Clausewitz said it well: "The political object—the original motive for war—will thus determine both the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires". The military objective cannot be the political objective. Or some popular slogan.

The perfect example of this is now clearly present in Israel where the Netanyahu administration struggles with this problem as Benny Gantz, a former Chief-of-Staff of the IDF, has made an ultimatum to walk out if basically the political goals of the conflict are not met. Also it's clear now that also the IDF leadership would like some political goals to the war too in the Clausewitzian fashion.

Unlike generals, populists don't read Clausewitz, unfortunately.

All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate. — Benkei

I agree with this.

Specifically going after the combatants and simply denying them any territory from which to operate is already quite decisive way to end a war. Here it must be understood that if the combatant force, one side's army etc, is destroyed or surrenders, but the civilian society then start itself to attack the forces, they are then illegal combatants. There's no problem here in the case of laws of war. However civilian you are, if you start shooting enemy soldiers, they have the total right to shoot you. However if they shoot you assuming you could potentially pick up a rifle and fight them, that's another thing.

Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity.

Ok then, I agree with this logic. In which cases can that be applied to, especially your analogy with WW1 and WW2? — schopenhauer1

WW2 should be remembered really, as the name says, as a continuation of WW1 or the end result of WW1 and the afterward made peace. Losing WW1 is the reason why the gang of mr Hitler came into power. Yet many times people just start with Hitler rising to power without considering just why this happened.

Also the winning powers were in 1945 fully aware of how badly in hindsight the Paris peace talks went in securing peace.

Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course). — schopenhauer1

Surely the German leadership would have preferred to that especially in 1945, but here again one has to remember that WW1 had happened. A negotiated peace when Germany wasn't fighting in it's own territory (yet) and the ideas of Dolchstoss and basically Hitler's coming to power ...because of the lost war.

It was quite logical that the Allies didn't want to make the same mistake again. And total defeat lead both Germany and Japan to change their policies totally. A total defeat makes an obvious reason for totally changing everything.

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves. — Linkey

Theoretically it's totally possible. Of course in order to prevent this democracies do have constitutions and these can either not be changed or demand a 2/3 majorities to be changed etc. Then also come international agreements like the UN charter, which for instance in your example could make a lot of other sovereign countries be quite angry and suspect of the validity of this law and the leaders of that country. Not only having slavery, but having it even accepted by law would definitely get a response from other sovereign states.

But if we think about this on a purely theoretical level, having a law that all redheads should be imprisoned because they are witches is totally possible. There's no limitations on what kind of laws Parliaments make. That's why for a democracy to function, it does need the citizens to be informed. Usually people are and democracies function as a safety valve.

And welcome to the forum!

I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smutas” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. — Linkey

A democracy (whether sound or flawed) can be split on a key issue, like which religion should be dominant or which claimant has a right to rule, or whether a large segment of the population should be owned like beasts of burden. — Vera Mont

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles.

No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed. — schopenhauer1

For the worse, actually.

It's telling that the ICC court now found both the Israeli leadership and the leadership of Hamas guilty of warcrimes. And both sides just don't give a fuck. Likely Israel trying to get the judge himself to be canceled. There's another thread for that war, so not meaning to go into detail with and only mentioning to give an example of why in our times war has become more barbaric, actually.

Of course people can find multiple examples extremely brutal wars in history and in general civil wars are far more brutal than two conventional armies fighting it out. Yet still, many things have become worse, especially when you compare to the fighting in the 19th Century.

Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front. — RogueAI

Well, when it came to Poland, Stalin had been an ally to Hitler. So by his standards, that was a totally reasonable possibility (which many Nazis in the end hoped to happen).

But the strategic bombing didn't really do much compared the Ostfront, even

Yet do notice that even with the strategic bombing, actually Germany's military production went all the time up during 1941-1944. For example aircraft production is telling that it didn't



As it comes to air power, I think the idea of forcing the population to surrender by strategic bombing has been shown to be a quite dubious and questionable idea. What has been showed to work in strategic bombing is actually attacking the military-industrial complex and simple interdiction: to take away the ability to move troops and materiel to the frontline troops. Here air superiority and dominating the skies have showed just how effective air power can be.

So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings... — schopenhauer1

I think the laws of war are quite clear on this case: if a combatant uses an otherwise restricted area as a fighting position, let's say a hospital or a church/mosque, it can be attacked.

Naturally in the present climate this has lead to simply to hospitals being attacked in Ukraine and in Gaza. It has gone so bad that one of the lessons from the war in Ukraine is for medical personnel to hide their status simply by not using the red cross. Why use a large red cross, when it means that you just paint yourself as a target?

During WW2 the most famous example was the bombing of Monte Cassino. As the monastery has such a prominant view over the whole valley, the Allies presumed it had to be used by the Germans. It wasn't, but after the monastery was demolished, it was.

In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth.

Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? — schopenhauer1

Sounds more like the present sanctimonious propaganda of trying to give an excuse why population centers should be bombed in the first place. Because you don't hide formations in cities, you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress.

During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet:

What, exactly, did Douhet preach? The main assumptions of his airpower concept, all contained in The Command of the Air and other writings, can be summarized briefly.

Wars are no longer fought between armies, but between whole peoples, he believed, and future wars would be total and unrestrained, with civilians as legitimate targets. Wars are won by destroying “the enemy’s will to resist”—and only this produces “decisive victory.” Defeat of enemy forces is a poor indirect route. It is far better to strike directly at “vital centers” of power inside an enemy nation.

World War I was a turning point, showing armies and navies can no longer end wars; the power of the defense—poison gas, machine guns—makes offensive action futile.

The airplane, though, is revolutionary, “the offensive weapon par excellence,” able to bypass surface defenses and carry out massive attacks on cities, destroying the enemy’s will to resist.

Prior to WW2, this idea of "destroying the enemy's will to resist" was quite popular. You can notice the stark difference to the present attitudes towards war. Douhet wouldn't have a following today, but he sure did in the pre-WW2 era.

Air power advocates like Giulio Douhet advocated the use of air power as a tool to avoid
trench warfare and dramatically shorten wars. Aircraft would attack an enemy’s sources of
strength, namely its population centers to force the enemy to sue for peace. The key was to
destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Great Britain’s RAF was a strong proponent of using strategic air power to avoid another major ground war. Air Marshal Hugh Trenchard was a major advocate for the role of strategic bombing. In the United States, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell was another strong air power advocate.

Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Harris was true to his word.

Naturally after the "darkest hour" had passed, nobody will admit that they were for negotiating with mr Hitler. In fact, any possible attempts to end the war with something else than later unconditional surrender was (is?) obviously hushed away.

This is perhaps something that we forget now when talking about the war in Ukraine: both sides ardently will declare to keep on fighting... until some agreement is found, which comes quite "spontaneously" for the people.

You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground. — Sir2u

And this actually is the answer to the question of the OP in my view. Natural you can take the stance that something that a country has accepted to be unlawful... is also unlawful in war.

Perhaps the only exception might be the modern discourse of Imperialism/Colonialism, where there's few defenders for obviously otherwise stunning military campaigns of conquest of the past. But this has no political weight anymore, especially when those colonies have gotten independence or the native people that have been fought with genocidal strategies pose little or no political threat anymore.

We are talking here in the context of WW2 about the strategic bombing campaign. Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.

Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war.

Always fun to watch the topic immediately switch to “mom and pop stores” and other small businesses when the parasitic, greedy, pathetic behavior of “entrepreneurs” that we’re all supposed to worship is pointed out. — Mikie

I wouldn't think of Elon Musk and the like as "entrepreneurs". It's YOU who make this reference. The corporations Musk and some Bezos are the head of are extremely big corporation. Yes, the "entrepreneurial" age of the IT -sector was more in the 1960's and 1970's. Of course, you can argue that computers using punch cards had been around for quite some time. But IT-sector that we know of today didn't exist then. And now it surely isn't about entrepreneurs, but large corporations.

They (Musk and Bezos types) are an example more of the fact that Wall Street pours billions and billions at some corporation making their owners and CEOs extremely rich. So rich that they start their own space programs. That's hardly entrepreneurship.

America has this desire of worshipping the few success stories as proof of the American dream. Yet when I refer to entrepreneurs, I do talk about the actual masses of ordinary people.

In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality. — Sir2u

In history, using counterfactuals (what if's) is actually a way to think about actual reality that happened. It is using the history itself to answer the what if, not just assume historical persons without looking at what they actually thought and did.

OK, the first thing here is notice that when chemical weapons are used against you forces, Churchill is of the opinion to use them then against the enemy. This is simply a historical fact:

In his role as Secretary of State for War and Air in the wake of the First World War he ordered the use of mustard gas by the RAF in support of the pro-Tsarist White forces fighting to contain the Bolsheviks. This was after the Bolsheviks employed captured German gas shells against the Whites. When news of his intentions broke in Parliament there was uproar. ‘I do not understand why, if they use poison gas,’ he told the House of Commons, ‘they should object to having it used against them.’ When the raucous objections had died down he retorted, ‘it is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them.’ Six Bolshevik targets were bombed by the RAF with little effect.

(See Churchill and mustard gas)

And the occasion of Churchill using chemical weapons against an enemy that didn't even have chemical weapons, in Iraq, but Afghanistan too:

When Afghanistan invaded British ruled India in 1919 Churchill urge the use of mustard gas against the marauding Afghan tribesmen. This according to Churchill was on the grounds that ‘Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive.’ When the India Office in London objected pointing out that this would set a dangerous precedent with the Muslim population on the Northwest Frontier and in India generally, the idea was quietly dropped. Instead conventional bombs were deployed and the invaders driven back over the border. Likewise, the following year when the widespread Iraq Revolt broke out in Mesopotamia, Churchill once more authorised the use of gas. However, as all the mustard gas bombs had been sent to Russia none were available. Undeterred he ordered the army to despatch 15,000 gas shells that were stockpiled in Egypt. Again though only conventional means were used to crush the rebels. A vexed Churchill wrote to his colleagues ‘I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.’ Subsequently the use of chemical weapons was banned internationally in 1925 under the Geneva Protocol. Churchill seems to have taken very little heed of this.

So Churchill had ordered the use of the gas weapon post WW1 and had advocated actually twice the use of the gas weapon and didn't understand "the squeamishness about the use of gas" simply portrays a person that actually has a quite positive view about the weapon system. There is absolutely no denying of this. And so yes, all the above is relevant when thinking what Churchill would have done in the situation described in the OP.

Hence you don't have to use the hypotheticals so much as if Churchill would have to had a lot of encouragment to use chemical weapons. It's more like that if there would have been German landings on the UK, it would have been the military command reigning down Churchill from using the gas weapon.

Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.

If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.

If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany.

Yeah, those valuable parasites — Mikie

Well, a lot of the actual workforce in every country are those valuable "parasites", as you call them. Nearly one fifth of the workforce in the US are entrepreneurs. It's a similar amount compared to those who work for the government and local states. Obviously your leftist ideology comes here through there, but the simple fact is that a lot of people are also their own employers (thus simply don't have an employer), hence they might have a different viewpoint of leftist ideas of the workers/capitalist feud. Just as land owning farmers might be similar "parasites" to you (at least the more wealthier ones).

But anyway, unionization shouldn't be only a leftist idea. Luckily for example here in Finland, it isn't. The second largest union in Finland is Akava, the " Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland", which for example has as it's member organization the union for military officers. Nearly all of the officers in the Finnish armed forces belong to this union, and they definately aren't leftist. The Akava itself has close links to the conservative party.

It's simply common sense to have unions to negotiate with the employer(s).

Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. — Sir2u

Read carefully: he advised to use chemical weapons.

We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions. — Sir2u

And therefore yes, someone that has advise the use of chemical weapons makes it clear how he does value the weapon system. It is worth mentioning in this purely hypothetical situation.

And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc).

I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon. — Sir2u

Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat?

Besides, my point was that arguing about individual weapon systems goes quite off the mark here: if you use napalm, white phospherous, thermobaric weapons, mustard gas or so isn't the main issue here. Because you surely can use conventional high explosives, ordinary bullets quite irresponsibly and commit heinous war crimes with them too. Let's not forget that genocides have been done with a cheap pesticide and in Ruanda with machetes. It is something similar of the Pope calling for the limitation of the crossbows only to be used against the infidels and not fellow Christians, a rather hypocrite act of morality. Hence in my view arguing about the lawfulness of certain weapon systems simply drifts the focus from the obvious: how and in what manner are the weapon systems used. Yet the general thing here is that if the enemy commits warcrimes, then that doesn't give you the right to do the same, and warcrimes aren't a way to success in the battlefield (hence you can be victorious even without committing warcrimes).

Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner. — ssu

It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon. — Sir2u

As pointed earlier by others, a far better example for this thread would have been the actual terror bombings that happened. At least there Bomber Command Arthur Harris knew well that if the Allies lost the war, he would be in court for war crimes. Again, what I'm against is the whole wording of the problem of warcrimes as being the only option, or in the example using banned weapons systems as the only viable option. There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? It simply is questionable. Just as is the hypothetical idea that women don't want to start families, so forced sex is the "only viable method". Especially when the cost effectiveness of chemical weapons on the battlefield and the deterrence of simply chemical weapons possibly existing within the stockpiles of the enemy made somebody like Hitler not to use them. That should tell a lot about the effectiveness of chemical weapons on the 20th Century battlefield.

Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned.

If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use. — Sir2u

Churchill himself advised to use mustard gas on Iraq rebels, so you don't have to assume here that Churchill would have had to be encouraged to use them on a hypothetical German beach head landing zone in 1940, if Operation Sea Lion would have gone through. I think he would have wanted to use them in that kind of dire situation. Of course I also think that mr Hitler would had no difficulties in ordering the Luftwaffe then to bomb London with chemical weapons: once the Allies used them, no reason why not to use them yourself! After all, Douhet, the father of the terror bombing strategy, thought prior to WW2 that strategic bombing should be done with a mixture of conventional bombs and fire bombs and then followed on with a chemical attack to prevent first responders from doing their job. Hence the common thought prior to WW2 that bombings of cities would be done also by chemical weapons. Just look at any photos of pre-WW2 that handle preparations for the common people against aerial bombing.

Notice that this is a bit of different question. Because here the question is of weapons that have been deemed "unlawful". There's a multitude of these "banned" weapons: chemical weapons, biological weapons, antipersonnel mines etc. which countries can either participate in banning or not. Yes, there was the Geneva Protocol of 1925 forbidding the use of chemical weapons, but actually even before WW1 the UK had signed a ban on chemical weapons. But once the Germans used chemical weapons in WW1, the UK had no problems of using them itself.

The simple question here is the futility of such an attack: the German soldier carried all time during WW2 the gas mask, if you've seen photos of German troops from WW2. And btw Germany had the largest quantity of chemical weapons during WW2, the allies actually didn't have a similar stockpile. It's not a miracle weapon, which all sides knew.

German WW2 canisters for the gasmasks:



It might be handy when the enemy has no gas masks, like the Ethiopians didn't have when Mussolini attacked them.

(An Ethiopian with burns from chemical agents during the Italian-Abyssinian war in 1936)

But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios. — Sir2u

That's my main point: the idea that in some hypothetical situation usually should mean that this has something to do with reality.

Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner.

Because how would implementing war crimes be "the only viable method"? How is that the only viable way? War crimes and terror are usually done as method of control of the civilian populace: strike so much fear that they won't lift a finger up. Or at worst, having genocide and/or ethnic cleansing as the ultimate objective. And warcrimes typically happen when the fighting force has huge discipline problems, especially when the armed force is not an organized army, but simply an armed mob. Warcrimes are typical also to armies with soldiers that are treated as cannon fodder. A bit different is then states that have genocidal objectives (like the Third Reich). As I've said earlier, the effectiveness of the idea of making a desert and calling it peace has been understood from Antiquity, but also the rejection of this strategy comes from that time too. The question of justification has been clear since Antiquity: there is no moral justification for it.

The only possibilities that come to my mind of "the only viable method" are totally morally objectionable scenarios, typically dictatorships with little support of the populace clinging on to power. Hence no moral grounds for this. Or then you believe in the ideas like Lebensraum from one Austrian mister H.

And this strategy actually has nothing to do with actual warfare of killing the enemy combatants and destroying the enemy itself, which is the stuff the laws of war are basically about (even if they have been enlarged to consider other things too). The Chinese can indeed have a genocidal program against the Uighurs (arbitrary detention, forced sterilization and abortion etc.), but these are not warcrimes because the Chinese military isn't fighting Uighurs in armed combat.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type). First, abstaining from warcrimes simply doesn't hinder your ability fight a war successfully. Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants.

But the above thinking goes well with people who want revenge and who think that if the enemy kills civilians, then you have to give them "a message" by killing their civilians, a lot of them. Eye for an eye or perhaps more accurately 100 eyes for one eye. In similar fashion these people, usually who have not served in the military, think that not committing war crimes when the enemy does them means that somehow the military is soft and not harsh enough to counter such bloodthirsty foe. These ideas are quite ludicrous and typically show the total lack of understanding of modern warfare of those who given justification for war crimes.

Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No.

So I guess you're saying that Laplace's demon is omniscient until it begins to doubt its own abilities — Gnomon

Oh no, that's not it. I'm just saying that it cannot do what it doesn't do. This is the law of non-contradiction: it states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

Hence it cannot simply be omniscient when it interacts with the universe. The only way the demon can be omniscient about an universe is when it's not part of it. And when it's not part of it, it cannot give any information to anybody (interact with it, in general).

Here I have to disagree, at least for me.
I had to stop doing so much reading years ago because of eye problems. I spend a lot of time on a computer for work and the strain was getting too much to sit around and read after work or while traveling. So I found a source of audio books. — Sir2u

Reading a lot does have effects, hence the stereotype that those that read much have glasses. And audio books are a great way to use time for instance when you doing something like driving long distance, jogging etc.

However I don't think that the majority of people have problems of reading too much. At least in the global perspective.

I only ever used audio-books as a compliment in reading classes. — Sir2u

I think the question is what happens when the things that should only compliment reading take over reading.

As far as the threat to former Eastern European states was concerned. NATO was doing fine when it was all Warsaw Pact. — Benkei

NATO was formed because of the actions of the Soviet Union. Hence that misses the point as obviously East Europe at that time didn't have the ability to choose their sides.

Yes, you like to ignore twenty years of warning in favour of a single instance and then focus on one speech by Putin in which he claimed Ukraine was artificial. — Benkei

Just one speech? How about the actual annexations and Russification now acted in Ukraine? How do you forget that? It's not one speech, it's a multitude of actions that Russia has done.

And on the contrary, it's twenty years of Russia showing that it doesn't care a god damn shit about the sovereignty of other smaller states and does want to be an imperialist. It is an Empire and is really frightened that it will collapse to be something like Austria as it is totally incapable of being something like the UK (keeping the country together without violence and accepting separatist movements as being part of democracy). Somehow in the delusional pro-Putinist camp (who consider them "realists") this is something that Russia has a given right to and OMG, if the smaller states don't surrender to Russia and seek refuge from an International defence pact, it's all the fault of the US.

Just ask yourself why these countries were so worried about Russia in the first place. The obvious reason is that the Warsaw Pact was actually for keeping the countries in the Soviet sphere, secondary role was to fight NATO. And in this role Warsaw Pact was very successfully. The Soviet military operations (wars) of occupying Hungary and Czechoslovakia were actually so successful, that Russia tried to mimic similar strategy in the first Chechen war and in Ukraine in 2022. And even today Russia's CSTO clearly shows it has nothing to do with defense of the individual members (as Armenia has found out the hard way) and everything to be an instrument of Russian control.

If you think NATO is similar, then what NATO members have been attacked by other NATO members when they went against US lines? The difficulty of Sweden joining just shows that NATO is really an international organization and you have to have then all the countries agreeing on the policies. Otherwise the US has just to pick an alliance of the willing and not bother NATO. And hence the US is on occasion so disappointed with the organization because it's an international organization and not a tool of control as the Warsaw pact was.

And if you're in the camp of "might makes right", then don't bitch about what Israel does to the Palestinians in Gaza or what the US did (does?) under it's War-on-Terror response to the 9/11 attacks.

The assumption also that NATO, or any group of countries, is (or indeed will be) a force for good forever is ridiculous. — Benkei

Well, it's not a tool of internal suppression as Hungary and Czechoslovakia found out of the Warsaw Pact.

Are countries bad? Yes, we can agree on that everything that Netherlands has done has been always bad, yet the present leadership of the Netherlands doesn't have ideas of conquering back Belgium and then starting a harsh "Dutchification" program of the Belgians, because Belgium is an artificial state and should be naturally part of the Netherlands. And those who oppose this are just hostile towards the Netherlands, because obviously the Netherlands is a great power and is forced to do this and thus we have to be realists, Great powers do what they do! So you have that difference with Russia, even if you are otherwise so immoral and evil like us Finns and everything you do is bad, like we do.

For existing NATO members there never was a reason to expand NATO after the cold war when the threat had actually largely dissipated. And yet we did it any way. — Benkei

But "unfortunately" NATO has a charter and there is this article, number 10:

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

And there were enough Eastern European countries feeling threatened by Russia, and, as we have now seen, rightly so. The Baltic States understood quite well their vulnerability and the fact the Russia hadn't shed it's imperialist ways. Yet somehow this active role these countries played here is forgotten by the Putinist crowd (naturally). These self-designated "realists" simply ignore these countries as actual actors here.

And then came the actions that Russia took, which forced even Finland and Sweden to change their course. You had to do a lot to change the stance these two countries had, actually.

Aren't security interests in foreign countries inherently imperialistic? — Echarmion

I don't think so. Only when those security interests are expressed through policy action that extends power over foreign countries. But just investing in defensive capabilities, for instance, would not be imperialistic. — Benkei

Some could uphold the figleaf of the other's sovereignty, yet blatantly intervene in all aspects of internal politics of a country. That would be the modern way of (neo)imperialism. Yet in this case when Russians talk of other countries being "artificial", that the countries should be part Russia and do annex territories and start with forced assimilation, that should tell people that this is classic imperialism.

Being part of NATO isn't the same thing, however some seem to want to make it.

Therefore, Finland, while not being in a position to "win" on the battlefield, was in a position to impose a cost great enough to compel the Soviets to settle the conflict. — boethius

That's what Ukraine hopes to do also. Holding a victory march in the Red Square isn't the objective.

The Finnish military defence was not "for the sake of it" or as some "quaint gesture" to posterity but was a military strategy imbedded in a larger diplomatic strategy to achieve the political objective of retaining as much independence as possible. — boethius

And what's the difference here?

A strategy of compromise that persisted after the war in order to avoid being re-invaded or otherwise absorbed by the Soviet Union; a diplomatic strategy referred to as "Finlandization", which did not involve just telling the Soviets to fuck off at every possible opportunity (but pretty much the contrary). — boethius

We were talking about the Winter War[/]. There was the Continuation War, you know... which actually was exactly that "telling the Soviets to fuck off at every possible opportunity".

What I take issue with most of all is having no diplomatic strategy. — boethius

Look, Finland didn't either have "a diplomatic strategy" publicly until made the deal. Both in the Winter War and in the war of Continuation.

What is different with the modern world is that negotiations are done all the time. Yet the commitment of Ukraine and Russia is just the same as it was during the wars between Finland and the Soviet Union: both sides are staunchly committed to the war... until they aren't. It is only the US which has this extremely illogical way of fighting a war and while doing it, declaring that it will withdraw. Thus wasn't hard for the Taleban to understand that the US would do exactly what it did to South Vietnam, betray it's former ally and walk away (as the US did under Trump and Biden).

But Ukraine will be committed to fight the war and Russia to "exterminate the fascist ruling Ukraine" until a solution is found.

In compelling the Soviets to negotiate, the Finns were realistic and made offers the Stalin maybe willing to accept and ultimately did accept — boethius

Nope. France and the UK were willing to join the war on the Finnish side. This was a real fear for Stalin, as his natural fear was that the West would attack him. Stalin didn't have nuclear deterrence as Putin has. So he gave up on his objectives. The Finns, well, the Finnish military didn't have high hopes before the war and likely was surprised that Finland could fight off the Soviets for a hundred days or so.

However, when the US started directly attack Russian interests — boethius

Directly attack Russian interests?

Lol, again with the Putinist propaganda, tovarich! :grin:

The only direct attacks have happened from Putin's Russia, FYI.

But, as you noted, such a world would be completely predestined, and unlike the probabilistic (partly randomized) reality*2 that us humans have to deal with. — Gnomon

That's the deterministic model of the universe, which Laplace's demon ought to easily calculate. Just remind yourself what Laplace is talking about: he is talking about extrapolation, the calculation of the value of a function outside the range of known values. That has nothing to do with randomness or probabilities or statistics. And this is quite possible for Laplace's demon when it isn't participating in the universe. The intellect can really perform then as Laplace asserts. Everything is truly predetermined. The future is what it will be. There is simply no room for choice, chance or randomness.

The negative self-reference refutes this possibility.

Perhaps this would be easier to understand in a game theoretic model. Let's assume a game where there's two paths (A and B) for me to take and I have to pick one and you have to make a correct forecast of what path I take. Might be easy for you and especially easy for Laplace's demon, but the thing is that you have to tell the forecast of what I will do prior of me doing it (as it obviously is a forecast, not just an observation). In order for you to make a correct forecast, you have to name the path that I take.

After you have made your forecast, I will react the following way:

If you forecast I take path A - > I take path B
If you forecast I take path B - > I take path A
If you forecast anything else, or stay silent - > I take path B.

First, is there a correct forecast, a correct model of how the game will play out (what path I will take)? Yes, obviously.

Now do notice here the negative self reference: my decisions are simply based on your forecast itself, or the lack of it. And obviously I do the other thing as you forecast. You cannot deal with this by saying that I will say the path that you won't say (for example B), because then I will do exactly that (say B). Or, if you either start a philosophical lecture or simply just explain the above, it isn't a correct forecast as I defined earlier.

The basic thing in Cantor's diagonalization process is quite similar to that of above, it too is a clever way to have negative self reference and thus show that obviously that real number cannot be in the list (at least one way to make reductio ad absurdum proof.

I suppose our "limitation on modeling" means that, pace Einstein, most of us parts-of-the-whole are not even close to omniscient. — Gnomon

The "limitation" here is simply that you cannot make the correct model.

It's not about omniscience, you could say it's about control. In the above game you could take your favorite shotgun, point it at me and say very threateningly: "SSU WILL CHOOSE PATH A!!!" and I will likely choose path A as I don't want to find out which kind of bullets you have in your shotgun and will you shoot me or not.

Hence we talk about Laplace's demon: if it genuinely makes the correct forecast, then the demon itself controls the whole universe. That's the only way out of the negative self reference: that there simply can't be a negative self reference for the demon. Which, again, I will say that Laplace didn't have in mind when he talked about the intellect.

Books are not always convenient; electronic devices are. — Vera Mont

That's the peril, Vera, our devices are too convenient. With the computerized feed back of the customers to those who make the apps and the algorithms, this ease and conveniency will just get better.

With "classic" books you have requirements for their easy use things like a) knowing the language well, b) being able to read quickly and effortlessly and c) being able to use one's imagination.

Traits not so convenient to the 21st Century human?

Laplace's hypothetical metaphor — Gnomon

But do notice that Laplace isn't using the metaphor demon/daimon!

It's only afterwards others have referred to a demon. Laplace refers only to an intellect. It really doesn't talk about any supernatural entity, it only refers to an intellect having the knowledge of laws and all the information of the greatest bodiest to the tiniest atom. It's you who is adding to this context the assumption that Laplace is talking about a supernatural entity. Laplace isn't. But enough of this, let's move on...

and eventually Goedel concluded that human mathematics will never be able to predict world events (e.g. weather) beyond a few days in advance. — Gnomon

Has he said that? Please give a reference, I'm genuinely surprised if he said so and I'm interested to know that quote. I didn't know that, as obviously Gödel was extremely careful of what actually his incompleteness theorems mean. He had even difficulties to accept that Turing's Halting Problem was similar to his theorems.

Laplace's mere "difficulty" for a far-sighted daemon, would be "impossible" for a natural being, living within the incredibly complex system he's modeling. — Gnomon

Is it actually so incredibly complex? It can be a very simple example where the model, that actually has an effect itself what it should model at the first place, can be very simple.

In some cases a "stable model" can be found, but not when negative self reference is applied: you cannot make a model that gives the result that the model does not give. Just as you cannot give a reply that you don't give.

But it's great that we agree on this and I think you understand this quite well. So let's not get stuck on debating just what Laplace thought. You and I understand the basic problem.

The next question is that can randomness be defined also with this phenomenon in mathematics? After all, if you have an random string, you cannot extrapolate how it's going to continue from what it has been. — ssu

Yes. That's why natural evolution must harmonize Random Mutations with specific Selection Criteria. Working together, these complementary factors combine freedom for exploration of solutions with limitations on the combinations that will survive into the next generation. But who does the selecting? A math Demon? :smile: — Gnomon

Here I think Laplace himself has the best answer to this: He (Laplaca) doesn't need a math Demon or God. Because there is no selection done. Let me explain,

because here we come to a fascinating conclusion about determinism and chance/randomness (at least in my opinion):

If you define the future being that will truly happen in reality, you do have determinism: no chance, no choice, no uncertainty. It's really the block universe, everything is predetermined, like this discussion with you and others. It will go only one way and that's it.

But then there is the real twist: this understanding of the universe is useless for us. We cannot model it, we cannot extrapolate from it because we are part of the universe and thus we have this limitation on modelling. Sure a lot of what we don't know we could forecast if we would have more information and better models, but here is simply this logical limitation here, which cannot be overcome. Hence anything part of the universe has this limitation.

Hence we have to makes models with for example using probabilities. Yet many times that probability might be a 0.5 probability of a coin toss being heads or tails, and there's not much information on the fact that "if you toss a coin, you will get a coin toss". Of course in the deterministic reality there is the exact way the coin will land, heads or tails or sideways. With a probability of 1.

I think this is very important and I think people actually haven't understood it well. I remember one math-guy in NASA, David Wolpert, coming to this conclusion too in 2008 (in fact I think a bit earlier), it's now even mentioned in the Wiki page of the Laplace's demon. He uses Cantor's diagonalization, but if you think a bit, do notice that Cantor's diagonalization is simply a use of negative self reference.

It's really a powerful tool, when you think of it.

Yes, Russia was winning the war 2 years ago, and is still winning the war. — boethius

Well, I'll hope this will be such an astounding victory like the Winter War was for Russia. And I'm sure to have found people like you saying so then. After all, they won a lot of territory (even if the Finnish proletariat wasn't liberated from the evil capitalists, but who cares about that), so let's hope for a similar decisive and outstanding Russian victory!

I don't know that Laplace "missed the point". Perhaps, in order to keep his metaphor simple, he avoided getting into the open-ended question : "is foreknowledge deterministic?" — Gnomon

Do notice the time when Laplace lived: the Scientific world view was quite Newtonian and causal determinism was quite mainstream. And notice that he doesn't at all refer to any "demon" to the issue:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be the present to it.

When you read that, I don't see any reference to any open ended question rather than perhaps the difficulty of knowing "all forces that set nature in motion" and obviously "all positions of all items of which nature is composed".

I'm not sure what "this" — Gnomon

To the point that causal determinism as defined by Laplace has trouble with logic, when the intellect is part of the universe.

I'm also not sure of what the "problem" is that needs to be fixed — Gnomon

Ok, when similar problems have been stated, for example in economics in the 1930's that there's this problem when the forecaster has an effect on what is forecasted, there might not be any way to give the correct forecast, people (or in this case) economists don't like this. Hence this was just sidelined by saying that "there has to be a correct forecast" and perhaps later we'll understand how to find it. (And btw, the exchange was between two later nobel prize winning economists) People just assume some dynamic model can take into account the effect of the forecaster. Well, the problem with negative self reference is that there's no dynamic modelling way to counter it.

What does "this" have to do with Laplace's demon or the OP question about the equation of randomness and information? — Gnomon

Just first think about what Laplace's idea holds: if you have total information and understanding the laws of nature, then by Laplace's argumentation, forecasting is really an extrapolation of the present / past to the future. Extrapolation of this is simply computation, you can calculate what the future is.

Ok, so we have notice that it isn't so. If the forecaster / forecast itself has an effect on the future, in some cases it's impossible to give the accurate forecast. The real question is why? Logically and mathematically why it is so?

The logical and mathematical reasoning here is that in mathematics there are entities that are uncomputable/incomplete. Proofs that have been given about this basically use negative self reference. Hence it shouldn't be any wonder that Laplace's Demon falls in with these proofs given about uncomputability and incompleteness.

The next question is that can randomness be defined also with this phenomenon in mathematics? After all, if you have an random string, you cannot extrapolate how it's going to continue from what it has been.

That's literally what's been happening, and the insistence on the delusion of the opposite is mostly what has prevented a diplomatic solution to the war (both before and after it started). — boethius

Oh @boethius, just like you two years ago wrote:

Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that. — boethius

Well, two years have gone from that remark from you and uh..., oh well.

I think we know you and for whom you rally after all these years.

Not only can Russia now start a phase of maneuver warfare in what we refer to as "the front" in South-Easter Ukraine (to conquer the entirety of the annexed territories), but Russia can also "big arrow maneuver" at any point on the actual front that includes the entire Ukrainian-Russian border and entire Ukrainian-Belarusian border. — boethius

What we can now clearly see is that Russia could shock-and-awe but chose not to ... maybe precisely because the result of the US using shock-and-awe strategy, at the end of the day, is massive diplomatic costs in the long run. — boethius

:snicker:

The victorious Russian Army simply goes onward from triumph to triumph!

But seriously, Russia does have this year a window of opportunity, but the present aid package will likely get Ukraine well into next year. There's still a lot of unknowns after that. But we can be assured that @boethius will give the most positive view of the Russian situation as he has done for two years plus now...

(Flowery future for these two wonderful persons?)

Yet, his argument for determinism used a god-substitute to make his point that natural laws leave no gaps for divine intervention. Ironically, the demonic entity would need to know all natural laws and all physical properties in order to predetermine the future development of the whole universe. — Gnomon

This is what Laplace thought is "all" that needed. But Laplace really missed the point that a forecast of the future can have an effect on the future, the subjectivity of this entity. It's simply negative self reference, just as the trick is in all incompleteness results. You simply cannot "just assume" something to get rid of this problem in science. In religion, you simply can start with the axiom of God being omniscient and omnipotent.

It's quite similar if I ask you @Gnomon to give an response that you don't ever give. Are there those kind of responses? Sure, a lot. Can you give them? No, not you specifically.

Why is this important? My view is that people think this is some kind of "problem" that needs to be fixed, averted or bypassed by some method. In fact it's a very important limitation itself, especially when you think just what something "random" should be.

So what is something random? It is something that doesn't repeat itself, doesn't have some algorithm that can define it less than itself. Wouldn't here what you need be exactly that negative self reference?

That shows me that Finns read books on average 12 or so minutes a day, but it doesn't tell me what it used to be, so how can I look at this and know it's been declining over time? — Hanover

There's ample stats from the Finnish Statistical bureau (Statistic Finland). By their stats ALL kind of reading (not only books) has decreased from over 50 minutes in the late 1980's to 37 minutes (in the 2020's). Book reading hasn't been so dramatic, but still it too has gone down. In all age groups, among both men and women.

I think this is an issue were many different stats and surveys show this.

One way this change can be seen is in the libraries. Earlier libraries were indeed places where you had a lot of books and then small cabinets for reading newpapers and other to read books. Now the library system has seen the change and changed to more of a meeting place institution with large libraries having events, art performances and to be places to meet, work, study. The actual books seem like a blast from the past in many places. And smaller libraries are basically places you can go in with your library card, and there's no personnel there, so you can use the automatic machines to borrow books. This even when Finns appreciate a lot the library system.

Just for example from my cities own website about the city libraries:

Libraries are meeting places and cultural centres, open to everyone. They offer newspapers, magazines, books, music, films and other materials that you can enjoy at the library or borrow and take home with you. Libraries have spaces where you can study, take part in recreational activities or just spend some time. Libraries also provide information and guidance services and arrange events and exhibitions.

I think this change has something to do with the change in reading books.

The demon must be an outside observer of the deterministic universe. — Gnomon

Well, that's basically my point. And do note that Laplace really didn't make this point at all. Yet notice, that isn't actually something that has been told earlier when discussing Laplace's demon. The link you gave gives it in one way. But notice that this is actually a very important thing.

Outside observer without any interaction means that objectivity can exist. But then if you define that everything existing is part of the universe, the simple conclusion is that this kind of omniscient entity doesn't exist. Or otherwise you would have a peculiar World view reality + the external entity. The external viewer is simply meaningless. It's as meaningless as a logical system where everything is provable and correct, starting from 0=1. Yes, you can create such axiomatic system, but it's simply useless.

Hence I would conclude: A subjective entity simply cannot be omniscient objective knowledge about everything. It's the subjectivity that limits this "perfect objectivity".

Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? — Gnomon

Omniscient?

You can turn that other way: anything part of the university cannot be omniscient.

By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. — Gnomon

I'm not sure that Laplace himself thought so. His idea was this kind of idea of extrapolation to the extreme, if an entity would have all the information at hand and all the laws of nature. That idea is false, because it doesn't take into account that any entity is part of the world. This is usually referred to being part of the problem that Quantum physics brings to us, but surely the problem is far more general.

Don't even get me started on "literacy." Ironically, I don't think we any longer know what the word even means. — Leontiskos

This might surely be the problem. I would also take with the grain of salt the above graphs that I represented of what the actually tell us.

Have they banned electronic books too? Is it a matter of just changing from paper to computer, or are you saying no one reads anymore? — Hanover

Oh no, basically they are all electronic books. But then again, a lot of the courses are simply a mish-mash of books and a web course. It's actually hard to find the actual "book" of the course, because there isn't one. There's just chapters you do, some exercises. Some when I've looked at them are quite difficult to read as there aren't in a form of a book and opening chapters you have to stroll from start to end to find a specific issue. But I think that's my generation X stupidity with these issues, I guess.

Have they shown that current paper book readers do better than current electronic book readers? — Hanover

What has been clearly shown is the fact that in Finland the overall reading ability and reading has declined. And the differences have become larger, especially with children. At first grade you have children that are just trying to learn to read and then some that are avidly reading Harry Potter books. In youth those who have reading problems has basically doubled. Here class differences are quite obvious to see.

Also what hasn't happened is that books have been replaced by e-books, because overall buying of books has gone down and increased e-book sales don't replace the aggregate fall.

Especially with children and the basic reason is the smartphone has truly taken over reading books, and basically surfing in the social net is very different from reading a book. They simply read less than in the 1980's or 1990's.

Of course, this is (still) the country where people are one of Europe's most avid bookworms with Poland and Estonia and Norway with other countries coming well after the three. 16,8% of Finns say that reading books is one of their main activities. So when you have one of the most book reading countries in the World reading less, that may be an indicator of something.

I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows. — Tzeentch

Just how much they back will be interesting.

Because do note that this isn't an alliance: attack on Iran doesn't trigger anything, as an attack on let's say Italy would.

It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances. — Tzeentch

Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran. Because there's obviously the question "then what?" after a strike on Iran. And this has been a reality for decades.

Bibi showing the UN his bombscare's about Iran ...12 years ago:


Yet Iran did see quite well that nobody would come to it's help. And likely France and UK would side with Israel too ...as happened. And somehow the Saudi's remember Iranian attacks on their oil installations still, so no aid from there either.

Note --- From the perspective of the all-knowing demon, the physical world is precisely determinate and predictable, but in the view of a mortal scientist, using imperfect machinery, the quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable, and perplexing. Which may be "troubling" for those who can't deal with ambiguity. — Gnomon

It's not even predictable to the demon, if the demon is part of the world itself and has to interact with it.

You don't need to assume the quantum realm, this is totally true even in an purely classical Newtonian universe also.