The Mess

[skankhunt42]

Here is hope that "Smitty's Law" is a fallacy.

We'd have no Martinhash.com if it ever came to pass.

[Ex-California]

Now see, for the folk out there who are too young to remember, "nuclear winter"; is the original "global warming", think of "nuclear winter" as being the lefty's dry run for "global warming", what you have to understand is, all lefties are Marxists at heart, and thing about Marxism, is that you need a doomsday, Marxism won't get any traction whatsoever without a doomsday.

It's not to say that "nuclear winter" wasn't successful as a quasi-Marxist doomsday, it certainly was, and the liberal media is always keen to play along, so "nuclear winter" was elevated to the level of "fact" in America, totally unfounded as it may have been. But the problem for the Lefty's was that the Cold War suddenly ended, and the whole nuclear issue was dropped by the public like a hot potato.

None the less, the success of the "nuclear winter" scam, is what gave the Lefty's the inspiration for the "global warming" scam, stripped of their "nuclear winter!", the lefty's just modified it into "global warming!", "carbon!" was the new "fallout!" so to say.

To be fair, its not only Marxism that needs a doomsday, all Abrahamic religions need one too.

Is it in human nature to need a doomsday like an end-goal to live correctly?

[Smitty-48]

Now see, for the folk out there who are too young to remember, "nuclear winter"; is the original "global warming", think of "nuclear winter" as being the lefty's dry run for "global warming", what you have to understand is, all lefties are Marxists at heart, and thing about Marxism, is that you need a doomsday, Marxism won't get any traction whatsoever without a doomsday.

It's not to say that "nuclear winter" wasn't successful as a quasi-Marxist doomsday, it certainly was, and the liberal media is always keen to play along, so "nuclear winter" was elevated to the level of "fact" in America, totally unfounded as it may have been. But the problem for the Lefty's was that the Cold War suddenly ended, and the whole nuclear issue was dropped by the public like a hot potato.

None the less, the success of the "nuclear winter" scam, is what gave the Lefty's the inspiration for the "global warming" scam, stripped of their "nuclear winter!", the lefty's just modified it into "global warming!", "carbon!" was the new "fallout!" so to say.

To be fair, its not only Marxism that needs a doomsday, all Abrahamic religions need one too.

Is it in human nature to need a doomsday like an end-goal to live correctly?

Fortunately for me, I worship the Hockey Gods, so don't know what you're on about, roundeye.

I do think the trajectory can be altered, but I don't think it is being altered, and I would submit that the unilateral disarmament advocated by the left, is neither a realistically acheivable, nor actually prudent alteration of the trajectory.

[Smitty-48]

Here's the thang, the Balance of Terror is indeed scary, so the natural inclination of the genteel bourgeoise is to recoil from it, however, it is the balance which is keeping the Rubocon at bay, so recoiling is not a viable option, in addition, the balance must be maintained by constantly tailoring the deterent to the changing situation, but there again, the bourgeoise are so frightened, that they are in fact freightened into paralysis, so no updating is permitted, which is opening the way to the Rubicon by default, slowly but surely, moreover, one must also account for misapprension, miscalculation and mistake, rational arbitrage ultimately would not save us, so it's a tricky bit of business, must not pull back, must not overplay your hand, and yet must not be illprepared to actually fight when push comes to shove.

You need to improve the deterent to ensure that it is actually viable and therefore credible, by recreating it so that it could actually be used in extremis, while at the same time not inciting the adversary to escalate therein, and yet, inprovement should entail mitigation, so that when rational arbitrage comes a cropper, you have options to actually fight and win a nuclear war.

Hence why I am an advocate for shifting deterrence to neutron enhanced radiation warheads, avoiding expansion of missile defenses and other destabilizers, while rebuilding greater redundancy to block the path to counterforce.

Unilateral disarmament invites the adversary to cross the Rubicon, inherent destabilizers draw both adversaries to the banks of the Rubicon, and failing to account for the plausibility of the Rubicon being crossed, both makes your deterrent less credible and therefore less viable, while rasing the stakes of crossing the Rubicon therein, to the threshold of worst case scenerio mutual countervalue exchange with maximum yield, pointlessly.

[I just Lurk]

So, we (the US) are the hegemon. We took the torch of hegemony from the british. Who did they take it from? When was the last time there was no hegemon?

[Ex-California]

So, we (the US) are the hegemon. We took the torch of hegemony from the british. Who did they take it from? When was the last time there was no hegemon?

Global hegemony is relatively new. I'd say Spain was the first one after the discovery of the New World. Ever since then there's been one though.

There's always been regional hegemony since the beginning of civilization IMO

[Speaker to Animals]

So, we (the US) are the hegemon. We took the torch of hegemony from the british. Who did they take it from? When was the last time there was no hegemon?

Rome --> Francia --> England --> United States

With high water marks:

Augustus Caesar / Constantine --> Charlemagne --> George III --> 1950s America

Rome arguably had two periods.

[Smitty-48]

So, we (the US) are the hegemon. We took the torch of hegemony from the british. Who did they take it from? When was the last time there was no hegemon?

The British took it from the French in the Seven Years War, France became the Hegemon in the wake of Hapsburg Spain, prior to that, there was no global hegemony in the modern, as in post Westphalian context, you could assert the European Continent to be the "world" prior to that and so assert European hegemons as being the "global" hegemon, but that's prior to modernity incited by the Treaty of Westphalia, so I don't include Ancient Rome for example, as being the hegemon in a modern global read transcontinental context.

In broad strokes, you can essentially mark the age of sail transcontinental commercial trading empires, as the modern definition of global hegemony.

You could include the likes of the Dutch and Portugese as contenders, just as you could include the Russians and Germans as cotenders, but I would argue that they never reached the threshold of full spectrum dominance, as a Spain, France, Britain, or America.

For the Wars of French Hegemonic Succession, the French and Indian/Seven Years War is the first world war of, wherein the British ascended to the throne, at Quebec and Wandiwash, the Napoleonic Wars being the second world war of, wherein France attempted to reassert dominance, but failed, culminating at Trafalgar and Waterloo.

[Smitty-48]

Wandiwash by the way, was the decisive battle for India, Britain became the global hegemon, when they took North America from the French, by causing the collapse of Nouvelle France, seizing the gateway therein at the Plains of Abraham, and drove the French out of India, making the Raj therein the jewel in the crown. All ratified by the Treaty of Paris 1763.

Oh, and being Americans, no doubt you would invoke the Revolutionary War as a defeat for the British hegemon, but in terms of global hegenomy, it was actually a wash for the British and another defeat for the French, largely self inflicted, but that's another story.

[Hwen Hoshino]

So, we (the US) are the hegemon. We took the torch of hegemony from the british. Who did they take it from? When was the last time there was no hegemon?

Rome --> Francia --> England --> United States

With high water marks:

Augustus Caesar / Constantine --> Charlemagne --> George III --> 1950s America

Rome arguably had two periods.

You cannot compare Rome to a global hegemon.