site banner
KulakRevolt  1yr ago (open.substack.com)   2639 thread views

Reaper Drones over Houston: A War in Mexico Would Mean War in America

open.substack.com

Take I wrote on increasing calls in Republican and bi-partisan spaces for a Military intervention into Mexico against the Cartels, and why this would inevitably lead to armed conflict within America itself, along with a possible death spiral of instability in the wider North American region.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(every avocado you buy is significantly overpriced thanks to their schemes)

Say it ain't so!

One question really jumped out. If you don't think Texas martial law and comparable insanity would prevent cartel operations...why would a border wall? If the idea is just to make it harder to move product, smugglers have already demonstrated plenty of creativity. Static obstacles just don't work alone.

Anyway, as a Texan, I thought this was a neat article.

One question really jumped out. If you don't think Texas martial law and comparable insanity would prevent cartel operations...why would a border wall? If the idea is just to make it harder to move product, smugglers have already demonstrated plenty of creativity. Static obstacles just don't work alone.

Of course the wall is useless without the rest of the measures that constitute a proper border barrier. The Germans know everything about securing a border. With modern technology the new wall should be even more effective. You could probably link camera feeds to killer drones directly and exterminate everyone trying to cross the border illegally without giving drone operators PTSD.

My undestanding is that the wall was supposed to essentially be less of a concrete physical barrier to moving in and more of a gigantic "fuck you, you're not wanted here" signal to potential immigrants doing their implicit cost/benefit analysis for migration. Obviously, cartels would be operating on the basis of different cost/benefit analyses.

Because a border wall increases the marginal cost of trying to cross the border, and allows the country to begin to get a handle on its own internal affairs.

You'll never get illegal immigration to zero, that doesn't mean "do nothing" is the correct approach. Unless you're from the WEF or similar globalist group where no borders is the entire solution.

You'll never get illegal immigration to zero, that doesn't mean "do nothing" is the correct approach. Unless you're from the WEF or similar globalist group where no borders is the entire solution.

Getting illegal immigration to zero is absolutely possible and you wouldn't even need anything more complicated than the surveillance state that currently exists in the US. Right now the deep state that effectively controls that apparatus wants to bring as many migrants in as possible, but if there was a significant change in political will the tools exist to identify every single illegal immigrant overnight. The repatriation would take a bit longer, but a lot of them would doubtless self deport when being an illegal immigrant carries actual real consequences with it.

Stopping illegal immigration is much, much easier than stopping drug trafficking. Much of the drug trafficking into the US is done by American citizens through methods that don’t cross the southern border directly (ie by air, by sea).

There's a lot of things that would raise the marginal cost. He spent the rest of the article arguing that the cartels could outwit and outshoot all the others. Why wouldn't that argument apply to the wall, too? It won't even shoot back.

I expect that in real life, a border wall (plus appropriate patrol and surveillance) is going to be more cost effective than bombing Ciudad Juarez.

I also think that contradicts the OP. The kind of power which would defeat the US military wouldn't be stopped by a glorified fence. It proves too much.

Locks also don't stop determined criminals, but I still lock my car and house.

Sure, but isn’t it weird to advocate that in a post where Kulak is urging people not to involve the (better-armed version of) police?

Well I think his post is ridiculous; but, at the very least, armed intervention without Mexico's approval would spark an international crisis. I think the US armed forces with support from the Mexican government could route the cartels in the same way that the Northern Alliance routed the Taliban with only a handful of US special forces and air support. Some cartel members could hide and try to strike back, but these groups don't have any real ideology other than money and power, unlike the Taliban. Once the money runs dry and with no where to run(unlike the Taliban who retreated into backwater mountain valleys and Pakistan), the cartels would just dissolve. The Central American countries just as corrupt and gang infested as Mexico managed it by themselves.

No one would ever say that a policy that lowered crime by say 20% was pointless, because the crime was still committed in any other context. Who cares if they can find a way around it, the optimal amount of drug trafficking isn't zero. Corner solutions are rarely optimal.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats