US Politics

[Mr. GOH!]

I know that's a very vague, political, and subjective definition, and it isn't mine alone. Essentially, any act could be an act of war under that definition, and the interesting thing to me is the nature of the arguments as to why a certain act, such as the Sony hack, would or would not justify an armed response.

[Mister Jack]

The Interview is going up on video on demand tonight! Outlets include Google play, Xbox, and YouTube rentals.

 

Wait, no ps4 video? What the fuck, Sony?

Edited December 24, 2014 by Mister Jack

[CorgiShinobi]

While browsing Facebook, I saw an article linked to a friend about another possibility in this North Korea vs. Sony Pictures business.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7421535/the-real-reason-north-korea-would-hack-sony-its-not-the-interview

 

TL;DR

North Korea is that wimpy malnourished kid who, when feeling vulnerable, grabs the nearest bug, eats half of it and throws the other half at you. As you're in a state of bewilderment, North Korea yells out, "I'm k-k-k-kraaaaaaazy with a capital K!" Damn, I guess the rumors are true and I best avoid this krazy kid.

[FredEffinChopin]

Pardon the delay, been a busy few days. Aside from the little bit of gaming I squeezed in... Time must be made for such things.

 

What strategic resource did the Sony hack remove or seek to remove, Fredeffinchopin?

 

The resource under attack would would be economic, referring to what (at the time) seemed like it might have been a  successful attempt at preventing the release of a major motion picture production that had already been completed. I'm stretching a bit, but I think it's a legitimate concern. Something like that happening on even a semi-regular basis could damage that particular industry and even have a broader effect on the economy. Of course in that scenario the inability of the film industry to operate as usual would be the tip of the iceberg, or a fraction of it at very best, as far as the overall problem on our hands. Our marketplace and economy are a resource though, and I was just making the case for this being a deliberate attempt to not just disrupt and intimidate us, but to actually damage us.

 

I meant to say this in the first comment, so I should at least say it now - All this assumes that it was them who made the threats to the theaters, and who planned or executed the hacking. I'm not completely convinced yet, though I'm mostly prepared to accept it. Claiming responsibility isn't necessarily the smoking gun in my eyes, as it seems within the realm of nutty shit that this guy will do if he thinks it comes off as effective posturing. There isn't a lot I put past that regime. But yeah, I just wanted to make that clear. It's totally possible I missed a story, but I'm not sure if we've actually traced anything but IPs, which I understand can be subverted fairly easily. I'll cut myself off there to avoid sounding any more amateurish in that area than I already might have just done... Or is there anyone who does know about that stuff, ad who might be able to say whether or not he/she thinks that we have sufficient evidence for at least the hack?

 

*edit* 

Has anyone watched the movie? I heard it's pretty bad. At the same time I feel like I should buy it, even if I don't watch it.

Edited December 27, 2014 by FredEffinChopin

[Mr. GOH!]

Anything that might disrupt another nation's economy is an act of war? So our import tariffs on cars are an act of war against Germany, Japan, and South Korea?

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh come off it, there's a difference between an economic policy and an actual attack that causes economic damages and you know it.

[Mr. GOH!]

The damage to the nation state is very attenuated and is equal to damage caused by what you term economic policies. Many tariffs are illegal under the WTO agreements as well; why is one method of economic conflict an act of war, while the other is not?

[TheFlyingGerbil]

because one is committed by america, and the other against it.

[FredEffinChopin]

Anything that might disrupt another nation's economy is an act of war? So our import tariffs on cars are an act of war against Germany, Japan, and South Korea?

 

Well no, I didn't quite say that, though looking back at it now I can see that the sentence you're referring to in my 1st post on this topic is less than airtight for what I meant to convey about my personal idea of a military action, and can be used to get to where you took it transitively. What I did actually say was that an act that is strategically calculated to deprive an "enemy" of a resource is military. Rather than try to stick my finger in every conceivable hole that someone might poke into my inept attempt at writing a personal definition, I'll respond to your question and explain where I'm coming from, and hopefully those things will do a better job of expressing what I was getting at than I did, even if not in the most concise and specific terms.

 

For something like tariffs or sanctions, there is a legal framework and precedent within which these actions are broadly acceptable. Nations are entitled to set the terms on which they do or do not trade, and nobody is under an obligation not to be greedy or cutthroat in the way they deal with each other as long as they're operating in accordance with established rules. That being said, I don't believe that it's crazy to ever refer to such actions as being "warlike"; I think they can potentially be, or can at least be a tool in the waging of war. A cold war can certainly have many casualties. I think a measure of subjectivity is being exercised on anyone's part in drawing the lines between these uses of the word "war".

 

As far as my personal line I was trying to draw a two posts ago, I probably should have used the word "aggressive" instead of "strategic", and/or "attack" instead of "move", and made my case for the hacking qualifying as an attack on the basis of it being done a)with the specific purpose of doing damage, without even a fake pretense of any kind of other motive, and b) being forceful, covert, and illegal. In other words, I guess the line is somewhere between scumbagging other nations for profit using established rules advantageously, and using means outside of the playing field of business, politics, or anything else even remotely legal solely to damage another nation. While I believe the former can be characterized as an attack very effectively, the latter is an actual one in that it is forceful and cannot be addressed by any kind of reform (since the act itself is one that indicates that engagement on a political level has been foregone in favor of sabotage), only retaliation. It throws the rulebook out the window and issues a challenge on a different, combative level where anything goes. 

 

The damage to the nation state is very attenuated and is equal to damage caused by what you term economic policies. Many tariffs are illegal under the WTO agreements as well; why is one method of economic conflict an act of war, while the other is not?

 

To be fair it's not just arbitrarily designated as such by Ethan, it's a term that describes the mode of the action in we're discussing. If you're saying that the difference is purely academic and that we should judge an action solely by an intended result, then I would say I agree with you more than a little. Just because the rules exist in such a way that they can be used to abuse people doesn't mean that those abuses are anything but that. Generally though, if not being done to further the economic standing of the nation trying to enact damaging economic policies, there is at least a pretense for a political or economic goal that goes beyond "We're going to fuck those guys up". At least a pretense. If not, then I'm ready to start using the "w" word for that action.

 

As far as the illegal trade policies interpreted as an act of war, I think that any policy that can be referred to as illegal is inherently (theoretically at least, not necessarily in practice) already withing a framework wherein it would presumably like to pass as acceptable, and so can be addressed within that framework. There is finessing of legal language involved, and  deceitful language. The idea is to look legal while being illegal. Again, I wouldn't say that makes it right or any less damaging. 

 

Nobody can say "Hey, no fair, you're not supposed to hack our companies and then use the information and fear as leverage to keep them from selling their products!" though. Everyone already knows that that's not legal or acceptable. If I wanted to be the Frank Luntz for US warhawks in congress, I might label such an acts as the DPRK are being accused of as "economic terrorism". 

 

I hope that makes sense. I came back to this response a couple of times throughout the day, and it looks pretty different than what I began writing. I've got company coming soon though, and can't work on it anymore, nor do I want to put it off because then I'll likely take forever, that is if the response is even still relevant at the point that I'm ready. I've lost many posts to that...

[Mr. GOH!]

I understand where you're coming from, Fred, and I want to be clear; my intent is only to explore what is considered an "act of war," because I feel it is a very nebulous phrase that is used in an incredibly jingoistic fashion as if it were as plain as day. We are in total agreement that the term 'war" can be stretched to cover a very wide variety of situations.

 

An economic war is very different from one involving the military; I would say economic warfare, consisting of sanctions, tariffs, and other policies is a different beast than the sort of military warfare the term "act of war" implies, at least to my mind. That said, if someone were to say that they believe the Sony hack is an act of economic war, I don't think I would argue or investigate further, except to comment that it's an inept act of economic warfare as it really does nothing to deprive the US of any meaningful strategic resources; the US is not appreciably weakened by the Sony hack.

 

I am assuming that the DPRK is ultimately behind the attack for the sake of the discussion. I harbor doubts about the extent of the involvement of the DPRK and think it's likely we'll never know the extent of its involvement.

 

I would definitely consider the hack an attack and psychological operation (psy ops). I could be persuaded it was also a species of terrorism, though I dislike the term "terrorism".

 

I do not think the term "illegal" implies that whatever act characterized as illegal could also be construed as legal. Chopping off the head of an innocent bystander is illegal and everyone knows it, as is hacking a company's records and publicizing them.Yes, there is an international legal framework for tariffs that could legitimize certain tariffs or at least determine whether a tariff is illegal or legal. There is not, however, an international legal framework for for unilateral economic sanctions, especially against nations that are not party to any treaty. I think the US sanctions against NK, or even those formerly in place against Cuba, might qualify as acts of war under your definition. 

 

I do not think any operation that attempts to deprive an opponent of a resource is military; it is more apt to say any operation involving the military is military, and not all aggressive military operations are acts of war. To go back to me earlier examples, there are many military intelligence operations that seek to deprive an opponent of information that I do not think necessarily constitute acts of war, in the sense of the definition I have proposed earlier in this thread.

 

You seem to be saying a unilateral action intended to damage another nation without a commensurate advantage to the attacker is more warlike than an action that also measurably benefits the attacker. I do not think that works out in reality; wars have historically involved the attacker seeking to gain an economic advantage over the defender. If anything, an attack that seeks only to economically harm the defender falls more in line with what popularly constitutes criminal behavior or terrorism than military conflict.

[TheMightyEthan]

See, I would classify an act of terrorism (though like you I don't like that term) perpetrated by another state as an act of war, so whether you call it an act of terrorism or a more traditional act of war is irrelevant.

 

I would draw the line between an economic policy and an attack that does economic damage based on the degree of violence in the method of the attack, rather than the actual results. So a unilateral sanction, even if illegal, is still in the nature of "We reserve the right to refuse anyone service" and not a violent act in and of itself. A hacking attack, on the other hand, involves actively invading and disrupting the target state, which is more violent. Just like sending a plane to bomb an economic target (no one killed or injured) is a more warlike act than sanctions which do the same amount of damage to the economy.

 

All that said, whether an attack actually justifies war in a practical sense is obviously dependent upon the extent of the invasion and the damage done. Hacking into utility companies and crashing the whole national power grid is stronger grounds for war than stealing e-mails from one movie company.

[deanb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/nyregion/after-a-deal-british-chocolates-wont-cross-the-pond.html

 

Hersheys plan to deprive Americans of proper Cadburys chocolate.

[TheMightyEthan]

I love Yorkie bars.

[Thursday Next]

I love Yorkie bars.

 

Are you sure that it is not "York Peppermint Patties" that you love? I hear that people get the two mixed up like alllllll the time.

[deanb]

"York Peppermint Patties: It's not for grills"

[Mister Jack]

http://fortune.com/2015/02/24/comcast-time-warner-cable-hit-with-20-billion-racial-bias-lawsuit/

 

 

Enjoy your discrimination lawsuit, you crooked cocksuckers.

[TheMightyEthan]

Those allegations are pretty ridiculous.  I'm skeptical.

[Mister Jack]

Oh, I don't expect Comcast and Time Warner to lose.  I just derive pleasure out of pretty much anything that inconveniences them.

[TheRevanchist]

A bunch of a-holes all sue each other so they can siphon money out of each other.

 

Frankly, TME should be happy about this and the state of his profession.  The only winners in this are the lawyers.

[madbassman39]

I don't know if this goes under US politics, but I just found out about "SPICE" or synthetic Marijuana. Here are the negative side effects

 

 

Spice abusers who have been taken to Poison Control Centers report symptoms that include rapid heart rate, vomiting, agitation, confusion, and hallucinations. Spice can also raise blood pressure and cause reduced blood supply to the heart (myocardial ischemia), and in a few cases it has been associated with heart attacks. Regular users may experience withdrawal and addiction symptoms.

We still do not know all the ways Spice may affect human health or how toxic it may be, but one public health concern is that there may be harmful heavy metal residues in Spice mixtures. Without further analyses, it is difficult to determine whether this concern is justified.

 

 

You know what would keep shit like this from your teens hands? There is this herb that some people talk about, it harms the body less than the legal cigarettes and the legal alcohol. Yes thats right, I am talking about Marilizing legajuana... whoops. Legalizing Marijuana. Sure its unhealthy, and brain rot are things you will notice from people who abuse the herb, but I don't think anyone has had a heart attack because of it.

 

I don't really care if people use it or not, as long as its not in public places that can effect others (like on the streets or inside most enclosed buildings). What I do care about is wasting tax payer money on a 'drug' that is no more harmful than things that we already have legalized. People are going to get high whether the drug is legal or not, but if you make it legal at least you wont have people putting together a synthetic substitute that is way more harmful for the same effect.

 

Its just silly that we have to deal stuff like SPICE, made legally, exists when the actual product is way less harmful to the human body.

[Thursday Next]

 but if you make it legal at least you 

 

can tax the hell out of everyone who uses it like you do with alcohol and tobacco.

 

Seriously, you could turn an expensive "war on drugs" into a MASSIVE revenue generator.

[deanb]

Oregon(or Washington) sounds to have been super successful with it. Does sound like a bit of a "well durr", especially when tobacco and alcohol are legalised (though I'm to understand not everywhere in US is alcohol, or certain types, fine and dandy).

 

Over here we've issues with "legal highs" which are unregulated and potentially causing all sorts of issues, but due to the "legal" nature are easily accessible compared to likes of marijuana. 

[TheMightyEthan]

AFAIK it's legal to possess/consume alcohol anywhere in the US (provided you are of suitable age), but there are some towns/counties where it's illegal to sell it, so if you live there you have to go to a nearby area to get it.

[Hot Heart]

With regards to the "war on drugs", I found this an interesting read. It takes on the angle of Philip Seymour Hoffman's death but actually speaks to the whole situation.

[Mr. GOH!]

There are definitely localities in the U.S. where possession of alcohol is illegal. 

 

See, for example, Mississippi state law: http://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-67/chapter-3/section-67-3-13

 

This law is enforced, too. Mississippi has a complicated mix of wet and dry towns, counties, and judicial districts. 

 

It is likely unconstitutional for them to enforce it against folks transporting  across state lines, but MS law enforcement collects fines from a good number of individuals every year.

 

Edit: I also recall that a lot of Native American reservations outlaw the possession of alcohol.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Mr. GOH!