This morning I am reading Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. I am taken by the following line.
The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.
Did we fail to heed this advice at Guantanamo? We are talking about a completely different kind of war. I understand that. But is it possible this advice still applies?
It is counter-intuitive that we should ‘reward’ terrorist. Has our current strategy worked? There has not been another major attack, but I do not think we have ‘attacked’ the route cause of this war. That it is merely hiding, waiting for an opportunity to strike.
…and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
I do not think we should read this quite literally. I look at this and read Do not attack the enemy where he is strongest. We are allowing the insurgents to choose the place of battle. We are attacking them where they are strongest.
I fully support our troops. They are our trained attack dogs. They do our dirty work. Without them, this country could not be what it is today.
I think it is time we rethink our strategy (in Afghanistan and Iraq) in using our troops. I know we have shifted somewhat to trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace. I just wonder if we have fully realized this concept.
Just some musings from your local fool.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Guantanamo Bay policy has to be one of the most boneheaded moves of the entire war.
It made role-models and heroes out of each one of the prisoners, and helped recruit even more terrorists to the cause.
And it undermined the US claim to the moral high ground. If there was enough evidence to detain them, then there was enough evidence to charge them. This action will hinder US diplomacy for decades to come. Every time action is proposed against a tyrant who locks up his people on a whim, Guantanamo will be thrown back as a precedent.
They should never have left Afghanistan in the first place.
As soon as they left Afghan soil, they appeared on the world's radar, and the US became responsible for them.
If they needed questioning, it would be better done by officers at the scene, who could more easily judge the plausibility of their statements.
As for 'Why would they cooperate with questioning?', well, the first day at the army base, they would be asked
"Would you please like to help us by answering some questions?"
"What if I don't want to?"
"Then, you're free to go."
"What?"
"You're free to go. You're not a prisoner. You can leave at any time. Just grab your things, go out this door, up the road, and out the gate, through the crowd of Afghan villagers camped outside the base."
"What! I can't do that! They would tear me apart!"
"Oh, pish posh, I'm sure they wouldn't. Not after we explain to them who you are, and tell them your good reason for being here. You were birdwatching, right? Or were you the butterfly collector? Which one of you was the backpacker? The one going from Pakistan to Turkey, who wasn't aware that to go west, you headed toward the setting sun, and not 90 degrees perpendicular to it?"
"But they will not believe us!"
"Sure they will. After all, you convinced me, those are perfectly plausible reasons why you all ended up in Tora Bora with a gun in your hand. It's all just a silly misunderstanding, I'm sure they'll see the funny side."
"Let me stay! I beg you!"
"Oh, I couldn't do that. This is a military base, for Army personnel only. I'd recruit you, if I could, but since your diary was full of statements like 'Death to America, the Great Satan', I don't think I'd be allowed. It would mean you compromising your belief system, and that wouldn't be fair to you."
"Nonono..."
"But we do have some civilian vacancies, in the Intelligence Services. Maybe they'd be willing to take you on? If you can give them names, numbers, locations of Taliban forces in the area, I'm sure they'd let you stay..."
"Whatever, just say the word, and I'll do it!"
"Of course, they'll only have you as long as your info remains accurate. If it's out of date, or they think you're stalling, then I'll have to escort you off the base. Just so you understand..."
"No! I'll help you ! However I can!"
"That's good to hear! I'm sure we'll get along fine! And, you know, it's in your best interests that we find bin Laden, too. If this operation goes well, we'll be flying back home to a ticker-tape parade, and we'll give you a lift. Of course, if we don't find him, and if we don't flush out all the Taliban, we'll be here for years, until public opinion forces the brass to cut our funding, and then we'll be sloping home under a cloud. And if that happens, we'll be pushed for time and space on the transports, and may just forget to account for everyone when we hand the keys to this place over to the Northern Alliance..."
"No, not that! I'll do everything you say!"
"Yes, I know you will; I'm sure of it..."
I agree that Guantanamo was questionable. However, I believe your alternate scenario to be overly optimistic. These are not child predators being turned loose into general population. Part of that Afghan village you want to turn them over to support their activities. The ones that do not are afraid of the ones that do.
Right after 9-11, when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, I convinced a lot of people I should be locked up in a nuthouse. I said, "If he's not handed over within 24 hours, drop one nuclear device on Kabul at that time, and ask for Bin Laden again. If he's not handed over then, obliterate the entire nation of Afghanistan utterly to the last stone; don't even leave a goat or patch of lichen alive there. Then stop and do no more, anywhere else. I guarantee there will never be a repeat, because no nation on Earth will harbor terrorists with that kind of penalty... but you have to be incredibly sparing in it; you can't just do it to anyone you don't like."
A few years later, and Bin Laden is still at large, and we're mucking around in Iraq...
I can see where you are coming from, Kirth. I fully believe that war should be our absolute last resort and when we decide to go to war, it should be total, no holds barred, war.
On the other hand, that would make us an even bigger bully than we already are.
|
Right after 9-11, when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, I convinced a lot of people I should be locked up in a nuthouse. I said, "If he's not handed over within 24 hours, drop one nuclear device on Kabul at that time, and ask for Bin Laden again. If he's not handed over then, obliterate the entire nation of Afghanistan utterly to the last stone; don't even leave a goat or patch of lichen alive there. Then stop and do no more, anywhere else. I guarantee there will never be a repeat, because no nation on Earth will harbor terrorists with that kind of penalty... but you have to be incredibly sparing in it; you can't just do it to anyone you don't like."
A few years later, and Bin Laden is still at large, and we're mucking around in Iraq...
Kirth,
So, 3000 American dead equals the entire civilian population of Afghanistan, currently about 32 million, in your mind? Interesting approach. Genocide as deterrent. Effective, but it would make the US President a bigger terrorist than Bin Laden.
Effective, but it would make the US President a bigger terrorist than Bin Laden.
Whoever did that would end all major (large-scale) terrorist acts for generations to come, but at the cost of going down in history as a worse madman than Hitler or Stalin. Worth it? Depends how many lives terrorists would claim; no one would ever know. It's not just 3,000 American lives I'm counting, but rather the total lives of the people in Mumbai, London, Indonesia, Iraq, and everywhere else there are preventable incidents.
Of course, dropping a single hydrogen bomb on Kabul probably would have convinced them we were serious...
…but that would make the president a terrorist as well. Then it really just comes down to who is the best funded terrorist.
|
|
Effective, but it would make the US President a bigger terrorist than Bin Laden.Yes. Whoever did that would end all major terrorist acts for generations to come, but at the cost of going down in history as a worse madman than Hitler or Stalin. Worth it? Depends how many lives terrorists would claim; no one would ever know.
So, you're definitely on the side of killing Hitler as a baby, right? ;-)
I presume you wouldn't mind China following the US example and dealing with their own 'terrorist' problem in Tibet and Taiwan in the same brutal fashion? Russia can wipe out Chechnya and Georgia. And so on, and so forth. Would those deaths also be justified?
Also, it would only apply to Americans. The rest of the world would still have plenty of terrorists.
Let us take it one step further, what about when the Dali Lama lands in American asking for political asylum. If we refuse to hand him over to China, can they nuke us back into the dark ages?
Let us take it one step further, what about when the Dali Lama lands in American asking for political asylum. If we refuse to hand him over to China, can they nuke us back into the dark ages?
When is the last time the Dalai Lama blew up a skyscraper? As soon as he does, you hand him over or else China goes to town. Until then, they have no beef. See what I mean? It immediately becomes every nation's compelling interest to aid every other nation against terrorists, even ones that those nations might secretly approve of.
|
|
Let us take it one step further, what about when the Dali Lama lands in American asking for political asylum. If we refuse to hand him over to China, can they nuke us back into the dark ages?When is the last time the Dalai Lama blew up a skyscraper? As soon as he does, you hand him over or else China goes to town.
How about all the IRA bombers the US is still harbouring? When can we nuke you guys for that? ;-)
Let's also not forget where all the fallout is going to go. How many civilians in Pakistan and India is acceptable losses?
How about all the IRA bombers the US is still harbouring? When can we nuke you guys for that? ;-)
They'd get handed over. No one wants to be nuked.
How many times did the Soviets attack U.S. skyscrapers during the Cold War? Zero. And we didn't attack theirs for the same reason. MAD is ugly, but it works when you're dealing with whole nations -- just not when you're dealing with individual zealots. So the trick is to get all nations on board against the zealots.Fallout is an interesting dilemma; a "clean" bomb would go a long way there.
Let us take it one step further, what about when the Dali Lama lands in American asking for political asylum. If we refuse to hand him over to China, can they nuke us back into the dark ages?When is the last time the Dalai Lama blew up a skyscraper? As soon as he does, you hand him over or else China goes to town.
Kirth, I actually agree with you. Hell must have frozen over and I didn't get the memo. ;)
Hey, get your own point! *Whaps CourtFool with a rolled up newspaper*
And people wonder why it is so distasteful to admit someone else may be right.
Kirth, I actually agree with you. Hell must have frozen over and I didn't get the memo. ;)
Everyone thinks I'm a screaming liberal because I don't hate gays and I don't like religious Dominionists. There are other issues out there. I look at each one separately.
I think Sun Tzu would have seen very little to commend in the US tactics since 9/11. However, the arabs would have been quite interesting to his mind.
I believe he would have seen their struggle as doing exactly what they wanted: They quite correctly saw the values of freedom, of speech, of thought, economic freedom, and so on, as the strongest asset of the US. Well-timed bombs in the London tube when the americans are growing sober 2005... In short: Killing off the american ideals of freedom opened the way for destroying american influence.
Sun Tzu would be proud. And the american politicians follow blindly into the trap.
|
"Military Tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards. So in war, the way to avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing."
Sun Tzu
Right after 9-11, when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, I convinced a lot of people I should be locked up in a nuthouse. I said, "If he's not handed over within 24 hours, drop one nuclear device on Kabul at that time, and ask for Bin Laden again.
You just failed one of Sun Tzu's lessons - Know your enemy. Afghanistan is/was a failed country, at the time there was no central government as we know it in the west. Currently outside the artificial construct that is Kabul, Afghanistan is still tribal. There is no consensus or organisation that is why it is so difficult to bring peace to a place that has been at war with its self and outsiders since before Alexander the Great or Iskander the terrible as he is also known.
If he's not handed over then, obliterate the entire nation of Afghanistan utterly to the last stone; don't even leave a goat or patch of lichen alive there. Then stop and do no more, anywhere else. I guarantee there will never be a repeat, because no nation on Earth will harbor terrorists with that kind of penalty... but you have to be incredibly sparing in it; you can't just do it to anyone you don't like."
Do you understand the concepts behind MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The Russians and Chinese will see the use of Nuclear Weapons as a threat this would heighten their paranoia pushing the world into another not so cold war.
Also the economic damage done to the US would cripple her. As the US is seen to be over reacting the us would suffer more trade embargoes and boycotts.
This would drive the more "moderate" Islamic nations and allies of the US to the other side, You would loose Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.
Israel would do its best to capitalise on the situation and Nuke Damascus, Tehran, and Baghdad (this is pre invasion). The world would be a humanitarian, economic and ecological mess.
A few years later, and Bin Laden is still at large, and we're mucking around in Iraq...
There that's it you have found the reason the campaign in Afghanistan is not going so well, and Osama has not been apprehended.
Never fight a war on two fronts if you can help it. There was no reason to invade Iraq. They weren't involved with the Taliban or 911.
The invasion of Iraq lost you the good will of the Europeans (Who are still helping you in Afghanistan by the way (Although aside from the British and Dutch not pulling their weight))and Moderate Middle Eastern Nations.
The invasion of Iraq has ruined your economy - Imagine how much the war has cost and all that money could have covered the Subprime crisis several times over.
Also the "caves" in the Torra Bora Mountains would hold out against a Nuclear Strike.
Imagine if the US had not diluted its response maintained world consensus and concentrated on the war in Afghanistan and left Iraq to sort its own mess out.
Dwarf-- Understand all that, and referenced most of it. Your predictions are equally as good as mine -- both sets are firmly in the realm of "we'll never know."
BTW, I'll happily cede that instead of "all of Afghanistan," I should really have specified "all Taliban-controlled territory" -- as you correctly point out, the two are not necessarily synonymous.
Maybe he would have won.
Dwarf-- Understand all that, and referenced most of it. Your predictions are equally as good as mine -- both sets are firmly in the realm of "we'll never know."
BTW, I'll happily cede that instead of "all of Afghanistan," I should really have specified "all Taliban-controlled territory" -- as you correctly point out, the two are not necessarily synonymous.
My question is this: Would the Afghanis living in Taliban-controlled territory be considered acceptable collateral damage? Just because a person or group is in charge, it does not follow that the citizens of that area are in agreement with those in charge. It could be that the majority of them simply want to live their lives in peace...much like those who died in the attack on the towers. I don't see the value in that exchange.
I don't see the value in that exchange.
You mean, as opposed to invading Iraq instead?
|
Sun Tzu would have realised that declaring war on a concept rather than an actual tangible enemy would have been futile and so the War on Terror would never have been fought. You might as well declare a War on Fear or a War on Paranoia or a War on Freedom. Hey, "I am going to declare a War on Terror on that guy!"
Sun Tzu would have realised that declaring war on a concept rather than an actual tangible enemy would have been futile...
Agreed. Talk about besieging walled cities.
|
|
Sun Tzu also said that the best way to win is not to fight.
Remember that we are not fighting an enemy over territory or resources as in the wars in the past. They do not envy us for our wealth, power, or territory. This is a war of philosophy. Our philosophy is that every person is born with freedoms of life, liberty and to pursue happiness coupled with the right of a citizen to freedom of religion, speech, and the ability to question and change our own laws. Not to
mention that religion has no place in government. Compare that to our
enemies who beleive in extreme religious dictatorship. This is a war
of cultures pitting a culture of freedom against a culture of religious persecution. Slaughtering people wholesale in the full view
of the world is only going to make martyrs. Compromise and appeasement
only encourage more violence as they see it as a reward for mayhem.
To fight it we must be equal parts strong, fierce, and determined to root out those who would harm us, but maintain a moral high ground at the same time. More, we must believe in our own cause and not pander and make compromises to an enemy which sees that as opportunity and weakness. Ours is the most powerful philosophy in history. It brought us from being a monarchist colony to the most powerful, richest nation on earth. What has extreme religious dictatorship ever brought us?
Know your enemy. Know the ground. Attack the enemy's heart.
Can war really be avoided without compromise?
|
|
It was the compromises that I feel encourages an anemy to start a war. No enemy would attack a nation which bore the advantages of superior power, righteous cause/morale, and just cause in the eyes of the world.
For decades they have seen our response to their world-wide murder spree as haphazard, mis-informed, clumsy, and politically divided. The perfect enemy to fight by Sun Tzu's standards.
I don't see the value in that exchange.You mean, as opposed to invading Iraq instead?
No, and that's a swerve; you didn't answer the question. What I think of the Iraq war is irrelevant to my question. In the initial scenario you were operating under the presumption that the Iraq war wouldn't happen.
|
|
Sun Tzu would have realised that declaring war on a concept rather than an actual tangible enemy would have been futile and so the War on Terror would never have been fought. You might as well declare a War on Fear or a War on Paranoia or a War on Freedom. Hey, "I am going to declare a War on Terror on that guy!"
But the War on Drugs has been a flawless success, hasn't it?
Oh wait...
|
Sun Tzu would have realised that declaring war on a concept rather than an actual tangible enemy would have been futile and so the War on Terror would never have been fought. You might as well declare a War on Fear or a War on Paranoia or a War on Freedom. Hey, "I am going to declare a War on Terror on that guy!"But the War on Drugs has been a flawless success, hasn't it?
Oh wait...
One word MEXICO
One word MEXICO
In order to win the war on drugs, we invade Mexico? Then the Colombians will just be smuggling cocaine across our border from Guatemala...
No, and that's a swerve; you didn't answer the question. My question is this: Would the Afghanis living in Taliban-controlled territory be considered acceptable collateral damage?
I did answer, earlier, but I'll try again:
It depends. IF my hypothesis is correct -- that nations/established power groups facing obliteration would cease to support/harbor terrorists, and therefore terrorist activities would decrease in scale and in frequency -- THEN we'd have to compare how many Afghani civilians were being cold-bloodedly traded for how many future civilian terrorist victims. Remember, the hypothesis is that no group in power wants to be nuked, and will go to great lengths to prevent it. If refusing to harbor terrorists is all it takes, then (unlike the terrorists themselves) the established power groups will prefer that option to martyrdom.
A point could be made that we'd have to look at intangibles as well: what would living in that world be like? Safer? More fear instead of less? -- but there's really no way I can think of to assess that.
|
|
Kirth,
We cannot start nuking every nation that is suspected of harboring terrorists. Aside from matters of simple humanity and the slaughtering of millions of civilians, think about the fallout from just one nuke.
When Chernyobl went critical half of Europe was affected by the fallout. Millions of tons of produce had to be destroyed and the
health of millions of people across the area are still in question.
There is no way to confine a nuke to just the people or nations responsible. And it would give carte-blanche to N.Korea, Pakistan, and even the terorists to start chukking nukes at us. A nuke explodes in
NYC - now go find the fingerprints. What if the terrorists are based in Utah?
We cannot start nuking every nation that is suspected of harboring terrorists.
I agree. The nation or established power group in question would have to be confirmed, not suspected, of harboring terrorists wanted for specific heinous acts. That nation would then be given the opportunity to hand over said terrorists (or at least assisting in locating them); doing so gets them off the hook.
This doesn't help against domestic groups, but it would sure cut down on governmental-scale funding going to known terrorist groups, beacause the penalty for being found out is too steep.
So far, all arguments against are based on the assumption that no nation would ever cooperate. That misreads the entire premise, which is to make cooperation more advantageous than non-cooperation. All it would take is one example -- one device used -- to demonstrate serious intent; I'm hypothesizing that after that, no further demonstration would be needed.
|
|
My point is that one 'demonstration' would be enough to enrage an entire geographic area against us and set off a nuclear domino effect that would engulf our cities one by one. Right now the act of using such a device is unthinkable by anyone, including the badguys because of one reason: The first one to use it will be hated, despised, and be the enemy of all nations and people everywhere. That includes us. A nuke set off in Afghanistan or Pakistan would kill all of those who are actively fighting the Taliban, but poeple in India, China, Iran, and all the neighboring countries to the north once the wind gets hold of the radioactivity and starts affecting everything from childbirths to goats milk. All the Taliban would have to do for the next 100 years would be to hold up a dead, deformed Chinese baby, yell "See - Told you they were Evil!" - and they would get 1 million volunteers from 50 different countries.
|
|
My point is that one 'demonstration' would be enough to enrage an entire geographic area against us and set off a nuclear domino effect that would engulf our cities one by one. Right now the act of using such a device is unthinkable by anyone, including the badguys because of one reason: The first one to use it will be hated, despised, and be the enemy of all nations and people everywhere. That includes us. A nuke set off in Afghanistan or Pakistan would kill all of those who are actively fighting the Taliban, but poeple in India, China, Iran, and all the neighboring countries to the north once the wind gets hold of the radioactivity and starts affecting everything from childbirths to goats milk. All the Taliban would have to do for the next 100 years would be to hold up a dead, deformed Chinese baby, yell "See - Told you they were Evil!" - and they would get 1 million volunteers from 50 different countries.
And some of the countries affected also have nukes, quite a lot of them in the case of China. They might host terrorists as the US wouldn't dare attack them for fear of MAD. Of course, as the US will have proven to be a mad dog, they might just decide to put it down to protect themselves. They'd certainly cancel your loans and that would cripple the US far worse than a dozen 9/11s.
One nuke goes off, and the world changes drastically. And not in good ways, by any measure.
And do not forget: The defcon system has more or less clearly defined points at which the defcon rating is increased... but none to decrease it. One nuke goes off, the entire world starts preparing for atomic holocaust. At that point, any sort of provocation anywhere in the world would set the tinderkeg off.
It is possible that nuclear war might not be quite as destructive as was envisioned during the 80s... but I doubt it would be a very constructive phase of mankind's history.
Saying things like "nuke the bastards" in discussions like this is PRECISELY the reason why people see americans as arrogant and uneducated.
Not that all americans are, I'll admit.
Never fight a war on two fronts if you can help it. There was no reason to invade Iraq. They weren't involved with the Taliban or 911.
The invasion of Iraq lost you the good will of the Europeans (Who are still helping you in Afghanistan by the way (Although aside from the British and Dutch not pulling their weight))and Moderate Middle Eastern Nations.
I'd like to make an addendum/correction to what you just wrote here, seeing that I'm from a country which is actually helping out a lot and trying to make a difference in Afghanistan. Denmark has, despite being a very small country with a relatively small army, time and time again been commended by said British and Dutch forces for really doing a great and hard job in one of the worst provinces in Afghanistan, the Helmand province.
That being said, I am ashamed of my country's involvement, albeit small and relatively brief, in the war in Iraq. We have had a government who largely kowtowed to every little nudge from the Bush administration... oh, and wouldn't you look at that, our former prime minister just happened to become the new general secretary of Nato (he stepped down as prime minister when he announced his candidacy for the Nato post, just weeks before he was elected). I'm sure that's a total coincidence.
Our involvement in Afghanistan is slightly different, however, and I fully blame the shift of focus to Iraq for the mire the offensive is in now. This has also cost the life of a friend and former student of mine, something that might have been avoided if the whole thing had been handled differently (i.e. competently) from the start.
Instead, when we're trying to help the general population by e.g. building schools, they're torn down or bombed by illiterate tribesmen wanting their religious dogma imposed on everyone.
To be more on point regarding the subject of this thread, I immediately thought of the same as Chubbs McGee wrote above. You can't really wage a war on a philosophy or concept.
My personal opinion is that the only way to combat extremism in the long run is through education, education and more education.
Can we really call ourselves civilized when we still have to resort to basic violence when trying to persuade others?
No enemy would attack a nation which bore the advantages of superior power, righteous cause/morale, and just cause in the eyes of the world.
The advantages of superior power just means might makes right. Whose righteous cause/morale? What makes ours more righteous or more morale than anyone else’s? Just cause in the eyes of the world? Are you familiar with an impotent little organization called the United Nations? They are anything but.
First:
Sun Tzu was not a person, or if he was he didn't come up with all this on his own it was a complilation of many militarty theorists more then likely. If I recall correctly he mentions tactics with chariots, which in china were used for only a short period of time, not during the time the book was actually suppose to be written.
Second:
My personal belief is war is meant to be harsh and brutal, if it becomes anything else well let me quote a few generals about that topic.
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over"
- Union General William T. Sherman said this shortly before beginning his brutal March to the Sea
"It is well that war is so terrible--we should grow too fond of it"
- Robert E. Lee
More to the point that the harsher you are in war the less often you will be tested by it. Nathan Bedford Forrest often gave a stern warning to opposing forces and it more often then not got a surrender then a fight. His warning was: "If you surrender you shall be treated as prisoners of war, but if I haveto storm your works you may expect no quarter." Harsh and inhuman but it cost less lives that way. Or I should say cost him less of his soldiers' lives.
I think going out of our way to avoid civilian causalties is frankly a mistake. I do not advocate the use of nukes persay. If they use human shields we must show them we will not be diswayed by them and bomb anyway. If they take prisoners we need to try and write them off as casualties of war and go on as if they had killed those they took. (rescue attempts are fine, but don't stop normal military actions) If we take a lose we must not be bowed and back off, it only encourages such actions. What we did in Lebanon in the 80s or Somalia in the 90s were perfect examples of failure on our part to show we would not be bowed. In both cases we took a bloody hit and then backed out, we should have done the reverse and increased our military efforts.
All that said Iraq was a huge blunder. There was no need to go in, no gain to be had, and no way to get out. Blame Bush, also blame the congress though they supported it when it started. And once you spill blood in a War it's too late to debate it. You either are completely committed to it, or you are cruelly throwing American lives away.
Again I do not support the use of nukes, except rare situations. I think in WWII it was justifed honestly.
|
|
Having Superior Power does not mean "might makes right". That is a separate philosophy. Power is the tool of the philosophy which controls it. Be it the power of the Free and Just or the power
of the Greedy and Envious.
Righteous morale comes from the individual's knowlege that he/she is following a philosophy or cause based on Freedom and Justice. And, although I share your opinion of the U.N. as a stage for the use of slathering monkeys (argue if you will) the respect (not love or fear)of nations like Denmark, England, China, etc. are important on many different levels.
My point is that one 'demonstration' would be enough to enrage an entire geographic area against us and set off a nuclear domino effect that would engulf our cities one by one. Right now the act of using such a device is unthinkable by anyone, including the badguys because of one reason: The first one to use it will be hated, despised, and be the enemy of all nations and people everywhere. That includes us.
Except we've already used two.
Anyway, your projected response is as hypothetical as mine; I was up-front with the fact that my idea was and is totally hypothetical, not a serious proposal. I outlined one possible scenario that could result from it, and was very careful to mention how we'd never know whether it would play out that way. Arguing against it from a standpoint of oracular certainty seems a bit odd -- especially given the overwhelming world support of the U.S. and condemnation of the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden, until we ruined all that by wandering off into Iraq.
Re: fallout, not all nuclear weapons are equally dirty. And unless hiding in caves is an issue, conventional saturation bombing (like the allies did to Dresden) would serve much the same purpose, in terms of my scenario. The bottom idea is that (a) people become terrrorists because they feel they have little to lose; (b) established power groups have a lot to lose; (c) if "b" have enough to lose, they'll be more likely to stop actively supporting (financing and sheltering) "a".
|
|
WWSTT? (What Would Sun Tzu Think?)Sun Tzu would admire our technology and our ability to wage total war.
Sun Tzu would scoff at our strategy.
Sun Tzu would admonish us for our lack of will to wage total war effectively.
-Skeld
Wait a second. You actually READ "The Art of War", and didn't just cherry pick a few quotes, out of context, to support your point?
:)
|
Wait a second. You actually READ "The Art of War", and didn't just cherry pick a few quotes, out of context, to support your point?
Ha! Imagine that! I read The Art of War back in college when I was taking some military history and theory courses. Sun Tzu had some excellent thoughts on military tactics and strategy (for the day). Some of it doesn't hold much water today and he doesn't get much into the "war as a tool of diplomacy" arguments; he was a soldier, not a politician.
-Skeld
Sun Tzu would have (and did) say go in as if you are already dead, strike only to kill the enemy, anything less is to accept defeat.