Archives

All countries except yours, china and russia signed an agreement to ban cluster munitions last week.

Together with the coverage from the summit, they
showed interview with kids from the middle-east somewhere, where an undetonated cluster bomlet fell down from a tree onto some playing kids, killing one of them.

Another kid had brought one home to his house, thinking it was a plaything, where it exploded.

Things like that makes me sick...

I read that the other day. It is absolutely mystifying. Those things are just as bad as land mines. 98% of the victims are civilians, while 27% are children...

War is hell. Cluster bombs work very well-kill people and destroy equipment.
Better to try to prevent wars rather than make them more humane.War will never be remotely humane. Soon the more advanced countries will be able to robotically fight wars- up close and from very long distances..

Heck, both the current wars could have been fought remotely.I'm not sure why they weren't fought with cruise missiles or ICBMs. The Afgan war-a punitive war-should have been fought remotely.The Iraq war was just a bad idea pushed by a bunch of AHs who thought they could remake the middle east with a quick,cheap war(not their blood or $$ of course).

Charlie

I was not aware of this.

As with the above post, my main concern is being more selective about getting into future wars (as opposed to the past this decade)

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.

I just realized shrek is posting from Norway...I think the title should probably be pointed at Bush...Not everyone voted for the current president. Even if they did, I think the remainder of his presidency, (and since he came into office) was a joke...a very bad joke.

I completly understand your disgust Shrek. The leadership of this country and many of its inhabitants feel that we [the U.S.] have the right to do whatever we want. That's why we won't sign the Kyoto protocols, that's why we occupy Iraq, that's why we insist other countries must sign nuclear non-proliferation treaties while we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the planet hundreds of times.

Those bombs were dropped like in the 60's where they not. H

... Heck, both the current wars could have been fought remotely.I'm not sure why they weren't fought with cruise missiles or ICBMs. The Afgan war-a punitive war-should have been fought remotely...

My memory is that both were opened with cruise missiles, consuming a larger fraction of the supply. And a significant portion is now being fought by remote control aircraft, as much as the military infrastructure is currently capable of.

ICBMs are a much too expensive way to deliver non-nuclear payloads.

My memory is that both were opened with cruise missiles, consuming a larger fraction of the supply. And a significant portion is now being fought by remote control aircraft, as much as the military infrastructure is currently capable of.

ICBMs are a much too expensive way to deliver non-nuclear payloads.

Exactly.
I couldn't quite bring myself to actually write that if I war is needed why fight it with troops when there is a another way? Maybe the threat of 100 KT would have delivered Osama and company?

Charlie

Hey Shrek -- many people in the US seem to feel that they've got
some god-given "right" to waste as much fuel as they want and
threaten other users of our roads in the process, and somehow
this translates to "freedom" in their minds. Do you have similarly
twisted thinking going on over there? What would your countryfolk
think of a huge, loud pickup truck with a big flag decal in the
back, FIVE yellow "support our troops" ribbon stickers across
the tailgate, and piloted by some kid with his baseball cap
turned around backwards? [no foolin', I see stuff like this
all the time but this one from a couple of days ago stuck out
as a prime example]...
.
_H*

Exactly.
I couldn't quite bring myself to actually write that if I war is needed why fight it with troops when there is a another way? Maybe the threat of 100 KT would have delivered Osama and company?

I don't think so. Osama knows that his nuclear martyrdom would put us that the top of the list of rogue nations, and be a recruiting bonanza for his cause. The international enmity we have earned so far is minor compared to what we would earn from dropping a nuke on anything that exists today.

Exactly.
I couldn't quite bring myself to actually write that if I war is needed why fight it with troops when there is a another way? Maybe the threat of 100 KT would have delivered Osama and company?

Charlie

Delving into military tactics a bit here, but:

You always need boots on the ground. Every time they've tried to win a war through technology, air/sea power, etc, it has never worked. Especially with regards to using air power, it is probably the most overrated piece of equipment in military history. Thing is, you always need boots on the ground. Some people cite the strategic bombing of Germany as how we won World War 2 - but in reality German production was higher in 1944 than in 1940, they were just facing Allied armies fifteen times their size by then. Having air superiority didn't matter in Korea or Vietnam; it didn't help the Russians in Afghanistan, and it isn't really helping today.

Even if you annihilated Tora Bora with a nuclear weapon there would still be a lot of terrorists out there.

Delving into military tactics a bit here, but:

You always need boots on the ground. Every time they've tried to win a war through technology, air/sea power, etc, it has never worked. Especially with regards to using air power, it is probably the most overrated piece of equipment in military history. ...

It is also the most under-rated equipment as well. Effective conventional battlefield logistics (and therefore victory) are nearly impossible if your opponent has air supremacy.

"Strategic" bombing is probably best understood in the context of punishment, revenge and deterrence. Defeating terrorism and insurgency is about defeating/killing enemies faster than you make new enemies. The American response to the 9/11 attacks is a good example of how people respond to attacks that deliberately destroy civilian targets-and a nuclear attack would certainly kill many civilians. The nuclear option seems like a losing tactic to me unless we're trying to join North Korea as crazy hermits that nobody wants to cross or deal with. IMO similar considerations apply to the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets.

The great empires of the past fell by overextending themselves: The Romans, The British from a couple of World Wars. Both France in the late 1700's and the Soviet Union overextented themselves.

At this point, America need to use it's alliances, dipomacy, restoriing a lot of lost good will, to avoid more wars for awhile, hope the two we have in Iraq and Afghanistan wrap up soon. Not in the least, Iran and N Korea back off.

Yes, delving into tactics. Yes, if you want to occupy a country by definition you need people there-yeah, they can wear boots.
Why would we want to occupy Afghanistan? The war there should have been strictly punitive. Iraq- shouldn't have been a war there.We gave 4000 USA lives, maybe 50,000 Iraqis, $1 trillion just to put Shia in power.We killed a secular Sunni dictator(the sort we were supposed to like-and did like) just to put the Shia in power.

WW2 was ended by 40 KT. Yeah, revisionists claim it was unnecessary, but nukes certainly would have ended that war.It might have taken 6 more months to get 4-6 more weapons, but they would have ended it.
I just don't see anything in these two wars that is worth all those maimed soldiers.If Afghanistan needed punitive action -then...

It is foolish to think that air power with nuclear weapons can't end a war.

Afghanistan started with the US funding the resistance against the Soviets, then after they left they became al-Queda and the Taliban and decided to set their sights on us. Had we send aid in the 90's after the Soviet pulled out maybe we could have saved ourselves and the rest of the world a lot of misery.

Delta,
Our history in the Middle East is miserable.
1)1953 We-CIA- engineered a 'revolt" that pushed out an elected "leader' and installed the Shah. Fast forward to 1979 and we got Khomeni.
2) 1980's we armed the Mujahaddin to fight the USSR. Fast forward to 2001 and we got 911.
3)Israel/Arabs-
4)Somalia- not ME but close enough.

We always-always- get it wrong when we put our oar in that water.
We should go to war only when we need to. We should send weapons not soldiers when war is necessary.

.....

It is foolish to think that air power with nuclear weapons can't end a war.

Perhaps if you are speaking of conventional war--but how many and which countries would you need to obliterate to end an international terrorist group? It seems likely that the obliteration of an entire cities or countries to eliminate the 0.0002% of their populations that are terrorists would lead the surviving population of the world to consider you a tyrant and pariah and that this should lead to the formation of further terrorist/freedom fighter organizations opposing you.

Simple brute force doesn't win in asymmetric warfare is a lesson we supposedly learned in Vietnam. I doubt that nuking villages to save them works any better than napalming them.

Asymmetric warfare is just "hearts and minds" carrot and stick warfare. "You had better pretend to love us occupying your country, because if you do we will leave." In Iraq we will declare victory and leave. We shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, and we shouldn't have boots on the ground in Afghanistan. We should have nuked whichever city would have given us the best chance to kill Osama and his Taliban associates.

We don't have any real strategic interest in Afghanistan , just as we had none in Somalia.

The purpose of that war was punitive.

The Muslim world hating us is spilled milk. We back Israel against their coreligionists. They will always hate us for that.

...We always-always- get it wrong when we put our oar in that water.
We should go to war only when we need to. We should send weapons not soldiers when war is necessary.

We certainly should not send nukes when the war itself is not necessary.

Asymmetric warfare is just "hearts and minds" carrot and stick warfare. "You had better pretend to love us occupying your country, because if you do we will leave." ...
. We should have nuked whichever city would have given us the best chance to kill Osama and his Taliban associates.

co-coreligionists....


Terrorism is also classified as asymmetric war. I'm confident that nuking Kabul or Kandahar would have spawned widespread terror acts against Americans around the world. When you resort to large scale terror acts to fight terrorism you lose. It's a lot easier to fight 0.002% of a population than the 5-10% that would mobilize in response to a legitimate threat. Not to mention that nuking an entire city to kill a criminal would be mass murder.

I'm guessing that your prejudiced attitude toward Muslims and their coco-religionists (Swiss Miss Akbar!) is based on not knowing many of them :(. I've met plenty that really like America (I once shared an office with an Israeli Jew and a Lebanese Palestinian--nice, easy-going guys). The Muslim world is not monolithic--only a few countries have genuine passion about Palestine.

Hmmm, prejudiced attitude toward Muslims- a bit strong maybe. There was a recent poll done on Muslims worldwide that showed 95% disapproved of the USA. Certainly the vast majority of ME Muslims actually hate the USA.Now that isn't the same as saying they hate us as individuals- heck, they probably don't care one way or the other about us-USA citizens- in that respect. Seen from their eyes we have given them good reason . Still, that milk is spilled; we back Israel at the expense of the Muslim Arabs-there just isn't any arguing that.

Now if you want to dispute hate vs dislike vs don't approve of our government's actions ,then I can buy that.

You're a bit too quick to toss around "prejudiced"
I was fairly clear-I was always against the Iraq war- big mistake brought on us by a bunch of arrogant neocoms who thought they could remake the ME-and make it safe for the USA and Israel- by a cheap,fast nearly bloodless war. They-the neocoms- still can't admit that they were wrong.Their excuse is "the war was done wrong".

On Afghanistan- why not compare the current result-tally the cost using boots on the ground vs maybe 10KT on Kabul.
You say it would make the Muslim world hate us even more-no doubt true.
But, 500 USA soldiers wouldn't have died,and maybe $100 billion less spent. The Afgan death toll -maybe 50,000-200,000 with the nuke-depending on how big how dirty, air blast vs ground blast. But, what is the current Afgan death toll?? 100,000 since we intervened- maybe more??

I'm not suggesting we nuke them, but I am suggesting that maybe nuking them would have gotten a better "result".

Heck we nuked Japan and the world 'forgave" us for that. In general most folks are too busy with their own problems , and as you say, just a tiny percent are ever hard core jehaddist(sic)

Using nukes would just be a more extreme form of the "kick Saddam's a$$" policy....I don't think we want to go there.

Legitimizing non-conventional forms of warfare that indiscriminately massacre civilians (terror or nukes) weakens those states which are superior in conventional forms of warfare (the U.S.). These two methods ARE THINGS THE OTHER SIDE HAS AND INCREASINGLY SO! Using nukes makes it more morally justifiable for an enemy to lob one into Cincinnati. And unlike me, I'm sure a lot of you don't want that to happen. ;)

Or to use a football analogy..............it would be like the Titans right before playing the Lions trying to make fumbles worth 3 points.

Delta
Saddam- no I wouldn't have ever gone to war in Iraq. I never had any fear of Iraq having or using WMDs. I wouldn't fear a nuclear armed Iraq or Iran. They certainly wouldn't use nukes against us, or supply nukes to terrorists/freedom fighters. The best any of those countries could hope for would be a small handful of nukes-we have several 1000-all deliverable anywhere in the world. It would be suicide for them to nuke us,and they would make the reasonable assumption that if we were nuked-by anyone-we would punish them.

The reason to use nukes instead of soldiers is the question we have all avoided.
How much is one USA soldiers life worth?
Is it worth 10 civilians to save one USA soldiers?
Is it worth 10,000 civilians to save one USA soldier brain injury?
Can we never attack if civilians are put at risk?

Is one soldier worth just one enemy civilian?
In war civilians- innocent women,children etc are always killed.
I'm just not sure how we should have proceeded in Afghanistan.
It is certainly tempting to demand Al Quida (sic) be turned over,and them remotely bomb them if they aren't. A nuke would be the cheapest way-in all respects-to do that.

We will probably end up in a war with Pakistan as the result of our "Charlie Wilsons War" intervention in Afghanistan in the 80's.One more unexpected consequence of our ME adventurism. Pakistan will fall to the extremists-Muslims-,and we will be faced with a 50 nuke enemy. India will probably attack 1st is my guess.
We-the world- have a nuclear war in our future.India and Pakistan will start it; we will help India.
President Obama is in for a rough ride.

Charlie
PS-M Parrish- only Pakistan and someday Iran (maybe)- has nukes. China,Russia,France,Israel, USA,India, GB and maybe S Africa have nukes. They aren't likely to become nuclear enemies.
I have never understood the logic behind, "if I don't use them, then once they get them they won't use them" WE HAVE ALREADY USED THEM- HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN THAT??? Not using nukes won't be a moral choice. It will be a "is it in my interest to use them" question. The USA and USSR didn't use them in the cold war because there was good evidence that they would both be destroyed if they did.The USA and the USSR had so many deliverable nukes that the other side would have nothing to gain by using them.

We did have something to gain by using them against Japan or Germany if the war hadn't ended in Europe.
WE HAVE ALREADY PROVED THAT WE WILL USE THEM-. I WON'T BE SURPRISED TO SEE PAKISTAN AND INDIA DO THE SAME. I'm feeling dark today. Saints are losing-maybe that is it!

Using nukes makes it more morally justifiable for an enemy to lob one into Cincinnati. And unlike me, I'm sure a lot of you don't want that to happen. ;)

Going by how badly the football team is doing this year, I wouldn't mind if Cincinnati disappeared off the map, either.

Most nations realize that using nuclear weapons would not stop at a couple of detonations - this is a deterrant. The more natons that aquire them, the more likely a rogue state like N Korea or Iran might do something reckless and stupid....I don't want to think of those leaders being in the Kremlin during the Cuban Missle Crisis. :eek:

I have never understood the logic behind, "if I don't use them, then once they get them they won't use them"

That's not the logic. The logic is..........."if we don't threaten to use them in a first strike, then it provides less incentive for others to acquire them." In other words, greater willingness to use in a first strike leads to a scramble to acquire a nuclear deterrent among non-nuclear states.

You've already proven the point yourself. The USA & USSR avoided nuclear conflict because of the concern about retaliation. Ditto India & Pakistan so far.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are MANY reasons why less than savory pinhead dictators would want to acquire a nuclear capability. And there will certainly be some with a desire to acquire notwithstanding the point above. But that does not change the fact that fear of a US first strike (or Russia, or China, etc.) is a highly motivating reason for acquiring a deterrent.

All I'm saying is this............a willingness to use nukes in a first strike increases the risk of nuclear proliferation which weakens our conventional dominance and therefore weakens our overall military superiority.

The more conventional a conflict is, the more we win. The more you introduce nukes & terror, the more we lose.

mparrish- the USA and the USSR didn't use them not because of fear of retaliation ; it was because they couldn't win by using them. If they-USA or USSR- fired 1st there was high probability that they would both lose 80% of their population and maybe their 100 largest cities-not an acceptable trade off.

If what you say is correct-and I agree it is- that we have an insurmountable conventional/non nuclear advantage- then certainly Iran and other currently non nuclear potential enemies also know that they are falling farther behind us in respect to non nuclear warfare.
They aren't stupid. If they accept as correct your contention that "the more conventional a conflict is, the more we win" then they would be foolish to not attempt to get nukes- if they intend to remain our enemies. I agree with you-we are waaaaay waaaaay ahead in non nuke warfare.

You can't have it both ways. If they can't catch up in conventional warfare then nukes are their only way of deterring us.
This is exactly why for example Iran might attempt to develope nukes( I have no idea if they are or aren't.I just assume that the current administration will lie to us in that respect). They can't deter us conventionally,so they go nuclear.

The nuclear bomb genie is out of the bottle. It is magical thinking to assume that our enemies or potential enemies won't develope them if we promise to not use a nuke-AGAIN!!
Besides,surely you don't think these folks will believe us if we say "I promise not to use one first." Would you believe that if you were Iran???

Of course we could become more friendly; we were are ok terms with the Iranians until 1953(despite their playing footsie with the Nazis-mainly the old Shah,I think).

I wouldn't count on India and Pakistan holding fire.If zealots take over Pakistan, India will strike- Israel might also(fear of a nuke being given to their enemies). India might conclude that they can defeat Pakistan with a 1st strike-with manageable casualties. We might also.

Nuclear Pakistan has always been the country I've most feared. They have maybe 50 weapons?? None can make it to the USA with conventional delivery systems, but in a shipping container....

Saints won,so maybe the world will last another day.
Charlie

Saints won,so maybe the world will last another day.Nearly 2,000 years later, Saints have nothing to fear being in a colliseaum with the Lions. :p

Once USA populates the moon, whether or not to use a nuke depends on if our enemies picked out their coffins...and by that I mean. Nuke usage would probably have been on the table. Speaking of which, since all these nations have extremist differentiation in their beliefs, it will probably come to that, whoever can populate the moon will have the upper hand. You don't mess with the man above.

mparrish- the USA and the USSR didn't use them not because of fear of retaliation ; it was because they couldn't win by using them. If they-USA or USSR- fired 1st there was high probability that they would both lose 80% of their population and maybe their 100 largest cities-not an acceptable trade off.

If what you say is correct-and I agree it is- that we have an insurmountable conventional/non nuclear advantage- then certainly Iran and other currently non nuclear potential enemies also know that they are falling farther behind us in respect to non nuclear warfare.
They aren't stupid. If they accept as correct your contention that "the more conventional a conflict is, the more we win" then they would be foolish to not attempt to get nukes- if they intend to remain our enemies. I agree with you-we are waaaaay waaaaay ahead in non nuke warfare.

You can't have it both ways. If they can't catch up in conventional warfare then nukes are their only way of deterring us.
This is exactly why for example Iran might attempt to develope nukes( I have no idea if they are or aren't.I just assume that the current administration will lie to us in that respect). They can't deter us conventionally,so they go nuclear.

The nuclear bomb genie is out of the bottle. It is magical thinking to assume that our enemies or potential enemies won't develope them if we promise to not use a nuke-AGAIN!!
Besides,surely you don't think these folks will believe us if we say "I promise not to use one first." Would you believe that if you were Iran???

Of course we could become more friendly; we were are ok terms with the Iranians until 1953(despite their playing footsie with the Nazis-mainly the old Shah,I think).

I wouldn't count on India and Pakistan holding fire.If zealots take over Pakistan, India will strike- Israel might also(fear of a nuke being given to their enemies). India might conclude that they can defeat Pakistan with a 1st strike-with manageable casualties. We might also.

Nuclear Pakistan has always been the country I've most feared. They have maybe 50 weapons?? None can make it to the USA with conventional delivery systems, but in a shipping container....

Saints won,so maybe the world will last another day.
Charlie

I'll refer you to my earlier post. There are many reasons why pinhead dictators may want to possess nukes. And for many states, that desire is not diminished because of a first strike renunciation. Iran may fall in this category.

But there are many states with an interest in acquisition that would be much less so if all nuclear powers were to continue to stabilize their arsenals and use only as a deterrent.

Advocating first strike use increases the likelihood of acquisition by non-nuclear states. It means more states with more interest in more nukes, which is a world which is less safe for the US. Our best interests lie in a world of strong rules of warfare, complete rejection of terror and the torture that accompanies it, and non-proliferation. When we use those tools ourselves, we are legitimizing those very tactics that might actually do us harm.

Like I said. Don't give the Lions opportunity to wrack up points via fumbles. Make them fail to score touchdowns against the US Army.

Once USA populates the moonI fear that is going to take a very long time. I see NASA possibly going the way of GM - at the top of their game in the 1960's and letting the world catch up with and eventually pass them up. For a relatively modest commitment over the past few decades and good management, we could have a reliable means of ground to low Earth orbit travel. Instead, every 55th shuttle mission is lost with all on board. :(

Then there is sustainability...to live more than a year in space, at least 99% of life support must be recycled or solar and we are just not there.

Let's just get Jud's family outa Cincy before you drop the
big one on it...
.
_H*

So you're going to leave Auston & Hadi there? :eek:

Hobbit,

Can you at least let Auston have a chance to flee to Pittsburgh? :p

Not that I exactly love Pittsburgh (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28102289/) right now. :(