Walsingham

Here's the rub, though. Pre-emptive strike, averting disaster - good. 'Pre-emptive' strike bad.

I was going to make an observation about Audis, but was overtaken by Archi's news. I concur that it's good to remember with respect. In many ways that's the best any of us can hope for.

Good to hear, sluggo.

LOL at InSidious I had to look up Klammath Falls. I thought it was only in Fallout. Is that a deliberate reference, do you reckon? I suppose you are aware of the way farmers in Africa cheerfully knacker the environment by various practices? They, and the people around them would love to have the odd EPA feller stopping the insanity. I'm not saying Klammath was right. But a single error does not an evil make.

Stratfor.com helpfully have furnished me with a great example of how something we already know came out in the leaks to the detriment of what I laughingly refer to as the good guys*: Concerning the leaks of diplomatic cables regarding Iran.

Two rejoinders: 1. The US govt's ability to function can and is being harmed by these leaks (even though they contain paradoxically mundane data). I already mentioned the damage done by stovepiping in the intelligence community. What is going to happen if diplomats can't say the bleeding obvious in confidential communiques? 2. Who says whether wikileaks is behaving in a manner consistent with the public interest? They aren't accountable to anyone. 3. I don't see the My Lai incident as off topic! But it was broken by a soldier writing to a Congressman, in a manner that is entirely consistent with democratic principle and practice. It's certainly consistent with what I was taught under training about reporting up the chain of command, ending in the legislature. 4. I do not believe it is the real meat of the matter, but claiming that the people need to be informed by external bodies is flawed on two counts: - They are constantly appraised of failings by their own governments in committee hearings, audits etc. Because democratic governments contain members of opposition. Whose job is is to loyally question, so they can take power. - Informing means processesing data not just dumping it. Wikileaks mission statement is to embarass governments. Not to make reasoned or responsible judgements, but to sensationalise. In the first place this weakens their ability to inform the reasoned process of democracy and accountability. In the second place it weakens awareness by flooding the public's awareness with trash like this.

Nice to see you involved, GD. But forgive me for having misunderstood you previously. I was under the impression that you felt companies never directly inflicted harm, and that only governments needed to be defended against? You address the point about why and how state authority can be brought to bear on BP very clearly. I don't believe you address the deeper philosophical point.

My spinal system architecture wouldn't stand it, anyway. But thanks for the compliment. I just meant it for folks on here who seem to have quite a tech bias. And yes, the presence in a Brit paper was the cause for alarm.

Highly disciplined work day today. Rather chuffed with self. Have now got vegetable soup on the boil, and am squaring up to a gin and tonic, and a bout of zombie shooting.

IIRC there were a few of you living in Ohio. I was slightly startled to see this ad in the Daily Telegraph.

What is it with guards in these shows? Those two look like they're falling asleep.

Aphorisms are the first refuge of the cretin.

You keep bringing this up. If there hadn't been whistleblowers, nobody would have heard of My Lai, either. As somebody who has worked enforcing this kind of stuff, I have 0 faith in them working, even in countries and organisations roughly 1 % the size of U.S. 1. The My Lai investigation utilised the democratically endorsed systems to hammer the perpetrators. 2. Nothing in these releases is anything like as serious. 3. We already knew a lot of the contents, as set out in this article. This is just an exercise in Yank bashing. Nothing more. Junai, if you want to prove that the USA isn't a democracy, start a thread, and lay out your argument. Until then, quit embarassing yourself. Because you sound like a loon.

Once again, Krez: 1. The USA has a democratically mandated and democratically administered process for being held accountable. Wikileaks runs contrary to the laws of that democracy. If the people actually wanted wikileaks they could vote for it. They haven't and they won't. 2. Yet again, there is little of any substance in the leaks which is new. In fact nothing new that I've seen. 3. Yet again the leaks damage Americas ability to function as a government by militating against frank and sensible internal discussion. All Wikileaks is is a vehicle for undermining whichever country it points at. WHERE ARE THE CHINESE WIKILEAKS?

I actually just dashed back to apologise for sounding like a wanker. Obviously I AM a wanker, but I needn't stress the fact. All I was trying to get at is the principle of mass in warfare is (in my opinion) something which never goes away. Moral factors have a big part to play in unexpected results. But over time, mass will out.

Sitting admiring the snow from my study window. Cranked the heating up. Result is a profound sense of well being.

The thing is, Monte, that medeval armies kinda worked. You or I might not fight for such a structure, but people have, and I don't think it's mad to suggest that they would. The army which invaded Germany was brutal and inefficient and cared less about it's soldiers than the Germans probably did. But it functioned. The meat may have weak, but the iron was strong. The comparison with doomsday in Europe is apt to a point. Except that unlike you (probably) I read the mathematical studies of invasion. They dialed the capability of soviet forces right down as far as sense would allow and within days NATO broke. From fatigue, from logistic snarl ups, from C2 fuffle, from casualties... Mass will out. I think the campaign implications for NK would be that eventually the tide would turn. But in the short term they'd give SK one hell of a pasting.

Pfft, it's the internet! Which is surely the number one reason the internet is so crappy. Because people don't think it should be any better.

Or if someone copied a book I wrote.

Ironically you could cream NK if you launched a pre-emptive attack. I would imagine the US Navy has enough air assets to take out most NK arty in situ. Sadly, we are now wusses in the West and will await the NK to attack first. That is indeed the lesson arising. Hit all those static heavy positions with our neat specialist devices en masse, and NK's conventional weapons threat would be set back a decade. Unfortunately, because they are nuke armed (probably) you'd have to be sure you could hit the nukes too. So instead we essentially bribe them to carry on being a holes. Not that I'm averse to the humanitarian argument. But seriously, when do the poor sods actually living in NK get to escape?

I reckon they killed him. It's what I'd do. With a vacuum cleaner.

I'm suspicious of the notion that democracy is magically better, or more hardy than other systems. However, in pure system terms, the more you try to force people away from what they want the more hostility you generate, and the harder you have to govern (info and physical effects). So letting the people define what laws govern them is a pretty obvious way of regulating the system whole. My main objection to this is that you lay yourself oopen to revolutionary movements which aim to destroy democracy.

Welcome to my world of late... And while beer with friends can be good.. I thought you were planning on cutting back on that avenue... I did, you goon. It was for one month.

In terms of NK projecting force across into South Korea I would suggest something a little more nuanced than the 'Hordes of Iraq' analogy. - NK artilllery reaches a far way into SK. This would deliver a punishing series of blows for at least some time into the war. With an impact on SK response by damaging infrastructure and prompting a mass egress of refugees. - Air wise SK would dominate, no question. However, air dominance might not be enoughto deliver a crushing superiority to the vital land battle - On land NK has the edge in terms of mass and mentality on the offensive. this is due to the terrain being vastly more complex and compact than that of the Arab wars. Rugged mountains and built up areas. - Command and control is unlikely to be a problem when advancing into a corridor, on objectives which have been planned for for over fifty years. Not to mention the likelihood that they would be using buried landlines for a lot of comms. - I don't know enough about naval warfare to make an assessment. ~~ Having said that I don't believe NK is about to go spang bucknuts. All they need to do is keep acting up and threatening craziness and we'll keep giving them free aid. Yay!

Rubbish day for work. Couldn't think straight. Got almost nothing done. Pub in the evening. Beer! Win.