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

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#831

Post by alex43578 »

myrmidon wrote: post #596
alex43578 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think a continuation of the firebombing campaign and an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in fewer deaths of civilians (particularly of the 'volunteer fighting corps')? That's to say nothing of the deaths in a potential US/USSR conflict that goes hot without the Damocles Sword of MAD...

This is a false dichotomy. In the words of the post-war US strategic bombing survey: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russi…

Did Americans know or believe that the Japanese were planning to surrender when the bombs were dropped, or only after the fact? That’s important because the Japanese didn’t even entertain the idea of surrender in July (Potsdam Declaration).

Because the Japanese were still fighting, the wartime economy was still trying to produce what it could, and the Japanese government was arming and instructing its civilians for fighting.

Post-surrender, it’s easy to say “we were planning to surrender”, especially to save face and pass the buck to the Americans for what the Japanese government brought on their people by continuing to prosecute the war effort.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#832

Post by UncleMeat »

qsera wrote: post #735
the_af wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you learn to live without eating? Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies? All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized?

Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that? If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about..

The US is taking money from food assistance and spending it on missiles.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#833

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

komali2 wrote: post #830
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"China" is analogous to "France," not "Europe." There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy. > Many States may try to make claims fo…

"France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra. Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over…

> Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.

Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China:

"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."

This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of China very explicitly claimed all of China (plus Mongolia). The constitution sets that claim in stone, and says that it can only be changed by an act of the legislature. There's never been such an act.

Taiwan formally recognizes mainland China as the "Mainland Area," and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area." It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control (and now no longer want to regain control over).

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#834

Post by the_af »

dotancohen wrote: post #824
the_af wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, you're cherry-picking. You believe some of what the Iranians say, and not the rest. You believe some of what Trump says, but not the rest. And you do care what Trump says, since you're buying his bogus, self-contradicting justification for going to war with Iran. Iran wasn't a threat to the US. Edit: that 2022 interview you quoted from an Iranian not affiliated to any nuclear program or knowledgeable abo…

So you claim that this high ranking Iranian government official was lying?

Judging from what I've read, he claims that's not what he was saying, and that it was his personal opinion at the time since he wasn't involved in any nuclear program. You're latching to one person's words, since recanted/corrected, because it helps the narrative you like: cherry-picking.

More importantly, do you claim Trump was lying? (I do, to be clear, but do you?).

Let me repeat it because this is important: Iran posed no threat to the US.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#835

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

komali2 wrote: post #829
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.

Please directly quote where in the taiwanese constitution there is a claim to the territory of the PRC. I tend to read the constitutions and legal documents of countries I live in. I have read the constitution many times. It's not in there.

Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text:

"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."

The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.

The constitution says that those boundaries may only be changed by an act of the legislature. There has never been such an act.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#836

Post by malfist »

dotancohen wrote: post #277
fwip wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe for the aggressors, I mean. If war is easy and cheap for us to wage, we will do more of it, and likely make the world a worse place.

Your post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?

China threatens us, Russia threatens us, should we bombing them? Canada is threatened by us, demark, Spain, mexico, Cuba have all been threatened by us, should they be bombing us?

Your philosophy would see the whole world at war.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#837

Post by komali2 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #835
komali2 wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please directly quote where in the taiwanese constitution there is a claim to the territory of the PRC. I tend to read the constitutions and legal documents of countries I live in. I have read the constitution many times. It's not in there.

Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text: "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing bound…

> The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.

Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.

This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."

Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#838

Post by komali2 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #833
komali2 wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra. Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over…

> Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try. Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China: "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of C…

I didn't realize it was the same person I had made this comment to twice, so I will copy and paste my answer here:

> > The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.

Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.

This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."

Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.

> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."

There is no evidence to back this claim.

> It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control

There is no evidence that Taiwan makes a formal claim to territory it doesn't have sovereignty over (aka, PRC territory).

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#839

Post by maxglute »

komali2 wrote: post #837
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text: "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing bound…

> The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia. Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation. This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC do…

>which the ROC does not claim

ROC claims over all Chinese territory formally via inherent territory / universal succession when Qing abdication transferred sovereignty of all China to ROC, territories predefined as all China. Seperatistards tried to get court to formally define, i.e. redefine it as to not include mainland but court chickened out and tossed it down to political level and original state/claims (again, all china) persists. Cue additional articles of constitution which only tries to hack jurisdiction by creating free area / mainland area as separate political jurisdiction because seperatistards couldn't muster actual political power to constitutionally renounce claims, i.e. change sovereignty.

Hence ROC constitution still maintains full sovereignty claims over all China, while legally tries to spins restricting jurisdiction in few specific territories is life hack for independence, like sharia law applying to Taliban occupied villages translate to sovereignty claim (/s). When its explicitly clear the ROC constitution still fully dejure claims all territories including mainland areas, and will continue to claim, until formal referendum renounces dejure claims.

Until then, it's just revealed preference that TWners don't want dejure independence hard enough. And why pro independant narrative has to do deliberately retarded misreading of constitution / additional articles to support equally retarded / strained interpretation that jurisdiction claims = sovereignty claims. It doesn't. Feeling independent doesn't make one legally so.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#840

Post by asveikau »

GJim wrote: post #650
bradleyjg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iraq Not in same ballpark. There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one. > Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too. No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture. Especially on the saliency axis.

> No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture American centrism strikes again. Plenty of us of the same generation living in countries that didn't fight in Vietnam (with no such draft or casualties) share such ethical views. Don't make this an American argument.

I think this person might just be seeing Vietnam in a retrospective lens and has not seen the pro vietnam war propaganda from the 1960s which was immensely popular.

I wasn't alive either but I've seen it after the fact. Also the kind of people who thought the Kent State massacre was the right thing to do. The political radicals of that era "won" many culture wars but they were a minority, and the influential, pro-war, pro-establishment people sounded exactly like the ones who were in favor of the Iraq War and who think what's going on in Iran right now makes sense.

There is a reason, for example, that John Fogerty of CCR [of the song "Fortunate Son"] wrote the mid 2000s song "It's like Deja Vu All Over Again" to describe the Iraq war. It's because the war propaganda was all the same, just with a rotating cast.

Post reply on HN