irateplatypus

I've been giving this some thought lately. Decided to toss it out on TFP and see if it provokes some thoughtful discussion.

Could the U.S. win a major war again? Keep in mind that I'm talking about wars on a multinational scale. Even though our triumph in WWII was only 60 years ago... i'm not convinced that we could. For all this patronizing talk of American resiliency and conviction... i see a lot of waffling and unwillingness to sacrifice.

I just don't think our nation has the unity it desparately needed in years past. The media has grown much more powerful and it is never sated by anything less than the most dramatic of interpretations. The "antiwar" contingent is growing and people today have more to lose and seem less willing to make even trifling sacrifices.

Let's be honest, the confidence we lost in ourselves during Vietnam has given rise to a culture of people who are unabashedly proud of the detrimental effect on our warfighting ability. whether a war is just or not, the vast majority of the citizens must be on board for a success. I believe that there is a large enough contingent of people that oppose all war (some with more sincere reasons than others) to make it impossible for a protacted and costly war to be waged no matter the cause.

i realize that there were those who doubted our decision to engage in the second world war and that history has made fools out of them. sadly, i do not think that there are sufficient numbers of people who would take the same side of history were our present population to be transported to 1940.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Dragonlich

I think you're wrong. The US still is an industrial powerhouse, it has one of the most educated populations on the planet, and it's extremely rich. The best an enemy would have to offer is either masses of low-tech infantry and tanks (China), or masses of low-tech guerrilla fighters. The first might look impressive, but can be destroyed quite quickly with modern weapons (see the '91 gulf war), while the last doesn't really cut it in a major war.

Compared to most people on this planet, the US citizen is (still) very patriotic; I suspect that enough will rise up to the challenge when the time comes. The anti-war crowd can't stop them from fighting in a just war, no matter how hard they try - besides, during a war, the anti-war crowd will be silenced pretty damn quickly.

Pacifier

not sure, but I think the biggest weakness of the US army is that they overestimate themself. The US hasn't fought a "real" enemy for a long time (since ww2 or Korea) all the other wars were fought against poorly equipped and trained troops.
China may be no "high tech" army now (but they are not as low tech as some want to believe) but they will become the major thread to the US.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

ARTelevision

No. I don't think our population is able to cohere to a sufficient extent to win a major war. This would be due mainly to the manner in which we are influenced by the divisive and corrosive power of contemporary media.

__________________
create evolution

Mephisto2

Due partly perhaps, but not mainly.

I suspect that modern societies are simply unable to sustain, to accept, the kinds of sacrificies that would result from a major war.

Witness the lengths the Pentagon went to prevent publication of pictures of American coffins returning from Iraq. And that was only when casualties stood in the hundreds. The Vietnam war was lost as much "at home" as it was on the battlefield, and one of the main reasons for this was 40,000 American deaths.

I just don't think America, or any nation other than perhaps Russia or China, has the stomach for war anymore.


Mr Mephisto

tecoyah

We could, and would win a War if we went about it in the way we did in WWII. With Allies, and with a well defined purpose. The American people are not fully behind this War simply because it is undefined, and carries much baggage in the way of misinformation, and subterfuge.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Dragonlich

I'd say it totally depends on the situation. If the war is seen as unnecessary, far away and not that important to the everyday life of the people, the war will be unpopular, and every dead soldier will be one too many. However, if the war is a direct threat to the way of life of a people, they will be able to accept most sacrifices.

Two examples:
1) China invades Taiwan. The US would be able to intervene, but most Americans wouldn't want to do that. The war won't be popular, and a lot of dead US soldiers will probably mean a swift end to the war.
2) China invades the US. The US population would fight back en masse, no matter what the cost, simply because their very lives are at stake.

Some posters here seem to think that people were very different 60 or 70 years ago. They weren't - most people didn't want to fight a war in the 40s, but when they *had* to fight, they fought with all they had. They fought even though the nightmare of WW1 was still in the back of their heads. Therefore, I doubt people today (with the Vietnam war in the background) would be unwilling to fight if forced to.

One further note: before WW1, many people believed that modern society would be unable to cope with a long war, simply because it was so destructive and deadly - countries would simply be unable to pay the price (economically and in human lives). They were wrong, as four years of trench warfare proved. After that, people vowed that this should never again happen, because the world would be unable to cope with another such war. WW2 proved them wrong. Now here we are, saying the exact same things, and I hope WW3 won't be needed to prove us wrong.

nanofever

I was hoping to post this, but tecoyah beat me to it like a red-headed step-child.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Mephisto2

I don't think people are the same.

Today's media society brings the horror of war into the living room. Even "everyday" things that were acceptable 50 years ago are no longer considered so.

It's hard to put into words what I've been thinking for some time. Basically, people today are "softer" than they were in the past. Society is no longer willing to accept things that it once was. Regulations on everything from food safety to manufacturing standards to what is socially acceptable (smoking for example) all are moving towards protecting people from unnecessary death and suffering.

The same applies in law enforcement and military operations.

If the Rodney King incident had happened in the 50's, no one would have batted an eye. Even if we take the racial aspect out of the equation, "softening up" suspects was accepted and even everyday practice back then. Today there would be an outrage, as there rightly was in New York recently.

Militarily, America suffered great casualties during WWII, Korea and (to a lesser degree) in Vietnam. In each war, the public's willingness to accept these casualties decreased, commensurate with an increase in unwillingness to support wars.

Look at what happened in Somalia. One video tape of a soldier being dragged through the streets and the President recalls the entire American forces. However, that kind of thing happened regularly in WWII. No one complained about the attrocities perpetrated (on both sides) during the most horrific stages of the war in the Pacific theatre.

Enemies were portrayed as sub-human, animals and they had to be defeated.

Society has evolved. It has matured.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. The same applies for all nations, even Russia and China. As we have become more "socially and internationally aware", more complex in our understandings of the world and more empathetic with other people, our stomach for death and destruction has decreased. I don't think this is a bad thing. I think it shows how society is evolving, maturing, developing.

A major war, like that in Europe in the 40's, Korean peninsula in the 50s and French Indo-China in the 60's is no longer possible (in my mind). It may start, but it would end pretty damn fast. As one poster put it, the only way something like that could conceivably happen is if the US was invaded. And you might as well say America would be invaded by Martians, as we all know that that's a physical impossibility.

So, I don't think America could win a major war, simply for the fact that I don't think it would (or could) fight a major war. Militarily? Yes. Socially? Absolutely not.


Mr Mephisto


PS - Before anyone goes off their hat, the same applies (in my opinion) to almost all nations today. It's a human thing, not an American thing. Keep your knee-jerk nationalism to yourself. :-)

ARTelevision

I do not disagree in significant ways with your analysis.

I disagree with your opinion of what it signifies and your judgement.

To me this situation does not represent maturation and evolution. Instead it represents immaturity, myopia, and delusion. And it it is not a good thing.

__________________
create evolution

Mephisto2

Well, if it is immature to want to avoid war and conflict, call me a baby.

If it is myopic to wish to avoid conflict where possible, pass me my glasses.

If it is delusional to strive to avoid unnecessary wars, then I'm a fish.


Good natured sarcasm intended. Not the nasty kind... :-)



Seriously though, if we look at society and even civilization's slow and inexorable development over the ages, some common themes are apparent. One is the gradual decrease in barbarity and suffering.

1000 years ago, things happened every day that we would turn pale at even witnessing.

200 years ago, Europe engaged in the first true world war, and a great nation was born out of a barbarous revolution.

Less than 100 years ago, Europe and America marched into another world war celebrating the pomp and circumstance of the whole idea.

50 years ago, the world reluctantly went to war with institutionalized evil (in the name of National Socialism).

20 years ago, America went to war in Vietnam for dubious reasons (at least to a significant proportion of the US population).

The general theme is that society, as it evolves (and by definition it is evolution), is becoming less willing to embroil itself in large-scale wars and massive loss of human life.

How could this NOT be a good thing?!!


Mr Mephisto

tecoyah

It is fortunate that Individual interpretation of societal evolution is expressed freely, as the perspectives gained help to continue said evolution. I would like to believe in the movement of civilization away from violent reaction, and destruction based on societal differences. War in the past was generally based on reaction to colonialism/Land Grabs.Todays violence seems to lean more towards theological/civil unrest.
I suppose it is revealing to see we no longer focus on taking over the physical properties of each other, and have decided to kill for mindset instead. Something to think about...anyway.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ubertuber

There is another side of the question - could the U.S., or anyone for that matter, end another major war? With the relative success of guerilla action (and widespread media coverage of it) in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I wonder if we'll ever see a war again that has a traditional "ending point". I would think that there are too many individuals in a country or even outside of that country (as in Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups) that are willing to act in ways that would prevent a new equilibrium (peace) from establishing itself. Is it possible that the current state of affairs in places like Israel, Iraq, India, and Pakistan reflect a new trend in societies - and further, that it is only a matter of time until this level of stable chaos reaches countries such as the U.S., U.K., France, and Australia?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Dragonlich

Ubertuber, if we want to, we could utterly eradicate an entire country fighting us - that'd pretty much end a war... However, some people will continue to fight, but as long as they're isolated, they don't pose much of a threat.

Example: I just read a book about a Japanese soldier who "fought on" until the 70s, simply because he hadn't been ordered to surrender. In reality, he was more concerned with survival, but he did occasionally raid local villages on the island he was living on.

Ustwo

Irate - Remember those first few weeks after 9/11.

We could win, we would be united, and after we won the left would complain about it

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

nanofever

Number of posts above Ustwo's which avoided left/right political ad homs - 13
Number of words in the Ustwo's post - 25
Number of un-supported, ill thoughtout troll attempts - 1
The day Ustwo is banned for excessive trolling - priceless


When every method of intelligent thought is absent, there's Mastertroll.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

irateplatypus

i've given your post a lot of consideration tecoyah... but there is a wrinkle in it that give me pause. you see, i do not believe that the fractured response to the iraq war is due to clouded circumstances (at least not entirely). a lot of it has to do with people opposing either war or the current President under all conditions. it cannot be pure coincidence that the vast majority of people who oppose the war voted against the President in 2000 while the supporters of the war also supported the President. We're fighting the war along party lines... if it were genuine confusion due to lack of effective prosecution do you not think there would be weaker partisan polarization?

i think when considering how united the country was in WWII, we're now unable to view the response to war w/out history's approval of the war's success and justness. we didn't know about concentration camps or hitler's plan for the world when we began the war. we didn't fully understand the scope and cost of the war in the Pacific until we had won at the cost of thousands and thousands of young men. all these things were unknown... victory was certainly not assured. it was a big gamble that required YEARS of personal sacrifice and catastrophic loss of life.

now i know that last paragraph isn't news to any TFP'er, i'm not intending to patronize you all. but i think it illustrates that in WWII we could not have been as sure of ourselves while we were fighting as we are looking back in history at our monumental accomplishment. they could not have known that their efforts weren't going to be met with staggering defeat.

i think that all wars start with grumbling, political division, and doubt. i'm not sure that we have the resolve to prosecute an extended and costly campaign no matter the justness if its purpose.

ustwo - that's what bothers me. there was a point recently when we ALL were on the same page. too bad that lasted for 8 months or so... at a time when there so few war casualties. i'm worried that is the full measure of our resolve.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Strange Famous

No, nobody can "win" an atomic war. If there is ever another major war then no one will win and a minimum of two thirds of the worlds population will be destroyed.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ustwo

One thing is that its easy to remember being united AFTER the fact, but its not like everything was all flowers and sunshine in terms of unity before and during the world wars.

Last weekend I was talking with my Grandfather. We were talking politics and he said that his father, who was a life long democrat, never forgave FDR and really hated the man.

Why?

Well in 1940 the draft was a VERY controversial issue. FDR wanted a draft. The republican at the time may well have been able to defeat FDR had he come out against the draft, but he too thought it was good for the country and supported the idea.

Well FDR used to do his fireside chats. He said that while they would draft at 18 years old, no boy would be allowed to fight until he was 21. From what my Grandfather said, this made a lot of people less worried about the draft sending the 'boys' to war. Well my grandfather was fighting on Iwo Jima at 19.

America has never been 100% united in any war, a lot of people supported the idea we should have joined the Germans in WWI (after all they never invaded us!), others thought the Nazi's were great and if anything we should be more like them, but we manage anyways.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

You are lucky you are still posting after your 'I like Karl Roves cock' comment you made.

Lighten up kid.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Strange Famous

As for WWII, you have to consider the situation... America made a huge contribution to the victory of the Allies, but it was Russia who really destroyed Germany (and Russia paid a human cost over 10 times that of the US and UK combined)... Russia evolved from a virtual 19th century army to the equal of the Nazi's in three years.

Japan never had any chance of defeating a nation as mighty as the United States, their only hope was to win sme ground in the Pacific and then negoiate a favourable peace... of course they underestimated the resolution of the American people - outraged to be attacked they would not rest until Japan was destroyed as an independent nation state - the great credit to America is that so many of the Japanese people were saved in this action.

You have to bare in mind that as America (with UK and free French forces) swept through Western Europe, the Red Army had already beaten Germany... American's intervention in the war certainly did change the course of history... without America some sort of peace with the Nazi's could have happened... ground to a halt by the Russians, Hitler (who was dying anyway by 1945) would (as he eventually was) have been replaced by a more moderate and reasonable figure, there would have been a partial withdrawal... who can say what would have happened... although after 1941 the UK was not under serious threat of invasion, they lacked the forces to invade German France... France was gripped in a virtual civil war and unable to mount effective opposition.. the Balkans would have fallen to the British after Montgomery's vitory in Africa and the continued Greek and Yugoslav resistance... personally I think without the US attack on Germany (and the Japanese attack on America) Germany would have withdrawn from Holland, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Italy - and the boundries would have been drawn through the middle of Ukraine between the Soviet empire and the German empire... what would have happened next I cannot guess. We must never underestimate the impact of America on the WWII, but I think we have to be careful of thinking America "won world war II and saved Europe's ass" this is a very simplistic misunerstanding of the real situation.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ustwo

If Stalin had not been so parinoid, gutting the Red army before WWII, and murdred it trained officers odds are Germany wouldn't have attacked in the first place. But thats the kind of wack things communist governments lead to.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

nanofever

Thirteen other people above you decided they could leave Left/Right arguments at the door and discuss the topic without resorting to political ad homs which would get the thread de-railed. I was just pointing out that you can't seem to leave liberal/left/democrat bashing out of a single thread.

Also, I noticed you altered what I said in that quotation.

1. I didn't use such a nice verb when describing how you dote over Karl Rove's every action. I said I was sorry I used such harsh language around you later in the thread.

2. You created a grammatical error when you misquoted my statement. When you are misquoting my statements, please try to keep the grammer correct. I really wouldn't care if it was in your post, but you are attributing a really egregious grammatical mistake to me.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Strange Famous

Well, Stalin was a maniac and a horrific murderer. But I have to disagree with the second part (not withstanding your claim that Stalin was a communist, which I disagree with also) - Hitler was always going to attack Russia. The Army Command did not want him to ANYWAY, but after the triumph's in Poland and Western Europe, at that time he reigned supreme and no one could stop him... ideologically Hitler was incapable of not attacking Russia... even 1941, German intelligence was reporting Russian tank production and so on... and it was dismissed as defeatism.

Stalin was responsible for many murders of the officers of the Red Army... which is cleary a crime of horrible proportions, but that it hindered the war effort is disputable.

As for lauding someone like Stalin in defeating Nazism, it is a lesser of two evils, although Stalin clearly represented evil, he was sane in most respects at least.

As an aside, although many chose to potray the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as a masterful piece of dimplomacy to buy time by Stalin, there is a lot of evidence that Stalin was sent into a nervous breakdown by the German attack. But although he knew the least about modern warfare of the Allied leaders at the start of the war, he knew the most by the end. If Russia had fallen in the first attack - America never would have been able to enter the European war.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Rekna

Since when do wars have winners? I'm sorry but in war we all lose.

As for the "Win" discussed in the question. Do I think it is possible to have a clear win in war today? No not really, I don't think the US or any country for that matter can really win a war. Today wars are different they involve gurrila fighting and lots of media. Now on the other hand do I think the US could lose a war? Nope not at all.

ARTelevision

Two members carping and throwing barbs at each other could be considered perversely entertaining, I suppose. The problem - because of the social nature of this type of community/forum - is that the behavior is replicated by others and sets a tone that encourages degeneration.

Please stop the acerbic back and forth that we've witnessed above. At a certain point, it's better to address points rather than people. It becomes very clear in practice where that point is and when it has been reached.

__________________
create evolution

smicer

Fairly naive statement. It is True that there is much more media coverage today, however, guerilla fighting has always been a component of war.

Strange Famous

the media can unite as quickly as it divides... it does not have a morality or purpose of its own, which is separate from the economic system and the state and ruling class which this system creates.

ie - the media can "divide and conquer" the working class and cause people to bicker constantly about which corporate president/prime minister one has - rather than working to rebuild the whole system

or the media can play patriotic Russian music through the streets of Stalingrad, and rouse the Russian people into the great patriotic war in defence of a deeply unpopular dictatorship.

The media is just an instrument, it reflects the interests of capital in a capitalist society, the interests of the state in a dictatorship, it has no power of independent action in my opinion. Of course the media undermines public opinion on the war in Iraq... this war is against the principle of the market, if the conquerer's of Mexico did not mean it, the capitalist does... we take nothing by conquest, thank God!

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

irateplatypus

i think rekna touched on a very crucial point...

it used to be (from antiquity to the middle ages) that the definition of a victory was pretty clear-cut. you could tell who won very easily... the winners would be carting the losers stuff back home and the losers would have their leader's head posted on a pole outside their city.

perhaps because the stakes are exponentially much higher, today there are immeasurably more factors and considerations that are taken into account. can a major war be winnable at all? i don't buy the idea that everyone loses in every war, but the situation certainly appears to be more complex than it has in the past.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Ustwo

Of course it can be winnable, but today you have talking heads who have nothing better to do then make it seem like you are losing.

Really today the stakes are less high, at least for the losers. Just think how CNN would have handled Rome vrs Hannibal had they been there to cover it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rekna

Yes but the combination of them is what makes it bad. War is dirty and now people know it.

Strange Famous

How can you win a war that involves nuclear strikes by both sides?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ustwo

First we are talking more about the morale and societal issues than a full out nuclear war.

Secondly the US right now could win a nuclear war in the classic sense of winning. The Chinese haven't caught up yet, and the Russians are too poor to keep their equipment functioning. The Islamic states and North Korea can not threaten us yet.

We could obliterate our traditional enemies while suffering little in return. Our submarines are unchallenged, the soviet fleet is rotting, quite literally. Our battlefield intelligence is superior, as is the training of our troops.

If we were as evil as some would like to believe we would quite literally rule the world.

This won't last much longer, and we will end up in another cold war with a brutal communist power in the Chinese, but for now we reign supreme.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

Not that your assessment of our traditional enemies' military capabilities holds any water with anyone but you...

Anyways, even if america could nuke every country that was a potential threat there would still be hell to pay when it came to dealing with the large portion of the world that we didn't nuke. If you think the world hates us now, just wait and see how they feel about us if we ever commit nuclear genocide on select countries that we don't even have current beef with. America may not be weak militarily, but we certainly are vulnerable to economic sanctions, especially if the teams involved are us vs the world. Even moreso with the increasing rates of offshoring. In short, the reason we haven't nuked anybody is the fact that it would be a really shortsighted and counterproductive thing to do.

Rekna

God you people are forgetting that if we nuked a couple countries we would destroy the earth. How can you win a nuclear war? (answer: you can't). If to many nukes were launched the nuclear fallout/winter that would follow would make sure that there were no winners.

MAD

OpieCunningham

This discussion, although on the surface very interesting, is essentially flawed due to a complete lack of context.

It is not enough to say "the media is too divisive to enable the U.S. to support a large multinational war".

China and the U.S. will not get involved in another Cold War - each side has much to lose by eliminating trade with the other and China has expressed no interest in expanding into Europe - so the threat of world-wide Chinese communism is nil.

The Middle East is not going to attack the U.S. in any consolidated, large-scale fashion. And when some people in the Middle East have attacked with small-scale one-off events, what happened? Almost everyone in the U.S. supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

What is happening now in the U.S. is a division based on a fundamental lack of clarity in purpose. Prior to invading Iraq, polls showed a strong majority only supported the war if it was sanctioned by the U.N. That we now split along party lines is due to the concept that some people have that under almost any circumstance, the President should be supported. Today's situation is not a quality example of How America Views Large Scale Multinational War.

On the other hand - if someone is trying to convince me that it is necessary to launch a pre-emptive large scale war - then assuredly I would adamantly oppose it with everything I have in me.

Strange Famous

I am not sure if you understand what a nuclear war would mean.

If a mere 50 bombs (of the arsenal of 10,000 aimed at the US) where to get through, the US would be anhiliated. The US may well anhialate their enemies at the same time, but is mutual destruction a victory?

And the Russian nuclear weapons are still well maintained (that they are all rusting away is a myth), China, has enough weapons to obliterate America five times over, and America could obliterate the whole Euroasian continent... this is what nuclear war means.

It puts me in mind of the general, who when talking about MAD said "if there's only two Americans left, and only one of those Russian bastards, thats means we've won!"

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ustwo

I think you underestimate the US and over esimate everyone else.

We could launch a strike in such a manner that they would have almost no time to react. Having a bomb doesn't matter if it can't reach its target.

Cruise missiles can be armed with nuclear weapons, and are almost undetectable.

We wouldn't say 'Hello world, hello this thing on, ok listen we are going to launch our nuclear missiles today, so if you could all get ready that would be great.'

It would be more of a 'Did you hear something?' *BOOM*.

We are also voluntarily not arming ourselves in space. We could change that at any time and again, no one could stop us. In that case you can eliminate the 'Did you hear something' moment.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

let's not forget in this discussion that a long costly war does not necessarily entail nuclear strikes. you can certainly have one without the other. to base your argument on the assumption that there must be nuclear strikes it to base your response on premises that the discussion wasn't meant to assume.

i hesitate to get into the raw technicalities of war-making capabilities, as i think the discussion would get lost in a sea of trivia. but, take it where you will...

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Fred181

What is the "classic sense of winning"? I thought that the achievement of political goals was the definition of victory... It would be very difficult for the United States, or any other nation for that matter, to achieve political goals through the use of "WMD".

And with regard to Nuclear Weapons; The intent of nuclear weapons is to impose fear. The Japanese surrendered because of the fear the weapons brought on. Using Nuclear weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan would, if anything, hurt the United States becuase there is no government to surrender. The general population may be afraid, but the carnage caused by the use of such weapons would only strengthen the will to fight in most of the rebels.

On the contrary, their military powers may not be able to threaten us YET, but through terorist means they are very much a threat. And they are a threat to the US becuase they are a threat to our allies.

__________________
My heart will be restless until it finds its final rest. Then they can weigh it...