Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 739 posts

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#711

Post by sneak »

teractiveodular wrote: post #538
majesticglue wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone's not privy to how fast China is progressing nowadays. Americans are so ignorant on Chinese technological prowess right now. Chinese EVs are dominating every market in the world aside from US which has basically banned it essentially, otherwise we'd have very affordable cars in America. America banned DJI drones which owns about 70-80% of the world market on drones. China recently unleashed an open source AI…

China's progress is real, but there are still many things like cutting-edge semiconductors and airplane engines they cannot compete in and thus rely on the West for. The Chinese leadership is well aware of this and is massively funding efforts to build these indigenously, but they're chasing moving targets and still decades away from catching up.

Jet engines from decades ago are still more than sufficient. The gap is overstated.

China will win through brute scale and determination, I believe.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#712

Post by kuhsaft »

all2 wrote: post #666
mrguyorama wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because by resisting at all you are already criminal, so why does it matter that you are legally allowed to own firearms when 2A supporters insist that banning firearms does not limit access to firearms? A tyrannical state will not care that you are "legally" allowed to own firearms, and rebels do not get rights. Also, I'll believe the claim that 2A is to prevent tyranny when I see it, because most of the time wh…

Consider the context into which the amendment was written; a very bloody war between Crown loyalists and separatists (all British subjects, mind you) had just been completed. The idea of a United States citizen was still a dream. That individuals owned and operated their own weapons was the sole reason the separatists won. I'll point to a more recent example: the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Koreatown was protected by…

Maybe when weapons were more limited in destruction. But, now the government has weaponry supremacy, and I don’t think you would want anybody to have access to artillery, fighter jets, etc.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#713

Post by michaelt »

zaccusl wrote: post #708
michaelt wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if you're planning a coup with military backing, you don't do it when your most rule-abiding, law-respecting general is in town. You send that guy to guard the Alaskan border or whatever, and instead recruit a general who's a maverick rules-breaker and who gets on well with you personally. So the military should respect the constitution, but when it comes to a coup you'll get whichever general respects…

I don't know much about coups actually work, but a general does not make an army. A general that wants to stage a coup seems like they must still require the support of the troops. Speaking anecdotally, every unit I've been in not a single man would follow the questionably illegal orders of any general unless they had full respect and confidence in that general, and typically the troops only have full respect and con…

I agree that soldiers don't stage a coup on the orders of a general alone.

You need a general with likeminded officers, and a convincing excuse for the rank and file to go along with their officer's orders.

Something like "the election was stolen, the winners weren't legitimately elected, we've got to defend our country". It doesn't need to survive detailed scrutiny, a few hours is long enough for the major scrutineers to accidentally fall out of windows.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#714

Post by psunavy03 »

microtherion wrote: post #652
psunavy03 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rule 916(d) in the Manual for Courts-Martial, quoted in your second source, is really the pull quote here: > It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful. So for those non-military reading, while it's almost always a bad idea to try to sea-lawyer…

But that covers only the case where the accused obeyed an unlawful order. It does NOT cover the case where the accused REFUSED an unlawful order.

Refusing an ambiguously-lawful order would, under that source, trigger a prosecution or nonjudicial punishment under UCMJ Article 92 - Failure to obey a lawful order or general order. And it would need to be determined at trial and/or on appeal whether the order was lawful, because Article 92 requires the Government to plead/prove four things:

- That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;

- That the accused had knowledge of the order; and

- That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

- That the accused failed to obey the order.

If the order is deemed unlawful by the military judge or appellate court, the case must be dismissed, because the Government has failed to allege an offense.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#715

Post by mrguyorama »

Rapzid wrote: post #422
jmyeet wrote: post #173

South Korea is dying. It has the lowest birth rate in the world: ~0.78 children per woman. If you want to know what that means, take 100 people (50 men, 50 women). In 3 generations there are... 6 people. That's population collapse. Every developed nation is barreling towards this fate. It's what end stage capitalism and 5 chaebols-in-a-trenchcoat as a government looks like. The only thing preventing population collap…

They are quite open to immigration now. If you've been recently you'd know they are practically begging people to move there and make babies.

>begging people to move there and make babies.

How much are they paying per child? I see references to roughly $20k over 8 years. That's not "begging", that's a pittance. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of food over those 8 years.

Countries will get the babies they want when they incentivize the babies they want. Conservative politicians know this, though they have some pretty disgusting ideas about what those incentives should be. More stick than carrot IMO.

I think a world where we force women back into having no options and no prospects and no freedom and no rights just so they will produce the right colored babies is pretty abhorrent.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#716

Post by mrguyorama »

samatman wrote: post #635
JetSpiegel wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a yacht and let him vacation on it, he'll do it!

What would he tell his wife?

Probably the same thing most extreme conservative conspiracy theorists say to their wives when they do things that hurt them:

Shut up and stay in the kitchen.

JD Vance publicly called his wife okay for a not-white lady. I don't know why you think they respect their wives.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#717

Post by Izkata »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #511
all2 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.

> the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear About the one thing this situation does not need is armed randos taking matters into their own hands. Currently, Seoul is in a constitutional crisis. The President is required to lift martial law. He has not yet done so. If people on the streets started shooting at each other, he'd have legitimate reason to send in the military. Korea's lack of…

The second amendment refers to a well-organized militia (which requires the average person to be able to own guns), not individuals taking things into their own hands.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#718

Post by jknoepfler »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #370
jknoepfler wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I and everyone else was still able to leave our homes. We were free to assemble in large numbers outside. I (and many others) exercised free assembly rights to protest the murder of George Floyd, for example (not the riots... ironically the one example of somethimg resembling martial law being imposed, albeit belatedly and with great reluctance). There was no curfew, particularly no curfew enforced by the militar…

you are right. people were free to protest and burn down police stations. It was people who wanted to walk on the beach or go surfing that had the guns pointed at them (albeit by police, not soldiers)

I went surfing... and had picnics in the park... and hiked up two mountains... during Covid... wtf?

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#719

Post by s1artibartfast »

exe34 wrote: post #707
s1artibartfast wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence is a big part of it, but I used the word power specifically because I think it is more accurate. Violence is a major form of power, but so are utility and persuasion. You can persuade or pay people to things that you can't threaten or force them into.

> You can persuade or pay people to things that you can't threaten or force them into. Any examples? Beyond immaterial things like respect/love/etc?

Sure. One example is when you have inferior force. You cant force someone to do something with threats, but you can pay them to do something.

Another example is when the cost of violence is high. If have two people with guns, or MAD scenarios, violence isnt an effective way to get what you want, so payment can be better.

The last example and simplest is if you need a service and the other party simply chooses destruction over acquiescence to violence. If a doctor would rather die than be forced to treat you, your violence is useless, and payment would be much better.

I tried to give simple human level examples, but they can also be scaled up to groups and states.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#720

Post by johnny22 »

foxglacier wrote: post #606
johnny22 wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if that's how you wanna put it, then yes. Women should have the same rights to choose which machine's buttons they push.

Even if it leads to the collapse of the society which enables them to have those rights, so future generations are back to sex-discriminatory religious rules? That's the problem. Equal rights seems like it might be a self-destroying culture.

That's assuming a lot in a vacuum. Society doesn't actually have to work the way it does, even if you keep (a regulated) capitalism.
Post reply on HN