Replacing welfare payments with "basic income" for all is alluring, but expensive - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21651897-replacing-welfare-payments-basic-income-all-alluring <comment><USER4> This analysis doesn't seem to account for the savings and increased efficiency from all the policy changes basic income would enable.

For example, water and parking spaces could be priced at their actual cost, rather than being subsidized. This would make the water market function properly and allocate it efficiently, and remove a bunch of car-related externalities.

Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.

Street crime? Possibly quite reduced.

Massive corn subsidies? Who needs 'em?

And think of all the otherwise great ideas that we don't do because they'd effectively be regressive taxation. For example, congestion pricing. We could revisit all those ideas.

And what about when the children of would-have-been-poor households grow up with an actual ladder up? Think of the things they'll invent, the contributions they'll make to society.

<comment><USER5> 'Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.'

If everyone's income were increased, might not prices for things like housing go up as well, so some people could still be priced out?

<comment><USER6> Yes. But the presence of a large group with a consistent fixed income would incentivize the building of large-scale low cost apartments - those don't exist currently outside of major cities (where 'low cost' is substantially higher), because the demand isn't there.

<comment><USER7> There is no shortage of incentive for that in most of western Europe - <USER2> property is significantly profitable. The reason why not much gets built is because (a) cheap housing blocks results in ghettoisation, which most governments try to prevent with mixed-dwelling planning requirements, and (b) local residents invariably object to any planning request for housing more low-income people near them.

<comment><USER8> I've seen enough uncompleted estates and empty unsellable new buildings over time to suspect that such property is significantly risky.

Maybe such property is significantly profitable today, but we can't be sure by the time the building is complete.

I suspect it's more likely a simple business decision: the profit doesn't outweigh the risk.

In London, construction companies work hard to avoid the commitment to affordable housing and pay councils bribes to overcome that. Why would they need to pay councils off if this was a profitable option for them?

<comment><USER7> London's a special case: every single unit that can be converted from "affordable housing" to "luxury accommodation" is a massive profit realised by the developer. You can make a lot of money from building low-cost housing, but you can make an awful lot more from building really expensive housing, because there is essentially unlimited demand for both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article points out that making basic income available to those contributing to society (working, looking for work or volunteering). That's incredibly short-sighted for several reasons: 1) the idle are best being, well, idle - out of the way while everybody else gets on with making the world a better place. Sure they will reap the benefits but their number is likely to no higher than the currently idle. Indeed the numbers are likely to be fewer since everybody is free to do what they want; 2) means testing whether somebody is eligible is going to create bureaucracy and drive up the costs of the system and finally 3) if I wanted to spend a couple of weeks cleaning up my local beach of garbage I should be free to do so - the benefit to society is obviously large but the effort might just be me or a small group of similar minded folks. Justifying that to some authority so I could collect my payment would kill a lot of creativity because of the paperwork involved. As a result of lot of trivial but useful things, cleaning garbage from playgrounds or collecting household vegetable waste for a local compost heap would go undone.

<comment><USER10> >their number is likely to no higher than the currently idle

Why do you think giving some people free money that do not get it now would not result in some of them becoming idle?

There is evidence as payments increase the idle increase. For example, I think the OECD has data showing there are more people on disability by a wide margin across countries, and this correlates with the benefits the various countries offer. Do you really think there are naturally more disabled people in the UK than the US, or that because they offer better support more people are inclined to try and get it?

>if I wanted to spend a couple of weeks cleaning up my local beach of garbage I should be free to do so - the benefit to society is obviously large but the effort might just be me or a small group of similar minded folks

Obviously large to whom? Why does this group or person not already pay someone to clean the beach? Apparently the value is so low that people spend their money on things they want, instead of hiring you to clean the beach.

What you're arguing is that people will produce things of lesser value to society, but of some value to their own belief set, things of such low value overall that no one will pay for it. This results in a lower amount of goods and services, which ultimately results in society getting poorer, not richer.

<comment><USER11> Some of them do become idle thats the whole point because some of them ARE idle. We are not talking about living like a king. We are talking about basic income i.e. getting by.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am going to tell a story about the state I live in: Maine.

We have many programs: HUD (to help pay rent), Food Stamps, HEAP (fuel/electricity assistance), and others.

All of these have complex forms to fill out, and offices filled with staff that don't actually understand the complex rules, and the rules seem to change all the time.

Hiring these people costs money. Due to the complexity of the rules and forms, many families that qualify for these programs do not apply for them due to the frustration they cause, and when you're poor you only have a limited amount of frustration before you curl up and cry yourself to sleep every night.

Many consider just getting any aid from the state a full time job in of itself.

Not only that, programs like food stamps issue a card, the maintenance of these cards is probably not cheap as they outsource it to some company out of state. The minimum you can get on food stamps here is $15/mo (which helps absolutely no one, I'm sorry, but $15/mo could be a day's worth of food for a couple with a kid); what is the actual cost of doing that $15/mo? I read somewhere that a quarter of a million households qualify for food stamps in Maine, how much are money are we losing administering a program like this that has such little benefit? Could we be feeding another few thousand households with that waste?

I've been advocating a basic income program for years purely because of the efficiency of it. Once people no longer have to worry about where their next meal is, or their wife's next meal, or their kids's next meal, or if they will have a roof over their head tomorrow, or will their car be stolen, I mean, repoed by the bank tomorrow, they can actually focus on being gainfully employed, or go back to school, or just not be a fucking wreck.

I live in Maine. I suspect we are the poorest and most forgotten about state in the great experiment that is our nation. A program like this would create all the jobs we don't have, would end the constant bullshit people here have to deal with, and probably save lives as well.

Life here is so bleak that, as a non-alcoholic, people have assumed that I mean that I'm just in AA, and quit drinking. "No," I tell them, "I really don't drink. Never have." They look at me like I have two heads.

<comment><USER13> I have never heard someone talk about Maine as bleak. Seems like most people who live there or are from there love it. Are you really saying poverty in Maine eclipses the Deep South?

<comment><USER14> Purely anecdotal, but I took a roadtrip through southern Appalachia a few years ago, and the parts of West Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina that I went through reminded me so much of rural Maine that it wasn't funny.

Maine is really two different states. There is southern Maine, centered on York and Cumberland counties (basically the Portland metro area), and then there is the rest of the state. The other half of Maine has very little industry, almost no white-collar work, and extremely low population density. There are entire regions of the state that are propped up by one or two paper mills that are still operating, or subsist off of tourism dollars during the summer months or the ski season. And even tourism and skiing took a beating during the recent financial crisis.

<comment><USER12> I agree with this. When people say "Hey, what about Portland" I tell them, no, Portland and Kittery are actually part of New Hampshire since they seem to get all the actual benefit.

Like, you know how when you travel between states, theres the major highways, and theres tons forest, and no actual towns or anything for miles? It isn't like that from NH into Portland, it IS like that from Portland into Augusta or on the way up to Bangor.

Oh, and as for all the paper mills? We're killing those off. And our one large major employer that isn't in Portland/Kittery? Its rumored that since Jackson Lab couldn't open a big new location here in Maine and opened it in Flordia instead, they're moving their existing location here down to Florida too (and with that, probably thousands of jobs will go with it between the people that work there and the people that support those people in that community).

Its like, can we just leave the US and join Canada already?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger._

Basically, if there is not enough jobs for everyone - the raison d'etre of the basic income - then at some point, some aren't going to do anything: that's the point.

In other terms, the basic income is all about how do deal with the people which does nothing since we have reasons to think they couldn't do anything anyway according to the situation.

<comment><USER16> > Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger.

I have zero problems with this (for some levels of "comfortably"), the alternative is filled with drugs and crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Unvoiced assumption #1: working is good. Corollary: Not working is bad. Unvoiced assumption #2: anyone who wants a job can get one.

We know that #2 is false. Coupling the assumptions together produces a group of people who are considered to be bad for reasons that are entirely beyond their control.

<comment><USER18> Well, I think assumption #1 (especially the corollary) is voiced, for instance, as follows:

> _Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger._

But, I do think that sentiment is a root part of the resistance against BI. People have bought pretty heavily into the current status quo that says, "you eat what you kill". So, if you don't work you are an undeserving freeloader or loafer.

Whereas, BI, for some, essentially acknowledges the common ownership of natural resources, etc., treating sustenance derived therefrom as more a natural right than something that must be earned.

<comment><USER19> The capitalist status quo is all about "you eat what you kill," true. But in America, a huge majority is ostensibly Christian, especially in politics. And Jesus is all about grace, that you literally cannot earn the living truth, the light, the peace, the spirit, because they are given in grace. I wonder why it's such a radical suggestion to take that premise into material aspects of life.

<comment><USER18> I think there is a huge disconnect between professed Christian values and execution on many fronts, including this one.

I suppose that _especially_ those who adhere to the Christian faith would anticipate this. In other words, the Christian teaching is that the very need for grace is brought about by humankind's utter inability to consistently adhere to Christian principles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think the ethical arguments and the practical arguments about how other policies could be changed once basic income is implemented are more than enough reason to vote yes. But all of that is ultimately moot: the most important reason why basic income will soon be necessary is that "jobs" as they exist now are already on their way out.

The idea that it is "too expensive" just begs the question "too expensive to whom?" Eventually, our practice of giving the richest people more and more money will hit a breaking point, and we will have to figure out a way to take care of all the people whose livelihoods have been automated. Basic income is the best and easiest way to obviate that problem, and the richest can easily afford to pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER21> The article also doesn't seem to take into account that we already spend of hundreds of billions of dollars every year of welfare programs that could be saved. The article just piles BI on as an additional expense.

I also think most BI supporters tend to shoot too high. The equivalent income of just a 16hr per week job at min wag would do wonders for the economy without putting a great deal of pressure on people not to work.

<comment><USER22> The US spends $454B on welfare programs[1], but has a population of 321M. If you scrapped the existing welfare program in favor of BI, you'd be able to give everyone only $117 per month. You can make adjustments for things like children not requiring as much, but we're still nowhere near a livable wage.

[1] [http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2015USbn_1...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2015USbn_16bs2n_40#usgs302)

<comment><USER23> I think you'd need to expand beyond what's generally classified as welfare. You could probably also get reduce or eliminate social security benefits (another $745.3B)

You could also probably greatly simplify the tax code, which has become a form of welfare with the poor paying less and the richer paying more relative to the amount they earn.

Then there's other potential benefits or reductions in cost, that are harder to quantify and predict. Would there be a reduction in crime? (which could reduce police costs) A decrease in sickness and health costs? (due to increased nutrition and better shelter) An increase in productivity and a boost to the economy? (due to people being in better health, being able to get more education and a tax code and welfare system that doesn't incentivize making less) What about all the non-profit organizations that spend millions helping the unfortunate? (What could that be spent on instead?)

I'm not necessarily in favor of a basic income to the extent mentioned in the article. I do wonder, however, if some limited basic income could be more effective than our current programs designed to help the poor and needy and if it would provide some better stability in people's lives generally. Either way, it would have a broader impact on the economy than simply removing welfare programs from federal and state budgets.

<comment><USER24> _" You could probably also get reduce or eliminate social security benefits"_

"Eliminate" would never fly politically, and to be honest I don't think it's the right thing anyway. We probably could reduce/consolidate, if we did so in a way that meant (BI + SSI) was never lower than SSI before the change, which would certainly still mean savings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Money doesn't disappear. If you give people a basic income, they'll spend it. On rent, beer, education, their kids, all the things people normally spend money on. And some of it is going to come back to all of us in one way or another. Maybe more people will have money to buy apps or pay for services offered by hn members' startups. Or they'll buy lottery tickets and the additional money that goes to education will be used to hire consultants or custodians for schools. Or they'll spend more money at Wal-mart, some of which will be used to purchase some kind of software from a tech startup. Money always trickles back up, especially when it's put into the hands of low income people who tend to spend more than they save.

This adds up to a discount on the cost of BI. Increase taxes by X% and you get back Y% in increased spending. Of course everyone won't benefit equally, but there will be plenty of good times to go around. Don't worry about moral judgements regarding who is working and who isn't. As long as they're spending it will mean more for you.

<comment><USER26> The thing to do is take a step back from money and consider production and consumption.

A basic income would hopefully create some increase in consumption.

The more interesting question is what it would do to production. The big fear is that it would cause a drop in production, a drop big enough that mean consumption would have to drop below where it is today.

<comment><USER10> >A basic income would hopefully create some increase in consumption.

But you took the money to pay for basic income from someone else. They would have used it for consumption and possibly investment (or savings, which is also invested). So it is not at all clear this would result in a better economy.

<comment><USER26> I more or less said that in the next paragraph there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Having negative income tax brackets for those that:

1\. Work +

2\. Declare their income (i.e., file tax returns) +

3\. Make below X amount

... is more financially reasonable _and has the benefit of keeping the person working /trying/moving_.

In this system, as an example, someone making below 30K year would gets the difference between what they make and the 30K mark given to them.

Otherwise, the only other solution is to just have the FED print out the 5-10+ trillion/year this guaranteed minimum income program needs - and distribute it each month.

Most people are already paying a 40-60% effective tax rate (all use, property, local, state, federal taxes - and other related fees - added up) on what they earn, and you really can't tax them more for obvious reasons.

<comment><USER4> Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

<comment><USER28> Speak only for yourself, please.

I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens.

The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply - they are on the military complex side.

<comment><USER29> Why isn't the statement that people on high incomes can afford to pay more tax generally true? Simply feeling that the tax you pay is adequate does not mean paying more would be unaffordable. Certainly you could more afford it than someone on an income of half or a quarter of yours.

The question of whether reducing funding of the military complex would be a better policy than tax increases is a valid one, but unrelated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why not start with something smaller, like providing "basic food" for everyone, and see what the result is? You could reuse existing programs, like food stamps, where the infrastructure is already in place for most grocery stores to accept payment. (except without the application process)

That seems like a less risky change than trying to provide enough income to cover housing, utilities, clothing, etc. all at once.

<comment><USER30> Or just start with a small Basic Income to test out the system.

<comment><USER23> Also a good option.

Personally, I think I would favor providing something like food through a system like food stamps first. It provides less risk of the money being wasted on addictions (drugs, gambling and other bad financial decisions) and better ensures the money is used to help someone (especially in the case of children, where they are not spending the money, but their parents are).

<comment><USER30> But part of the theory behind Basic Income is that people will change their behaviour when given more Agency, restricting what they can spend it on doesn't let us test this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think what we need is "basic commodities" in terms of foodstuffs that a person could live off of, for example: a 40lb bag of rice, lentils, 3 different kinds of beans, corn meal, canned tomatoes, canned fruit, and a jar full of multi-vitamins. Absolutely no proof of income status should be required only a quick verification that that A. You are a human being, and B. you're not abusing the system by taking more than you could actually consume during a given time period.

This ensures that nobody ever needs to go hungry, it puts money in people's pockets because now they don't have to spend as much of their income on food, and it accomplishes this all without prying into the private details of anyone's life.

The goal in my opinion should not be to "give everyone an income" but rather to give everyone a safety net on top of which they can attempt to build a life for themselves. It trains people to be used to _sharing_ and _giving_ the things that we need to sustain ourselves, which is healthy and nurtures a cooperative spirit among men.

</comment><comment><USER32> The trick that governments all around the world pull is taxing those who are not wealthy.

Taxation should not be a 'membership cost' for society. It should be a fee levied on the very wealthy, not out of some sense of spite, but in order that the system continues to produce reasonable outcomes for everyone.

When you do that, then basic income can be argued for reasonably.

Right now, poor/working class people fall over themselves to come up with reasons why BI won't work because they don't want their tax burdens to rise.

Land and capital owners should pay tax. Those with zero net worth really shouldn't. Why?

Because taxation on labour is effectively stolen labour. Taxation on capital is simply an adjustment in living standards. The two are hugely different.

The idea that the rich would just go fugitive if wealth were taxed is a total fantasy. Knightsbridge exists as a real place. I can cycle down the road and pop a letter through a letterbox. It might become marginally less attractive with a 1% annual tax. It might be that the economic boom caused by redistribution results in it increasing in value anyway.

</comment><comment><USER33> How expensive is it to NOT provide a "basic income"?

<comment><USER34> This consideration is missing in most of discussions about basic income. What is the opportunity cost of NOT implementing a basic income scheme?

What if we make an effort to assess the opportunity cost in longevity changes, public health indicators, crime rate, education levels and, perhaps, most encompassing and important parameter: human happiness.

I am quite sure that the opportunity cost which humanity and individual nation-states incur for not implementing basic income is absurdly, humongously huge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I don't see how this is affordable. With the Swiss amount of $2700 per month ($32,400 p.a) it's $32bn for 1m people per annum (8m people in Switzerland). This is 45% of the annual federal budget last year ($70b) & doesn't even cover 13% of the population. What about everything else that needs government expenditure: roads, defense, education & research, regulatory oversight, police?

<comment><USER11> But you don't need all the people you are paying to control all sorts of things in a conditional system. So you would basically get rid of a lot of expenses that are currently being used to control the system.

<comment><USER35> I don't see how you could get rid of spending on roads, police, foreign relations, defense, regulatory oversight? It's a jump to assume crime would disappear with basic income and police would no longer be needed.

Also expenditures where economies of scale can be achieved are better off as government expenditures as an individual would get nowhere near the cost effectiveness (healthcare, education) or the incentive to build as an individual (roads, parks, water networks, cleaning, etc).

There's also the prime issue of how it can be afforded in the first place, besides all the consequences of reallocating existing expenditure.

<comment><USER11> Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating.

Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO.

<comment><USER35> I think there is an opposing argument to the benefits you claim could be achieved. By having free income, there is less of an incentive to work, there is actually a large chance productivity would drop, not increase!

Also, keep in mind you need funds to run the tax collection system to collect taxes to fund the basic income scheme. On a theoretical basis you may have a point but I don't see its that easy or possible in reality. I for one would just use the basic income to live and roam the world without giving anything back (since this is what I'm incentivised to do).

<comment><USER14> I doubt that. If basic income was implemented as a straight, tax-free cash payment, which didn't contribute to income tax, and replaced current means- tested welfare benefits, I think that it would actually be a net win for everyone. If you work, it means extra money in your pocket, and your benefits don't get pulled out from under you if you go over the income limits. On the government side, administration gets much simpler - just mail out the checks to everybody. You could also drastically simplify the tax code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Probably as expensive as giving the homeless free housing... which has repeatedly shown to be cheaper than not

<comment><USER37> If you believe that deeply in that idea, then turn it into a startup. Put your own money into it and I'm sure you'll see truly interesting results!

<comment><USER38> The money saved is in police time, emergency health care, etc. so you'd need a way for a private enterprise to claim the savings that result from housing the homeless to make this market work.

<comment><USER39> In a large city these are all city services, which implies that a startup could work with the city as the customer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I really like the general idea of basic income, but I don't think it's the right time for it now. The only reason I say that is that we need to address the destabilising effects of the banking sector before money is ready to use as a means of providing a safety net.

Control over the money supply ensures that prices can settle, which means that the income you earn (through UBI or otherwise) can give the basic quality of life we want to ensure all have access to. However, at the moment, the increase of money in circulation is largely driven by banks, who serve profit over people.

Solve the banking issue, and you'd have removed a road block for UBI as well as freeing up the capital to do it.

Alternatively, I like the idea of 'basic food' and 'basic shelter' that were mentioned elsewhere in these comments. They'd probably be easier to push through, as well as providing tangible benefits for those in need.

</comment><comment><USER41> I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is not a good omen. [1]

[1] - [http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/...](http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html)

<comment><USER42> 1\. A basic income doesn't mean that you have enough to fulfil all dreams. There will still be reasons to earn more income, especially with those who are capable of delivering value.

2\. There is a fundamental assumption that we are at a technological stage where work can be automated. If there are not enough jobs that someone a standard deviation below average intelligence can fulfil, we could be coming upon a societal disaster.

If instead, we incentivize automation by saying, "no job is a superior alternative to an easily automatable, low value job where people are treated as disposable," there is no significant conflict. If people with low skill do not choose to work, and their skills are automatable, it is only our moral qualms that get in the way.

As it is now, significant portions of the population cannot provide enough value to ensure their subsistence, minimum wage or otherwise. Is it only our morals that require some work from them?

3\. Incentivizing not working also means incentivizing spending a year on an idea that could advance society, or works of art and literature. Harry Potter was written by someone who decided not to work. There might be major value to society that we're losing because we _don 't_ have a basic income.

<comment><USER18> What's interesting about your point 3. is that it speaks to these archetypes we have defined for people.

We have so ingrained in our minds that a person's value to society is defined by his/her economic contribution in the traditional sense (i.e. via a job or business ownership), that we assume that a person who does not work has no value by definition. In fact, they are even morally deficient. So, how can they possibly be of a quality/character as to contribute anything to society via arts, ideas, or otherwise?

It's a sneaky bit of circular logic that, for many, argues against a BI.

<comment><USER42> There's even more to it -- it's that the only thing of value to society is that which can be traded for money.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. When companies that otherwise have the wherewithal choose not to pursue cures or vaccines because there isn't enough profit in it, larger society barely pauses to register the true awfulness of such a calculus.

But, this is the type of stucture that we've engineered to allocate the world's resources--one where human value is malleable and always somewhere along the economic continuum. It's the same structure that precipitates the need for a BI and, sadly, also produces the minds that resist it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The whole discussion is ridiculous to me. All of the money filters back up to the capitalists anyway. Is that not mind-bendingly obvious?

If you are a recipient of the basic income, you spend it all. Every last dollar. You don't build net worth and take it out of the economy. (If more than a small hardcore crowd even can, it's been set too high).

In a country like the UK, that gets taxed at 50%+ (providing the tax authorities are actually doing their job and have not been deliberately underfunded). So half of it almost immediately goes back into the Government coffers.

I don't understand why people spend so much time doing arcane analyses whilst seemingly missing how the economy works at a very basic level.

Government spending can be a net drain in two broadly defined ways, as far as I can see. There may be others that I am missing.

1\. Giving money to the rich directly who then hoard it. 2\. Inefficient allocation of human talent or natural resources (e.g. if the government paid me 200k pa to chew pens, and I gave up my real job).

Spending on the poor really cannot cost money unless you have issues with collecting taxes.

</comment><comment><USER6> 2700 per month is 32.4k per year - that's awfully high for a basic income. I'm not surprised it's "too expensive".

<comment><USER43> Adjusting to GDP per capita gives a US equivalent of $20K/year. For the UK it adjusts to £10K/year, pretty much exactly the amount a single adult would get on job seeker's allowance plus housing benefit. (For pensioners and single parents with one child it goes up to about £15K/year.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the relatively near-term future it will be literally impossible to employ more than half of the population in nearly full-time positions that produce a net gain for their being filled. At that point there are essentially two choices - let some people not work, or let everybody work less. (There's actually a third choice that will probably be the default - make-work for all, so that we can be kept too busy to effect change).

The latter sounds more fair, but is inherently less efficient - <USER3> means that for every doctor to work half as much, we have to train twice as many doctors for the same amount of 'product' (the practicing of medicine).

The math in this article seems to also have inexplicably paired 'basic income' with 'flat tax' \- while I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like both, those two systems are completely separate, and there's no good reason not to consider the effects in isolation rather than together.

</comment><comment><USER44> As a big fan of the idea of a basic income I would love some numbers on this. Simplicity is sometimes worth the price.

</comment><comment><USER45> No one on this thread seems to be aware that basic income has been tried in several trials both in the US and Canada. See, for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome)

</comment><comment><USER46> One thing that I think doesn't come up very often when discussing BI is the fact that many other laws will have to dramatically change to make the experiment successful. Just imagine the enormous increase in things like contribution to open source, creation of art and culture, etc. I don't believe that the current environment of hyper-strict IP and patent laws can continue if BI were to be implemented, as many more people would use their increased leisure time to create. Today we can already see conflicts between big IP companies and individual creators, and if BI is introduced it will get much worse.

</comment><comment><USER47> Inflation is currently controlled by adjusting the amount of new money printed to back up loans given to large banks.

Instead of printing new money in this way, we could just give the new money directly to the citizens.

Quick napkin math shows that every person in the US would have gotten a check every year all the way back to the 30's (some years smaller than others), without needing to raise taxes at all. In fact cancelling some of the welfare programs made unnecessary by this system would likely result in lower taxes.

Loans would be more expensive, but more expensive loans seems like a small price to pay for basically ending homelessness and hunger.

</comment><comment><USER48> _n Britain, for example, workers can earn £10,600 ($16,500) before income tax is levied on subsequent earnings (starting at 20%)._

Shortly to increase to £12,500 in George Osborne's next budget in July.

<comment><USER8> 1\. The £12,500 promise is for this parliament, i.e. before 2020. It's probable that they will exceed the promise, but not in July.

2\. Increasing the personal allowance no longer makes much difference to the poor and underemployed: the disadvantaged in society. Thanks to the last parliament, they are out of this category.

Increasing the benefit is now primarily a small tax benefit for the working middle classes that has the significant advantage of appearing to be progressive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Best solution I've come across is a small <1% fee on all financial transactions. Which would work well if all those transactions in the world occurred on a blockchain.

This guy is giving the method a shot: [http://www.basicincome.co/](http://www.basicincome.co/)

<comment><USER10> Many countries have tried it, and it usually ends like this [1] implementation by the Swedes from 1984-1991. Then they cancelled it after witnessing the devastation to their economic sector.

"During the first week of the tax, the volume of bond trading fell by 85%, even though the tax rate on five-year bonds was only 0.003%. The volume of futures trading fell by 98% and the options trading market disappeared. 60% of the trading volume of the eleven most actively traded Swedish share classes moved to the UK after the announcement in 1986 that the tax rate would double. 30% of all Swedish equity trading moved offshore. By 1990, more than 50% of all Swedish trading had moved to London. Foreign investors reacted to the tax by moving their trading offshore while domestic investors reacted by reducing the number of their equity trades.

As a result, revenues from these taxes were disappointing. For example, revenues from the tax on fixed-income securities were initially expected to amount to 1,500 million Swedish kronor per year. They did not amount to more than 80 million Swedish kronor in any year and the average was closer to 50 million. In addition, as taxable trading volumes fell, so did revenues from capital gains taxes, entirely offsetting revenues from the equity transactions tax that had grown to 4,000 million Swedish kronor by 1988."

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Raise tax on capital gains and stop corporate tax avoidance. You'll have enough to implement a minimum wage.

</comment><comment><USER51> sure actually giving everyone 10k a year is going to cost too much. But I don't think anyone who is sane is actually proposing that.

At the moment, the poor get a mismash of benifits that all require administration.

replacing that with a single means tested universal income is far simpler.

for example:

every house hold is entitled to 10K, if you only earn 5k, you get a top up to 10k. This is no more costly that what already exisits in the UK (housing benefit, out of work, DLA, working tax credits) but is a magnitude more easy to administrate.

You get the added bonus of abolishing pensions that cost uber cash to maintain.

I think the economist is deliberately grasping at the wrong straws. Either that or the Swiss are batshit insane.

<comment><USER52> That's a 100% tax rate on your first 10K in income?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> How is basic income even feasible from an economic, realistic standpoint? It would have to be wealthy people taking the hit right? How else would it be possible?

<comment><USER54> Here is my high-level hypothesis, sans numbers: most workers produce far less real value than what they are paid. At one end you have many white-collar jobs that are glorified seat fillers, padding budgets for their departments. At the other end, you have blue-collar jobs whose value is artificially inflated by a minimum wage (or, wastefully shipping work overseas, and finished products back.)

In a UBI world (also assuming socialized medicine), neither minimum wage nor de facto salary+benefits would be necessary, and labor would be free to seek its true market value, as the competition becomes over status rather than survival. My hunch is that even if all work was taxed (flat or progressive) to pay for it, the actual purchasing power of the dollar would increase to offset it due a more efficient market. (It would also be offset by the elimination of means-testing and beauracracy in existing social programs, as well as enabling a great deal more education and entrepreneurship.)

Admittedly, the idea is abstract and hand-wavy. But it's worth considering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Here's some of my ideas: 1\. CEO pay cap @ 20x(or some other similarly reasonable #) of the median salary of the employees. Median salary is 30k ? So I can only earn 600k ? Screw that, I'm going to get everyone closer to 75k, that'll put me at 1.5 mill, that's way better - and everyone profits.

2\. Flat but fluid Nationwide Sales Tax (would mean anyone visiting, or staying illegally has to pay taxes -- way better than an income tax.) -- Adjust this yearly as needed to compensate for basic income and other needs. When there's a surplus lower it the next year, when there's a deficit raise it 1-2 cents per dollar.

3\. Higher taxes on luxuries like: 4star+ hotels, First Class plane seats, fancy cars, boats, private jets.

4\. All recipients must have a roof over their head, and an address to mail the check to.

5\. Congress / Senate pay and benefits capped at the national average as well.

6\. Allow individuals, ceo's, etc who have more money to "pay it forward" and actually donate money to the government earmarked for the basic income fund. Some of the .01% may actually want to help out the rest.

7\. Tax on automation, and companies that use robots to displace workers. The age of the robot worker is coming, this may slow that down if we can make it less of an incentive.

<comment><USER27> If you took all the money paid to all Walmart employees above the manager position, every last cent, and redistributed it back to the workers, you'd increase their pay by less than $100.

You are assuming that companies are all in a high margin low competition markets, and a bunch of other stuff that is simply not true.</comment></comment>


When Giles is Right, He's Right - <AUTHOR> http://raganwald.posterous.com/while-giles-is-right-hes-right

<comment><USER2> > To which, I add: The sulky, bratty Rails had a fourth thing it made fun of > the Java old folks for: A culture built around the premise that the most > important thing is to preventing developers from making mistakes.

But Rails has often tried to add security by default (SQL injections, XSS attacks, etc). So perhaps this claim isn't that correct.

> Either rethink it from the ground up, or leave it alone.

Or, you know, fix the problem at hand.</comment>


Draft of my perf book is ready – Easyperf - <AUTHOR> https://easyperf.net/blog/2020/06/24/Draft-Of-Perf-Book <comment><USER2> Link to the book itself seems to be missing.

<comment><USER3> There is no link, because the book is only a draft (author mentions this in a reply to a comment). Right now he wants you to email him for a copy.

<comment><USER4> Can anyone get it or only experts?

<comment><USER5> It's open to everyone.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apache Cassandra in 2010: Code, Community, and Controversy - <AUTHOR> http://spyced.blogspot.com/2011/01/apache-cassandra-2010-in-review.html

<comment><USER2> Cassandra is just an awesome piece of software. I hope that anyone who has not at least played with .7 to go to <http://cassandra.apache.org> right now, download it, and follow the quick start guide.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice writeup by Jonathan and he has offered useful comments to me in the past (on my blog). I have not yet used Cassandra on any customers' jobs but I experiment with it (mostly in Ruby). I found the book "Cassandra, The Definitive Guide" useful, BTW.</comment>


Why Don't We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? - <AUTHOR> https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ <comment><USER4> Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime... Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

<comment><USER5> I remember reading this before, but don't recall the author... Who was it?

Regarding the article: it seems to miss the obvious points, and sounds almost sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism to suggest that chemical weapons should be regarded as a viable weapon, if only it weren't for the military weaknesses it produces.

> _the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn't use chemical weapons > because after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided > that chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this > was a sign of something called 'progress.'_

The use of chemical weapons, as parent's comment writes, is indiscriminate in who and what it affects, whether it be enemy or own soldiers, or innocents: women, children, animals and even fauna. To have your skin melt, or your lungs liquified because some monster on the other side cooked up a recipe shows how inhumane and lacking in compassion people can be.

I recall being told why modern military don't use high calibre rifles anymore (303 or 762): because a lower calibre tends to wound the enemy, which means that 2 or more enemy soldiers are needed to help their comrade out... Hence 1 smaller & lighter bullet can take out 2 or more of the enemy. That is, modern warfare is about incapacitating an enemy's ability to fight back. This is why sanctions, targetting infrastructure, stealth attack, etc, is what you see on the news all the time.

<comment><USER6> I think it's well established in the literature that the modern military doesn't use the old larger battle rifle cartridges anymore because the extra range it offered was almost never needed and the smaller assault rifle cartridge allows more ammunition to be carried by each soldier.

<comment><USER7> Additionally, intermediate cartridges allow more rapid followup shots compared to full power rifle cartridges. An M4 fires lightly enough that soldiers can "miss their way to a hit" \- as in fire, fire, fire, oh I'm aiming too low, fire, fire, fire oh i'm a little left fire, fire, fire bullseye. Trying that with an M14, which has much stronger recoil, would just result in your shots going increasingly wild.

<comment><USER8> You're not wrong but the M4 is particularly good at follow up shot performance (stock in line with barrel and raised sights to keep the barrel in line with your shoulder will do that) and M14 is particularly terrible about being hard on the user.

If you want to be all proper and sciency about it you should probably compare guns that are on the same general platform (M4/AR10, AK/PSL, G3/G33, list goes on).

<comment><USER9> Anecdotally, proper sling usage makes a huge difference with the larger cartridge battle rifles. The sling needs to be wrapped around your off-arm tightly and seriously pull the rifle into your shoulder, which substantially helps to mitigate the recoil knocking it off its aim. Yes, your shoulder is still gonna be taking a bruising, but that's the much better end of the rifle to be on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As an ex south korean army (mandatory service), our neighbor in the north still think chemical weapon an effective asymmetrical weapon against us because our small piece of land won't really allow any mobility based modern warfare. There are outposts throughout all the borderline.

We do quite a lot of training to protect against chemical attacks and also the protective respiration devices are included for every soldiers. The most probable attack against us will begin with spreading chemical gas on air to crush the first defense line in the borderline.

If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - <USER2> weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think.

<comment><USER11> > If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - > chemical weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think.

The article argues pretty convincingly that this is not actually true, since they are just not as effective as high explosives at killing people.

They _are_ possibly more effective at terrorizing the population into surrendering.

<comment><USER12> > terrorizing the population into surrendering.

This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell

<comment><USER13> Except terrorizing a population into surrendering hasn't proven to be an effective tactic in history. I'm struggling to think of a single case where it actually happened.

<comment><USER14> While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn't had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let's not pretend that acts of terrorism don't achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice.

There's only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don't believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren't for the shadow of the IRA looming over Westminster.

<comment><USER15> My understanding is that US envoys and a moderator was the main reason for the ceasefire.

<comment><USER16> Would they have even been there if not for the terrorism?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The trouble with realpolitik is when you get more cynical than reality itself. Instead of a binary---either the morality of chemical weapons caused their ban, or their uselessness in battle did---why not take a supply/demand, cost/benefit sort of approach? The moral repugnance of weapons of mass destruction makes them more costly to the users---if they delegitimize your war effort, what have you really gained? They ceased to be used when the costs outweighed the benefits. Therefore the moral repugnance of them likely hastened their abandonment, even if battlefield effectiveness was the greater influence.

<comment><USER18> This is, in fact, explicitly stated in TFA.

"This isn't a value question, but a value-against-replacement question – why maintain, issue, store, and shoot expensive chemical munitions if cheap, easier to store, easier to manufacture high explosive munitions are both more obtainable and also better? When you add the geopolitical and morale impact on top of that – you sacrifice diplomatic capital using such weapons and potentially demoralize your own soldiers, who don't want to see themselves as delivering inhumane weapons – it's pretty clear why would wouldn't bother."

<comment><USER7> I find myself mostly agreeing with this article, although I think it over- states its case slightly and this section highlights why.

Chemical weapons are not very useful on a tactical level, and modernly nuclear weapons are superior on the strategic level. But for a brief period between 1915 and 1945, they were an attractive solution for mass death on a strategic level. A 1,000 pound explosive bomb, with WW2 level targeting, is very unlikely to hit its target and will likely explode some random unpopulated building. A 1,000 ton mustard gas bomb, though it won't hit its target (because WW2 era bombing accuracy), will still have its payload disperse over a wide area and is utterly horrific to deal with. As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over _1,000_ people. Chemical weapons may not be good for winning a battle, but they're perfect as a terror weapon meant to go after civilians.

In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have _actual_ nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs.

The article tries to point to WW2 as an example of nations being in existential peril, and still not using chemical weapons, and concluding this means they were ineffective even as terror weapons. But I think that doesn't hold water upon closer analysis - the moment a single German soldier's boot stepped foot on the British isles, which is to say the UK actually faced imminent threat of conquest, Churchill planned to quote "drench [Germany] in gas".

Later on in the war chemical weapons were avoided not for fear of retaliation in itself, but for fear of how one's own people would respond to said retaliation. If you are Great Britain, and public morale for the war is hanging on by a thread, do you want to roll the dice and gas attack Germany - thereby causing Germany to gas attack your civilians - and risk support for the war collapsing? In 1944 Churchill asked for a 'cold blooded analysis' about gassing Germany, and the response that came back was basically "We're already winning the war, and mass gas deployment would be needlessly taking chances. Do not do it!". Churchill famously disagreed with this analysis, but didn't push the matter any further.

<comment><USER19> > _As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 > people._

Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely _killed_ all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

> _In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and > America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have actual > nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs._

The article explicitly notes this as well, that chemical weapons are only really used by weaker, less-monied, static-system militaries. And even then, they're only effective against similar adversaries, not against more modern enemies.

But "poor man's nuke" isn't even really a great characterization from the perspective of the US or Russia: with a modern military, chemical weapons _do less damage_ than a cheaper, lighter, easier-to-deploy explosive. They're not a "poor man's nuke", they're just a poor man's _weapon_ , period.

<comment><USER7> >Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

Looking it up on wikipedia, most suicide bomber vests weigh roughly as much (5 kg) or up to 4 times as much (20 kg) as all the sarin used in this attack (5.45 kg). I've never heard of a single suicide bomber, using a vest, injuring 1,000 people. So I am inclined to think the chemical approach is more efficacious.

In fact that's another little nitpick I have with the article - it's high explosives that heavily benefit from tightly packed situations, as they're a one-and-done sort of deal. The sarin gas though was able to be spread all along a tube system, and cause problems for huge amounts of people.

<comment><USER20> "Equivalent" is also a matter of perspective. For a terrorist, procuring the necessary explosives to injure 1000 people may be harder than procuring the equivalent sarin gas. For a state, the calculus changes, as do goals. Storage, transportation, safety (states are much less likely to be willing to have their own soldiers die than terror cells), all those concerns can tip the balance, especially for a strong state with a modern army.

<comment><USER21> > procuring the necessary explosives to injure 1000 people may be harder than > procuring the equivalent sarin gas

Bullshit.

Procuring sarin is nontrivial organic synthesis. Procuring ANFO is just a question of ordering some diesel and fertilizer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Another reason: maintaining a supply of chemical weapons is dangerous. Turns out no city/state wants that stockpile, either.

Years ago a co-worker of mine at the phone company had to go to military base in Terre Haute to work on some high speed circuits that weren't working properly. The network room was in the basement of a warehouse that stored VX nerve agents - rows and rows of it. When he got to the base he had to watch some training video on nerve agents, get issued a gas mask and the atropine shot then escorted to the facility. He said during the whole time he was incredibly nervous as the evacuation route involved running back up into the warehouse then through an exit.

<comment><USER23> > maintaining a supply of chemical weapons is dangerous

I don't really buy this one. I mean, I agree it's dangerous, but the major powers maintained large stocks throughout the Cold War without apparently worrying about it too much. More recently it's become a somewhat expensive disposal problem, but in terms of cost it's not really significant next to the cost of maintaining, say, aircraft carriers, or nuclear warheads.

<comment><USER24> It's expensive to properly maintain those stockpiles, and even a well-funded military did a particularly bad job at it. There's no glory in keeping pallets of drums in good condition.

Leaks happen and have happened, etc.

<comment><USER25> For instance: [https://www.businessinsider.com/kitty-litter-nuclear- waste-a...](https://www.businessinsider.com/kitty-litter-nuclear-waste- accident-2016-8?op=1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question.

But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons because such use is too obvious too unsettling to viewers/supporters. They want the outcome, whatever it may be, but they don't want to look like they are greedy or insensitive or anti(or counter)-religious [generally speaking, they don't want to appear overtly confrontational].

Things must be done just slightly less aggressively than will upset the general population/supporters who fund the endeavors.

In Earth-time, this discussion is mostly academic. The horrors which we inflict upon each other is far less than the likely destruction we invite upon ourselves as a species through our collective behaviors (environmentally speaking). The human existence on this planet is probably (in the mathematical sense) very short.

I suspect the real concern is that we or someone we know may suffer some extended period of pain because of chemical or other non-instant-death conflict. People think they are afraid of dying, but usually it is more that they are afraid of a slow death which includes pain and anguish.

<comment><USER27> It probably has more to do with something like gas being easier to produce so western countries can paint poorer countries as villains more easily by showing how they violate human rights. U.S. weapons such as napalm, white phosphorous, cluster munitions, and land mines disfigure entire countries, people, and children but the media and military have such a lock on the public discourse that these images and stories are very sparsely shared.

Images of the bombing and napalm in Vietnam generated an incredible backlash so the pentagon and their friends in the media conglomerates have been very circumspect.

This is not in any way to condone the use of gas, far from it. It is to condemn the actions of the US military and the strategic planners for using human rights as a cudgel when our own crimes are so stark.

Note that the US provided Saddam with chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq trench warfare of the 1980s. We later invaded Iraq to retrieve weapons we gave him.

<comment><USER28> That's still the tail waggimg the dog. Once you decide that a weapon or tactic is ineffective for you, but might be useful for your enemies, _then_ you portray it as inhumane and sign treaties about it. There will always be some weapon or tactic you can treat in this way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think the main point was missed in the article. Chemical weapons cause more suffering and less death and cause multi generation effects, while other weapons are primarily hit/miss but geared towards death.

It might seem weird, but death is considered better than suffering by lots of people. I give an example. In the series Chernobyl - soldiers are employed to kill dogs because they might spread radiation. The senior soldier instructs that when you see a dog - keep shooting, till it dies.

In old times, slow killing was considered to be much worse as compared to sudden death. So maybe this is why we don't use chemical weapons.

<comment><USER30> Apologies if I misunderstood, but I don't think that particular point was missed; it seems to be the article's first stated viewpoint actually:

> the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn't use chemical weapons because > after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided that > chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this was a > sign of something called 'progress.'

That point is even further iterated on in the conclusion when comparing them to cluster munitions which as you put, "cause multi generation effects" due to remaining active years after the conflict.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm not fully agreeing with the argument.

Chemical, biological and radiological weapons (not nukes) are effective as defensive weapons. They dramatically slow down down area access and advance of the enemy. Troops fighting in full NBC suit move very slowly. They have to periodically retreat, decontaminate and rest.

Just like land- and sea mines they are defensive weapons that attacking armies dislike. The rationalization is the long term damage for the civilians or society (can be true), but mines and chemical weapons allow for smaller armies slow down the advance of the enemy.

<comment><USER32> They also completely skip by VX "gas" and seem to assume that aerosol is the only dispersal mechanism.

VX is more a surface coating than a gas. "minefields" of VX could be laid very rapidly and randomly which would be a bane to mobile troops. If saddam actually had a VX supply and laid it down in key areas, the US soldiers would have suffered many times more KIA (and there's no effective treatment -- gallons of atropine per patient simply isn't viable).

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan.

Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet.

Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this.

<comment><USER34> > Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point > bullet.

1\. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recently - M1153.

2\. Hollow point bullets are very effective compared to ball ammo. There is plenty of research that's been done on this (see Martin Fackler). However, pistols are much less effective than rifles.

> Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him > long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber > has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is > pretty explicit on this.

1\. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill them.

2\. The reason calibers have dropped over time has nothing to do with making them less lethal. It's because they're lighter and smaller (easier to carry more of them), and they shoot flatter and faster (easier to hit targets).

<comment><USER35> Hollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is only for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things like terrorist hostage rescue. They won't and can't be legally used in general warfare.

There was actually a big argument in the past over match grade rounds that have a dimpled front and a hollowed core, which keeps the weight toward the back of the round. They aren't effective in hunting for the same reason they aren't considered a hollow point by the military.

<comment><USER34> > Hollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is > only for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things > like terrorist hostage rescue. They won't and can't be legally used in > general warfare.

You're wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow- point_bullet#Legality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow- point_bullet#Legality)

<comment><USER35> Read the second paragraph of that section. And sorry, Hague convention not Geneva. Either way, only special circumstances aka special operations from my understanding, which is more like international policing than warfare.

<comment><USER36> The USA is not a signatory to that Hague convention.

I don't know what the effect would be of USA participation in a NATO action using expanding small arms ammunition.

<comment><USER35> yeah I am certainly not an expert and I don't know why the us military hasn't used them, but they haven't, and still aren't going to from what I can read. I found that rabbit hole while researching hunting ammo, not because I am a military scholar or anything.

Seems kinda odd to me anyway, though I suppose limiting the damage a combatant receives while fighting isn't a bad thing. Coming up with a stance makes you have to mentally address the concept of good vs bad guys, and I suppose I don't see enemy fighters as bad people, just people fighting for differing ideals. That makes me tend to agree with rules that limit fatalities and excessive injury.

<comment><USER37> The US military has authorized the use of hollow point rounds as needed. They just don't believe that it's necessary most of the time in combat. Which is entirely correct - modern FMJ rifle ammo achieves similar and better terminal ballistics via fragmentation, without sacrificing armor penetration or flight ballistics like hollowpoints. But for 9mm, the equation is different - <USER3> why M1153 is a thing, and is issued broadly to _military_ units.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Omitted by the article (I'm sure it was an oversight): The US had a chemical weapons program into the 1990's (link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program) ) -- this program was decommissioned by President George Bush in 1993, but the last of the munitions WON'T BE REMOVED UNTIL 2023.

<comment><USER32> If people think all those munitions are simply going away,they must not know the US military. You can bet everything that only old, outdated munitions get destroyed. The US has flagrantly violated every other treaty and there's no reason to believe this one is different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's indiscriminate and insufficiently useful because occupying the field demands decontamination and collateral damages are ruinous. It's also illegal which may seem odd but 'just war' imposes constraints. Troops are less effective in CBW uniforms and atropine (and other) drugs deeply unpleasant. Neither side wants it, Syria aside.

Unneeded force wastes effort. We don't use napalm either. White phosphorus is used. Sadly. As is depleted uranium which wreaks havoc with dust. Weapons with chemical consequence abound.

Teargas was used for bunker clearing. The Russians have used sleeping gases in Chechen hostage rescues and people died from side effects. Nothing is simple with gases.

Old mustard gas is heavy liquid, bad juju. These old school simple chemical weapons were a giant toxic chemical love canal disaster. Belgium and France still heavily contaminated around the trenches.

Binary weapons safer but still pretty bad. "Safe" to handle is very qualified when field treatment is "hit it with a hammer" maintenance.

Ask yourself if the neutron bomb is still a part of rational war planning. Three days later, it's all usable as is. No electromagnetic spike damage, just smelly dead bodies to bury. Hmm. Bit niffy. Menthol up the nostrils is said to work by forensics staff.

</comment><comment><USER40> Some would possibly count tear gas, white phosphorous or depleted uranium.

<comment><USER41> None of that are chemical weapons any more than water in waterboarding. They are all chemicals including water.

<comment><USER42> WP white phosphorous is actually a chemical weapon when used against people. It is an anti material weapon and used for smoke screens. But read up on the use of WP in fallujah.

<comment><USER43> Well that depends who you ask. US claimed it is not a chemical weapon because it ""merely"" burns its subjects but doesn't poison them.

Though probably any other country using it like they used it in Fallujah would have suffered consequences (note we're not talking about WP as used for lighthing and gun laying. Allegedly (I'm not sure what the evidence status), US used it for shake & bake on civilian population)

<comment><USER44> From the Wikipedia page on White phosphorus munitions:

> on 15 November 2005, US Department of Defence spokesman Lieutenant Colonel > Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that US forces had used white phosphorus > as an incendiary weapon there

US shaked and baked children in Fallujah, but they were conveniently redefined from children to enemy combatants at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I stumbled onto this news documentary on the nerve gas stored in the US from 1973 very randomly maybe a year ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM) . If you're interested in this type of stuff this documentary is incredible and apparently won an Emmy. The number of problems with long term are mind boggling technologically, even if people don't know its near them. The whole idea if this place got bombed it would wipe out huge amount of people in the surrounding area based on wind patterns is nuts, frankly. The whole process to dismantle and then "store" the old gas is insane.

</comment><comment><USER46> We don't use chemical weapons because they didn't even work that well in WWI.

The first chemical weapon attacks in WWI were quite deadly. However, chlorine, phosgene, mustard gas, etc. didn't remain effective after troops on both sides came to expect them. Once everyone had gas masks and the training to put them on quickly, chemical weapons became a mainly psychological threat. There are plentiful horror stories about gas attacks precisely because so many people _survived_ them.

Chemical weapons and _surprise_ are, together, a deadly combination. What might be combined with surprise in the future?

<comment><USER47> > What might be combined with surprise in the future?

From what you say, a chemical weapon would be pretty surprising today.

<comment><USER9> Except that top-flight militaries are ready for them. All of our armored vehicles are already air-tight, and hazmat suits are widely available throughout the military. It doesn't help the chemical weapon's case that the countermeasures to it fall into the broad category of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical, all of which need roughly the same countermeasures (airtight vehicles, gas masks, hazmat suits). Militaries are still equipped and ready for these kinds of attacks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> WWI happened.

Historian see WWI as the war of chemists.

And WWII as the war of physicists.

</comment><comment><USER49> Very interesting. I wrote a paper in college that argued a very similar line of reasoning. I based this largely around the conversation that was had about aerial bombing during the inter-war period.

During WWI a biplane or two was able to fly over Paris and drop a grenade. It caused quite a scandal with some Navy high ups condemning the concept of aerial bombardment altogether. By the end of the inter-war period there was a strong stigma against it. The concept of using bombs on civilian centers was pretty much unthinkable. Until of course the war began and it wasn't. Throughout the war taboos were approach and broken one after another.

When the U.S. joined the war, there was a major row between U.S. and British airforce commanders about using bombers at night. The U.S. thought it unethical, especially since they had invested in a supposedly superior bomb sight which was rendered essentially useless at night. The British, facing an existential threat were not so scrupulous. Of course the night raids soon began.

So by war's end there was virtually no size of bomb nor target that was much unacceptable even though the idea of aerial bombing of even soldiers had been distasteful at its start.

Give this, the only reason I could think that chemical weapons had not followed the same slippery slope was that they were far less useful.

I got an A- on the paper, my teacher said it was good but too fringey. I couldn't dig up the paper but I found the bibliography. If you're interested in the subject give some of these sources a try. I especially enjoyed the biography of Doolittle, "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again".

"The Bombing of Berlin in World War II." Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 7 April 2012. Web. 10 April. 2012.

"The Bombing of Germany." American Experience. Writ. Zvi Dor-ner. Dir. Zvi Dor-ner. PBS, 2010. Streaming.

"Bombing of Tokyo." Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 3 April 2012. Web. 6 April. 2012.

Carlin, Dan. "Logical Insanity." Harcore History. dancarlin.com, 31 March 2012. Podcast. 6 April 2012.

Cheek, Dennis W. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Ed. Carl Mitcham. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 921-924. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.

Doolittle. Gen. James H. and Carroll V. Glines. I Could Never Be So Lucky Again. 1991. New York: Bantam Books, 2009. e-book.

"Firestorm." Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 13 April 2012. Web. 14 April. 2012.

Hansen, Randall. Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-1945. New York: New American Library, 2009. e-book.

Truman, Harry S. "Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945." Atomic Bomb: Decision. n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

<comment><USER37> > During WWI a biplane or two was able to fly over Paris and drop a grenade. > It caused quite a scandal with some Navy high ups condemning the concept of > aerial bombardment altogether.

It wasn't really new. Bombs have been dropped from balloons before then, and _that_ caused enough of a scandal that the Hague Conventions of 1899 included "Declaration on the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons". It was only in effect for 5 years, though.

Poisonous gases were also banned in Hague, and that prohibition didn't have an expiration date, so it was already a war crime in WW1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> They get used an awful lot against civilian populations who are protesting the political status quo, globally.

Not mustard gas, no, but mace, pepper spray, tear gas, all of which can kill or injure vulnerable people.

</comment><comment><USER51> I would argue we do use chemical weapons, but only in specific circumstances in order to generate outrage about whoever we are claiming used them to justify our own military action. The biggest value they have now _is_ how offensive they are. And I dont mean "we" as in the United States or anything like that, I mean humanity in general. No rational actor would ever decide to use a chemical weapon unless they intended primarily to blame someone else for it.

</comment><comment><USER52> tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right arrangement of circumstances, but as a tool of warfare, they suck.

What I'd really like to see is an analysis from a military historian's perspective of why biological weapons are even more useless, with specific reference to current events. The tl;dr there is that they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing back on you.

Of course, I'm not so naïve as to imagine such a thing would convince anyone who needs convincing. It'd be a fun read if Mr. Devereaux did it, but I suspect it would serve neither tactical nor strategic goals in the battle against misinformation.

<comment><USER53> Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.

<comment><USER54> Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's play compared to dealing with nerve agents.

<comment><USER55> No. Minefield can persist dangerous for decades. Nerve gas dissipates is days/weeks. Nerve agents might clear the ground tactically, but they don't hold it.

<comment><USER56> There are solid/liquid forms that persist for much much longer. Look at the efforts UK went through to clean up after the chemical attack in Salisbury (which was a liquid in a perfume bottle).

<comment><USER57> Even the most long-lasting ones will still evaporate in a few weeks. (Of course, if it's inside a bottle it will not evaporate, and if it's inside a city you probably want to decontaminate it rather than wait).

<comment><USER56> It's a bit hard to say for sure since it is all classified info for the most part. This article cites one of the creators for claiming it could last for years [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve- ag...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-agent-how- salisbury-amesbury-incident-happen-explained-latest-a8433166.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> What an ignorant article. The Soviet union was a peer to the "Western" and "Modern System" and they would totally use chemical weapon during a conflict, asymmetrical tactics and in general any underhand methods that they could think of. Typical Nato way = The only way article. And the Soviet union was more mechanized and earlier then the US. If anything Nato was the static tactic user during the cold war.

Source: [https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf](https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf) Page 186, section 16-3

<comment><USER39> The refusal of NATO to repudiate first strike and the decision to place troops forward into the comecon borders did nothing to assuage paranoia inside the sovuet union. Do not equate missiles in Cuba with the permanent stationing of troops with tactical nukes on the landmass facing Russian satellite economies.

Many senior non US NATO staffers are believed to have agreed they'd disarm Americans who even looked like latching up the missiles btw..

Seriously: if you wanted one thing to help defuse a world looking to CBW then a president confident enough to repudiate first strike would have done it in the 1950s and 1960s (my school navy cadet handbook in the seventies explained CBW cleandown for ships in graphic detail at the back)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> We don't use chemical weapons because they have very poor military efficiency - modern armies taught themselves very well to protect against them, they will mostly harm civilians and make any postwar arrangements very complicated. Also they are very indiscriminate and depend on factors such as wind and elements way too much, so they are about as likely to harm own troops as the enemy. Plus, why bother if we have, to kill military targets, high precision weapons that do the job a lot better than chemicals ever could, and for wide area targets or infrastructure, nukes?

<comment><USER60> That, and it's kind of frowned upon internationally thus exposing people wielding these weapons to the possibility of ending up in a court room some day. Ali Chemicali was eventually executed. So was his boss, Saddam Hussein. In both cases, the use of chemical weapons against civilians was the main thing they were convicted off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> cause it sucks for both sides, like really suck. So they took them out and fight with the rest of arsenal

</comment><comment><USER62> Deterrence.

All manner of WMD would be used absent a credible deterrent. Just ask the residents of Aleppo or Halabja.

</comment><comment><USER63> Who are "we"? Assad regime and Russian mercenaries perfectly use it.

<comment><USER11> Read the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Didn't the US use white phosphorus in Iraq?

</comment><comment><USER65> What's the summary of the article? I don't have the time to read it but am curious about the answer...

</comment><comment><USER66> tl;dr: "Not because chemical weapons are immoral. Because they are ineffective" :'(

<comment><USER52> There's a saying, I forget where it originates but I want to say with either Bismarck or von Schlieffen, to the effect that the closest thing to a moral philosophy of warfare is that it should be pursued as brutally and ferociously as necessary to make wars as short as they possibly can be.

Granted, it's as much of its time as were the men I named. But it nonetheless does a good job, albeit implicitly, of pointing up that the best you can do in warfare is to minimize its essential immorality.

<comment><USER67> It was the central thesis of season three of Game of Thrones.

<comment><USER52> "Steal from the best."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> There's no way to decide the relative weight of uselessness and perceived immorality of chemical weapons. Some people clearly do consider them horrible, and it would be quite a surprise if none of those people were in any position of power, from armed forces to civilian government to parliamentarians to voters.

The argument otherwise rests on the assumption of perfect efficiency in military procurement and decision-making. Does anyone believe the military never uses "useless" technology?

They came up with a rationalisation for building that marginal nuclear bomb to allow the 254th complete destruction of earth. I'm sure they could convince themselves of the necessity of chemical weapons if motivated.

It's also quite a feat to write about chemical weapons and use the Tokyo Sarin attack as an example, and not Syria. Not only did the latter happen fairly recently. It's also an actual military using these weapons, not a cult. And if Syria is to fresh and people here are among those doubting the reports, maybe the Iraqi chemical weapons program from the Iran-Iraq war and later the genocidal use against the Kurds is more trusted: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program) There, several thousand people were killed.

<comment><USER69> All the occasions you mention are covered in the blog. The sarin attack is used to demonstrate that even in the best conditions for the attacker they would not be effective in a military sense against modern first tier armies. As a terror weapon yes but the question is why don't modern militaries plan to use them. It doesn't rest on perfect efficiency. At this point the US, for example, doesn't have the quantity needed for battlefield and no procedures for deploying them.

<comment><USER70> The nuclear weapon question isn't really covered, which is an interesting case because they're also strategically useless to a Modern army -- and the U.S. government knows it [1]. Yet disarmament basically froze 10 years ago.

In the language and framework of this article, I understand why countries with Static armies might feel the need to develop them, but I don't understand why Modern armies which are happy to dispose of chemical weapons aren't equally happy to dispose of nuclear weapons.

Do American and Russian generals think that nuclear weapons will _become_ useful at some point in the future? Do countries like France believe this? The French president hinted that they kept submarines with nuclear weapons configured for terrorist attacks, but the deadliest terror attack in history was carried out with box cutters, so it's hard to imagine how nuclear weapons would help. Nuclear weapons could be useful (if horrific) against a Static opponent, but not a Guerrilla one.

[1]: [https://thinkprogress.org/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons- are-u...](https://thinkprogress.org/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons-are- useless-4ab6657759c7/)

<comment><USER13> Nuclear weapons have long (since the late 50s at least) had a peculiar calculus that amounts to the prisoner's dilemma: whether or not your adversary has nuclear weapons, there is more value for you to have them, so you end up in a situation where everyone feels justified to have them, even if it's the worst situation overall.

This has created a few paradoxical situations. One of them is that their strategic value lies primarily not in their use (which will not achieve any result) but rather the threat of use, which may be sufficient to dissuade leaders from committing to a war (arguably, this happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis--both Kennedy and Khrushchev blanched at the prospect of starting a nuclear war). Another interesting side effect is that this means that the development of counter technologies produces staunch opposition: nuclear war has to be seen as unwinnable for its deterrent value to be effective.

Part of the motivation for nuclear weapons as a strategic (rather than deterrent) option comes from the lineage of people who see strategic bombing as an fast, cheap, easy way to win a war. For a century now, adherents have predicted that once you started bombing a few cities indiscriminately, you'd easily win a war. And people continue to argue this despite the rather thin evidence for this proposition, and mountains of evidence in opposition.</comment></comment></comment></comment>