And After Al Qaeda...

BHS · July 20, 2005

An interesting concept from Max Boot writing in the LA Times:

I went looking for the book mentioned and found a pdf file that I haven't had time to read:

If anyone has time to read it and summarize, please do.

Black Dog · July 20, 2005

Boot's article (as an aside, my first step was to choke down my distaste for Max Boot, who has been so consitently wrong about the Iraq conflict that it's hard to take his opinions seriously), doesn't reveal anything that wouldn't have already occured to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of global power dynamics.

The tactics described are part of what analysts have called Fourth Generation warfare, the twist being the prominent role played by a state actor (China). If anything, China's strategic direction would indicate their leadership is more open to new realities than the U.S. (cxurrently applying 3GW tactics to a 4GW in Iraq). That doesn't bode well for the U.S.

theloniusfleabag · July 20, 2005

Dear BHS,

The tactics described are part of what analysts have called Fourth Generation warfare, the twist being the prominent role played by a state actor (China). If anything, China's strategic direction would indicate their leadership is more open to new realities than the U.S. (cxurrently applying 3GW tactics to a 4GW in Iraq). That doesn't bode well for the U.S.

Black Dog makes an interesting point, the US is sadly ill-prepared to face a real battle. Also, don't forget, Bush and his warhawks have declared that no other country is allowed to even come close to the US in military capability. If boot is halfway correct, the US has no choice but to strike pre-emptively. But, then again, Boot is probably blowing smoke to sell his commodity.

BHS · July 22, 2005

Dear BHS,
The tactics described are part of what analysts have called Fourth Generation warfare, the twist being the prominent role played by a state actor (China). If anything, China's strategic direction would indicate their leadership is more open to new realities than the U.S. (cxurrently applying 3GW tactics to a 4GW in Iraq). That doesn't bode well for the U.S.
Black Dog makes an interesting point, the US is sadly ill-prepared to face a real battle. Also, don't forget, Bush and his warhawks have declared that no other country is allowed to even come close to the US in military capability. If boot is halfway correct, the US has no choice but to strike pre-emptively. But, then again, Boot is probably blowing smoke to sell his commodity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't get how America is unprepared for this, aside from the obvious notion that these techniques are more effective against a country that takes civil liberties seriously. Do you know more about the inner workings of the Pentagon than I do? I guess you must.

As for pre-emptive action: the idea is to act pre-emptively before your opponent has nuclear arms. Once the nuclear umbrella is in place there's nothing left but praying that MAD works long enough for your opponent to collapse under his own weight.

GostHacked · August 2, 2005

BHS

In order to start a thread, you should really read the article before discussing this more. I have not read it, so untill I do, I cannot really say about this topic, or what goes on in the Pentagon.

And I wish I could read it at work here, PDFs sometimes crash these 'great' work computers.

SirSpanky · August 3, 2005

As for pre-emptive action: the idea is to act pre-emptively before your opponent has nuclear arms. Once the nuclear umbrella is in place there's nothing left but praying that MAD works long enough for your opponent to collapse under his own weight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pre-emptive means a strike is inevitable, and you stop it by acting. What that policy entails is damaging a nation based on the idea they might someday become able to challange the US. How can this policy garner anything but resentment from the world community?

newbie · August 3, 2005

As for pre-emptive action: the idea is to act pre-emptively before your opponent has nuclear arms. Once the nuclear umbrella is in place there's nothing left but praying that MAD works long enough for your opponent to collapse under his own weight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pre-emptive means a strike is inevitable, and you stop it by acting. What that policy entails is damaging a nation based on the idea they might someday become able to challange the US. How can this policy garner anything but resentment from the world community?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly SirSpanky. For the record here's the list: as per http://encarta.msn.com/column_nukes_tamimh...osgotnukes.html

Warheads

United States - 10, 455

Russia - 8,400

China - 400

France - 340

Israel - 250*

United Kingdom - 200

India - 65*

Pakistan - 40*

North Korea - 8*

Astericks indicate our best guess

I know the pro-invasion posters would like me to have included those countries who are activitely thinking about getting nukes(wannabees - Egypt, Libya, Syria, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, and Serbia and Montenegro) and those countries who might be bluffing.

After all, USA and their mightly coalition (?) did invade Iraq on a bluff. So who will the USA take on next?

BHS · August 3, 2005

As for pre-emptive action: the idea is to act pre-emptively before your opponent has nuclear arms. Once the nuclear umbrella is in place there's nothing left but praying that MAD works long enough for your opponent to collapse under his own weight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pre-emptive means a strike is inevitable, and you stop it by acting. What that policy entails is damaging a nation based on the idea they might someday become able to challange the US. How can this policy garner anything but resentment from the world community?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, whoa there. The idea of non-proliferation is very popular, and has been for a long time. If the "world" resents the US having nukes and taking action to ensure none of these nightmare regimes gets ahold of them, then what are these non-proliferation treaties for?

I've posted before and I'd like to reiterate now, that I have serious doubts about America taking on another war through the remainder of Bush's term, and the inevitable Democratic term to follow, and I believe this has largely to do with UN/Euro whining about doing what is needed to clean up the mess of the Middle East. So if, in that time, Iran acquires nukes and (God forbid) uses them, we all know who is to blame. (Hint: not the US.)

BHS · August 3, 2005

BHS
In order to start a thread, you should really read the article before discussing this more. I have not read it, so untill I do, I cannot really say about this topic, or what goes on in the Pentagon.

And I wish I could read it at work here, PDFs sometimes crash these 'great' work computers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I started this thread based on Max Boot's article. I included a link to the subject text for information purposes only.

SirSpanky · August 3, 2005

Hey, whoa there. The idea of non-proliferation is very popular, and has been for a long time. If the "world" resents the US having nukes and taking action to ensure none of these nightmare regimes gets ahold of them, then what are these non-proliferation treaties for?
I've posted before and I'd like to reiterate now, that I have serious doubts about America taking on another war through the remainder of Bush's term, and the inevitable Democratic term to follow, and I believe this has largely to do with UN/Euro whining about doing what is needed to clean up the mess of the Middle East. So if, in that time, Iran acquires nukes and (God forbid) uses them, we all know who is to blame. (Hint: not the US.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So do you think that if by some miracle, a bush-like pres got in next term, the Americans would go into Iran? Doubtful.

You're right, you would blame Iran for Iran using nukes. Even a democrat wouldn't allow nukes to be used. But I don't see the US using means other than threats to curb Iran's ambitions. At least not on the scale that they should be.

BHS · August 3, 2005

So do you think that if by some miracle, a bush-like pres got in next term, the Americans would go into Iran? Doubtful.
You're right, you would blame Iran for Iran using nukes. Even a democrat wouldn't allow nukes to be used. But I don't see the US using means other than threats to curb Iran's ambitions. At least not on the scale that they should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not what I meant to say. I don't see the States starting into a new war in the forseeable future, no matter who is elected. (Caveat: unless some new terrorist catastrophe taking a large number of lives strikes US soil, in which case a new war is almost guaranteed, regardless of which party is in. A London train bombing sized attack isn't big enough.) My reference to a Democratic president (Hillary, actually) was added for no particularly good reason, except that I don't think a Republican will win the next election.

As for the president "not allowing" nukes to be used, I can hardly see how it would be preventable. This is the dilemma with North Korea: short of catching them by surprise with a nuclear attack of your own, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Any conventional weaponry you throw at them will surely be met by nuclear force. The Americans won't be following either option under the current circumstances. Which means that North Korea will continue to be a threat to it's neighbours for the forseeable future. This is the scenario we may one day soon be facing with Iran.

SirSpanky · August 3, 2005

I don't think the american public would allow any new military campaign anyway, so I agree with you. I just don't think running in there with abrahms and apaches is going to help.

A good diplomat, with the threat of the nuclear big stick could I think solve it with not too much trouble. As long as there wasn't a war mongering president (in the eyes of Iran) sitting right behind him/her making the cut-throat motion.