157 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

Besides, let's not forget the Alliance already is a worldwide military
alliance, in case of space invasion they are the leading force and
authority, overriding any input from local governments and standard
armies.Against alien invasions, earth politicians do not have a saying,
the Alliance leaders do.

Modifié par filetemo, 09 octobre 2011 - 01:31 .

[yuncas]

filetemo wrote...

Besides, let's not forget the Alliance already is a worldwide military
alliance, in case of space invasion they are the leading force and
authority, overriding any input from local governments and standard
armies.Against alien invasions, earth politicians do not have a saying,
the Alliance leaders do.

Uh huh. 


The Alliance is headed by a parliment. Fact. 

[filetemo]

yuncas wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Besides, let's not forget the Alliance already is a worldwide military
alliance, in case of space invasion they are the leading force and
authority, overriding any input from local governments and standard
armies.Against alien invasions, earth politicians do not have a saying,
the Alliance leaders do.

Uh huh. 


The Alliance is headed by a parliment. Fact. 

"we are being exterminated by reapers, let's vote if we should strike back or not
yes:36 votes
no: 35 votes
ok, second round of votes next monday, have a nice weekend everybody"

[filetemo]

it isn't so hard to understand.
editing multiquotes sure is harder, damn.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]filetemo wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]filetemo wrote...


That's a job for engineers and military tacticians,[/quote]Whose engineers? Which tacticians? [/quote]
Which? Civilian Engineers, [/quote]Electircal, Civil, Bio-chem, industrial chem, computer, aerospace, weapons, defenses, space? Which ones are most important? Which groups will you draw from for the leaders, and how will they be re-organized? Who has priority in the resource shortage to come?


[quote]
civilian and military scientists,[/quote]Who is in charge, the military or the civilians? What organization provides leadership? Who is subordinate? To what degree are they subordinate?

[quote]
and military strategists.[/quote]Whose? Continental or naval power theory? 

[quote]Martial law would be declared.[/quote]Whose martial laws? Who is responsible for enforcing them? Do we acknowledge demarcations, boundaries? Under whose aegis are we working under? Are we making a new one? If so, who makes it up, whose in charge, how are decisions made, and who does it answer to?

[quote]

the concept "coasts" does not fit for industry placing or bunkering. [/quote]Of course they do. Industry is based around supply lines, and supply lines are based around transportaiton (rivers and oceans being the biggest) and population centers (the majority of the human population lives within a hundred miles of a river or coast).

Fortifications matter because you need to defend against threats from the sea or the in-land in an environment in which you mobility is limited by the sea. Likewise, sea-based power (carriers or ships acting as artillery) are going to be an aspect of your defensive plan: if you are going to use a battleship to shoot inland, your inland defense should reflect the range and abilities of those guns, the transportation routes (which have to consider the coast), and so on.

[quote]
All humans should arm themselves to fight husks, [/quote]Are we going to gear industry to provide them pistols, shotguns, or assault rfiles? SMG's, maybe? Is giving every civilian an optimum use of industry if, for the cost of 1% of the populace not being armed, we could produce 500 war planes? Since children below the age of 1 aren't going to be fighting well, probably. But where do we draw the line: should we arm children older than one but younger than two? Three? Five? How about the infirm and elderly? Will we standardize all weapon types to a common ammo type for logistics? Who will have to retool?

What are we giving up by sending weapons to these people that we could use that production and logistical lift for otherwise? Evacuating people to defensible areas? Different types of weapons?

[quote]
and hope aircrafts concentrate reaper fire to avoid orbital strikes to any fortification you make[/quote]Aircraft can't stop orbital strikes, so your only 'hope' is that you are lower down on their priority list. We lack anything but the most superficial ability to stop anything from space hitting the Earth.


[quote]
You totally misfigurated my point. I meant that no country would send troops TO FIGHT ANOTHER COUNTRY with reapers at bay.[/quote]No country would be able to fight the Reapers with the Reapers at bay, because the Reapers would destroy our ability to resist before we could do anything. You're picking a poor enemy and context, because even one Reaper could destroy Earth from orbit easily.

If we're talking a less absolute but still existential threat, however, there are plenty of cases in history in which short-selling occurs. If there's one common threat to five men, but only three men united are needed to overcome it, two men can yet stand to be killed by in-fighting and yet there still be a victory.


[quote]
again, zombies do not have air support. Fortifications are useless[/quote]You do realize that fortifications do work against attackings coming from above, yes? This is something that was very much established during, well, the history of war. You'll still be screwed, but you'll be secrewed less.

'Zombies' are an applicable metaphor to part of the Reaper threat because the Reapers also employ, well, zombies. Husks, of course, but also indoctrinated armies. While zombies alone do not cover all capable Reaper capabilities, Reaper capabilities do cover all zombie abilities: if you can't stand up to zombies, you can't stand up to Reapers. Many of the same lessons apply.

[quote]
and any kind of fortified elevated position to defend from husks is invalidated by smaller 500meter reapers acting as ground heavy support. Which means, closing yourself in a bunker while watching your korean neighbors get liquified does not help your own survival[/quote]It doesn't hurt it, however, and it does prolong your survival. If you attack the 500 meter reaper killing your Korean neighbors, you die along with them right now. If you wait for them to finish killing your Korean neighbors, not only do you die later, but you extend your chance to desperatly search for or prepare any sort of countermeasure that might help you survive.

Now, any said countermeasure of 2010 would also be invalidated by a Reaper. Again, bad context on your choice. You aren't actually making an argument about what groups would do in the face of their own possible survival: you've just established a scenario where doom is inevitable.

The idea behind unifying in the face of a common enemy is that if you actually unify, you might survive. If you will not survive regardless of cooperation, there is literally no basis for cooperation. It serves you nothing. That's how 'every man for himself' situations break out, when independence of action stops being worse (or is even better) than coordination.





[quote]

How are Israelis able to contain husks if they can barely contain palestinian kids with homemade rockets?[/quote]The Israelis are quite good at containing the palestinian kids with homemade rockets: the kids are, by and large, outside of Israel. The rockets come in, but the kids are not.
[quote]
Listen, what I mean is: Against reapers, all we need is a centralized interspecies military command center, so we can use hit and run tactics while we evaluate the situation. All we need is for the different armadas to collaborate, and while politicians may make the first contacts, after that everything is in military hands. That includes military scientists, assistants, ground personnel, soldiers, workers, industries and medic personnel. There's no need for politics, ambassadors, congresists, senators or spokesmen, because there's nothing to talk with the reapers.
[/quote]Sure they do. Politicians are how we organize societies, because politicians' role is to organize, balance, and keep a lot of different groups working together by giving them a unified direction.

This is the concept known as 'leadership.' Militaries use it to make twelve men with guns a single unit, and make a dozen units move with an effective purpose.

You say it's 'easy', but you haven't even grasped or sketched out the most rudimentary of the organization you're requiring. Someone has to pick who does what, when a lot of different people have a lot of different views on what should be done but only one can be. Chinese General A is not going to have the same view, opinions, evaluations, or suggestion as American General B. American General B is not going to have the same opinions of American General C, let alone tech-dweeb scientist H8.

Managing a lot of different groups is what presidents, senators, spokesmen, and ambassadors do.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 octobre 2011 - 01:58 .

[yuncas]

filetemo wrote...

yuncas wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Besides, let's not forget the Alliance already is a worldwide military
alliance, in case of space invasion they are the leading force and
authority, overriding any input from local governments and standard
armies.Against alien invasions, earth politicians do not have a saying,
the Alliance leaders do.

Uh huh. 


The Alliance is headed by a parliment. Fact. 

"we are being exterminated by reapers, let's vote if we should strike back or not
yes:36 votes
no: 35 votes
ok, second round of votes next monday, have a nice weekend everybody"

The Alliance is a representative government whose parliment represents most of the developed and powerful nations on Earth. Said member nations have pooled their military resources for mutual defense. Alliance politician is synonymous with Earth politician.  

Also, 36 is more than 35.

[filetemo]

yuncas wrote...

The Alliance is a representative government whose parliment represents most of the developed and powerful nations on Earth. Said member nations have pooled their military resources for mutual defense. Alliance politician is synonymous with Earth politician.  

Also, 36 is more than 35.

tell me a situation where all human countries have been attacked at once, at earth's surface( no first contact war). All alliance politicians have to do is let the military handle it, there's nothing to discuss.

36 is more than 35 but it's not absolute majority, where you need 75% of the votes, at least in my country.
It was a joke at the electoral system. An obscure one I guess.

Modifié par filetemo, 09 octobre 2011 - 01:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

filetemo wrote...

Besides, let's not forget the Alliance already is a worldwide military
alliance,

It isn't. It's a colonization alliance, and an external defense alliance, but it's also a 'Earth nations are dominant on Earth' alliance.

in case of space invasion they are the leading force and
authority, overriding any input from local governments and standard
armies.

That would be pretty stupid. One would think the input of armies on the ground would be worth considering, since they are, well, on the ground. And the local governments are the means of, well, governing the local area.

Against alien invasions, earth politicians do not have a saying,
the Alliance leaders do.

Earth politicians are Alliance leaders.

[filetemo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

filetemo wrote...


That's a job for engineers and military tacticians,

Whose engineers? Which tacticians?

Which? Civilian Engineers,

Electircal, Civil, Bio-chem, industrial chem, computer, aerospace, weapons, defenses, space? Which ones are most important? Which groups will you draw from for the leaders, and how will they be re-organized? Who has priority in the resource shortage to come?

civilian and military scientists,

Who is in charge, the military or the civilians? What organization provides leadership? Who is subordinate? To what degree are they subordinate?

and military strategists.

Whose? Continental or naval power theory? 

Martial law would be declared.

Whose martial laws? Who is responsible for enforcing them? Do we acknowledge demarcations, boundaries? Under whose aegis are we working under? Are we making a new one? If so, who makes it up, whose in charge, how are decisions made, and who does it answer to?

None of these hierarchy and/or logistic issues you are proposing are solved by politicians



I'll repeat:

filetemo wrote...


Listen, what I mean is: Against reapers, all we need is a centralized interspecies military command center, so we can use hit and run tactics while we evaluate the situation. All we need is for the different armadas to collaborate, and while politicians may make the first contacts, after that everything is in military hands. That includes military scientists, assistants, ground personnel, soldiers, workers, industries and medic personnel. There's no need for politics, ambassadors, congresists, senators or spokesmen, because there's nothing to talk with the reapers.

Modifié par filetemo, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

filetemo wrote...
tell me a situation where all human countries have been attacked at once, at earth's surface( no first contact war).

None. But there are plenty of examples of defensive alliances facing external threat in history.

All alliance politicians have to do is let the military handle it, there's nothing to discuss.

The Alliance military gets run out of Earth in under twelve hours. That's not exactly inspiring confidence... or proof of the Alliance militaries' ability to organize all facets of the war effort. If it can't even show results on the one most indisputably under its own power, the actual military fight, why should it be trusted to run a war economy?

36 is more than 35 but it's not absolute majority, where you need 75% of the votes, at least in my country.
It was a joke at the electoral system. An obscure one I guess.

The reason that voting systems exist is that not everyone agrees on the best course of action. A system of no consensus depends entirely on who has the final say... and if you don't believe that person is doing the right/'best/successful thing, why you should follow them is open to question. If you think person X is stupid, wrong, or counterproductive, why should you follow?

Group-consensus isn't merely a matter of re-inforced judgement (better options are generally recognized by more people), but it is also a means of legitimacy that allows cooperation to work. Without legitimacy, 'everyone just listen to me' has the same weight from you as if the next guy says it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:12 .

[Dean_the_Young]

filetemo wrote...

None of these hierarchy and/or logistic issues you are proposing are solved by politicians

Politicians are exactly the ones who solve hierarchy issues and manage the cooperation of groups. That's what makes them politicians. Deciding issues like that after considering different alternatives is their entire job.

I'll repeat:

And I'll say again: you've provided nothing about how such a group would be set up or managed. You're creating a massive new organization ex-nihilo and claiming it would be simpless and have no basis for politics, when the set-up and management of such a group is entirely a product of politics.

But, since you felt like repeating it...

Listen, what I mean is: Against reapers, all we need is a
centralized interspecies military command center, so we can use hit and
run tactics while we evaluate the situation.

A centralized C&C is the worst choice in the face of an enemy with aerial superiority. It means he has only one place to strike to shoot your organization to hell. Centralized C&C is also the worst for hit-and-run tactics, which are far better under a distributed command level.

All we need is for the
different armadas to collaborate, and while politicians may make the
first contacts, after that everything is in military hands.

'Collaborate' is a feel-good word that means precisely nothing in abstract. Sharing your position is collaboration. Joining into a single super-armada is collaboration. Not getting in each others way as you sail past eachother is collaboration.

HOW you collaborate is an incredibly political question.

That
includes military scientists, assistants, ground personnel, soldiers,
workers, industries and medic personnel.

Why? Militaries aren't particularly experienced at running industry, science efforts, and a host of other aspects of a war effort. More to the point, militaries aren't exactly good at it either. WW2 was actually a decent representation of this, on a number of occassions.

There's no need for politics,
ambassadors, congresists, senators or spokesmen, because there's nothing
to talk with the reapers.

Besides the actual prospects of it (if the Reapers want us alive, we can threaten to kill ourselves as a negotiating position: if the Reapers are killing us to achieve some goal, knowing that goal and threatening to ruin it can provide a position), groups and subgroups need to talk to eachother.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:19 .

[yuncas]

filetemo wrote...

tell me a situation where all human countries have been attacked at once, at earth's surface( no first contact war). All alliance politicians have to do is let the military handle it, there's nothing to discuss.

36 is more than 35 but it's not absolute majority, where you need 75% of the votes, at least in my country.
It was a joke at the electoral system. An obscure one I guess.

-What legitimate representative body would let themselves be governed by military authority in a time of crisis, especially one so diverse in culture and aims as one representing multiple human nation-states?


-How does a place that needs an absolute majority to pass a measure get anything done?

[SandTrout]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Actually, the Reapers are communists.

Only they need to be purged and the Galaxy must fall in the general line of Chairman TIM.

Yay for Cerberus Liberation Army!!! And death to the Turian-Asari fascist parasites and exploiters!!!

You have fun there. Meanwhile, those of us who support a form of government that doesn't require purges of its own populace will be making all the things that the communists wish to steal. Then, when you start stealing it, we're going to stop making it, or we will hide it, so that you starve and collapse so that the universe may finally be free of Marx's idiocy.

Modifié par SandTrout, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:56 .

[gammameggon]

I'm me. I live my life how I want, your live yours how you want. Don't steal from me or tell me what to do or be, and there is no problems and I won't lash out.

[gammameggon]

I prefer Half-Life's Combine for examples...the Combine is all for social justice.

[mauro2222]

SandTrout wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Actually, the Reapers are communists.

Only they need to be purged and the Galaxy must fall in the general line of Chairman TIM.

Yay for Cerberus Liberation Army!!! And death to the Turian-Asari fascist parasites and exploiters!!!

You have fun there. Meanwhile, those of us who support a form of government that doesn't require purges of its own populace will be making all the things that the communists wish to steal. Then, when you start stealing it, we're going to stop making it, or we will hide it, so that you starve and collapse so that the universe may finally be free of Marx's idiocy.

Invading countries and making war for profits.... YAY!!!

[mauro2222]

gammameggon wrote...

I prefer Half-Life's Combine for examples...the Combine is all for social justice.

Mmmm I have to do a research about the Combine then. But, overall, I would prefer to live in the United Federation of Planets.

[Lucifer_Cheney]

Why not give absolute power to the military? History has only shown that it is likely to lead to such despotic figures as Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Saddam Hussein and Pervez Musharraf. But hey, less freedom for more security is a fair trade; right?

[Zulu_DFA]

SandTrout wrote...

Marx's idiocy.

Marx was against free lunches.

That's why strikes are not permitted under communism.

I'm amuzed you call that idiocy.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 octobre 2011 - 05:31 .

[SandTrout]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Marx was against free lunches.

That's why strikes are not permitted under communism.

I'm amuzed you call that idiocy.

Marxism opperates under the principal that while some can produce more than others, none are entitled to more than others. This inherently means that you will be taking from some in order to give to others, regardless of actual ability, and thus discouraging actual ability. Therefor, negative reinforcements must be used in order to achieve any meaningful production, as opposed to the possitive reinforcement of voluntary actions resulting in meaningful rewards.

Communism is slavery to the state in a non-metaphorical sense.

[Killjoy Cutter]

SandTrout wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Marx was against free lunches.

That's why strikes are not permitted under communism.

I'm amuzed you call that idiocy.

Marxism opperates under the principal that while some can produce more than others, none are entitled to more than others. This inherently means that you will be taking from some in order to give to others, regardless of actual ability, and thus discouraging actual ability. Therefor, negative reinforcements must be used in order to achieve any meaningful production, as opposed to the possitive reinforcement of voluntary actions resulting in meaningful rewards.

Communism is slavery to the state in a non-metaphorical sense.

In communism, the state is mother, the state is father, the state is god.  

"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."  -- Karl Marx (as close as I can get without looking it up.) 

[Yakko77]

lovgreno wrote...

Have you read Starship Troopers by R A Heinlen? It's realy funny.

Are you a citizen or a civilian?

[mauro2222]

SandTrout wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Marx was against free lunches.

That's why strikes are not permitted under communism.

I'm amuzed you call that idiocy.

Marxism opperates under the principal that while some can produce more than others, none are entitled to more than others. This inherently means that you will be taking from some in order to give to others, regardless of actual ability, and thus discouraging actual ability. Therefor, negative reinforcements must be used in order to achieve any meaningful production, as opposed to the possitive reinforcement of voluntary actions resulting in meaningful rewards.

Communism is slavery to the state in a non-metaphorical sense.

You are talking about production in communism? Communism is about improving life, not to produce more.

Modifié par mauro2222, 09 octobre 2011 - 05:50 .

[SandTrout]

mauro2222 wrote...

You are talking about production in communism? Communism is about improving life, not to produce more.

Attempting to improve life with only negative motivation for the prduction of those things which improve life is why communism fails.

Modifié par SandTrout, 09 octobre 2011 - 06:12 .

[D.Kain]

SandTrout wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

You are talking about production in communism? Communism is about improving life, not to produce more.

Attempting to improve life with only negative motivation for the prduction of those things which improve life is why communism fails.

That's not about communism. ANY political system can be achieved in different ways, some of which fail in the long run.