Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic? - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-26-2005, 07:33 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1427 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

I'm not going to address the nookular stuff--suffice to say I'm not a fan of that strategy.

So-called "terrorists" aren't a military target, therefore, they don't fit under the rubric of military security. They're best dealt with via covert police actions that subvert their organizational and communications structures, while undermining their popular support via diplomacy and good ol' fashioned PR campaigns.
Zeitgeist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-26-2005, 08:43 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1989 W201.029/M103 3.0
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Garage
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

If military strength were a numbers game China and India would be the world military superpowers.
The real trick about military budgets are they're not geared for mass production but the technology being used.
Then in an attempt to get some of that expenditure back, large holistic contracts need to be made.

Have a look at the F-22, F-35 and RAH-66 designs borne of the circa. US$11b (FY1990), F-117 "stealth fighter" programme (not including unit cost).
I mean somebody's got to pay for all that R&D that kept the US even competing on the same page as the SuperMiG and Sukhoi Flankers the USSR desintegrated financially to produce.
And now half of asia is equipped with those babies.

Since only militaries can afford to recompensate, this means selling off last decade's model to half the world and filling production lines with new batches based on the technological leap, in a whole host of new contracts per development expenditure. Maximise.

And you can always upgrade your unit requirements. The F/A-18 is a top design...for 1990. In 1980 it was a world leader.
But Mikoyan put out the Fulcrum which competes one-on-one, updated to outclass by a fraction and now Sukhoi have been working on the forward-swept Berkut which would totally outclass it.

Hey, borrow a little technology from the F-117 and suddenly: SuperHornet, a totally different animal. Probably good enough to replace the old Tomcats.

And the Marines, had Hornets and Harriers but mix a bit of F-117 and put the lot in a blender: hey, F-35 JSF. It's a V/STOL, it's a transonic strike aircraft, it's a short range supersonic fighter, it's got stealth...if it could juggle we'd put it in a circus.

And the interesting thing about these technological moves is although their development had its costs, that's largely already been spent and they're designed to actually cut military expenditure.
The US doesn't want the same thing that happened to the Soviet Union to happen there, but it's already got that covered.

As has been stated in media, due to the economic doctrine of recent decades any threat to NATO, the European Union or the US is not going to come from a foreign military power, but a rogue state equipped with stores of export surplus from countries like the Ukraine, US, China and Russia, or political desintegration in the middle east and central asia.

Start messing around with the good tactical minds by tying their hands economically now, and small numbers of 90's MiGs, Hornets and nuclear iron bombs all over the world suddenly become a real strategic concern. It's a matter of the cake already being sliced in the last decades of the Cold War.

Sorry, if politics alone could cut it the medieval world would've been a far different place.

True though, that other concerns such as dedicated colonisation of the solar system and general space exploration have now become necessary for human survival for the long term thinkers.
We may not have the resources we do now in future decades, so must decide how best to use them today.

driving a fast car should feel like falling off a building.
vanir is offline  
post #13 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 01:51 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
CowtownBallin's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 300E
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to CowtownBallin
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
guage - 3/26/2005 4:24 PM

Yes slash the military like the Clintons did, and then when it’s in need we don’t have one.
Thank goodness for a well oiled war machine.
Keep those brainwashed lefts out of the way.

HOOAAAH
When you have a small army, increasing its size is tough, recruiting is slow, and it really makes you think twice before commiting the small amount of troops and resources you have. Clinton cut down the size of the military because he had responsible foreign policy.

Had he not cut that military down and let GWB inherit the force we had in 1993 plus whatever we built up through the 90s, we'd be tied up in four global conflicts now instead of just two.

Our "well-oiled" war machine had replacement M1 Abrams turboshaft engines sitting in machine shops miles away from the front lines due to the overstretched supply lines that could not keep up with the Blitzkrieg we launched. Our "well-oiled" machine was critically low on .223 Remington ammo (aka 5.56x45mm NATO) so that we had to buy ammo from Belgium and other NATO countries while our only two factories were at full capacity. Our "well-oiled" war machine keep failing to meet recruitment quota. It seems that many of our nation's sons aren't willing to die in the sandbox for a lie.

Hoo-ah to that, buddy [:D]

-Miran
CowtownBallin is offline  
post #14 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 08:57 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
JimSmith - 3/26/2005 8:26 PM

I actually agree with Z and Azimuth on this one. But I am convinced the only way to protect our borders and the like with a smaller military is to have one that is much more viscious than what we have now, along with a very simple foriegn policy on wars - attack me and you can be assured you will be nuked. It is the only thing we do better than the rest of the world and we would be well advised to keep it that way. Nukes are cheap for us and expensive for them. Right now we use weapons that are expensive for us and don't seem to have much of an effect on them.

An effective, low cost military is incompatible with America's present role in the world as "the cop and conscience whether they want us to be or not." If you want a low cost and effective military you have to stop this elective war policy as well as the idea we should be saving people from themselves.

e should also ban the sale of modern weapons to nations who cannot produce them already. These contracts always include teaching the locals how to make the equipment, or siginificant parts of it, and that just ends up with trained, cheap labor developed at the expense of taxpayers in the US that subsequently takes American jobs overseas. I would also stop paying dollars for goods from these places, including the Middle East and trade in goods only. These people have demonstrated they generally do mostly evil shit with our money, while they let their populations starve, or die of preventable or treatable diseases. Jim
Perfectly stated.

*
MRTIKKET is offline  
post #15 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 09:22 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Brian Carlton - 3/26/2005 8:58 PM

Quote:
JimSmith - 3/26/2005 8:26 PM

I actually agree with Z and Azimuth on this one. But I am convinced the only way to protect our borders and the like with a smaller military is to have one that is much more viscious than what we have now, along with a very simple foriegn policy on wars - attack me and you can be assured you will be nuked. It is the only thing we do better than the rest of the world and we would be well advised to keep it that way. Jim
I normally agree with you on most issues, Jim, but a policy that threatens nuclear war with a terrorist foe is intractable. No one country is going to attack the United States. If you choose an isolationist policy, there had better be a satisfactory plan to address a terrorist foe. "Attack me and you can be assured you will be nuked" is not going to cut it.

Invading a country that didn't pose a threat to the United States shouldn't cut it either.
Well stated, Brian. I, too, generally agree with Jim, but on this matter, no. We had a rather intense disagreement on MBShop over it. You make what to me is an obvious point--that is, nuclear weapons against a terrorist group that has world-wide connections is a hopeless enterprise. When Truman dropped the A-bomb on Japan, at least one could see that the enemy was one nation, with specific borders. We can argue the merits of that decision, but certainly in terms of its strategic effect, there was no doubt that it brought the Japanese to their knees. A nuclear weapon used on a specific terrorist threat--Al Quaeda, say--will leave countless innocent dead, and will not deter the terrorists, who, after all, have proven time and again that they are willing to die for their cause.

Joe B.
Joe Bauers is offline  
post #16 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 10:03 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Brian Carlton - 3/26/2005 8:58 PM

Quote:
JimSmith - 3/26/2005 8:26 PM

I actually agree with Z and Azimuth on this one. But I am convinced the only way to protect our borders and the like with a smaller military is to have one that is much more viscious than what we have now, along with a very simple foriegn policy on wars - attack me and you can be assured you will be nuked. It is the only thing we do better than the rest of the world and we would be well advised to keep it that way. Jim
I normally agree with you on most issues, Jim, but a policy that threatens nuclear war with a terrorist foe is intractable. No one country is going to attack the United States. If you choose an isolationist policy, there had better be a satisfactory plan to address a terrorist foe. "Attack me and you can be assured you will be nuked" is not going to cut it.

Invading a country that didn't pose a threat to the United States shouldn't cut it either.
This brings us back to the thread over at Mussolini Shop where we argued over whether the US should have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11. I am still convinced this would have been the right course. In the first place, at the time we had good information on the exact whereabouts of most of Al-queda, who were concentrated in Afghanistan. Instead, we have allowed them to metastisize all over the world, while we went off to fight the wrong war in Iraq. A nuke is simply another weapon in our arsenal, and like all weapons there exists some rationale for its use - to me a repsonese to direct attack on the United States is the only rationale, and we should have used it.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #17 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 10:24 AM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1984 300SD 1986 300SDL 1989 300SE 1998 740iL
Location: NY
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
kvining - 3/27/2005 12:03 PM


This brings us back to the thread over at Mussolini Shop where we argued over whether the US should have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11. I am still convinced this would have been the right course. In the first place, at the time we had good information on the exact whereabouts of most of Al-queda, who were concentrated in Afghanistan. Instead, we have allowed them to metastisize all over the world, while we went off to fight the wrong war in Iraq. A nuke is simply another weapon in our arsenal, and like all weapons there exists some rationale for its use - to me a repsonese to direct attack on the United States is the only rationale, and we should have used it.
I'm afraid you're incorrect on this one.

The US does not have small nuclear weapons. The device is so massive and so powerful that it levels an area out to a radius of 10 miles or so from ground zero. There is no possibility that such a concentration of terrorists exists. The ratio of civilian casualties to terrorist casualties would be at least 10:1. Selecting a weapon of this magnitude is basically wholesale genocide, and, I'm a bit surprised at you for advocating it.

The US has a bomb that weighs 15,000 lb. and it levels an area out to a radius of 1/2 mile from the point of impact. We used this weapon with great effect several times in Afghanistan. The devestation and power of this weapon is significant. It has the deterrent capability of a huge weapon as viewed by the peons on the ground. However, it is something like 1/20 (or smaller) the power of a nuclear warhead.

Nope. Nuclear weapons cannot be justified for use on a terrorist cell, no matter how big it is. We have much smaller weapons that can do a fine job without all the death, destruction, and fallout of a nuclear device.

Brian Carlton
1984 300 SD
1986 300 SDL
1987 300 SDL
Brian Carlton is offline  
post #18 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 10:58 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Oh, I never had any problem with the civilian casualties. The nation and government of Afghanistan engaged in activity that lead to a direct attack upon the continental United States, something even a notch above the Japanese. The message would have been loud and clear - come here and kill our innocent men, women and children thru terrorism and we will give you unimaginable terrorism in return. War should be as terrible as possible, or as General Lee once observed, we will become too fond of it.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #19 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 11:30 AM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1427 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

...and those innocent survivors of our nookular conflagration would probably be growing their hair back right about now. Oh, and those as yet unborn children birthed with genetic mutations like flippers and external digestive organs had it coming to them--that'll teach em farners to mess with the man!
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #20 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 11:46 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Those who pour the cup of war are destined to drink its deepest dregs.
- William Techumseh Sherman

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome