War on Terror Population Relocation

This would probably have the opposite of intended effect by making the rest of the Muslim world hate us, and making us live up to AQ's worst demonizations of us. You might get rid of one ethnic group but the other ethnic groups will start shooting at us pretty soon. Not to mention it being an absolute monstrous injustice and human tragedy.

The intended effect of terrorism is to invite a retaliation all out of proportion to the provocation, and thus gain sympathy for the terrorist's cause. This would definitely qualify.

Frankly I'm disturbed that you would think this way, Merry.

Frankly, I'm disturbed that you think I'm advocating that, Hobelhouse. :) Didn't I say that I didn't advocate such a policy? Collective punishment is cruel and almost always unfair, plus there's the whole "hearts and minds" thing.

As far as the intended effect of terrorism, there are two ways to wage counterinsurgency--the scalpel (the UK in Malaya) or the battle-axe (the Mongols).

Doing anything in the middle is counterproductive for the reasons you describe. And as far as adopting Mongol techniques, those are, by any moral standard, monstrous (razing entire cities and building pyramids of skulls, killing whole villages for the deaths of one soldier, killing sons so they don't grow up to avenge their fathers, etc).

I don't think having the US act like the Serbs did in Bosnia (where they applied this sort of thing on a smaller scale) is moral or wise.
 
I had never heard of this. Do you have a link, by chance???

I ask because two blocks from home there's a shop run by an old Japanese who lost a leg during WWII. Apparenly he's Okinawan. I've allways asked myself how he ended up in Buenos Aires, but, I've never asked him, because, on the one hand, he doesn't speak Spanish well, and, on the other, I don't know how he would take it.

I don't recall. It was a footnote in a book somewhere. Someone else posted a link in this discussion, however.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Why not just arrange to get the disgruntled young men at the core of the terrorist organizations laid? It couldn't hurt, and it might give them an exciting new reason to a) stick around for a while and b) realize that the whole "72 virgins" thing has some serious downsides.
 
Why not just arrange to get the disgruntled young men at the core of the terrorist organizations laid? It couldn't hurt, and it might give them an exciting new reason to a) stick around for a while and b) realize that the whole "72 virgins" thing has some serious downsides.

How practical is that?

Considering how having hot women sit in captured terrorists' laps was considered a human rights violation (I think it was done in Gitmo as a means of messing with their heads), that might not work.

Of course, if you wanted to turn individual terrorists and use them as spies, that might be doable. Have someone work their feminine wiles on them.
 
In any event, how might a modern population relocation (not merely ethnic cleansing, but getting them to go where you want them to go and stay there) be carried out?

This is for research purposes, mind.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Frankly, I'm disturbed that you think I'm advocating that, Hobelhouse. :) Didn't I say that I didn't advocate such a policy? Collective punishment is cruel and almost always unfair, plus there's the whole "hearts and minds" thing.

As far as the intended effect of terrorism, there are two ways to wage counterinsurgency--the scalpel (the UK in Malaya) or the battle-axe (the Mongols).

Doing anything in the middle is counterproductive for the reasons you describe. And as far as adopting Mongol techniques, those are, by any moral standard, monstrous (razing entire cities and building pyramids of skulls, killing whole villages for the deaths of one soldier, killing sons so they don't grow up to avenge their fathers, etc).


Fair enough. Ruthlessness in the GWOT has been encouraged by certain segment of society for a long time now. I do think its worth noticing, however, that the 'hang' / 'rendetion' them all crowd really hasn't run the nation debate in a long time. And is unlikely to, IMHO


And United States does find itself in a conflict of course, but its kind of like Tsun Zu said, "A decent general wins and bloody conflict of the battle field. And good general routs the enemey on the battlefield. A great general defeats the enemy before stepping on the battlefield."

Unfortunately for use, there's no obviously monolithic Islamic state we can direct all our anger against. Many Americas realize, at least subconsciously, that we'd had to sacrifice a lot more money and lives to re-enact the crusades for the next hundreed years (As McCain Advocates) and aren't enthusiastic about it.

And even the islamic militants have various factions within them, some worth negiaring with and some not.

I think, however, we're returning to out policy of supporting friendly dictators instead of spreading democracy, in hopes that those dictators - who know they wouldn't survive without american power - will clamp down on the real bads, and take the blame for doing so and any innocents accidently killed on them selves...



But its important to note that, beside a very vocal fringe, most Americans aren't into collective punishment and becoming a ruthless a people of the type that can make an occupied territory part of its empire forver. (Moreover, that would require colonist as well. And off all the superpowers in history, American has been conspiciusly unique in not having many of its citizens willing or want to mover permantly to an 'American' conquest to live there and have a better life. Without the ability to seed American populations in occupied territory, the idea that we'll be there longer than we're welcome is less plausibl;e.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
In any event, how might a modern population relocation (not merely ethnic cleansing, but getting them to go where you want them to go and stay there) be carried out?

This is for research purposes, mind.


Well, it largely depends on the level of resistence the people being transfered offer. (The political situation, although we can ignore it for convienance.) And the target destination (how far away is it. Is their any large body of water between the population's present position and destination.) And the nature of the environment people are being moved to (Hostile, Welcoming?) And again, political conciderations come into effect.


Moving a population from one place to another over land alone, I think, would be easier than moving them across any water. If that population offers little resistence3, or is even helpful, you could move millions of people in days. (The transportation industries do it ticket holders every day.)

If there's resistence, however, a whole new story...
 
Hmm...in my Afrikaner TL, there's almost always a large body of water or a large land mass between relocated populations.

1. Rebellious Somalis to India
2. Rebellious Malays to East Africa
3. Rebellious Arabs to Angola

As far as the reception they get, it's not like the other ethnicities in the area really have much of a choice about their new neighbors.

(which gives me an idea--in the aftermath of the Confederation's fall, there might be little race wars as those who resent the newer arrivals, for whatever reason, go after them, and those who get moved fight back)
 
Top