Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?
This discussion is being limited by the basic belief that using nukes is incomprehensible. I think allowing our survival to be jeopardized is incomprehensible, and I think our present military structure and strategies are inadequate to effectively protect us from terrorism. We have become pussified by this belief that we are almighty and have these high tech weapons that can fly into the windows of the bad guys. It is a strategic failure to base our defense on million dollar weapons that kill the enemy one bad guy at a time. We cannot afford to win a war that way.
First, as I have stated before, and KV reiterated above, war has to be an all out thing or nothing. There can be no half way events. War is a response to an undeniable threat. Our response has to be overwhelmingly brutal, or we don't do it. For all but the most severe cases we should find another way to respond. When we respond though, we should respond to win. NO elective wars for control of resources or any other political initiatives.
Take a good look at our capabilities. We absolutely suck at this hand to hand stuff in other people's countries. We may need to develop a military skill set that offers more than one response but that is a generation of Americans off in the future. At the present time we are only better than anyone else at relatively little that comes in handy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, or anywhere else. At the present we need to stop this on the job training of soldiers being sent to places where no one speaks the language, no one making on the spot decisions is expert in the culture and knows how to read the "civilian" population, and the military strategists defining the skill sets of soldiers and the kinds of equipment they will be given sit in some cozy stateside facility - like the Pentagon.
Look at the people we are fighting. They capture women and non-military personnel, chop their heads off and video tape it then send it to an outlet like Al-Jezeera. They understand the use of technology in this situation better than we do. Each one of those $350 Japanese Handycams gets multiple uses, and the tapes cost less than $10 each.
A nuke would seriously deter these guys. Sorry if the people living next to them fry too, but they are complicit. The Taliban was a government, and Al-Qaeda operated freely and in the open with the cooperation of the Taliban. Maybe herding the shitbirds into the Tora-Bora area would have been better, as it is less populated, if a nuke was to be used. But, we were justified, we have nukes and we could have done it. And it would have been more effective than what we did. Perhaps not as effective as some other activity we might dream up, but cannot implement today, much less at the time. Those better ideas may be a reality if we work really hard at implementing them for a generation or two. In the mean time, we need to protect ourselves.
I would much rather America be around to explain for hundreds of generations why we used nukes than to be eroded into oblivion because we went broke trying to kill a million flies with high tech, anti-fly defense systems instead of using those nukes. As for imposing our military on the rest of the world, well, if you don't control the bad guys in your country and let them kill thousands of Americans at a time, I think you deserve what you get. If war is really horrible, and not romanticized with science fiction gadgets that we can neither afford to develop or afford to use when we get them developed, we will have very few of them. Maybe none. If we go down the path we are on now, we will be perpetually at war. Jim