Toadfish Monastery

This might possibly attract some criticism. 

My remark or the nuking of Israel?
Unfortunately some nasty guys in the past were likely right about 'successful' genocides being viable longterm solutions, if one can weather the immediate aftermath.
Where are the original Prussians to complain about the German Order, the Tasmanians about the British, the Caribes about Europeans in general?

Speaking of 'complaining' or failing to, I was listening to Deuchevella Radio [sp]--- or maybe it was BBC international? on my NPR feed the other day.

Among other things, they talked about the international court of justice's decision about a breakaway country's split more or less along ethnic lines.  As it turned out, the court focused on the legitimacy of the document of independence, and not on the legitimacy of the split itself, instead pushing that back onto the general assembly.

That's not my comment-- this is:  as the various commentators spoke about it, they kept mentioning that the breakaway itself, if legitimized, would open the door for chaos and allow parts of countries to split off willy-nilly.   Or so they implied.

And it struck me as odd:  if the majority of the citizens of a fragment of a larger nation, conclude they would be better off going it alone, rather than remaining under the rule of the larger, remaining pieces of that nation-- who is to say they do not have the right to split? 

I mean-- what "rule" can anyone point to, and allow that any means-- including violent suppression-- is the more legitimate actions to take, to force-keep that fragment within the larger whole?

I look at the USA's violent history-- where exactly that happened:  a major fraction desired to split, but the remaining fraction used it's army to violently force it to stay.  "Civil war" (an oxymoron, if ever there was-- yes it was war, but it was far from civil on either side...)

In history, we are taught that Lincoln did the correct thing, using violence to suppress the split, even though the majority of the folk living in the south wanted it.  This is stated as if Lincoln's use of violence should not be questioned.

Of course, the results were better for most of the folk involved--apart from any civilian who died for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time-- and certainly better for the benighted folk who were property under the rules of the south at the time.  And we have a single (more or less) country as a result.

But, it struck me that the commentators all assumed that the whole nation is always superior to two or three independent countries, each going their own way in the international venue.

Yet, the US assisted the two Koreas to split, and took an active part in the failed attempt of Vietnam to split.  And nobody spoke of any hypocrisy, considering the US's history.

Furthermore, few people lament the disintegration of the old USSR, when Russian Communism self-destructed, and permitted the various parts to revert to their former independent country status.

Clearly, the individual countries was superior than what was happening under the old USSR; yet I reflected it's not entirely cut-and-dried-- you could walk the streets safely in most major cities under the old USSR without fear of petty or organized criminals harassing your person-- apart from the biggest criminal gang of all (KGB), obviously.

I dunno-- it seems to me, if a major group of people can get a clear sort of 'super-majority'-- some number much greater than 50% say, to agree that they want to split off from their parent nation, who's to say both won't be better off in the long run?

As humankind moves forward towards the 22nd century (since we started formally keeping track) it seems to me that national borders are becoming less important with regards to war, and more a cultural/economic distinction instead. 

That is, the idea of "nationality" may someday fade, and everyone lives within small, "state-like" regional semi-local governments, as national merges into the international, with each "super-region" having it's own group to argue that interest.

Oh, I'm not saying it very well-- but it struck me as odd, that the commentators would so quickly presume that keeping a larger country together was automatically superior to allowing it to fracture into pieces.

Nations are dialects with armies as the old saying says. The pragmatic answer is that longterm the legitimacy lies in the ability to defend against other claimants.
Prussia took Silesia from Austria (a majority of Silesians was quite happy about that btw) and defended the spoils in three wars including WW0 (aka the 7 Years War).
As a result Silesia remained in Prussian (later German) hands until 1945 when it was taken, again by force, and added to Poland. Since the population was not happy this time it was evicted.
The proto-US declared themselves independent and were able to defend it against British power => The US became a 'legitimate' country.
Today treaties may be more common but as we see with Georgia, might still makes right in most cases.

Comes a point where it just gets silly.  If Wales or Scotland ever left the UK - as many would like - they would be far too small to survive without the cooperation of the parent nation, or in their case, within the EU.  But as for fighting a war to keep them - no way!

I've always said Lincoln should have allowed the USA to split and let tempers cool.  In time, slavery would most likely have fizzled out for economic reasons and there was in reality precious little to quarrel about except slavery.

Check this out:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-55107-2.html

The Cheonan ran aground.  The props were still turning...

Oh!  And the surviving crew was sequestered for two weeks!

Where is the engine room on that boat, and, are those propellers electric powered (I don't see any shaft to transmit power)?
---
The one with power makes the rules, it seemed convenient if the Soviet Union dissolved making it less likely to recover, but you don't want allies like Turkey losing all the Kurd inhabited territory.

As for US secession a GOPher from TN was talking about it the other day...

It's a gas turbine/diesel if the torpedo hit first it would have died immediately.

"an explosion (or two explosions) occurred for 1~2 seconds at the stern of the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772), causing a power stoppage and inflow of oil and seawater, and the ship heeled 90 degrees to the right very fast. When the crew went out to the deck, they found the stern already submerged."

There's no way that shaft kept spinning for more than a few seconds but all the propellers are bent like it was underway when it ran aground.  The water depth was around than 30 meters according to some.  There's no way those props are still spinning when it went down that far.  Both props are bent so it was nearly level laterally when the propellers struck.  It just doesn't make sense...

I haven't the knowledge to understand what I see in those pictures.  Where was the torpedo supposed to have struck?  The stern of the ship is mostly covered in the photos, but in #2 there seems to be no damage visible except for the bending of the blades.
And what the hell are we seeing in #3?

Modern (i.e. less than 50 years old  ) torpedos tend not to 'strike' at all. They explode close to (and best under) the target which is much more effective.

Are you telling us that in all those submarine movies they have been misrepresenting facts?

In those set after WW2 this would indeed be the case. The sinking of the General Belgrano in the Falkland War was an exception. The Brits took the chance to get rid of some old WW2 straight run torpedos with impact fuses (designed 1925!) on that occasion.
Submarine on submarine action differs slightly. Those torpedos also would explode at a short distance but it does not matter in what relative position to the sub. But there are only one or two types of subs that would survive even a single hit (the Russian Typhoons and maybe the Oscars).
A patrol boat like the Korean one would almost not be worth a torpedo (overkill).

Quote from: Sibling DavidH on July 29, 2010, 09:16:54 AM
I haven't the knowledge to understand what I see in those pictures.  Where was the torpedo supposed to have struck?  The stern of the ship is mostly covered in the photos, but in #2 there seems to be no damage visible except for the bending of the blades.
And what the hell are we seeing in #3?

The torpedo or mine supposedly struck aft and port directly under the engine room.  The torpedo wouldn't have bent the blades most likely, especially not forward like they are.

Photo three looks like the stack pancaked.  It might have just collapsed from the vibration of the explosion.

I just don't understand why they left out the grounding.  The Russian's, I think, were the only ones that brought it up.

Wait a second, what are the chances of the explosion happening on the inside of the hull? Would a small charge be able to sink the boat without damaging the engine room enough for the propellers to keep running? Pic No 3 looks as if the explosion happened on the inside, or am I reading it wrong?

None.  The hull is bent up like a bubble jet torpedo or mine hit it.  I just think there is a cover up of some sort going on.  Initially they said it was a German torpedo that hit the ship and the South Koreans have German subs and torpedoes.  Why would they torpedo their own ship?  Because it ran aground and they didn't want it to fall in enemy hands?  I wouldn't think it would move much with those props bent up like that.  Maybe in circles...

Stacks can collapse like that.  It's pretty common.  They can collapse like that if they get old and weak so I don't think that's anything.

Those engines would have to still be running at least 25m underwater when the explosion occurred directly under the engine room.  I highly doubt that as I doubt that a North Korean "ghost" submarine and "ghost" torpedo went undetected...