But it can be minimized, ideally a new US would go back to see if we can rework the Articles of Confederation with some lessons learned from the EU. The states have largely settled into their borders and I suspect that the stupid competition that caused the Articles to fail could be corrected. Also we really need to prevent centralization of powers into the Federal government and the executive from ever happening again.
Back in colonial times it was very feasible to keep the executive in check. Nowadays it is a technological fact that the executive needs nuclear authority just to be in a position to make a timely counterstrike effort.
At least, this was the dogma last I checked, maybe there is enough interdiction capability now to change this dynamic. I would be delighted to learn otherwise, but given the necessity of secrecy in these things any evidence must be compelling.
That said - Until the logic of MAD ceases to prevail, there is an insane sort of game theory rationale for an executive with extensive powers, regrettably. It’s hard to see how to get past the eventual nuclear war scenario without a one world government. With nukes we are walking a tightrope, but we cannot reasonably expect to do so indefinitely.
You could still have an elected commander in chief, just don’t invest so much civil power into them. They don’t need to have control over every fucking governmental department.
I’m only pointing out that nukes are fundamentally a threat to the rule of law. We can’t invent a world without them just yet, but we should at least think of them as a systemic threat to the world we’re trying to create
No they aren’t, nukes as a weapon are better as a defensive or retaliatory response. Whichever country breaks the nuclear taboo will be evaporated by the survivors, hell there’s a good chance that if any countries outright survive they may send expeditions into the offending country to hunt down theoretically surviving leadership.
Stop parroting shitty cold war propaganda. It’s a piss poor excuse and there’s no reason that the response must come from the executive head of state. It could be some dude named Jep who is known to have a cool head and will be shot regardless of if it’s the correct response or not to ensure they don’t fuck up.
…I thought we were just having a friendly chat up until now. I know this is a touchy subject, but Lemmy is too small to mistreat one another over differences of opinion.
I will say, I got my current impression from Hardcore History. The logical insanity episode - I’m open to the idea that it’s wrong, but I’m not just going to switch views because it’s being called cold war propaganda. Can you throw me a bone here?
Sure the simplest reason is that you don’t need to have civil matters centralized just to maintain that rapid military response. Ideally the commander in chief and executive branch would both be elected but separate positions for example. You don’t need a strong executive branch you just need a well working system, sure it’s technically easier to have it under an executive but easy doesn’t mean good.
Also it seems like more traditional bomber dropped nukes will take over once more, this means that the point is just to get them in the air before worst comes to worst. Most of the needed resources will already be assembled where needed meaning it doesn’t much matter if the executive even exists still since everything should’ve been set up long before then.
My point is that the reasoning is flawed since it assumes that the most effective action is to have a strong centralized power. When ideally you’d want a well maintained decentralized network of response facilities.
But it can be minimized, ideally a new US would go back to see if we can rework the Articles of Confederation with some lessons learned from the EU. The states have largely settled into their borders and I suspect that the stupid competition that caused the Articles to fail could be corrected. Also we really need to prevent centralization of powers into the Federal government and the executive from ever happening again.
Back in colonial times it was very feasible to keep the executive in check. Nowadays it is a technological fact that the executive needs nuclear authority just to be in a position to make a timely counterstrike effort.
At least, this was the dogma last I checked, maybe there is enough interdiction capability now to change this dynamic. I would be delighted to learn otherwise, but given the necessity of secrecy in these things any evidence must be compelling.
That said - Until the logic of MAD ceases to prevail, there is an insane sort of game theory rationale for an executive with extensive powers, regrettably. It’s hard to see how to get past the eventual nuclear war scenario without a one world government. With nukes we are walking a tightrope, but we cannot reasonably expect to do so indefinitely.
You could still have an elected commander in chief, just don’t invest so much civil power into them. They don’t need to have control over every fucking governmental department.
I’m only pointing out that nukes are fundamentally a threat to the rule of law. We can’t invent a world without them just yet, but we should at least think of them as a systemic threat to the world we’re trying to create
No they aren’t, nukes as a weapon are better as a defensive or retaliatory response. Whichever country breaks the nuclear taboo will be evaporated by the survivors, hell there’s a good chance that if any countries outright survive they may send expeditions into the offending country to hunt down theoretically surviving leadership.
Stop parroting shitty cold war propaganda. It’s a piss poor excuse and there’s no reason that the response must come from the executive head of state. It could be some dude named Jep who is known to have a cool head and will be shot regardless of if it’s the correct response or not to ensure they don’t fuck up.
…I thought we were just having a friendly chat up until now. I know this is a touchy subject, but Lemmy is too small to mistreat one another over differences of opinion.
Didn’t mean to be a dick, just been hearing similar shit for years. Folks will say anything to justify their authoritarian shit.
I will say, I got my current impression from Hardcore History. The logical insanity episode - I’m open to the idea that it’s wrong, but I’m not just going to switch views because it’s being called cold war propaganda. Can you throw me a bone here?
Sure the simplest reason is that you don’t need to have civil matters centralized just to maintain that rapid military response. Ideally the commander in chief and executive branch would both be elected but separate positions for example. You don’t need a strong executive branch you just need a well working system, sure it’s technically easier to have it under an executive but easy doesn’t mean good.
Also it seems like more traditional bomber dropped nukes will take over once more, this means that the point is just to get them in the air before worst comes to worst. Most of the needed resources will already be assembled where needed meaning it doesn’t much matter if the executive even exists still since everything should’ve been set up long before then.
My point is that the reasoning is flawed since it assumes that the most effective action is to have a strong centralized power. When ideally you’d want a well maintained decentralized network of response facilities.