Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 13

= August 13 =

Nuclear first strikes *near* countries
The recent North Korean threat to nuke the ocean 25 miles from Guam strikes me as potentially rather intelligent. I didn't find the original wording, but if this is true I take it the area suggested is not US territorial waters - I don't know if it is EEZ.

The trap seems to be that if the U.S. angrily responds that any nuke fallout on its island is a cause for nuclear retaliation, then China may say the same thing about nuclear strikes on North Korea itself.

But this seems like the sort of thing that ought to have been sorted out in Cold War times. Is there any convention on how close to a country you can set off a nuke and have it counted as a "nuclear first strike"? Is there an agreement on how much fallout is not a cause for retaliation, and/or on payment of compensatory damages for lower/more distant quantities of fallout? For a bunch of nuclear powers to keep setting off bombs just off each others' shores would seem like a highly undesirable series of escalations someone would have made a treaty to ward off. Did they? Wnt (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't intelligent - potentially or otherwise. Nuclear fallout happens no matter where the bombs land. See The Conqueror (film) and Downwinders for examples of the horrors that have already occurred. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And therefore the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was passed signed to ward off setting off bombs off anybody's shores. By the way, this whole scenario is hypothetical because the DPRK hasn't actually said anything new about using nuclear weapons near Guam, just testing missiles. You should be able to read the statement yourself, though the Rodong Sinmun site isn't working for me right now (Ankit Panda has written a good summary). As they point out, the US routinely launches missiles across the Pacific in their direction to Kwajalein. And if the Kim regime were going to murder large numbers of people, I suspect they'd prefer to murder them in Japan. Matt's talk 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought NK said that because they can't actually hit Guam, if they only have the accuracy of a SCUD. Also, I wouldn't expect the missile to have a nuclear weapon on it, as they don't have that miniaturization technology ready quite yet.  And, they may realize that the US could play it's last diplomatic card, a total boycott on imports from China until China cuts off all trade and aid to NK. That would be a game-changer, especially if the EU joined in.  China wouldn't want that to go on long, both because of the immediate economic cost and because other nations would soon take over production of the products that China exports now, leading to long-term economic costs, even after the boycott ends. StuRat (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A total boycott of imports from China would cause massive economic damage to the US and the EU, on a similar scale to the 1973 oil crisis. And Just-in-time manufacturing means the effects would be felt more quickly by consumers than by workers. No more smartphones, no more tablets, no more laptops, no more Christmas decorations.... Can you imagine the electoral fate of the politician who stole Christmas?! 60% of the world's buttons and 80% of zips are made in Qiaotou: the West literally couldn't do up its flies without Chinese imports! It's not a remotely credible threat. Matt's talk 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It probably wouldn't last long, as China would be hurt far more and would do whatever it takes to end the boycott.


 * 2) There are many other nations that can provide cheap labor (cheaper in fact). They may lack the technical infrastructure to design such products, but that can be done in more high tech nations, like Japan, with the production done where labor is cheap, like Malaysia.


 * 3) The economic damage from a US and EU held hostage by an NK that can nuke them at will would be far greater. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As Matt's talk also indicated, I'm not aware of any evidence North Korea has threatened to nuke the waters of Guam. They've threatened to launch ballistic waters to the waters near Guam but given zero indication they will be nuclear armed. Most experts seem to think them being nuclear armed is unlikely both because of the risk to North Korea from doing so and also because of the low reward for that risk [//nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/what-does-north-korea-hope-to-gain-by-threatening-guam.html] [//www.vox.com/world/2017/8/11/16127990/guam-guidelines-nuclear-attack] [//www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/95716300/avoid-bomb-flash-guam-issues-emergency-guidelines-for-potential-nuclear-attack] [//www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-guam.html] [//inhomelandsecurity.com/north-korean-strike-guam/] and I presume also because North Korea hasn't generally used it in their rhetoric. In other words, we don't know how serious North Korea are with these threats but even if they are serious, it seems very unlikely they'd put nuclear warheads on them without making it a key part of their rhetoric. Probably the fact that even if North Korea has some warheads they can put on these missiles, all indications are they don't have that many, is also a factor again such possibilities. In other words, if they wanted to actually do it they'd either at least try to hit someone, or if they felt they could spare one and wanted to show they were capable, they'd do it in a slightly less provocative fashion and just use one, as with their previous ballistic missile launches. I.E. It would be separate from these Guam plans.  Incidentally, I'm also not aware of any evidence that North Korea is saying this because they are basically admitting they couldn't hit Guam if they wanted to. All evidence is that they are saying it because they are claiming they could, but are aware attacking someone would be seen as an act of war so are instead going to intentional hit the waters near Guam to show their people and the imperialists that they are capable of defending themselves. Frankly North Korea admitting in any way their missiles are too inaccurate seems very unlikely.  North Korea's plans seem provocative but I'm not sure even they would be willing to intentionally strike Guam at the current time, so their current plans do make much more sense than saying they are going to strike Guam, regardless of accuracy of their missiles. Bear in mind even China has basically told North Korea if they actually attack the US (and this would almost definitely include any attack on Guam), they can't count on China to help them but haven't given any indication this would apply if North Korea just hits the waters of Guam, regardless of them clearly not wanting North Korea to do it. (And actually as I indicated in relation to the nuclear bit, and Matt's talk also indicated, if North Korea wanted to actually attack someone, it's not clear that Guam is really much of a major target. Maybe if they were really going all out and had one spare nuke which they didn't think couldn't reach Hawaii or some other part of the US they'd send one there but otherwise....)  Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * They aren't admitting they can't hit Guam, they are saying they aren't aiming for it, so that when they do fire off a missile, and it lands near Guam (because they couldn't hit it due to the lack of accuracy of the system), other nations won't be able to claim they were aiming for it and missed. That is, they are lowering expectations.  They actually seem to get something that Trump does not, that it's a bad idea to promise things you can't deliver, as then you look bad and lose support. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Except that by your definition they are saying they can't hit Guam. And Guam is 543.9 km². Further, there's a very good chance the missiles will be taken out by the US if they're close to hitting Guam, so you can probably extend that distance, perhaps to a minimum of within Guam's territorial waters. And North Korea have said they will hit the waters 30 - 40 km away (which is not that far from the edge of the territorial waters), with both a distance and travel time for their missiles [//www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/10/north-korea-details-guam-strike-trump-load-of-nonsense]  . I'm unsure if more detailed locations are visible in the various maps North Korea has released, (I found  [//www.bustle.com/p/what-is-the-north-korea-map-of-death-these-us-locations-could-be-a-target-75446] which discusses a different issue, I don't think this gets much attention mostly because precisely where in the 30-40 km isn't likely to be a big deal and few people actually considered the idea this is some weird admittance of inaccuracy by the North Korea) although enveloping fire does imply North Korea is saying they will sort of be surround Guam (admittedly the travel time and distance couldn't apply to them all then unless they are coming from such distant locations) or at least the US bases on Guam.  But even without this, it still makes no sense to suggest North Korea would give such detailed plans which probably already require greater accuracy than hitting some part of Guam and so which if they actually carry them out and fail, will be seen just as much failures as saying they will hit Guam but then failing to do so (when by admitting they can't hit Guam as you claim they are doing they are already seen as failures by anyone smart if we follow your logic).  And as I already said, saying you will hit Guam and saying you will hit near Guam are very different rhetoric. (And we don't really know whether these plans are actually in any way serious.) Likewise trying to hit Guam and trying to hit near Guam are very different things. It makes no sense for North Korea to try to attack Guam when they've said they want to attack near Guam unless they want to claim that it was an accident, but that would imply admitting failure. In other words, if North Korea really wanted to attack Guam, they will either say they want to attack Guam or not say anything and just attack.  And even if they're only on course to hit the targets North Korea has promised, there's till a fair chance the US or Japan will take them out, meaning there's even less reason for North Korea to worry about this.  The only thing perhaps in the favour of your weird unsupported by any source I've seen idea (I don't know if we can even call it a theory) is that if North Korea had said they were going to hit Guam but their missiles were actually heard to the waters of Guam, there's a very slightly less chance the US would let them be just to embarrass North Korea. Oh and also there's perhaps a very slighty higher chance North Korea may feel they could get away with a "well I know we said we were going to do X, but we changed our minds" if they said they were going to hit Guam but hit the waters compared to if they said they were going to hit 30-40 km off Guam but hit somewhere else (especially if they hit or were on target to hit closer).  In reality of course, North Korea has never seemed particularly worried about just talking complete crap even if no one credible believes them like how none of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng program launches failed and they have satellites no one else can find so it's even less clear why they're suddenly trying to save face by giving detailed launch plans likely requiring greater accuracy than just saying they will hit Guam because they fear they lack the accuracy to hit Guam.  Sadly for once I have to wonder whether the one of the key leaders involved is actually listening to better advice on the issue, despite surely having ready access to it although whoever this person is listening to, it's probably not anyone on the reference desk. (We never know what, if any, advice the other key leader is receiving.)  Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's 3430 km from NK to Guam. Hitting a target 50 km long and 6 to 19 km wide at that range would require either an extremely accurate dead reckoning system, or some way to adjust trajectory in flight, based on location feedback, such as GPS.  Certainly not impossible, but if they had that capability I expect they would be bragging about it and/or demonstrating it. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Given that 50-60% of China's exports are by foreign-owned enterprises, and the vast majority of products of a high enough quality / safety standard to be sold in Western markets are made by private companies, any notion of a boycott to compel the government to change its policy is laughable. Further, the last time any Chinese government changed policy in the face of threats was 1936. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Items don't need to be made directly by the Chinese government to harm the Chinese economy when no longer made there. Those Western companies can move to other places with low labor costs.  There's no shortage of those in the world.  What China wants most of all is "social stability", and an economic depression would end that.  And the remaining 40-50% of privately owned Chinese companies which export would bring to bear enormous pressure on the government.  And since those are the rich people, many with ties to government, they do have major influence. StuRat (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of the background of Child 44 (film)
Happy good day every where. Yesterday I watched the film Child 44. My question doesn't concern the criminal and detective aspect of the film. I'm interesting in your opinions about the background of the film; could the situation be so rude? For example, if somebody was suspected of spying, may the deadly consequences concern the family too? The fact that this film was banned in several ex-USSR countries (Ban of the film in Russia) seems to "say" that indeed it was horrible up to this point. I'm French but I ask this question on your desk, hoping that some people who had lived, or whose parents had lived in USSR could answer from their own or own family remembering. Thank you all for helping.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The plot of the film is rather hard to understand, but our article on Family members of traitors to the Motherland says that family members could be punished legally (and that suggests it would have happened at other periods by administrative means). Matt's talk 10:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "In 1935 the introduction of Article 12 of the Criminal Code also permitted children from the age of twelve to be sentenced as adults and interned in the Gulags. This law was used to round up the children of those who had earlier been arrested for political crimes based on the belief that ‘an apple never falls far from the tree’". ‘The Littlest Enemies’: Children of the Stalinist Era by Dr Kelly Hignett, a historian and a lecturer at Leeds Beckett University. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition to the legal means described above, note that most communist nations ignored the rule of law when they found it inconvenient, so would feel free to do as they pleased with family members of their perceived enemies. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Guanyin interpreted as "patron saint" or "deity" by Westerners?
I know that Guanyin is a special bodhisattva, but her status is compared to a "deity" or "patron saint" in the article. In Christianity, what kind of status do patron saints hold? Is the Madonna a saint or lower goddess? 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:56 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges.
 * Guanyin is a Bodhisattva, which means they were a mytho-historical individual who just about attained Buddhahood but decided "I'm going to stay behind to help other get to this point as well." They are similar to Christian saints in the regard that they were supposedly historical individuals who achieved a lesser divine status (though not outright godhood).  However, they are distinct in that any miracles attributed to the Bodhisattva are the Bodhisattva's doing and not those of a higher power (unless the Bodhisattva is regarded as an emanation of a Wisdom Buddha, in which case it's all the Adi-Buddha's doing).  Some lay Buddhists (or non-Buddhists) might worship them as one would a god for this reason.  Still, either stricter interpretations of Buddhism would say that the worship is nothing more than showing respect and giving thanks to the Bodhisatva for showing humanity the true path.  More esoteric interpretations might say the worship is meant to be an exercise to realize the non-duality between the worshiper and the Bodhisattva.  However, Guanyin is also worshiped by some Taoists and Shintoists, who just treat her as a goddess (if perhaps with a different title).
 * In Christianity, saints are any humans who have made it to heaven. Canonized saints are individuals that a church recognizes as definitely having made it to heaven.  In theory, they are not prayed to or worshiped in the same sense as one prays to or worships God but shown respect through Dulia (or veneration).  Saints do not have any powers of their own but may ask the saint to pray to God on their behalf (no different than asking any other living member of the Church to pray on one's behalf).  Despite this, most Protestants generally don't approve of appealing to saints, or at least don't bother with it.  Mary is an especially popular saint because she gave birth to Jesus, and so is the mother of God.  She is not, however, a goddess in any orthodox Christian theology.  Syncretist movements (e.g. Vodou) that incorporate elements of Christianity may combine her with goddess figures or even ascribe her with her own power.
 * In short: In Buddhism, Guanyin is regarded as having her own power (whether because she is an emanation of Amitābha or because of her own enlightenment), appeals for any intervention are really meant for her help, and direct worship may (or may not) be regarded as efficacious; while in Christianity, Mary does not have her own power (just a very good relationship with God), appeals to her for intervention are ultimately meant for God, and any veneration beyond showing respect is generally regarded as idolatrous. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, Islam also venerates Mary as one of the most virtuous women to ever exist, though they do not think that Jesus was God (just a great prophet).
 * Thinking further on it, if you mapped the cosmology of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, with God at the top of the Christianity and Islam maps, the Adi-Buddha at the top of the Buddhism map, and the sinful or unenlightened masses of humanity at the bottom for all maps... Most Christians would probably put Mary just below God (and Jesus in the God slot) and most Muslims would put Mary somewhere in the top five. Guanyin's placement would depend on which school of Buddhism you ask.  A Chinese Pure Land Buddhist might well put Guanyin next to the Adi-Buddha, while another Chinese Buddhist would put Guanyin below Amitabha (who, in turn, is one step below the Adi-Buddha), an American Vajrayana Buddhist might put Guanyin just below or beside Avalokiteśvara (who is below Amitabha, below the Adi-Buddha), and a Thai Theravada Buddhist would probably leave Guanyin off entirely. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The key word here is Intercession.  Lutherans apparently regard all believers as saints.   Most denominations would not regard saints as "any humans who have made it to heaven".   Our article does not say that. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * According to most Christian theology, being a believer -> getting into heaven. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See sanctification.  Incidentally, shortly after posting I met a woman who asked me to direct her to Lea Bridge station.   Having done that, she described me as "a saint". 82.14.24.95 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Christian name of the architect of the original Lea Bridge station was ... Sancton. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, the article "Saint" does say According to the Catholic Church, a "saint" is anyone in Heaven, whether recognized on Earth or not. So yeah, "any humans who have made it to heaven."  The only disagreement is that our article is broader. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * "In the Eastern Orthodox Church a saint is defined as anyone who is in Heaven, whether recognized here on earth, or not."


 * And the same article also says that:
 * "In many Protestant churches, the word "saint" is used more generally to refer to anyone who is a Christian"
 * and
 * "Methodists believe that all Christians are saints, but mainly use the term to refer to biblical people, Christian leaders, and martyrs of the faith."
 * The LDS is more complicated but the name is a big hint:
 * "In the New Testament, saints are all those who have entered into the Christian covenant of baptism. The qualification "latter-day" refers to the doctrine that members are living in the "latter days", before the Second Coming of Christ, and is used to distinguish the members of the LDS Church, which considers itself the restoration of the ancient Christian church.[43] Members are therefore often referred to as "Latter-day Saints" or "LDS", and among themselves as "saints"."


 * So I don't think the IP's claims about who are generally regarded as saints is particularly accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and it does mention the issue said below by Wnt Many Protestant sects also consider the practice to be similar to necromancy as the dead are believed to be awaiting resurrection, unable to do anything for the living saint. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Catholic-Protestant distinction above isn't very relevant, but to be clear, the main issue in Protestant belief is that a literal reading of several scriptures indicates that the dead will be resurrected, but aren't presently alive to do anything. So a lot of things like Purgatory and the Harrowing of Hell don't make any sense in Protestantism, which in contradiction offered the "doppelganger" as a proof that ghosts weren't really the person but a sort of demonic deception.  The theological tension is at the root of Hamlet, who might be speaking with the ghost of his father or might be speaking to a demon bent on causing murder and tragedy.  For purposes of writing, though, it seems potentially acceptable to use a "patron saint" as a comparison because either one believes in them or else not. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville + racism
DoesCharlottesville have something that makes it magnetic to racists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.78.146 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Robert Edward Lee Sculpture, although maybe not for much longer. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Charleston, South Carolina had a notorious reputation as a hotbed of state nullificationism and secessionism for decades before the Civil War, and its selection as the (completely inappropriate) location of the 1860 Democratic party national convention played a role in the 1860 split of the Democratic party (and so probably hastened the onset of the Civil War) -- as well as a long history of fanatical pro-Confederate sentiment after the Civil War, so I wasn't all that surprised by the 2015 shooting there. I'm not sure that I ever heard of Charlottesville, Virginia until this last year. AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's also the location of the University of Virginia. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The 2015 shooting in Charleston had nothing at all to do with Charleston. The idiot was from Columbia. He drove first to Greenville and then decided to drive to Charleston before trying to kill as many black people as possible. Why blame the victim for the crime? You, of course, omit that Charleston is predominantly Democratic and liberal to make it fit your narrative of a hotbed of racism. Try visiting the city. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See Rosewood massacre for evidence that a town need not be full of rednecks itself to be a "magnet for racists attacks". StuRat (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The question (as I understood it) was not whether a city is a "hotbed" of racism, but why it would be a magnet for racists from the outside. I'm sure that a large number of the inhabitants of Charleston are fine upstanding citizens, but the city has a long checkered history from the 1832 Nullification Crisis down to the shooting of Walter Scott, so I can understand why it would be a "magnet".  I don't know of anything similar for Charlottesville (other than the presence of the statue, obviously -- and there are similar statues in many Southern cities). AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Urban areas attract minorities, whereas university towns attract political leftists. For example, Charleston, South Carolina is about 25% African American, whereas the rest of the United States is about 13% African American.  Charlottesville votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and has been trending moreso in recent years.  If you're trying to attack African Americans, you go to cities.  If you're trying to provoke a confrontation with leftists, you go to a college town.  -- Jayron 32 17:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with AnonMoos and Jayron32. I'd note that we have the shooters own words which seem to support the view that Charleston was chosen for reasons that included the history and black population although it's true what was meant by history isn't really explained. From our Dylann Roof article and subsection: (also here [//www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/13/universal/document-Dylann-Roof-manifesto.html])
 * "I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me."


 * Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Several newspapers have asked this in the last few days:  . There seem to be two theories. Firstly, Richard B. Spencer attended the University of Virginia, so he has particular reason to oppose the removal of the Lee sculpture and has the local knowledge to organize 'successful' events there. Secondly, as a college town it is relatively left-wing, and so the Nazis know that they will be intimidating their enemies rather than their friends, increasingly their chances of provoking a clash. Matt's talk 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd note that all of the answers above seems to only mention the statue, but as our Emancipation Park (Charlottesville, Virginia) and 2017 Unite the Right rally articles say, supporters of the rally have cited both the planned removal of the statue, and the already carried out renaming of the park that the statue is in from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, as factors. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)