Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on August 04, 2006, 01:02:55 PM
-
Was doing some brainstorming and got to thinking about the vast Army's and armada's assembled 60 years and prior. Another thread was brought up about the Battle of the Somme with 60,000 casualities on the first day, yet the idea of 10 guys getting wacked is too much for any country to take. Assuming the advances in technology still took place, but we still had Dreadnaught's, Battleships and big guns on Land and Sea - and without the media slants - how would u see the current wars being faught started out, and resolved?
Wolf
-
The advances in technology (which also improves training) directly contradict the need for things like Dreadnaughts & Paris Guns. That's why we've had battles like 73 Easting & Medina Ridge (biggest US tank battle ever)... they've been very one-sided engagements.
As for numbers of casualties and their effect on public opinion... well... iirc, there's a quote by Stalin that hits the nail on the head.
-
There is certainly a problem that arises when your military has become so efficient that the country being invaded is left largely intact and the civilian population largey untouched. If we had waged war in Iraq like we did against Japan and Gremany, Iraq would be a much more tranquil place than it is today.
Give me 1000 B17s and General Patton and I can still turn Iraq into a stable occupied nation. One where the average Iraqi says "Thank you Sir, may I shine your shoes!, please take my daughter"
-
Originally posted by Yeager
There is certainly a problem that arises when your military has become so efficient that the county being invaded is left largely intact and the civilian population largey untouched. If we had waged war in Iraq like we did against Japan and Gremany, Iraq would be a much more tranquil place than it is today.
Give me 1000 B17s and I can still turn Iraq into a stable occupied nation. One where the average Iraqi says "Thank you Sir, may I shine your shoes!, please take my daughter"
That's a joke.... right?
-
Ok...ok
make that 2000 B17s :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by indy007
That's a joke.... right?
If it is. it shouldnt be.
I agree with him.
the problem today is we arent at war with particular nations as in our old wars but rather segments of a nation.
Which makes out enemies less easily defined
-
Iraq is an asymetric battlefield, so I doubt you could win by using bombers.
You could kill so many iraqi civilians that they would turn against the insurgents, or the population would turn to the insurgents and pultiply.
-
Eisenhower was effective at negotiating an armistice with N. Korea by threating the possiblity of total war.. He threated the conflict would no longer be confined to the Korea peninsula and that it would no longer be limited to conventional weaponary..
-
Nil,
Iraq is about a dozen large cities surrounded by thousands of square miles of absolutely nothing. Flatten those cities (like Dresden) with everyone in them, then send in ten massive armies to keep the sand clear of FOD and Iraq becomes a very very tranquil place, very peaceful.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Nil,
Iraq is about a dozen large cities surrounded by thousands of square miles of absolutely nothing. Flatten those cities (like Dresden) with everyone in them, then send in ten massive armies to keep the sand clear of FOD and Iraq becomes a very very tranquil place, very peaceful.
Wouldnt that be genocide?
-
Originally posted by soda72
Eisenhower was effective at negotiating an armistice with N. Korea by threating the possiblity of total war.. He threated the conflict would no longer be confined to the Korea peninsula and that it would no longer be limited to conventional weaponary..
Assuming NK has a nuke now, do you think that idea will still work? I personally don't. Threat tactics worked great in Eisenhower's dealings... he had atomic weapons... but this is 2006. When you've got a new cold war, where the potential damage outweighs the benefits of political gains possible by Total War, it devolves back into an economic war, without the exchange of fire.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Wouldnt that be genocide?
Nope genocide would be wiping out the entire population of a species. There are quite a few other Arabs and other humans besides those living in Iraq. One might say that Iraq has a minority of the population.
By definition total war is war not only on the military of the beligerant nation but also all of the support structure of that nation to include the people, resources and infrastructure. Kind of like what the jihadists have declared on the US and other western nations that they don't like. The thing is that so far they lack the ability to carry out their war.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nope genocide would be wiping out the entire population of a species. There are quite a few other Arabs and other humans besides those living in Iraq. One might say that Iraq has a minority of the population.
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Mav, by your definition you'd have to wipe out life on the entire planet for it to be genocide. I think we can all agree that is not the accepted definition of it.
-
Question.
What would happen if we opted out of the geneva convention?
Im not saying to commit Genocide or even to do much if anything that would be outside of the Geneva convention
but what if we just decided to say.
"We will no longer subscribe to the Geneva convention"
After all. our enemies certainly dont.
So why should we?
Other then to be able to say "were better then them"
and just what wuld happen if we decided that?
Now that doesnt mean we treat our enemies worse. but rather by our own rules
-
Originally posted by indy007
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Mav, by your definition you'd have to wipe out life on the entire planet for it to be genocide. I think we can all agree that is not the accepted definition of it.
Lets see here,
Does Iraq contain all of any particular religion, culture, ethnic group? Or are you considering just existing in Iraq makes one a special group that destroying the city would be considered genocide.
I suppose by using the sub part of the definition "or in part" that the taking of a single life could be considered "genocide".
-
Threat tactics worked great in Eisenhower's dealings... he had atomic weapons...
The threat tactics worked for Eisenhower not because he had atomic weapons but was because they actually believed he would use them. NK is currently using this same tactic against us, yep the very same tactic. Every time they launch a missle we get real nervous don't we. Why? because we know deep down he is capable of using them. This tactic has worked quite well for them so far to. How much more aid will we give them this next time?
No western leader today can use the tactic simply because no one would ever believe them insane enough to do so. It would be an empty threat...
-
Wouldnt that be genocide?
====
Only if you targeted a specific classification of race, culture or religion. I would simply target everyone :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Lets see here,
Does Iraq contain all of any particular religion, culture, ethnic group? Or are you considering just existing in Iraq makes one a special group that destroying the city would be considered genocide.
All Jews did not live in Germany. The Final Solution was still genocide imho. However, to you, you may consider it Mass Murder. Doesn't really matter though, both have the same results.
I suppose by using the sub part of the definition "or in part" that the taking of a single life could be considered "genocide". [/B]
You'd need one hell of a lawyer to get that to fly in a court. It'd be alot easier to get hate crime charges to stick.
Only if you targeted a specific classification of race, culture or religion. I would simply target everyone
They'd still get you cuz it's a "national group" Yeager. The good news is though, Pol Pot only got house arrest. If he can do that, people can get away with anything.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ok...ok
make that 2000 B17s :rolleyes:
Yeah Baby!:aok
-
Ok,
So the basic jist of what i'm getting here is as follows.
1. The rules of what is considered lawful engagement have been pussified to the point of being completely ineffective and contrary to the point of going to war in the first place. Largely in part because you are restricted by lawyers and unable to ignore the basic principle of Clauswitz - the complete and total destruction of the enemy and his ability to wage anything other then rubbing 2 sticks together.
2. Information and Perception management matters more then the raw aggregate military outcome.
3. Burning and pillaging would still be effective.
Did I miss any points?
Wolf
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
I don't see a democracy as ever being able to win a war against a non-democracy again. Our citizens get all squeemish, college kids rally against it, and the media blasts how awful we are after a few thousand are killed over the course of a few months.
In WW2, how many thousand could we kill on a single bombing raid without the public giving it a second thought? Those war bond rallies did fairly well long after firebombing became an Allied tactic.
IF we really wanted to win in the middle east, we would indescriminately firebomb the hell out of the place. If there were insurgents hiding in a hospital, for example, we'd blow the hell out of it. Hopefully with better results then blowing up the Abbey at Monte Casino, but if a few repeats of that happen, so what, so long as we win.
I'd personally rather hear "100,000 Iraqi's killed this month" then hear the monthly debriefings we've been getting for the past few years. IE, "hundreds, or thousands, killed, nothing's changed for the better."
This whole babysitting affair is clearly not working. We aren't even fighting a "war" as I understand the definition.
There's really only three options:
1. Stay the course and bleed to death;
2. Withdraw, humiliated, and never be taken seriously as a military power again, with all the problems that result; or
3. Study some damn history, get some resolve, and win this stupid side-show already.
I can tell you, I doubt #3 will happen.
-
I know my idea isn't politically correct or even original. Why even worry about how we are percieved by people that hate us and want us dead anyway?
Radical Islam vs The Rest Of Us.
One of them has to go.
Any Questions?
-
Originally posted by Shifty
I know my idea isn't politically correct or even original. Why even worry about how we are percieved by people that hate us and want us dead anyway?
Radical Islam vs The Rest Of Us.
One of them has to go.
Any Questions?
Hey, the total war idea is nothing new indeed - it's been tried and tested - it works.
If, as some have claimed, total war is, in fact, genocide, then all I have to say is then I pledge allegiance to a nation which has, in the fairly recent past, committed genocide, and done so for the very greater good of the entire world.
-
Vudak,
Thats sig material if ever i've seen it.
-
I hear ya Vudak.
I don't want to understand their anger, frustration or feel their pain. I could give a s**t about why they are so angry. We tried the metrosexual good guy route it doesn't work.
If we're going to be at war with them, then make war. If we're not going to attempt to win this thing, then pull out come home. Then warn them every act of terrorism soldiers of Islam commit on the U.S.. Islam will lose one city in the blink of an eye. If they don't take us serious make believers out of them the second they try anything. No talking, no CNN talking heads to tell us what we should do , or how we should feel. Un-blinking retaliation. Simple, and swift.
Maybe after losing a city or two the non radical believers of Islam will get off their butts and figure out these guys are their problem. You might even see Muslims actually holding their more radical brothers accountable.
-
All Jews did not live in Germany. The Final Solution was still genocide imho. However, to you, you may consider it Mass Murder. Doesn't really matter though, both have the same results.
While all the Jews certainly did not live in Germany, The Final Solution did call for the removal of ALL Jews from the gene pool, hence why it is considered genocide.
-
If we're going to be at war with them, then make war. If we're not going to attempt to win this thing, then pull out come home.
I agree completely.
-
It's why democractic states are caught with their pants around their ankles when war does start.
No one really wants total war; no one.
Yet, because of this, one group becomes emboldened thinking that the other group can't be pushed to total war because of they way they think, act, react, etc.
So the one group becomes evermore aggressive until SUPRISE! the other group reacts with equal ferocity and total war begins.
Right now the terrorists are pushing aggressively and successfully; they become ever more confident and ever more bold.
They believe their enemies are incapable of reacting in a strong, meaningful way.
It is a huge miscalculation that could easily lead to another world conflagration.
-
2600 US troops are dead,300 billion spent.
Any results Gentlemen?
Can anybody even answer why midle east hates Unated States?
Does anyone even know?
-
Originally posted by KgB
2600 US troops are dead,300 billion spent.
Any results Gentlemen?
Can anybody even answer why midle east hates Unated States?
Does anyone even know?
Its easier to spell check yr flames. And keep it on topic - the discussion is Total War vs Limited Engagement. Not how public sentiment around the globe is.
Wolf
-
2600 US troops are dead,300 billion spent.
Any results Gentlemen?
Can anybody even answer why midle east hates Unated States?
Does anyone even know?
Sure, Western Culture threatens their entire existance.
Islamic Culture has for some 2000 years kept females in veils,
powerless, voiceless. But those same females see western women running for office, running companys, running households. Makeing their own decisions, being there own persons. Doing pretty much whatever they want to do when they want to do it.
The Islamic men not being total idiots realise that once the Genie is out of the bottle they are toast, burnt toast. So they will do ANYTHING to prevent this. Including attempting to kill, destroy, fold, spindle or mutilate western culture.
So they point at western culture, say it must die. And sacrifise some young idiots
by telling them if they become martyrs they will live in paradise.
And in the meantime the woman are kept down, kept in the bottle, so 2000 year traditions can continue. So they can remain in control. Because if the genie ever got out of the bottle, in 10 years every islamic man would be sleeping with the camels. And they know it.
As to Iraq, for the FIRST time in recorded history, the US is NOT dropping Iraq like a hot potato as soon as the war is won. We have a long history in this region, and not much of it is good. We are paying the price for that history.
Heck we are paying the price for not killing saddam 12 years ago when we had the chance.
-
You want to shake the World up? Here's a plan...
In 4 hours you pull every American troop outta Iraq...grabs the Worlds attention.
Drop 2 Nukes on Tehran and Damascus...
Send the troops back into Iraq and rush Syria and Iran.
Syria wouldn't know whether to scratch their watches or wind their arses.
Iran would puppy down..internal revolution.
Egypt and Saudi would step back.
Mac
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Its easier to spell check yr flames. And keep it on topic - the discussion is Total War vs Limited Engagement. Not how public sentiment around the globe is.
Wolf
Whats gotten into you?
-
Unfortunately, we haven't fought a war how it should be done since WW2. We are afraid to get dirty and to crack some skulls. It's a shame we turned into such *******.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Unfortunately, we haven't fought a war how it should be done since WW2. We are afraid to get dirty and to crack some skulls. It's a shame we turned into such *******.
Frankly I think you are partially true. It's more the fault of the media IMO than anything else. The military has the means and the will, the media will do whatever it thinks it can to deny the public's backing and undercuts it with most broadcasts.
The politicians who voted for it need to get themselves out of the backstabbing mode of mind and get on with business. Once the conflict is over they can go back to gleefully cutting each others throats like a bunch of high school drama queens. That way troops aren't subject to their support, inadvertant or overt, of the enemy.
-
You know, we have all these B2 bombers out at Whiteman AFB. We should put a couple of them back on Crome Dome alert status armed with JDAM's. Let the enire world know they're up there flying around and anytime a terrorist event happens, a JDAM is going to fall out of the sky. Totaly random.
The message: You kill one of us, we will kill 100 of you.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
You know, we have all these B2 bombers out at Whiteman AFB. We should put a couple of them back on Crome Dome alert status armed with JDAM's. Let the enire world know they're up there flying around and anytime a terrorist event happens, a JDAM is going to fall out of the sky. Totaly random.
The message: You kill one of us, we will kill 100 of you.
Seeing the news reports of the demonstrations in Baghdad in support of hezbollah I think that idea of your would have worked out real well. :t
A couple of 500 lb'ers might have reduced the number of "insurgents and sectarian agitators"...........
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Let the enire world know they're up there flying around and anytime a terrorist event happens, a JDAM is going to fall out of the sky. Totaly random.
The message: You kill one of us, we will kill 100 of you.
If totally random, 70% chance falling into the ocean and killing fish. 20% falling in some uninhabited part of the earth and killing penguins, walrus, or scorpions.
Better if targeted.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
You know, we have all these B2 bombers out at Whiteman AFB. We should put a couple of them back on Crome Dome alert status armed with JDAM's. Let the enire world know they're up there flying around and anytime a terrorist event happens, a JDAM is going to fall out of the sky. Totaly random.
The message: You kill one of us, we will kill 100 of you.
If I was president, the very very very first thing I would do is tell the muslim world this:
Muslims, if any single one of you commits a terroristic act against America and our Property, we will drop a nuke on Mecca. So this is your first and only warning. Get your people in check.
-
Let me guess, the 2nd thing you'd do is change your title to 'Supreme Being and Ruler of the Universe' ??
Seriously, you sound as mad as Osmad the Mad BinMaden.
-
You obviously disagree with my methods. But now the question is turned to you.
How would you deal with the muslim problem?
-
Originally posted by Trikky
Let me guess, the 2nd thing you'd do is change your title to 'Supreme Being and Ruler of the Universe' ??
Looks better evry time I read it.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The message: You kill one of us, we will kill 100 of you.
That message has been sent for a few years now...and it doesn't seem to work now does it
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You obviously disagree with my methods. But now the question is turned to you.
How would you deal with the muslim problem?
There are honest, hard working, Muslim Americans. You can't just go and nuke Mecca :lol
Now firebombing a non-super-holy city or two from the state which produced/aided the terrorists of a particular operation, yeah, that could work :aok
Think about it... The middle east, with hot days and windy nights. Can anyone say "firestorm?"
-
Ya just can't downright Nuke Mecca.....
You have to wait til Ramada when Mecca is packed then Nuke it to get the full effect.
Just Kidding....
Mac
-
You guys might be kidding, but think about it.
Who in their right mind in the world would **** with us if we're willing to return that damage a million fold?
And here's an interesting little factoid. It is said that 10% of the muslim population is extremist to the point of killing all infidels without a second thought. There are 1.2 billion muslims in the world. You do the math.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You guys might be kidding, but think about it.
Who in their right mind in the world would **** with us if we're willing to return that damage a million fold?
This is a wild guess, but I think it would be the same type of Muslims that strap on dynamite belts and walk into pizza parlors to blow themselves up. Or the kind that will study how to fly a jet long just long enough to fly one into a building.
As your math indicates, there doesn't seem to be a worldwide shortage of those.
-
You're not getting it. If these people are crazy enough to kill people, how fanatic do you think they will be if their ultimate holy place will be destroyed if they do? I think those that are even half way fanatic would keep the fully whacko in check.
-
Actually, I think you're not getting it.
There will be those who would welcome the destruction of Mecca, thinking it would unite all Muslims in the Final Jihad against the Infidels.
And the idea that the 'normal' Muslims, facing a threat to Mecca, would suddenly hunt down the whackos and render them harmless in some fashion is unrealistic. It would only take one whacko to set your scenario in motion; there's no way the 'normal' ones could neutralize every single whacko.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It would only take one whacko to set your scenario in motion; there's no way the 'normal' ones could neutralize every single whacko.
So if we cannot do away with the radicals , because if they feel threatened they will spur on the non-radicals. We can't have peace because non Muslims must be converted or killed according to the radicals.
Then it looks as if the only option is a Jihad on Islam. So back to square one,,,, nuke em. If radical muslims cannot leave the rest of us alone there is only one answer.......... It's really simple.... Ethier we convert or die or we nuke their butts into a distant memory. They don't care about our women and children , so no need to get squeemish about theirs. The fact that we even discuss the ethics of war puts us at a disadvantage against them.
-
Trying to think of when the last an Islamic Extremist Cleric straped on a bomb to declare Martydom...the term "Practice what you Preach comes to mind"...
On the opposite coin, I can not remember when a Jew strapped on a body bomb and walked into a Berlin Disco to detonate and prove a point
Mac
-
While it may give one a boost to vocalize such sentitments, I think you know it's simply not workable in the reality of living in the world.
If the US were to
Originally posted by Shifty
nuke their butts into a distant memory.
there would be a resulting effect.
First of all, you'd NEVER get all of them. They're in every country, even those with whom we are allied. The surviving radical elements would be even more determined, more motivated to return the blow in kind.
Beyond that, how would the rest of the world react/interact with a nation that nuked 20% of the world preemptively? Who would want anything at all to do with the US?
-
Originally posted by Toad
While it may give one a boost to vocalize such sentitments, I think you know it's simply not workable in the reality of living in the world.
If the US were to
there would be a resulting effect.
First of all, you'd NEVER get all of them. They're in every country, even those with whom we are allied. The surviving radical elements would be even more determined, more motivated to return the blow in kind.
Beyond that, how would the rest of the world react/interact with a nation that nuked 20% of the world preemptively? Who would want anything at all to do with the US?
You'd get enough of them. Who wants anything to do with the US now? We ethier get the blame for the worlds problems , or are expect to pay the bill for them. My question is why does the US want anything to do with the rest of the world?
-
Shifty,
Well all politics and emotion aside I would suggest that trade is one issue that the US wants to remain in contact with the rest of the world. The US doesn't make everything or have everything necessary to maintain or increase our technologically based lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Shifty,
Well all politics and emotion aside I would suggest that trade is one issue that the US wants to remain in contact with the rest of the world. The US doesn't make everything or have everything necessary to maintain or increase our technologically based lifestyle.
You make your suggestions, and I'll make mine.
-
Suggestions are easy; so are flights of fancy.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
You'd get enough of them. Who wants anything to do with the US now? We ethier get the blame for the worlds problems , or are expect to pay the bill for them. My question is why does the US want anything to do with the rest of the world?
Shifty,
As the above quote shows, you asked a question. I answered with what is primarily the most cogent answer based on the interests of the US, money and maintaining the present standard of living.
Think about it, the military situation is not the only one that the US cares about. Look at your commercial goods that you yourself use every day. How many have come directly from US manufacture?
Don't like it? Too bad, as that happens to be reality in todays world. The US and virtually (if not) every other industrialized nation on earth is interelated on trade alone as they are NOT self sufficient at their current standard of living.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Don't like it? Too bad, as that happens to be reality in todays world. The US and virtually (if not) every other industrialized nation on earth is interelated on trade alone as they are NOT self sufficient at their current standard of living.
Too bad for who? That means the rest of the world needs us at least as bad as we need them. What's too bad is as usual the debate has gone into reasons why we have to put up attacks from Islamic radicals. Because we might anger the rest of the world.
The truth is not one nation on earth needs Islamic radicals, or the terror they spread. Rid the world of them as fast as possible with extreme prejudice. If the world hates us, for it...... They'll forgive soon enough. In fact it may be suprising how many applaud the action.
What I suggest will never happen. The Islamic radicals will go on terrorizing the rest of us. We'll continue to live in fear because we're afraid of who we'll piss off.
Like you said Mav. "Too Bad"
:)
-
You are inferring much that was neither stated or implied in my posts. I answered a single question you posed and gave you a simple answer. If you don't comprehend economics and global interactions it will be futile to try to continue to discuss it with you.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Did I miss any points?
Wolf
yep,you confused "ziel" and "zweck"
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You are inferring much that was neither stated or implied in my posts. I answered a single question you posed and gave you a simple answer. If you don't comprehend economics and global interactions it will be futile to try to continue to discuss it with you.
I comprehend economics, and global interactions. Because I have a different opinon of the outcome of a determined attack on Islamic radicals differs from yours................ Doesn't make me wrong, or you superior. You're correct however there is no need to continue any discussion with you or your ego.
-
no nukes, you kill them one at a time, sure it takes a lot of bullets but that's what guns are for.
victory is when the enemy is either dead or has surrendered.
-
On a scale of importance from 1-10 for the islam religion, heaven is 10, mecca is 9.7, and the quran is a low 5. And you see how much they freak out when the quran even comes near to a toilet. I think that they would be scared straight, especially if we level holy city #2 first.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
I comprehend economics, and global interactions. Because I have a different opinon of the outcome of a determined attack on Islamic radicals differs from yours................ Doesn't make me wrong, or you superior. You're correct however there is no need to continue any discussion with you or your ego.
Nice adhominum there. Please go back and note that in the answer I gave in the first post I made reqarding your question I prefaced it with "all politics and emotion aside".
After you have done that please point out where I said anything regarding islamics of any type in the posts I made related to your question. Like I said you infer much that was neither implied nor stated and you continue to do so. I did not give you my opinion regarding attacks by islamics determined or otherwise yet you continue to assume and comment on what my non stated opinion is.
-
There is no such thing as a limited approach to killing cockroaches.