Shrike
6mo ago
If cartels are so easy to beat in Mexico, why can't the US wipe out the drug dealers in America?
Dealing with the cartels in Mexico using military force is very different from dealing with them here in the United States because in the United States it is illegal to use surveillance aircraft and NSA SIGINT assets to hoover up reams of data and then act without warrants in response.
The cartels would start acquiring MANPADs, ATGMs, explosives, cash, drones.
Worth noting that this may happen anyway; the US already acts against cartels and they already have been caught with all of the above weapons except perhaps MANPADs (and I've been waiting for that any day now).
Is the US capable of searching every Chinese cargo ship heading to Mexico?
Maybe? Looks like they have around 1300 ships (and that it takes about one month to cross from China to Mexico, or two months round trip). Let us assume that the United States is willing to commit a small task force comprising an America-class LHA, a Burke cruiser, two Littoral Combat Ships (finally, a role they are halfway good at!), and two Legend-class cutters, plus a squadron of MPA aircraft and a squadron of Coast Guard or Marine helicopters operating out of San Diego. Let's further assume that the squadron and each of the ships can perform on average a single intercept a day, except the LHA, which we will assume can carry out up to four. That means the US could, with a fairly casual show of force, could intercept every ship in the Chinese fleet twice a year.
Now, I am not saying that fighting the cartels is necessarily a good idea. But I am saying that there's a huge difference between domestic law enforcement operations and the full eye of Sauron that the US can bring to a military operation and that analogizing US domestic drug operations probably isn't correct imho. I tend to think that the US government, if it approached the problem methodically, could "destroy" the cartels as organized groups, but that actually destroying drug production/trafficking in Mexico as a permanent problem is a commitment measured in decades that the US would grow tired of. From that perspective, I agree that it makes more sense to focus on the domestic side of things (we have a border for a reason!) However, a punitive mission against the cartels might make sense in certain context. I also think that Afghanistan only analogizes if we make an open-ended commitment or try to topple the government of Mexico and rule it instead. If "going to war against the cartels" means "a punitive expedition against the Sinaloa" with clear goals, then I think that's very different. You might recall that in 1989 the US invaded Panama over drug trafficking without getting bogged down in a 20-year counterinsurgency, but there we had a very clear goal in mind (capture Manuel Noriega).
Shrike
6mo ago
Obviously violating Mexico's sovereignty would be an act of war. But of course we also violated Pakistan's sovereignty to get bin Laden and they didn't choose to go to war over it.
The United States has a lot of leverage over Mexico. I would not be surprised if any military operations run against the cartels happened with the nominal cooperation of the Mexican government. I am pretty sure already cooperate with the Mexican government against the cartels using military assets (Coast Guard) and civilian ones (DEA, including I think boots on the ground) so the real difference from what I see it is that Trump might do stuff like airstrikes and SOF raids that are higher visibility than sharing intel and joint law enforcement work.
Worth noting that the Mexican government might benefit considerably from being "forced to accept" the United States eradicating the cartels. What I find most interesting, though, is what I rarely see talked about: the anti-China angle. Isn't a lot of the really bad stuff like fentanyl manufactured at industrial capacity in China and then shipped to Mexico and smuggled into the US? (Can someone more knowledgable than me chime in?) It seems like stopping that pipeline should be the priority, and if Mexico won't cooperate portside the US Navy can probably do it without violating their sovereignty through VBSS actions.
If it's true that a lot of the hard drugs are Chinese manufactured and we don't start stopping shipping offshore that will tell you something (not sure exactly what, but something!)
Shrike
6mo ago
the moment they make the slightest gains
These gains were made, at least overtly, by the color-blind crowd like Elon and Rufo. Which – if the argument is "well this happened because the gigachad white nationalists are good at pushing for white interests but it had to be cloaked in the guise of meritocracy so it doesn't spook normies" again I would just suggest that white nationalists just convert into being color-blind meritocrats, since clearly that's actually politically possible to make inroads that way and apparently also in white interests and it's unclear what added value white nationalism brings to the table.
Now – maybe it would be bad for white nationalists to lie about their views (even if you think their views are bad, maybe it does damage to the soul to lie) but it probably doesn't do any damage to the soul to not make big splashy protests or give juicy quotes to journalists and the like. And (this is probably what I should have led with, in the other post) if one was pushed towards white nationalism as a reaction to some very bad strains of anti-white sentiment, now is exactly the time to rethink that and get behind a framework that is more meritocratic and more color-blind.
Now – definitely true that any argument can be a soldier. But am I wrong that color-blind meritocracy is the winning issue here, not white nationalism? And am I wrong that actual white nationalism is politically impossible in the United States of America (100% seriously, I think white nationalists would be engaged in a vastly less quixotic quest if they started preparing now to found a whites-only space colony in an O'Neill cylinder).
My concern here is two-fold: I don't want people to think "oh look white nationalism is ascendent" because color-blind meritocracy is ascendent and then explode all the good potential that color-blind meritocracy could unlock. And I think that people who are tempted by identity politics can aim higher.
Shrike
6mo ago
This might not be good for white nationalists (although I suspect in many cases it actually would be) but if the white nationalists are willing to put what's good for white nationalists ahead of what's good for white people then what is the good of white nationalists?
Of course you could argue that this is a principal/agent problem that exists in all political parties and...yes! And political parties (should) get punished by their constituents when they ignore their constituents' interests. To the extent that "white people" are the constituents of "white nationalists" (which in reality is very much not the case) then my argument is that they are arguably staring down the barrel of a principal/agent problem, inasmuch as (waiving objections for the sake of argument, here) to whatever extent that what identity politics ("white nationalism") was an asset for the constituents under an identity-politics regime, it has now become an increased liability under a more meritocratic regime.
Shrike
6mo ago
I don't follow the white nationalist types very closely but uh didn't some of them also endorse Biden? Which doesn't exactly beat the controlled opposition allegations – in fact it's so cute that it kinda makes me less likely to think it's (literally) controlled opposition because it's so on the nose.
Shrike
6mo ago
Did they not expand to payments? I thought they did. If not, yeah, huge fumble although I understand that US regulatory agencies exist, so perhaps one that was out of their hands.
Shrike
6mo ago
Yes, I think you're right about this (and I'm a bit stupid for not taking the name more seriously). But on the other hand, if my argument about what is good for white people in the United States is correct, it's helpful to clarify that what white nationalists want might diverge from what is good for white people.
Shrike
6mo ago
Didn't Facebook integrate using its services to pay people? If you get to Facebook-as-payment-service and especially if you aren't as greedy as other payment providers that's another source of free money right there. But I don't use Facebook's payment services so I have only the foggiest idea about how that all works (or doesn't). But yes Facebook is a wasteland now (not that I ever was particularly enamored of it).
Shrike
6mo ago
It seems to me a grifter is someone who is pretending to be effective to get money – they might be effective at getting money, but what makes them a grifter is that they over-promise and under-deliver. I am not a Rufo Expert, but from what I've seen, Rufo actually delivers.
Shrike
6mo ago
Another potential chokepoint for China is high-end ICBM production. I don't know if we would beat them in an arms race if we ramped up manufacturing Standards – I just don't have strong knowledge on the subject either way.
Furthermore, would nukes in space clear out Brilliant Pebbles? There were rumours about Russia already deploying nuclear weapons into space sometime ago, the Chinese might do the same thing. You could harden the satellites against the EMP but that would make them a lot bulkier to deploy.
Fortunately Starship can handle plenty of bulk. Even without, though, I don't think a single EMP can technically clear out all of Brilliant Pebbles because the missiles would be in orbit all around the world. But it seems like launching multiple would be effective enough that you'd want to harden it anyway.
But besides the SPACE NUKES, Russia has started working on sea-delivered nuclear weapons and their nuclear arsenal has always been considerably more frightening than China's – I suspect it would be harder to defend against them than China, at least in the near to medium future, although I could be wrong.
It invites a pre-emptive nuclear strike in the months and weeks before the system becomes fully operational. Yes, this seems possible. I am not sure it's impossible for the US to pull a Dr. Strangelove-type scenario and just deploy it in, say, 10 Starship launches simultaneously one day. But I think it would be difficult.
However I am not sure China would go to NUCLEAR WAR just because we deployed Brilliant Pebbles.
Shrike
6mo ago
I would suggest to the white nationalists that, within their own framework, right now is precisely the correct time for white nationalists to quietly disappear.
Look, I am not going to pretend to be on the same team as the white nationalists. I do think that it's pretty bad that white people were and are being discriminated against for being white (let's set aside the rabbit hole of how far freedom of association should go for a minute). And inasmuch as that was bad, even if I am skeptical of racial identity politics, I can at least understand the desire to form an ethnic coalition, to pursue a sort of perceived counterweight to other ethnic groups. Defection, game theory, and all that. But with the Latest Developments it seems likely that discrimination against white people may be on the wane. Inasmuch as whites as a group have any interest, if you think that whites perform adequately in a meritocracy, (which I think most white nationalists think – and of course I think there are other reasons to favor meritocracy) then the interest of "white people" seems to be to make sure that meritocracy sticks as the law of the land. As such, supporting the new meritocratic norms that the new administration is trying to push is probably more likely to be effective and good for whites than agitating for white nationalism. And since white supremacy was what originally gave cover for discrimination against white people to begin with, I would think it is tactically advantageous for white nationalists to be particularly unthreatening so as to not give ammunition to team anti-meritocracy (that is, assuming the goal of white nationalists is "stuff that is good for white people" writ large.)
Shrike
6mo ago
Rufo seems like a very capable operator. I think it's a mistake to write him off as a grifter, even if you don't like him.
Shrike
6mo ago
Right, I think China would just build more nuclear weapons. Of course, some of this depends on production. I don't know how quickly China can produce nuclear missiles. The US probably can't make very many Ground-Based Interceptors, but it might be able to try to steal a lap by procuring thousands of Standards quickly.
Of course, the winning move for the US might simply be to bring back SDI and Brilliant Pebbles. Once Starship gets going the cost to orbit will be dramatically reduced, the interceptors probably won't weigh all that much, and the guidance and kill vehicle problems have already been ~sorted out.
I think it would still be very foolish to gamble with a complex system like this working 100% of the time, but if you model the US as being unwilling to tolerate a rival AGI cluster, that might become their priority in order to ensure they could strike with (more) impunity. And even if you assess that it is possible to overwhelm such a system, it raises the costs for an attacking power by ensuring they have to commit much more of their nuclear arsenal.
Shrike
6mo ago
I don't subscribe to the Dase Model of the World, but you might find our new administration's focus on missile defense interesting in this regard.
We could probably shoot down 10% of China's 1000 warheads on a good day now, maybe scaling that up to defeat the entire Chinese arsenal is just a matter of procurement. Maybe we could win a war against China without sacrificing anything more than a fleet or two, even if they decide to go nuclear. Food for thought!
Shrike
6mo ago
I'm not opposed to solar, but it takes up considerably more space than an equivalent nuclear plant, and is worse for the environment.
Shrike
6mo ago
Have you done any research on this yourself? Are you familiar with, e.g., the very low cost of nuclear energy in South Korea?
I'm pro-nuclear, but I don't exactly have an essay written up on as to why – it's an aggregation of various things I've read over the years. But if you do a quick Google you'll find sources like this one (I haven't read it, but I've skimmed it and I think it covers the points you are interested in).
Obviously, if nuclear isn't financially acceptable in cost, I am interested in hearing about it. But my priors, based on osmosis, is that that cost is at least partially artificially inflated, and that there are a lot of hidden environmental costs to "clean" energy methods like solar.
One of the things the article I linked notes to is that wind and solar (which take up tremendous amounts of space) are heavily subsidized, whereas nuclear energy (at least in the US) is burdened by overregulation. In South Korea, nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar.
Check out the article I linked, maybe do some research yourself, and report back :)
Shrike
6mo ago
Fortunately we have invented video games which are infinitely superior to prostitution!
Glib answers aside, and conceding your point for the sake of argument - it seems to me that we would want to balance what you are saying against the demonstrated positive good of the monogamous model. Which I think suggests that having prostitution "normalized" is not the ideal. Again, agreeing with you for the sake of argument (I'm not sure that I do "for real" but I acknowledge that this argument is facially plausible and worth engaging with) it seems that the goal would be to have prostitution available enough to reduce violent crime, but suppressed or stigmatized enough to drive most people towards the nuclear family.
Which I think is historically a not unusual state of, ah, affairs.
Shrike
6mo ago
I don't think "looking down on guys who can't get a mate" is a new thing, or something we've developed recently in the West.
Prostitution has been varying degrees of frowned on/illegal in the West since Christianity took hold (and even absent Christianity, I think it's fairly rare that prostitution is considered an esteemed career, historically). It's not like everything was fine up until George W. Bush banned prostitution, or whatever. Historically there have always been cycles where it was tolerated and then cracked down on.
It's true that literal "mail order brides" are looked down on, but people still go overseas (or online) and find someone who meets their fancy and marry them, and that's not illegal and I don't think is generally looked down on at all, as long as it isn't framed as a transactional relationship.
Setting all the moral quibblings aside, the nuclear family is a very beneficial societal force, and prostitution a negative one, so it doesn't seem strange that people would promote the one thing and look down on the other.
Shrike
6mo ago
The smart take is that the Constitution can't really be forked because under the current arrangement the Supreme Court gets to decide what the interpretation is.
The galaxy-brained take is that the Constitution is constantly being forked due to circuit splits!
Shrike
6mo ago
Trump and Biden as dueling time-travelers sent back by rival political factions who occasionally slip up and say things from the world as they experienced it?
Shrike
7mo ago
Smart people moved to the city where, due to pestilence, they had sub-replacement fertility.
Is this (historically) true or conjecture?
On the topic of rank speculation, it might be worth pointing out with regards to your analysis of wealth and limited class mobility that firstborns in particularly are supposedly slightly smarter than their younger siblings on average, and under primogeniture rules you would essentially expect successive firstborns to accumulate lots of wealth, which in turn as you mention would allow them to sustain and have more children. I do not know enough about when and where primogeniture is practiced to comment extensively but it was practiced in England during the Middle Ages from what I recall. No idea if the supposed firstborn IQ advantage could be expected to have a genetic component, but since everyone acknowledges that intelligence is partially cultural maybe it's still relevant.
Shrike
7mo ago
I feel somewhat similarly. Democracy is not necessarily the only characteristic I think is valauble in a nation, but I would prefer Taiwan govern itself, for different interrelated reasons.
(Also a lot of people would die. But even if it was a bloodless coup, I would prefer that the values of the Chinese Communist Party not be ascendent.)
I think that legal fictions are important! If "everybody knows they're separate even if there's a legal fiction otherwise" in your personal life, you're still legally bound to your spouse until divorce proceedings are finalized.
The United States arguably should not have recognized the Chinese Communist government specifically for this reason.
Either "lol international law and treaties aren't real," in which case maybe things like Iraq and Afghanistan (or Ukraine or an invasion of Taiwan) were bad but they arguably weren't illegal, or any aggressive military force that a nation, including the United States, takes that is not in self-defense or approved by the UN Security Council are a violation of its obligations under both the UN Charter and, if the country happens to be a NATO member, Article 1 of the NATO charter, where all parties agree "to refrain in [its] international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
Now, someone is going to arrive and explain to me that there is some argument made somewhere that international law allows one to contravene what seems to be the absolutely kinda clear language of the UN and NATO charters. To which I say: it sounds like legal fictions are important. (But to which I also say: if you can launch an offensive military operation without UN approval and the UN General Assembly condemns it as a violation of international law but the UN Security Council never does anything about it because the member launching the operation sits on the Council, then maybe "lol international law and treaties aren't real.")
I happen to think that international law and custom is good and that it was arguably an absolutely massive mistake to tie any of that to a body as dysfunctional as the United Nations. But nobody forced us to sign the UN Charter or the NATO Charter.
I think it is! And inspecting it might be more of a challenge than simply performing the interception, but I dunno. Maybe there's a Coast Guard type on here who can enlighten us as to the details.
More options
Context Copy link