Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?
Glad to have stirred up the pot. While I understand the overwhelming revulsion at the use of nukes, it strikes me as incongruous that an alternative, that results in many more casualties on our side, and likely as many on their side seems more attractive. Dead is dead, and there is nothing environmentally beneficial in the debris from the aftermath of a good carpet bombing episode.
I also think you underestimate the reluctance to go to war I feel. If war could only be a nuke event, we would be less likely to engage in these revolting crusades for democracy or grabbing resources or whatever. I am also convinced we are militarily incompetent, except when it comes to nukes, and even that is fading. Just take a look at the caliber of people in most of the critical strategic and conventional forces leadership and compare them to their peers with nuclear responsibilities. The nuclear Navy guys used to be head and shoulders better qualified for their posts than the rest. Much more selective in recruiting, much greater emphasis on training, much more indoctrination with the risks and what is at stake, and much less likely to bend a rule since the consequences were much more thoroughly understood.
If we want to continue to lower the threshold for entering conflicts, be prepared to loose our asses a few more times. When you do it for sport, it just isn't as compelling as when you do it to survive. War should only be about survival and wars we enter or start should only be about our survival.
I am glad, however, to see you all begin to consider really big, destructive, dumb, conventional bombs dropped in sufficient numbers to be effective in place of cruise missiles and other projectiles with guidance systems that cost more than the targets. I could settle for a really serious conventional bombing provided the target was equally thoroughly destroyed and the surface area rendered essentially uninhabitable for a generation.
So, considering we did next to nothing effective in Afghanistan in response to 9-11, and that subsequently we went on a freedom crusade in Iraq under false pretenses, what makes anyone believe those in charge of securing our nation from external and internal threats are prepared for this task? It will take several generations to develop the staff of generally socially unacceptable types we inflitrate the world's terror centers and splinter groups with, and it will take even longer to develop the elite types of forces in sufficient numbers with the understanding of the local cultures to effectively search out and destroy these threats with any success. In the mean time, I think we do what we really do better than anyone else when threatened. Maybe you guys don't feel like 9-11 was enough of a real threat. That is another discussion. But to donate another 2,000 or more American lives every few years, and tens of thousands of American limbs, feet, hands, eyes and minds as well as the making of widows and orphans in honor of those bastards for the next thousand years, or possibly less (hard to see how, given the apparently genetic affinity for holding grudges for millenia by the population) seems perverse.