Miscellaneous desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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

May 16[edit]

Longest-serving prisoners[edit]

Is there any worldwide list of prisoners who are among the longest-serving in the world? Is it it possible like in the US that there are prisoners in other countries who have bee locked up for at least 50 years. 112.198.90.217 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article William Heirens (d. 2012) was the longest serving prisoner in the world, serving 65 years behind bars. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But see this ref-desk thread from a couple of months ago (particularly the article linked by Jayron32 in the antepenultimate comment). I think the OP here is specifically asking for non-U.S. data, however. Deor (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a world list but Britain has certainly kept someone incarcerated for over 50 years, as said in the earlier discussion. Currently the UK's longest serving prisoner is Ian Brady who is just coming up to 50 years in prison/mental hospital. Brady's article was sent to AFD a few years back on notability grounds – BLP5E if I remember rightly – so the blue link is now to a redirect. Thincat (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for non-Americans? Off the top of my head, I don't know, but I'll look into it. It would surprise me if 50 years was the longest for an American. America has looong prison sentences and a lot of young minorities are put in prison for life sentences. Bali88 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J Ward will tell you of some long serving prisoners at this prison for the criminally insane in Australia. Charles Fossard served 71 years. Bill Wallace served 64 years until his death at the age of 104. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Xueliang was held, mostly under house arrest, for over 50 years.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Musical instruments that support scala tuning.[edit]

Is there a place I can find a list of instruments that support scala ( http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/ ) tuning files?201.78.154.146 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scala (software) is piece of software for designing tuning systems - so to fully take advantage of it, you need instruments that are microtunable. That includes pretty much all tuneable stringed instruments - plus any electronic instrument that supports MIDI Tuning Standard. Then there are instruments where the frequency of the notes are completely under the control of the performer - violins, trombones, slide-whistles, etc (those are collected under Category:Continuous pitch instruments. SteveBaker (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counterinsurgency[edit]

Most counterinsurgency manuals that I have seen place a high priority on winning the "hearts and minds" of the local population -- which presumes that this is possible, as it is in most (but not all) cases. My question is: Has anyone studied the question of what strategies and tactics to use when this CANNOT be done -- i.e. in a conflict where the local population is implacably hostile to our side (e.g. due to religious fanaticism or similar reasons) and cannot be swayed? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Our' side? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The strategy is to strike terror in those same hearts and minds. Hence the term "terrorism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One man's counterinsurgency is another man's brutal repression. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and awe. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found several academic studies of the "Hearts and Minds" approach to COIN, and presumably they look at instances when it hasn't worked. I'm afraid you'll have to read them to find out. Winning the Minds in “Hearts and Minds”: A Systems Approach to Information Operations as part of Counterinsurgency Warfare, Hearts and Minds: Its Evolution and Relevance to Counterinsurgency Campaigns by Winston M. Marbella (you need to create a free account to read that one) and The Malayan Emergency as counter-insurgency paradigm by Karl Hack, A Strategy of Tactics: Population-centric COIN and the Army by GIAN P. GENTILE and Winning Hearts and Minds? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan. You can see a preview of The British Approach to Counterinsurgency ‘Hearts and Minds’ from Malaya to Afghanistan. Another (expensive) book title is The New Counter-insurgency Era in Critical Perspective. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's look at some successes where winning the hearts and minds really wasn't an option:

1) The post Spanish-American War Philippines occupation by the US. Here brutal mass killings were used to suppress the insurgency. Not a good day for the US.

2) Post WW2 Japan. Here the strategy of the US was to basically hold Emperor Hirohito hostage, in that he could be removed as Emperor and perhaps prosecuted for war crimes if he didn't tell his people not to resist.

However, in both cases, independence was finally granted, so the promise of eventually leaving seems to be an important part of the mix, too.

A common strategy of European colonial powers was to set the natives against one another, by choosing one ethnic group to be "on top" and another to be third class citizens. They would often choose a smaller group to be on top, and that group knew they needed help to stay there, so did whatever it took to keep the colonial power in charge. This strategy still causes problems today, such as the Rwandan Genocide between the Tutsis and Hutus.

One of the most extreme methods was what the British did during the Boer War, where their strategy was to place the entire enemy civilian population in concentration camps. This kept them from supporting the enemy, but many died from disease and starvation. Then the Nazi's took it a step further and actually planned to execute all their enemies (or perceived enemies). This strategy, however, ultimately failed.

So, with the exception of Japan, where the Godlike status of the Emperor allowed him to be used to prevent an insurgency, the options for winning after you've lost the hearts and minds of the population are not good, and often require ignoring the Geneva Conventions. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For the record, the scenario I had in mind was one where the enemy has already shown flagrant and barbaric disregard for the laws of war, with all the implications that such savagery entails. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link there is to the War on Terror. What ARE the rules for that war? Is invading a country with no connection to the terrorist attacks OK? HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are 'all the implications that such savagery entails'? Are you suggesting that because the other side has shown a total lack of morals, your side is free to abandon its morals too? And the 9/11 attacks were not domestic insurgency, but international terrorism. There's a huge leap from being the victims of such an attack to being an occupying force in some other nation (necessarily a third party), contemplating counterinsurgency. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can and SHOULD abandon our morals to win this war -- that's how we defeated absolute evil in World War 2, and that's how we'll defeat absolute evil this time! And if a nation gives aid or shelter to 9/11 terrorists (as Afghanistan had done), then Congress says that they are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you abandon your moral values, the terrorists have won. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sez who?! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says Kropotkine. "Terror is propaganda by deed" --SeveralTypesof (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this is not really a request for information any more. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it no longer is -- thanks to you and HiLo48! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the height of the Vietnam era, William Buckley, responding to complaints about Vietnam being an "immoral" war, said, "There is no such thing as a 'moral' war. There is such a thing as a 'defensible' war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! You don't win wars by following some sort of moral code (that's how you LOSE wars) -- you win them by doing whatever it takes to win, no matter how that might look to the rest of the world! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's done in the name of truth and justice and right and freedom and other cozy values. This reminds me of the South American politician who said words to the effect of "I stand for democracy and freedom, and anyone who is against that, I will kill, I will crush". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider what would happen if the US just abandoned all the rules of war and used whatever military means at it's disposal to kill the terrorists. The first step would be dropping nukes on every spot known to be a hangout for terrorists. This, of course, would cause massive civilian casualties in multiple nations and spread radiation around the globe. All nations on Earth would immediately break off diplomatic relations with the US, halt all trade with the US, and possibly seize US assets abroad. The US economy would then collapse in short order, ending the ability for the US to support the military.

So, clearly, some of the rules of war need to be obeyed. The rule of never attacking anyone until the US Senate declares war on their nation might be going too far the other way, leaving the US no way to attack the terrorists until they entered the US, since they are smart enough to hide in failed states where the government there, if any, is totally incapable of capturing or killing them.

Personally I don't see any problem with treating them as prisoners of war, which would mean they would be released as soon as the war ends, which, of course, would be never. StuRat (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, we've been at war with them since the time of the Crusades, and there's no end in sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a different "we" and a different "them". StuRat (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same thing about World War I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a United States then, but not during the Crusades. StuRat (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "we" means the United States, our systemic bias really is a big problem. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Stu said "we" I thought he was referring to a generation, not any particular nation or religion or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And who did you mean by 'we' and 'them' in your comment at 01:12? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The west vs. the middle east. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it does require a particular perspective. Here in Australia I actually live south south east of the far east. HiLo48 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The far east being Byron Bay? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant speculation and WP:SOAP after Alan's good links near the start. Please don't do that. I'm sure Stu has a WP:CRYSTAL to support his predictions of massive nuclear attacks by the USA. But can the rest of us please refrain? SemanticMantis (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "predict" a massive nuclear attack by the US, I just said that if the USA totally ignored all the rules of war and used all of the military means at it's disposal, that would be the result. See reducto ad absurdum. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's question - the Nazis were brutal masters of counterinsurgency. For those countries that they conquered, especially in eastern and central Europe, they had little interest in hearts and minds. They simply had brutally effective counter-partisan tactics. They kept the indigenous population in penury so they could extort compliance (so civilians who might have been tempted to harbour insurgents were bordering on starving, and the nazi's promise of some food was just too much to ignore). They practiced brutal and disproportionate collective punishment (see Operation Anthropoid#Reprisals for examples) - which weakens the resolve of the populations which might otherwise harbour resistance. They simply tortured, murdered, and extorted civilian populations to discover where partisans might be hiding, who they might be, and who might be sustaining them. And they had dedicated, experienced teams with dogs and human trackers to ferret resistance groups out of the countryside. Hide a gun for the resistance? We'll draft your son into Organisation Todt. Hide a wounded resistance fighter in your barn for a couple of nights? We'll burn your farm down. Give a few loafes of bread to a resistance group hiding in the forest? We'll deport your family to a labour camp, give your farm to a settler family, send your daughters to army brothels, and shoot you. That's the blunt truth - brutal, disproportionate, and criminal violence works very well against insurgencies. A few scattered resisters like the Bielskis didn't really hamper the Nazis. Western armies, who genuinely like to hold themselves to a moral standard, just can't and won't bring themselves to such monsterous brutalities. That's just a frustrating position they have to take, to keep themselves somewhere approximating decent. Whenever some ruddyfaced chickenhawk puffs on Fox News about how US forces should "take off the kid gloves", he's really coming dangerously close to advocating collective punishment and other crimes. 94.13.214.137 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, such tactics also have a cost, in that it makes everyone hate the occupying force, such that when the occupied do get a chance to fight back, the recriminations can be brutal, as well. And nations that might have joined the side of the occupiers may now stay neutral, while those who would have stayed neutral join with the enemy. Some of their own people might go over to the enemy, as well.

For an example of this, look at the atomic bombing of Japan. After the first bomb was dropped, some Japanese thought "World opinion will never allow them to drop another". However, they failed to account for how hated they were by almost everyone, at that point, having treated both civilians and POWs brutally. Very few came to Japan's defense, and, critically, not enough to stop the atomic bombs. Had they obeyed all the laws of war, they story might have ended differently. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can always employ the Kang and Kodos approach to capturing the hearts and minds of humans: [1]. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]