'keep the peace'. That was better."
You responded with something like, "'Keeping the peace' isn't always so great, actually. When the West went into Bosnia they spun optimistic narratives about how they were getting the different ethnic groups to cooperate, but really they were presiding over an open-air slave market. They looked the other way precisely in order to 'keep the peace'".
(I hope that's a fair summary.)
Now you reinforce your point, using "being politically correct" roughly as a synonym for what I called "keeping the peace" above, with an example of failing to prosecute Albanian "nightclub owners", i.e., pimps. This does feel like it connects, though exactly how is fuzzy.
What I'm missing is -- are you advocating an alternative (and what is it?), or are you saying something like, "they're all bad" (both aggressive nationalists and peacekeepers)? (I'm not trying to get all "state your position" here; I hope it's clear I'm not here for debate/argument, so much as understanding.)
Like -- one possible alternative might be "pursuing narrow national interests", the other side of the dichotomy Jeff_Brown set up at the start of this thread. In the case of Bosnia, this might have meant the West just staying out and letting the ethnic groups fight? This then would have surely permitted all manner of human rights abuses, but it wouldn't have created the "peaceful" conditions under which Arizona Market flourished. Pick your poison? This option might be, "intervene less".
Another alternative might have been -- maybe the West could have been less "PC/realpolitik" and more "righteous" somehow, recognizing the Arizona Market for what it was and shutting it down instead of pretending that it vindicated their ideology of "free markets and interethnic harmony". This option might be, "intervene better".
Maybe your last line tells me:
> There's a realpolitik component to this softpower approach that's a real meatgrinder arguably worse than "war".
Maybe -- and it's possible I'm projecting a lot here -- you're saying it's better for competing nationalisms to exist and outright fight, than it is for a vaguely "imperial" power to maintain a "rules based order", keeping enough peace that the "spice can flow"?
That would then connect to (and be in direct contradiction of) some recent thoughts I'd been having about imperialism vs. nationalism (namely that empires aren't necessarily so bad, that "self determination" is often just the first step toward ethnic cleansing). But you have probably not been mulling exactly the same things I have, so probably not.
So maybe it's more about "hard power" vs. "soft power"? An argument like, "With soft power, you have to be manipulative, and sometimes you have to permit things that are bad, because you don't have capacity to do otherwise. But hard power simply lets you impose your (correct) will on the other parties. So, it is better to pursue hard power." That would be an unusual argument, but interesting.
Anyway, before I wrap up, there was one other phrase in your original post that stuck out. You spoke of "using ethnicity as a wedge". I didn't see that in the Arizona Market report you cited. If anything, it seemed like the West was trying really hard to sell "all the ethnicities are getting along (because of liberal capitalism)". So what did you mean there?
Agreed. I wasn't really responding to your thesis. More like: Your post raised questions for me, which I then sought to answer. Basically, my post was a tangent.
But ok. What was your thesis? Let me play back the thread:
Jeff_Brown said something like (paraphrasing), "China and Russia are now being aggressive in pursuit of their narrow national interests. The West used to use force more to 'keep the peace'. That was better."
You responded with something like, "'Keeping the peace' isn't always so great, actually. When the West went into Bosnia they spun optimistic narratives about how they were getting the different ethnic groups to cooperate, but really they were presiding over an open-air slave market. They looked the other way precisely in order to 'keep the peace'".
(I hope that's a fair summary.)
Now you reinforce your point, using "being politically correct" roughly as a synonym for what I called "keeping the peace" above, with an example of failing to prosecute Albanian "nightclub owners", i.e., pimps. This does feel like it connects, though exactly how is fuzzy.
What I'm missing is -- are you advocating an alternative (and what is it?), or are you saying something like, "they're all bad" (both aggressive nationalists and peacekeepers)? (I'm not trying to get all "state your position" here; I hope it's clear I'm not here for debate/argument, so much as understanding.)
Like -- one possible alternative might be "pursuing narrow national interests", the other side of the dichotomy Jeff_Brown set up at the start of this thread. In the case of Bosnia, this might have meant the West just staying out and letting the ethnic groups fight? This then would have surely permitted all manner of human rights abuses, but it wouldn't have created the "peaceful" conditions under which Arizona Market flourished. Pick your poison? This option might be, "intervene less".
Another alternative might have been -- maybe the West could have been less "PC/realpolitik" and more "righteous" somehow, recognizing the Arizona Market for what it was and shutting it down instead of pretending that it vindicated their ideology of "free markets and interethnic harmony". This option might be, "intervene better".
Maybe your last line tells me:
> There's a realpolitik component to this softpower approach that's a real meatgrinder arguably worse than "war".
Maybe -- and it's possible I'm projecting a lot here -- you're saying it's better for competing nationalisms to exist and outright fight, than it is for a vaguely "imperial" power to maintain a "rules based order", keeping enough peace that the "spice can flow"?
That would then connect to (and be in direct contradiction of) some recent thoughts I'd been having about imperialism vs. nationalism (namely that empires aren't necessarily so bad, that "self determination" is often just the first step toward ethnic cleansing). But you have probably not been mulling exactly the same things I have, so probably not.
So maybe it's more about "hard power" vs. "soft power"? An argument like, "With soft power, you have to be manipulative, and sometimes you have to permit things that are bad, because you don't have capacity to do otherwise. But hard power simply lets you impose your (correct) will on the other parties. So, it is better to pursue hard power." That would be an unusual argument, but interesting.
Anyway, before I wrap up, there was one other phrase in your original post that stuck out. You spoke of "using ethnicity as a wedge". I didn't see that in the Arizona Market report you cited. If anything, it seemed like the West was trying really hard to sell "all the ethnicities are getting along (because of liberal capitalism)". So what did you mean there?
[deleted]
USA the country that has done more foreign invasions, and wars, is trying to spread the peace? Why is China and Russia not invading as much? Because they don't care about peace! Really?
The assassinations are alleged and lack evidence. Crimea was Russian not long ago and the people voted democratically to be Russian again. Isn't that what USA/UK are trying to achieve in HongKong, in reverse? Democratically vote them out of China?
The assassinations are alleged and lack evidence. Crimea was Russian not long ago and the people voted democratically to be Russian again. Isn't that what USA/UK are trying to achieve in HongKong, in reverse? Democratically vote them out of China?
> Why does it happen that in our universe offense is so much easier than defense?
Easier? Or safer?
Reduced casualties of the home team is among the top metrics optimized for, at least on paper.
Easier? Or safer?
Reduced casualties of the home team is among the top metrics optimized for, at least on paper.
Weather or not this is related to any genuinely new or controversial activity or just that someone wants a bigger budget is one of those things "we the people" are not entitled to know.
It's completely against the ethos of the intelligence services to be truthful about what level of successful espionage is being conducted by opponents and completely unthinkable to admit to any espionage they themselves are conducting so this kind of announcement should not be taken as proof that something new or dangerous is happening, that warrants any kind of escalation.