Here's a scary one for ya . . .

[delta13soultaker]

Pistol, I was just razzin' ya cause ya ruined them girls for us mortal men That's all they said. Why cause people talkin' it's got to be bad, man? Anyway, every man that lives a life has to be the idiot a couple times, that's why we have things like insurance, chaplains, friends and attorneys. Knuckle-draggers are often intelligent people. Delta Det. can gain assignment from who ever they wish. Football...I missed the dang superbowl. By definition...any "lady" is a discrete person on certain matters.

You're right about a lot of what you say. I agree on several points. Actually I feel kinda guilty I don't have a counter-arguement for ya...lol.

"The UN does at times serve a useful purpose, if for no other reason than to provide a forum for debate of issues and time for a dissipation of anger."

Two things there. First, yeah it's a place for exactly what you said. Where else can 100 countries toss bulls*** at one time...and no one has to get shot or blown up?!! It's a place to lay out international rhetoric and act out drama in front of the reps of 6 billion people with real jobs. They do have real issues to deal with there though. It's a place to be heard at a minimum. A place to argue etc. Sometimes that's what it takes.

Second, it's easy for us to be the bad guy. We get indignant because how stuff gets twisted on us...and we can spot BS because you know we know all about some BS.

On that, think back to any emotional arguement you been in where you stuck to your story. The last ressolve of the wrong/lossing person is usually to start twisting things and flipping stuff that only vaguely has anything to do with the problem. Stuff gets turned around to make you feel bad about something that has to do with nothing. The more hopeless they get, the meaner they get. Sort of like a pissed off girlfriend that can't kick you out your own house, has been driving one of your cars, and has no real money of her own...she can't threaten you or she'll be taking a cab home to momma but she can run a guilt trip 'til next week until you agree to let her worthless brother live in the den until he finds a job, fill in the blank etc etc. Well, lots of them nations in UN is the same way. What are they going to threaten us with? Blockade our home ports? With their massive 21 ship fleet...ten of which we gave them? lol No, they can piss us off though.

It's hard to be questioned by a country that you rescued several times or lives off loans from our banks or eats from relief we send daily or who has built a military from hardware we donated.

It's hard to have our government questioned by another government that is so corrupt and incompetent that they are no longer embarassed by it.

But at the end of the day we have no reason to be upset. Screw 'em. We have something worth fighting for. When s*** goes wrong, we know that we'll try to do the right thing too. We might screw up once in awhile, but the only people who never do are ones who never do anything anyway.

There is a long list of countries I will never spend another dime in. But if they are in a crisis I will do my job if my government chooses to help them...again.

"Use of a gun (or military force) should be the last resort, not the first, else you're swatting flies with a sledge hammer."

There is a time and place for everything. It's a truely wise person that should decide.

I have wished before that those people who make such decisions, because I know they dress in the morning just like I have to, could have my favorite nightmares a while. Or stand outside at night and catch theirself afraid that rockets or mortars may already be incoming and tell theirself they're silly. Or feel their heads spin and guts shudder at the smell of overcooked meat on a grill. Or something as simple as a busted jar of red jam in a store aisle put them back on a hot street thousands of miles away for 60 unnatural seconds they can't control. Or know what it's like for dead silence to arouse overwhelming fight instincts and symptoms. I wish the time and place and reason for war were always chosen by warriors.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

I have wished before that those people who make such decisions, because I know they dress in the morning just like I have to, could have my favorite nightmares a while. Or stand outside at night and catch theirself afraid that rockets or mortars may already be incoming and tell theirself they're silly. Or feel their heads spin and guts shudder at the smell of overcooked meat on a grill. Or something as simple as a busted jar of red jam in a store aisle put them back on a hot street thousands of miles away for 60 unnatural seconds they can't control. Or know what it's like for dead silence to arouse overwhelming fight instincts and symptoms. I wish the time and place and reason for war were always chosen by warriors.

Of which you speak I know all too well, Delta. You were obviously much too young for that dustup in Vietnam (else you'd be retired now!), but it's funny how things never really change very much. Politicians talk about war as if it were some kind of board game or an accountant's spread sheet, most of them never having actually "been there and done that." It's as real as anything ever gets, and the really sad part is that it never really goes away as long as you live. I know it certainly hasn't for me. Triggers; there are always triggers, and they hit you when you least expect it. I still can't hear a chopper passing overhead without thinking about Hueys and Jolly Greens, nor a jet passing low overhead without almost diving for cover. I used to hunt quite a lot; I was raised with it. The first time I went out after I got back I had to call it a day very early. I found myself walking through the woods watching the ground for booby traps, and moving through the cover like I was back in Vietnam. I've overcome that to a large degree as the years have passed and the memories have dimmed somewhat, but it is still there to some degree. Likely it always will be.

No, you won't get any argument from me about not being too quick on the trigger, too quick to "send in the Marines" or blow them to hell and back with an airstrike. Yet there is a time and place for exactly that, and when that time comes do it quick, do it brutally, and get the job done so it does not have to be done again. Anything less is a betrayal of the fine men (and now sometimes women!) on the sharp end of the stick.

I think over the next century we will see the use of military force change a very great deal. The ability to commit large, mechanized armies will become much less important than the ability to surgically strike deep, hard and with finality. We're already seeing that today with groups like Delta Detachment and the Navy's SEAL teams. Covert and deniable: get in, get the job done, and get out before the sound of gunfire has faded into the night. If there's nothing left but a smoking hole in the ground, it's a fait accompli and no one need be the wiser. I also think there is another side of that coin in terms of the force applied. Nuclear proliferation is a fact. Small nations with fanatics as leaders, sooner or later, will possess the means necessary to launch a strike against us or our allies, and likely one of them will. When and if that happens, as you said earlier, we will respond in kind. At that point, it will be "Katie bar the door." In very many ways I am much more concerned about the possibility of nuclear conflict today than I was thirty years ago. Against battlefield nukes, mechanized armies of M1 tanks and divisions of massed troops won't cut the mustard very well. I think our only real hope of preventing that is to continue playing world policeman, however much we are condemned by the nations that envy and hate us.

[berto64]

Dangit, I hate it when you're right Rich.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

I think our only real hope of preventing that is to continue playing world policeman, however much we are condemned by the nations that envy and hate us.

Yessir, that's the thing there. Playing policeman. There world is not a big neighborhood anymore, but the bad guys are just as mean.

We found stuff over there. Bomb making operations abandonded on the 1st floor. Blue prints and reverse engineered airport metal detectors on the second floor. They were building stuff to get onto commercial flights. We found military intel papers with intel officer info and control numbers documenting contact with Al Qarda in Saudi. We had documents captured documenting undertable oil sales to countries. I remember very well holding a field translation copy in my hands on my ex-wife's birthday.

Yeah the world is corrupt and backwards. The citizens are not safe. The wolves are gathered too near the flock; free the dogs. We need a new marshall. We need justice. A bullet or a rope isn't important, one less wolf counts though.

Let the man who condemns us come to work over there one year. Let 'em roll with the wolves and jackals out there and tell me that's not blood stinking on them. Tell us that's not pure undeniable hate glowing in their eyes. Swear to us it is justice to not build a brick house or wait for the bastards to camp on our pastures.

Condemn us when parts of bodies of our murdered are still being found where the WTC was? HA! They should kiss the ground and thank whatever they believe we don't want anything they have.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

We found stuff over there. Bomb making operations abandonded on the 1st floor. Blue prints and reverse engineered airport metal detectors on the second floor. They were building stuff to get onto commercial flights. We found military intel papers with intel officer info and control numbers documenting contact with Al Qarda in Saudi. We had documents captured documenting undertable oil sales to countries. I remember very well holding a field translation copy in my hands on my ex-wife's birthday.

And with ones such as those there can indeed be no peace, Delta. Yet it reminds me very much of what went on in Vietnam, that which the news media never "had time" to report. I won't describe many of the things here that I saw there. None of us who were there will do that for reasons which should be pretty obvious. Hell, we have to be pretty drunk to even do that among ourselves. Suffice it to say, getting captured by Victor Charlie was not a viable option. Not 30 days in-country I decided that was one thing that was NOT going to happen to me. What we are seeing happen in Iraq is much the same.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

And with ones such as those there can indeed be no peace

Peace...is secured through victory in battle; peace is the time to prepare for war.

It is an information war. The enemy has a propaganda system we must envy. It directly influences our efforts there because it greatly impacts the enemies' support every where over there.

We are very good at gathering and analyzing and developing courses of action from actionable intelligence. BUT we are not very good at put the information out there that gives us good light with those whose hearts n minds we need.

The enemy has a massive flow of media painting us as bad guys and they recruit well for it. The irony is that most of it is total complete fabrication...not even twisting of facts. You would laugh if you saw it......but over there, if it's on TV it must be true!!

The enemy has a very very fragile ego. Do we attack their manhood in mass and show how cowardice their activity is and how negative what they do is? Nope. We are pretty quiet.

We can get a billion veiwers to watch our Superbowl...but we cannot (will not) create a steady flow of mass media displaying how rotten and misguided their cause is.

For every victory we earn in dirt...we lose two in digital media.

[pawn]

What an interesting, articulate and provacative thread!

To me, Osama and his cronies aside. the India vs Pakistan dynamic (1 former UK colonial split into 2 countries who are presently both neighbors and bitter enemies) presents the biggest threat in terms of initiating a nuclear deployment.

Nuclear war between these countries probably would not involve the USA or US Interests initially or directly, however, their primary conflict is rooted in religion (Hindi vs Islam) and, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a war we did not ask for or start with Islamic Extremists. (Islam vs Everybody else)

The accounting of nuclear technology and components in the former Soviet Union is dubious at best- at worst both scientists and materials are available to a plethura of bad guys provided the price is right.

It may be difficult to predict who will do what to who after the crap hits the fan (attacks outside the USA) but IMHO this conflict could be a flashpoint to intercontinental nuclear war.

Let us hope the CIA and other intelligence agencies have their fingers on the pulse of the nuclear threats we face, and if a pre-emptive strike is necessary may our efforts be as successful as they were in terminating the conventional warfare threat in WWII Japan.

-pawn

[polishshooter]

Wow, you guys sure had a lot going on when i was away, this is a GREAT thread...lot's of interesting ideas, and if you stand back and read from the beginning, not having been involved with the nuts and bolts, it's kind of neat to dipassionately try and pick out all the preconceptions, biases, emotion, as well as facts and reason, that make us all give the answers we do.

One thing I see is that we all to some extent or another use as our only reference the mushroom clouds over Alamogordo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki asthe backdrop to all out thoughts on nukes.


Isn't that MAYBE kinda like what would happen if the ONLY aircraft that ever flew was the Wright Flyer, and all the development, $, and research that went into planes still happened, but NONE WANTED TO BE THE NEXT TO FLY, so they stayed on the ground....indefinitely, until about 50 years or so passed?

The flying technology of the 1950s and 60s was EXPONENTIALLY higher than it was in 1903. Just like for better or worse, the Nuclear Capabilities we and others have now would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki compare to the Wright Flyer next to an F4 Phantom. So much so I could foresee a nuclear exchange in which (surviving, if any) media types refer to "that last little" blast only being about the size of Nagasaki's. It must have only been a suitcase bomb...."

Just food for thought.


BUT having said that, the same emotion and memories of Hiroshima just may be HAMPERING certain uses in war that MIGHT actually end it quicker and cleaner. For example, what if you had UNCONTROVERTIBLE evidence that Iran's nukes WERE ready, and all of them and their new missiles are under thAT mountain, and "while we might be able to penetrate it with at least one Super-X-JDAM penetrator, Mr. President, the largest conventional Warhead has only about a 1 in 1000 chance of doing significant damage, however the nuclear penetrator will probably give 100% destruction and it's designed to keep most if not all collateral radiation underground..."


What would YOU do THEN.


And that option just might be possible NOW.



As far as the aversion to the first to use of Nukes again, I wonder if we just might be even a little too hamstrung even about that...if you think about it, there are probably NO nations in the "Civilized world," including Russia and China, to whom this stuff matters like it does to us, that we would consider first strike against anyway. THEY "get it."


BUT do you think for ONE MINUTE that the ROGUE nations, like Iran, N. Korea, any nation where Al Qaida takes up residence again, maybe even Venezuela, would EVER hesitate to use it in the same manner if they had the chance, against US, or at least Israel? We really have to take the "kid gloves" off and realize there ARE threats out there that just might not be able to be handled with yesterdays mores and restraints.


And this is not new. MANY times in History "accepted" rules of or limits on warfare changed, USUALLY whenever there was a clash of CULTURES, but also whenever there was a different weapon or different use of an existing weapon that turned the world upside down.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

As far as the aversion to the first to use of Nukes again, I wonder if we just might be even a little too hamstrung even about that...if you think about it, there are probably NO nations in the "Civilized world," including Russia and China, to whom this stuff matters like it does to us, that we would consider first strike against anyway. THEY "get it."

We tend to view nuclear weapons as purely political weapons, Polish, to be used primarily as threats, but not as military resources. I think that is only partly realistic. I daresay the opposition looks at them as a viable means of destroying their most hated enemies, Israel and the U.S. I'll make you a prediction: If we foolishly allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability, we will waffle, but the Israelis will strike, with nukes if that is the only way. I strongly suspect Iran already has a nuclear bomb, what they apparently don't yet have is the trigger mechanism and the means to deliver it.

[millwright]

While another opinion might be more satisfying, our current national posture works. Mostly because we don't ever say what we'll do or not do. Uncertainity is a great deterrant.

OTOH, opponents willing to die to achieve their objectives aren't scared by ADs. For much of the ruling segments of the ME, the concept and totality of a nuclear device have no cultural referent so they just think of it as a "bigger bang", I suspect. >MW

[JLA]

as far as the examples, Iran and North Korea, they have already voiced their "intentions" toward the U.S., and other countries for that matter. so in that respect, yes, nuke the crap out of them before they nuke us. however, in doing so, would probably cause the itchy trigger fingers of all the nuclear powers to begin to "squeeze" the proverbial "red button" and in turn cause all out nuclear world war... the holocaust of the 21st century...

[Pistolenschutze]

I hate to say it, but I do believe it is true: Nuclear weapons will sooner or later be deployed again on this planet whether we like it or not. We had best get used to the idea. In concept, a nuclear bomb is really not all that complex; the trigger for the bomb and the extraction of weapons-grade materials are complex, but the principle of the bomb is not. For that matter, any graduate level physics student could easily enough design one. Getting hold of the fissionable material and the electronics necessary for triggering the explosion provides the "x" in the equation. In this day and time, though, those components are becoming easier and easier to acquire, and sooner or later some pea-brained religious fanatic or third-world dictator will acquire the means to build a genuine nuke for his very own. We had better decide, and in a hurry, what we're willing to do when that happens. No rational person wants to see those weapons deployed, but I must argue that one or two low-yield--kiloton range--nukes to stop the madman in his tracks, is one heck of a lot better than Armagaddon on a world scale.

[berto64]

My most sincere hope is that all of those 72 virgins are Catholic Nuns.

That'll learn'em, dern'em!

[BillP]

Q: Why is the US so much more concerned about Iran getting the bomb than it is N Korea?

A: Because we would be very reluctant to use nukes against Iran. Much less so with N korea. They both know that. Iran thinks they can build one and use it to blackmail the region. N Korea knows any use or even a serious threat will bring destruction.

[Laufer]

Pardon the sidetrack, but how about a much more probable, more moderate threat, but still a possibly severe crisis for our economy?

If the Israelis launch just conventional weapons against an Iranian facility (UAVs, F-15s etc), what open support will we give the Israelis in case of a major showdown with the Iranians/Syria/ (Hezbollah) Lebanon, the Palestinian "State" etc, and what will the price per gallon of gas go to for a while? It is doubtful that OPEC would sit quietly, even if the Arabian Gulf stays open and fully 'operational'.

How many airlines will quickly go out of business, hurting our ability to even augment the AMC (former Mil. Airlift Command) via the Civilian Reserve Airlift Fleet (Am. Tran, Kallita, World Airways etc) for future troubles? Never mind the problems moving people and goods around this huge land, by air and ground.
Will your food /pharmaceuticals and fuel still get delivered to your local groceries/gas stations after the price shoots up?
It might then be too late to buy a portable generator.
If the electrical power systems continue to function, at least many businesses can operate (computers, Exxon fuel pumps, traffic lights).
Any thoughts about likely realistic scenarios during/after an OPEC stanglehold? This would not be the first time.

[Prizefighter]

I can't speculate about the potential costs and problems from what you describe, Laufer. I can't much wrap my head around it for the time being.

Having said that, I feel that the U.S. should back Israel no matter the cost. It's one of the few stances that I don't really have a "rational" argument for. Call it religion, call it superstition, call it whatever you want. I believe the U.S. needs to stand by Israel. The costs and the difficulties will just have to be sorted out aftwerwards.

What I wish we were doing now were some preemptive strikes of a different kind. Sometimes it seems like radical islam doesn't believe the U.S. will persevere. As someone else mentioned, they don't truly have a "Hiroshima" of their own to remember (yet).

Of course I'll defer to any resident badasses here that have actually put in time "over there" when it comes to my thoughts on this. I don't have any firsthand knowledge - which I find myself a little ashamed to say. But it seems like if our military were allowed to be more decisive, maybe blow down some of the hiding places that they're so sure we won't touch, that they use to hide among honest civilian populations, then maybe they would think a little harder before shouting about how many Americans will have to die to satisfy their insane designs. Maybe if we gave some really good answers when they tried to call our bluff, they'd be less enthusastic about raising the stakes in the first place.

Compared to some of the past conflicts the U.S. has been involved in, it seems like the recent situation in the Middle East has been treated with kid gloves so far, relatively speaking. Some enemies just have to keep pushing and testing and won't stop until the gloves come off.

[Laufer]

Prizefighter:

I agree, and many of our so-called NATO "allies" forget or choose to disregard that Israel so is the only democracy in the Middle East.

If our next White House leader is just a kid with rock star celebrity status, then he had better have the very best, most experienced Cabinet we've ever seen. His arrival would signal to Al Qaida that he is their man. And radical Islam, so to speak, forgets that many founders of Israel (or familiy members) experienced a slow-motion 'Hiroshima' in Buchenwald, Dachau from about 1940-45 etc, and underestimation of the lessons learned might prove to be a major mistake. Let's hope that if Obama is elected, his team is somehow prepared for a confluence of the most serious problems we've experienced since Dec. 7. 1941.

The outrage among OPEC countries could be our largest worry after an attack in the M.E. with conventional weaopons, knowing how Hezbollah tends to be only one axis of terrorism (and some Lebonese power by appeasement) throughout the region. Their funding must be from more than just Syria.

[user]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

... morally justified ...

Morally justified? I guess warfare has become a moral issue. We've got this thing now about attacking the leadership in a country rather than the country itself. I suspect that's because, at least in part, Americans have lost the concept of "nationality".

[Haligan]

Ya know all this talk about civilized war and what we can do, can't do, will do won't do.

It's all crap !!

How about this, lets try to stay out of any wars, but if unable to do that how about we kick the livin' *&^# out of our enemy and then go home.

[pmvargo]

im sure if korea was about to launch one their would no longer be a korea

[new308handloader]

Originally Posted by pickenup

With the proliferation of countries getting their hands on nukes, an major exchange is going to happen, sooner or later. Even a preemptive strike could start the beginning of the end.

Agreed

[new308handloader]

[QUOTE=Prizefighter;338138]
Having said that, I feel that the U.S. should back Israel no matter the cost. It's one of the few stances that I don't really have a "rational" argument for. Call it religion, call it superstition, call it whatever you want. I believe the U.S. needs to stand by Israel. The costs and the difficulties will just have to be sorted out aftwerwards.

QUOTE]

This is a very interesting thread....and the writing style of many of you makes reading enjoyable. I mean it, some of you should write for a living.

I agree, the US should back Israel......the question is will this administration?

Mutually assured destruction works because it is assumed either side would know where the bombs came from....either by tracking the missiles or "measuring" the resultant radiation and knowing that radiation "fingerprint" came from country X, and thus know who to retaliate against.....but what if Iran or a rogue nation enriched some stuff and passed it to a terrorist organization who detonated it in a suitcase? How would we know who to retaliate against? You may not know. Therefore, I believe a preemptive strike in that particular circumstance would be justifiable.

[45nut]

This dang thread is so long and Delta and Pistol beat their pony to death before I got here.

I would like to enter the fray with these thoughts. We were the FIRST to use atomic weapons and if Iran gets their hands on one they willtry to be the second, but Israel will most likely beat them to the punch and level that whole rag head country.

Then it will be interesting to see what happens between the US and Russia.

I think if we had hard information that N Korea or Iran was about to launch a WMD against us, a preemptive strike would be just the thing to save our arse. The problem as I see it, is Hussein will not have the balls to do what is necessary.

Do you think for one moment that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would hesitate to nuke Israel or the US?? Why should we wait to retaliate??? Hit the bastard first and be done with it.

[paulrw]

And didn't it damn near happen during the first gulf war? Didn't Isreal threat to nuke Iraq if they had used chemical warfare on Isreal? IF memory serves me, it took a lot of talk by the US to keep Isreal out of the war.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by paulrw

And didn't it damn near happen during the first gulf war? Didn't Isreal threat to nuke Iraq if they had used chemical warfare on Isreal? IF memory serves me, it took a lot of talk by the US to keep Isreal out of the war.

There was even more to it than that, Paul. It's not widely known, but some who were involved in the decision making have asserted publicly that before the war began, quiet word was gotten to Saddam that if he used WMD of any sort, the US would respond with tactical nukes. I know for a fact that nukes were actually in the Gulf because my son was on one of the ships, a destroyer, that carried at least one Tomahawk that was so equipped.