Humanities desk
< February 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 1

Officer unable to quit?

Walker resigned his commission in 1959, but Eisenhower refused to accept his resignation and gave Walker a new command over the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany.

1. Is there some sort of a appeals process for when the CinC refuses the resignation of a officer in the US military?

2. Was there a way for Walker to "quit" other than through resignation? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to either question, but our article on Military discharge may be of interest. But basically, in pretty much any military in the world, once you sign up, even voluntarily (or certainly if you get signed up by conscription), you can't simply "decide to quit". The military must agree to release you from your duty. You can certainly apply for a discharge, but it's totally in your commanders' authority to refuse you one. This applies to a soldier of any rank, from the lowliest rank of private all the way through to to a five-star general. It is interesting, however, that our "appeals" section of the article only deals with appeals against a decision to forcibly discharge someone on other-than-honourable terms, but does not touch on the issue on appealing a decision by the military command to refuse a discharge application by the enlisted soldier. Can anyone shed any light on the rules for this? Eliyohub (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way I would read this is "Walker offered to resign, but Eisenhower convinced him to stay". While the military might legally be allowed to prevent a resignation, actually doing so would be bad for morale, as it was during the Vietnam-era draft in the US military. And doing so for officers is even worse, since they make decisions critical to the success of the mission. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also note as a general (non military-specific) rule, I've never heard of anyone but congress or the federal courts / supreme court ever having the authority to overturn a CinC decision. Eliyohub (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a military specific one, the role as Commander-in-Chief is usually taken to be absolute; see Commander-in-chief#United_States for background. The direct responsibility for personnel decisions is currently (as of the 1947 National Security Act of 1947) with the Secretary of Defense, but constitutionally ultimate authority remains with the President; I know of no constitutional provision that allows any official or body to overrule the President regarding decisions such as this. --Jayron 32 16:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true in a strict constitutional sense, but if congress was really determined to ensure the general quit (and some congressmen definitely wanted him to - he was controversial), they could definitely throw a serious spanner in the works, couldn't they? "De-funding" is a favorite tactic of congress when the president uses his CinC powers to initiate a military operation congress doesn't like. Couldn't they similarly force the president's hand by passing an act "de-funding" the 24th Infantry division until a new general was appointed to command it? Or simply "de-funding" the general's salary - he can't be forced to work for free, can he? I'm not saying either scenario was likely to ever happen (this was during the cold war, Germany was on the front lines, you're not going to force a division there to go offline), but couldn't this at least be a theoretical option, within the powers of congress? Eliyohub (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that if a general refused to do his job, he wouldn't be kept around. That doesn't mean it would end well for the general. But no one can be forced to do any job they're not willing to do, provided they are willing to pay the price for disobedience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial review cases: 'R v...'

Why are cases for judicial review in the UK always called R (Smith) v Secretary of State or R (on the application of Smith) v Secretary of State or R v Secretary of State, ex parte Smith? Where does R come into it? --Amisom (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see Regina, Rex and The Crown Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know it stands for The Crown. My question is why are they listed as a nominal plaintiff in judicial review cases? I get why they are in criminal cases (which are brought by the state). And I get why they're not in eg. personal injury cases (which are between two individuals). But I don't understand why applications for judicial review are brought 'by the crown'? --Amisom (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) English judicial review cases are brought by the Crown, "on behalf of" (or ex parte, before they tossed Latin out of the courts) the applicant, essentially because the nature of the proceeding is the court reviewing, as a matter of public law, the compatibility of a decision or instrument, it is not a private action of the applicant. It is different to someone suing the government for, say, an unpaid bill. This overview document has a short explanation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly our Judicial review in English law doesn't really seem to cover this but it is covered in the above source or others like [1] and [2] Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the first of those two sources explains it very well. It is not an ex parte action because the permission of the High Court is necessary, both features stem from the fact that it's an essentially public law process (e.g. if the court strikes down some administrative rules as ultra vires that has general impact and no just on the applicant). The requirement for the court's permission is a check on the ability of random private persons to invoke it, as is the requirement for standing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: Land Securities Plc v. Fladgate Fielder [2009] EWCA Civ 1402 [2010] Ch 567 at [94] (Moore-Bick LJ: "the public has in interest in ensuring that breaches of the law by public bodies are identified and, where appropriate, corrected. It is difficult, therefore, to contemplate a case in which the Crown, in whose name the proceedings are brought, does not have an interest in obtaining whatever remedy the court may see fit to grant"); R v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex p Kay and Co [1996] STC 1500, 1517c-d ("It might be thought that ... the bringing of ... judicial review proceedings in the name of the Crown is no more than a formality. However, it reflects the fact that this court is dealing with what are essentially issues of public law." From Judicial Review Handbook Neutrality^talk 15:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Core budget of global NGO peacebuilding

@Davin Bremner: 'The Wikipedia 'Peacebuilding' page is pretty good. It lists about 20 'non-governmental' peacebuilding organizations, such as Search for Common Ground, Conciliation Resources, Alliance for Peacebuilding, Seeds of Peace, etc. That's a good list, although a global list would be much longer. 'I'm trying to find a credible number for the 'core bud gets' of global NGO peacebuilding organizations, and peacebuilding academic programs. It wouldn't be easy to find or create the definitive list of global NGOs doing peacebuilding, but any credible list that is similar in nature to the illustrative list in the Peacebuilding article, with some estimate of the combined core budgets of those organizations (and those like them), would help to contrast money spent for peacebuilding versus money spent on defense, weapons, war, etc. Thanks if someone can point to a source.' User:Davin Bremner (talk) asked me to post this on here on IRC because of the semi-protection. Thanks, Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Acceptable imagery

According to our article Angel Records, "the angel [rather than the His Master's Voice logo] was retained in areas where the depiction of a dog was deemed offensive". This statement is not referenced. Whereabouts might these areas be? That is, where is it that depictions of dogs aren't acceptable, but depictions of angels are? Would this answer have been different in 1909? Our Aniconism article isn't very helpful on the issue. If we can come up with a reference specifically for the Gramophone Company's use of the logo, so much the better. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Deemed to be offensive" sounds very much like late 20th-early 21st century politic-speak to me, not something that would have been said in 1909. Interestingly, His Master's Voice has a detailed history of the Nipper logo, and it is still to this day being used by RCA's consumer electronics business. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked down the edit in which this wording first appeared, in January 2005, and have asked the editor to source it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor last edited 9 1/2 years ago, so good luck with that. If it's unsourced, you could remove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs were considered to be unclean in pre-Muslim Arab culture, and this has continued into many Islamic traditions: Animals_in_Islam#Religious impurity. This is similar to how pigs are viewed in the West. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on my link it goes to the correct section, initially, but then jumps to another section. Does this happen for others ? Does anyone know why ? StuRat (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Fine for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

A dog named Arthur or Hiromi might be less offensive today to Japanese than a Nipper. But in 1909? Probably not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is one well-known dog whose name is not mentioned today... Tevildo (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From racism to guns. Yay progress? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

A-10 Warthog export possibility.

The A-10 Warthog aircraft has (until now) only been operated by the US Air Force and Air National Guard. Is the lack of foreign sales due to legal prohibition or simply a lack of interest from any other country? Now that their retirement from the USAF is inevitable, though postponed many times, is there any interest from other countries to buy some of them? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are useful for killing large numbers of exposed people in an area, and, as such, could be used to massacre civilians, so an export would be risky, since, if they are used in that way, it would reflect badly on the US. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't think that matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing apparently has no exact customers in mind as of May 2015, but has begun early discussions on selling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of months later, the USAF closed the lid on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm No exports.... a case of saving face maybe? Think this is a case of horses for courses. The Warthog was developed in an era when it was thought that if you had enough fire power then you were bound to hit something. Other NATO forces prefer to send in a few ground troops to make good visual contact with the enemy, and then focus their bog standard issue rifles on targets that count. So it is no wonder that other NATO forces aren’t the least bit interested in something that would cost the tax payer more and be less effective in deployment. I’m surprised that a replacement is even thought about. Maybe a politician or two want to ensure the continuation of jobs, of building them, in their state. That is the only scenario that makes sense to me. Sure, the US may be able to sell them aboard but only as aluminum scrap. In the second decade of this millennium war is fought differently.--Aspro (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but "less effective" than rifles?^{[citation needed]} The Warthog isn't being considered for phasing out because the US military doesn't see a continuing need for an aircraft that can perform close air support; it just wants to replace it (possibly with a much more expensive alternative not particularly designed for it, SMH). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Less effective than rifles. In the Iraq conflict a SA80 could down a target with one round were as a Hog delivering a two second burst just cuts to pieces a poor farmer (and anyone standing close to him and his goats) because the Hog pilot can not identify a legitimate target properly -from those distances. Obsolete! A lot of miss identification happened. Most of which wasn’t reported. One I know of ( because I watched it reported live) was John Simpson's report that an American plane had just dropped a bomb on them. This was not reported in countries east, like the US though. 'This is just a scene from hell' . USS Missouri took part also. Received some friendly fire (?) from USS Jarrett and got decommissioned because in this day and age it was also demonstrably obsolete!--Aspro (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a rifle could but so could a Warthog. In fact the U.S. was apparently using 250,000 small-arms rounds per insurgent killed [3]. Also the John Simpson thing was reported at the same time in the U.S. (and involved a F-15) [4] and the Missouri took so little damage (and in a different war) that it stayed in the Persian Gulf for a month and then sailed home by way of Australia. It carried Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk missiles, just like current missile cruisers. Not quite the dinosaur. The number of friendly fire and civilian deaths attributed to the Warthog is a bit of a political football right now ([5][6])Rmhermen (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNN reports today the first unnamed training target has been blitzed by the future. Seems to have worked. No word on how much each bomb costs, but $1 trillion should cover the whole shebang. Unless the future still involves overspending. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. $21,896. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an opinion, but the A-10 is dedicated to a single role - it was originally intended to cut swathes into the mass of Warsaw Pact armoured vehicles which was poised on the borders of Western Europe in the 1980s. Smaller air forces can only afford to operate a limited number of aircraft and would be looking for a type which can fulfil a number of roles. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it isn't so much a plane that can shoot things on the ground, as a GAU-8 Avenger anti-tank gun with wings added so it can fly. The two Saddam / George wars were a splendid match for its capabilities. Nowadays, no. No enemy will send hundreds of tanks into battle against a Western power under blue skies. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reckoned by the US military that with CBU-105's “"a single B-52 can destroy an entire armoured division, whereas in the past you had to send out dozens of airplanes that might have to drop hundreds of bombs to achieve the same effect."” Targeting Tanks with Smart Cluster Bombs]. Hogs... obsolete. They might as well tell other NATO forces that bows and arrows worked once. Hence, no sale! It is a way of saving face that they declare that they do not intend to sell any abroad.--Aspro (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Europe, we've had difficulty selling the Eurofighter Typhoon simply because (in it's original form) it was a dedicated air superiority fighter with hardly any ground attack capability. Smaller air forces need one airframe to do everything. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarianism and loyalty

After reading about totalitarian regimes such as Syria under Bashar al-Assad, I have begun to wonder. How does the regime stay in power when the people hate it? Through the authorities and the military, of course. But what is keeping them loyal to the leader? What is stopping them from simply deposing him and installing one of their own, or calling for an open election?

There was one Donald Duck story where Donald went to a city in Mexico where the local mayor was keeping the entire city under his own totalitarian regime, through the force of his own personal security guard force. But when Donald exposed that the mayor had been embezzling treasure for years, keeping it secret from even his own personal security guard force, the security guard force rebelled against him, claiming they wouldn't work for about one dollar per day any more when the mayor kept all the treasures for himself. Has this sort of thing happened in the real world with such regimes? JIP | Talk 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They always have some group of loyal supporters, often based on ethnicity or religion. In the case of Syria, the Alawites, Christians, and some other minorities support Bashar, because if ISIS ever takes over the men will likely all be killed, and the women forced to marry the killers. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different then loyalty, stability, in any other systems, the players all accept the system so long as they believe the system is benefiting them. For me, I'm fine knowing my boss makes 10x more than me because I know I make 3x more then those below me and if those below me tried to depose my boss I would protect him for my own self-interest. In many historical revolutions or coups the vast majority of people were at the very bottom with no middle class to protect the top class, or, some of the people near the top were greedy and wanted more. So read up on successful revolutions, coups, and gang takeovers for real-world examples. Sepsis II (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of revolutions and rebellions might be a good read. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or the list of coups d'état and coup attempts, if you're just wondering about security forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one, welcome our new insect overlords, as I am sure does Nimur. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know bees kill their queen with cuddle power? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian governments are not always, or even often, unpopular with their subjects because they can use their power to increase their popularity. See Personality cult.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no rule saying a dictator has to be evil. It's just easy to go down that road when you can. Same reason people climb Mt. Everest or go to the moon. Because it's there and because it's hard. But Lee Kuan Yew was a good guy in many leaders of the free world's books, and not only because he was good for global business. Just a reasonable, affable fellow who wanted to run a country for as long as he could. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll put all those answers on the Internet when I figure out how." - William Safire, 1999. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding the Donald duck story, there have definitely been plenty of dictators assassinated by their own guards or security forces. For a small selection of examples, perhaps look at the cases of the wikipedia page "Category:Roman emperors murdered by the Praetorian Guard" (it won't allow links to category pages, I don't know why). Eliyohub (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stick a colon in front, like so. There was a powerful Libyan (after the Roman one) who got stuck in his colon in the end. Don't keep your friends that close. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spay/Neuter customs in England

A friend and I are discussing 101 Dalmatians and the topic of when spay/neuter became a regular thing in England. The book was written in 1956.

I know that people in the US are often encouraged to spay/neuter their dogs and cats. But what about 60 years ago in England? And, if this is a regular thing in England, when did it become so? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing conclusive, but the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been around since 1824. They're today's equivalent to Bob Barker (or the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I guess). Castration in general goes back at least a few thousand years further. It was definitely a British thing by the '40s. That link seems to put the beginning at 1893. Whoo, World Fair! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 13:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the irony of the chief advocate for the welfare of dogs being named "Barker." Edison (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I see what you mean, Edison, a Barker (occupation) wouldn't normally be too worried about his animals being rendered more easy to handle. — Sebastian 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My late Russian ex-father-in-law liked tennis, but he always disliked Sue Barker because her name reminded him of the Russian word for "dog" - собака, pron. sə-BAH-ka. He was weird that way; and in uncountably many other ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]