Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[bradco]

hmmm maybe they should have punished him for that when he did it 15 years ago! I dont mind knocking out Saddam I think it was a good ends but it was carried out poorly, justified for the wrong reasons and was not a war to provide security to the US. Furthermore there is no reason to be optimistic that Iraq wont fall into the hands of an even worse regime. Iraq is by no measure a success.

The UN should explain why Saddam got away with that, 15 years ago.

Sure the UN can explain how none of their members were willing to punish Saddam.

[betsy]

Luckily for the civilized world you are not in charge of defense.

Luckily...because I am not qualified at all!

But if you mean ,"luckily for the civilized world someone who thinks like me is not in charge of defense"....I'd say, what do you know?

We have not experienced that kind of an intense situation when every minute is of the essence, a race for survival....so what gives you the know-how?

I'd say hopefully....for the sake of our civilized nation, someone who thinks the way you do is not in charge of our defense.

You are willing to gamble with our existence. I am determined for us to survive...at all cost!

If your life's hanging on the balance...which method will you want to apply? Yours or mine?

[betsy]

do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

We couldn't afford to miss.

If we do, it will be our own millions of innocents who will be unnecessarily pulverized.

We dont need to use a weapon that will destroy a 300km radius to ensure we take out a small facility. We wont miss with a smaller bomb. The use of a nuclear weapon here is the biggest overkill possible.

Darn Brad, how do you know we won't miss with a smaller bomb? What makes you so sure that you wouldn't say..."ooops."

But just in case the location that intelligence provided was not exactly accurate....better be sure! I don't want to take a chance! Why should we? At such a terrible cost?

It's not as if we could just get up, shake the dust off our hair and life is back to normal again! It might be the only chance we get!

Clock's a-ticking. No such thing as overkill, when they're going to use the same method on us!

[betsy]

No state actors would ever consider attacking the US, before or after 9/11 and Bush's response. The threat comes from non-state actors who are incredibly difficult to just nuke since you have to know where they are first. That is the advantage of not having to protect a territory. Bush's actions in Afghanistan were great. He threw out the Taliban and proved that nations who harbour terrorists will be attacked. But then he gave up the hunt for Bin Laden and moved onto Iraq. US actions in Iraq provided no extra security and possibly insecurity.

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen?

They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war.

You have presented no reasons why Iraq would deter terrorist attacks.

Have you presented any reasons why it wouldn't?

[betsy]

There are lots of reaons not to: the immorality of needlessly slaughtering civilians, the danger of legitmizing the use of nuclear weapons, supplying terrorist organizations with a powerful motivating and recruiting tool

We're back to morality again? Well I find it immoral to deliberately gamble on the existence of our nation and the lives of our civilians just because we "sympathise" with enemy civilians. In the old wars, enemy sympathisers are considered traitors.

As for legitimizing use of nuclear weapons...legitimize my foot!

You mean you gonna say: wait a minute! I say wait a minute there! Hold that finger! Think before pressing that button, sir. Yes sir, I know that we are being threatened of being wiped off the map....blown to smithereens. But think of the awful consequences, sir. Nuking the enemies before they nuke us will legitimize the use of nuclear weapons!

If I were the president, you know my answer to that? Go ahead, sue me!

Anyway....I can't believe no one is already supplying you-know-who and have been recruiting for who knows how long now!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear betsy,

Clock's a-ticking. No such thing as overkill, when they're going to use the same method on us!

I assume this means you advocate genocide against all Muslims (or would you qualify with 'just the bad muslims'?). All out war may come to pass, those without the stomach for it may lose because of it.

[betsy]

Dear betsy,

Clock's a-ticking. No such thing as overkill, when they're going to use the same method on us!

I assume this means you advocate genocide against all Muslims (or would you qualify with 'just the bad muslims'?). All out war may come to pass, those without the stomach for it may lose because of it.

I guess you miss the start of this exchange between Brad and I. We are assuming a particular scenario related to first-strike.

Here's the scenario we're bantering about: Intelligence had relayed vital information that the enemy is going to launch a nuclear attack on us within 24 hours. What do we do?

a) wait and see if it's true.

strike now. (this is option b. Why is this icon appearing everytime?)

c) set up a diplomatic talk and negotiation

d) pray that they miss

e) ____ any other option? If so, what?

[Remiel]

Did you know that once upon a time, a military official disclosed that had anyone launched a nuclear strike on the U.S., that they would have launched all of their nuclear weapons aimed at everyone? Their line of logic must of been something along the line of, " If the U.S. doesn't exist, then no one else should either. " What the hell do you think that is? Logical thinking? And those were the people -supposedely- on our side! They would of killed us ALL.

Do you want to know what real *hard* truths look like? Say the world was divided up into two sides, and is has at several notable times in the last century. One side launches an all out nuclear attack on the other, and it is going to obliterate half of the planet. The side that is about to die has three choices. Finish the job and destroy everything, fire a few weapons to destroy their central government, or do nothing. You sound like someone who would advocate the first option. The second option may be a good choice, but ultimately do nothing might be the best choice. Why? Because then at least somewhere there are some people left to continue on. Most of the Cold War probably looked something like this situation, and it seems they were all for option A. Indeed, MAD relies on convincing your enemy you believe in option A, or perhaps B. However, options B and C are the only real choices. That is the truth. And it sucks, but its the way it is.

[betsy]

Did you know that once upon a time, a military official disclosed that had anyone launched a nuclear strike on the U.S., that they would have launched all of their nuclear weapons aimed at everyone? Their line of logic must of been something along the line of, " If the U.S. doesn't exist, then no one else should either. " What the hell do you think that is? Logical thinking? And those were the people -supposedely- on our side! They would of killed us ALL.

That's what you say. Care to back that up so we can verify? Sounds like one of those conspiracy theories.

[betsy]

but ultimately do nothing might be the best choice. Why? Because then at least somewhere there are some people left to continue on.

depends on what people continue. By doing nothing, we can be sure we're out of the game in your scenario. If it's a repressive regime like the Taliban that survives (and by choosing doing nothing almost ensures that)... then earth is better off making a fresh start!

FROM SCRATCH!

[Remiel]

With that comment, you have just cemented your opinions and positions as irrelevant. That is absolute proof that you are incapable of examining any issue from anything but a nearsighted, illogical, and completely useless point of view.

[betsy]

With that comment, you have just cemented your opinions and positions as irrelevant. That is absolute proof that you are incapable of examining any issue from anything but a nearsighted, illogical, and completely useless point of view.

Well....check the options that you gave. And the 'best" choice that you wanted me to agree too...so much so that I could swear there is an arrow pointing "this way."

Then read and understand what your sets of options and the scenario you presented really depict...along with what you say is the "best" choice among the three.

You're the one who gave the options, the scenario and suggested the "best" choice.

[betsy]

This is doomsday discussion..where hardly anyone will survive. Even if the US responded by launching its missiles....the missiles from the other side would have also been launched before the US missiles hit the target. And if the missiles hit each other in mid-air, those countries down below gets it. So it's really doomsday when we talk of nuclear.

BUT the possibility of this doosmday scenario exists when lunatic regimes develop such capability.

That is why pre-emptive attack is important. Strike them (not with nuclear weapons) before they get the chance to build up nuclear weapons.

Bush most probably bought the world more time when he did Iraq. Whether Iraq had nuclear or wmd or not....just the action of the US for suspecting that Iraq has the weapons made other nations think twice before they stubbornly proceed to do so.

[Remiel]

In this hypothetical scenario, we are totally screwed, whether we retaliate or not. Being totally screwed it not at all unlikely in a world where nuclear weapons are an acceptable everyday option. The question is whether you do the emotional, knee-jerk reaction and totally screw everyone, or if you take a loot at the facts and decide that the survival of the human race is more important than vengeance.

Since almost all of your comments on this issue seem to be completely self-righteous, vindictive, and emotional, of course I suggested that you be one of the people who foolishly chose the vindictive, knee-jerk choice A. I didn't actual say whether choice B or C was absolutely better. Choice B might be better because then you get a little revenge without destroying everything. Choice C might be better because at that point, every little bit on non-iradiated earth counts.

Your notion that would be better off to start from scratch than leave someone like the Taliban completely ignores that sometime between five hundred and a fifteen hundred years ago our ancestors WERE the Taliban (or rather, their equivalent). So, how can I assume anything other than your incompetence given that you would prefer the entire destruction of the planet to allowing the enemy to live just because they are evil bastards? Not all of their descendants will be evil bastards, and given a few thousand years, instead of a few million or billion, if ever, we'd have made a come back.

I said that it was a hard truth. We lose. They win. Except, they don't win. They eventually die off, and their society evolves, like ours did, and their descendants become more and more like us, perhaps even better. Hopefully better. In this scenario, them winning would be preferable to everybody losing, because eventually they won't be them.

Now, of course we don't want it to come to this again (since it has already come perilously close), but we aren't going to win by forcing a lose/lose scenario, which is exactly what nuclear weapons are.

So I will take a moment to answer your supposed original premise. Given information that the enemy plans a nuclear first strike in 24 hours, what do we do?

A is out, doing nothing, given only the possibility of a first strike and not an actual first strike, is not an option. Doing nothing is only an option if you know you are all going to die.

B is out, because the entire premise, that the enemy is going to make a nuclear first strike may be false, and even if it is true, if you launch, they will probably launch before you can disable them, and you are both screwed.

C is a possibility. If you go with this option, you have to lay out all of your cards. We're talking about nuclear war, so no playing cat and mouse games of " I know, and now I know you know I know, " because traditionally letting them know you know might be a bad strategy. That doesn't matter anymore.

D is just dumb. If they actually launch them, they aren't going to miss.

E is a number of choices. Probably the most obvious one is full out conventional warfare.

F is the possibility that none of the above are good options, and you only have bad ones.

Now, the question of whether the human species is worth saving is entirely different. Frankly, I have my doubts on that one, but I am ready to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[Remiel]

A country that is suspected of having nuclear weapons is by default incapable of a true doomsday scenario because if they had enough weapons for one, we'd know. There is no way we could not know, because there would be simply too much evidence.

[betsy]

In this hypothetical scenario, we are totally screwed, whether we retaliate or not. Being totally screwed it not at all unlikely in a world where nuclear weapons are an acceptable everyday option. The question is whether you do the emotional, knee-jerk reaction and totally screw everyone, or if you take a loot at the facts and decide that the survival of the human race is more important than vengeance.

Since almost all of your comments on this issue seem to be completely self-righteous, vindictive, and emotional, of course I suggested that you be one of the people who foolishly chose the vindictive, knee-jerk choice A. I didn't actual say whether choice B or C was absolutely better. Choice B might be better because then you get a little revenge without destroying everything. Choice C might be better because at that point, every little bit on non-iradiated earth counts.

Your notion that would be better off to start from scratch than leave someone like the Taliban completely ignores that sometime between five hundred and a fifteen hundred years ago our ancestors WERE the Taliban (or rather, their equivalent). So, how can I assume anything other than your incompetence given that you would prefer the entire destruction of the planet to allowing the enemy to live just because they are evil bastards? Not all of their descendants will be evil bastards, and given a few thousand years, instead of a few million or billion, if ever, we'd have made a come back.

I said that it was a hard truth. We lose. They win. Except, they don't win. They eventually die off, and their society evolves, like ours did, and their descendants become more and more like us, perhaps even better. Hopefully better. In this scenario, them winning would be preferable to everybody losing, because eventually they won't be them.

Now, of course we don't want it to come to this again (since it has already come perilously close), but we aren't going to win by forcing a lose/lose scenario, which is exactly what nuclear weapons are.

So I will take a moment to answer your supposed original premise. Given information that the enemy plans a nuclear first strike in 24 hours, what do we do?

A is out, doing nothing, given only the possibility of a first strike and not an actual first strike, is not an option. Doing nothing is only an option if you know you are all going to die.

B is out, because the entire premise, that the enemy is going to make a nuclear first strike may be false, and even if it is true, if you launch, they will probably launch before you can disable them, and you are both screwed.

C is a possibility. If you go with this option, you have to lay out all of your cards. We're talking about nuclear war, so no playing cat and mouse games of " I know, and now I know you know I know, " because traditionally letting them know you know might be a bad strategy. That doesn't matter anymore.

D is just dumb. If they actually launch them, they aren't going to miss.

E is a number of choices. Probably the most obvious one is full out conventional warfare.

F is the possibility that none of the above are good options, and you only have bad ones.

Now, the question of whether the human species is worth saving is entirely different. Frankly, I have my doubts on that one, but I am ready to give it the benefit of the doubt.

That's why I called it the DOOMSDAY SCENARIO...and referred to this exchange between Brad and me as "bantering." Because it isn't real! He or I don't know from squat! It's just a discussion on first-strike gone bonkers!

As for not doing anything...it might be the best for you. But who can really say if one could just sit still and sacrifice one's whole nation just so to ensure someone survives...and by that it means, we sacrifice ourselves to ensure that our enemies survive.

It's kind of noble....but in reality, how likely is that going to play out. Human nature will tend to kick in: survival. There is always hope!

Hoping it will be your own people who remain standing...whether only a handful is left.

Besides, we are more prepared for survival than most of the enemies I would say. I would bet there are already huge bunkers (complete with supplies to last for who knows how many years for so many people chosen to carry on), made to withstand nuclear attacks. We've got more to offer with a handful of our people surviving...the human race had more chances of making it! So if it's about ensuring the survival of the human race....our side shouldn't be too quick to sacrifice itself.

On top of that, if it ever came to that...we should make sure life is made less tough for the remainder of our people who manage to survive by taking out all the enemies before we go down in flames!

If we want to be noble...that's the best way to go!

[Remiel]

You do know what massive nuclear fallout is, right?

The more nuclear fallout in the world, the harder it is for everyone to surive.

[betsy]

You do know what massive nuclear fallout is, right?

The more nuclear fallout in the world, the harder it is for everyone to surive.

Yes, and I think the surface is not "live-able" for so many years. I would bet that the USA...or maybe Canada...or England...or some Mid-East countries....or any other wealthy nations who have access to the technology and has the wealth to spend... have already made preparations to have a place to go, in case of a nuclear attack.

Of course majority of us would most probably be gone, if not on direct impact...then maybe in matter of days..or months...or a few years.

[bradco]

No state actors would ever consider attacking the US, before or after 9/11 and Bush's response. The threat comes from non-state actors who are incredibly difficult to just nuke since you have to know where they are first. That is the advantage of not having to protect a territory. Bush's actions in Afghanistan were great. He threw out the Taliban and proved that nations who harbour terrorists will be attacked. But then he gave up the hunt for Bin Laden and moved onto Iraq. US actions in Iraq provided no extra security and possibly insecurity.

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen?

They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war.

You have presented no reasons why Iraq would deter terrorist attacks.

Have you presented any reasons why it wouldn't?

I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise. How can giving up the fight to find the terrorists and going after a state actor instead deter terrorism? If anything that is a victory for the terrorists....motivation of sorts. The US invovlement in the area, whether justified by our values and interests or not, is motivation to terrorists not deterrence. I think the amount of terrorists who flooded into Iraq to atatck US troops is a good illustration of how they have not been deterred whatsoever.

[bradco]

"US for suspecting that Iraq has the weapons made other nations think twice before they stubbornly proceed to do so"

Have you heard of North Korea??? Iran who is clearly going to walk the same road. Actions like those taken in Iraq do not deter nations from going nuclear, they only prove the necessity of doing so. They increase the demand of WMD as a deterrance against future attacks. For the actions in Iraq to deter a country from going nuclear they need to believe the US willalways leave them alone if they dont go nuclear. SUch a belief will never be held.

[betsy]

I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise. How can giving up the fight to find the terrorists and going after a state actor instead deter terrorism? If anything that is a victory for the terrorists....motivation of sorts. The US invovlement in the area, whether justified by our values and interests or not, is motivation to terrorists not deterrence. I think the amount of terrorists who flooded into Iraq to atatck US troops is a good illustration of how they have not been deterred whatsoever.

But actually, I've already touched on that. It's there, in one of my replies.

You've yet to explain yours though....why it wouldn't.

Anyway, what do you mean, "giving up the fight to find the terrorists?"

[bradco]

"Darn Brad, how do you know we won't miss with a smaller bomb? What makes you so sure that you wouldn't say..."ooops."

Ok you have argued we have complete intelligence of the nuclear threat. We know exactly where it is. So, to deter the attack all we need to do is cripple the countries ability to launch an ICBM, or to protect our allies their ability to launch medium to long range missiles. This does not under any circumstance require levelling cities. We are talking about taking out a place the size of a small shopping mall. Now if you really want to make sure it is destroyed use a really big bomb that will take out everything within a larger area to be overly certain. But that bomb still doesnt need to be a nuclear weapon. Either you have abslutly no understanding of weaponry whatsoever or you are just itching to commit genocide against, in this situation, most likely a muslim population. Im not sure which one to believe as you have shown yourself to be one of the most morally challenged people Ive ever talked to.

[bradco]

"giving up the fight to find the terrorists?"

Lets see how about giving up the hunt for OBL/Al Qaida and going after someone who had neither attacked you, nor had the capabilities to do so, nor had any motivation to do so.

"But actually, I've already touched on that. It's there, in one of my replies."

You havent presented any logical andlikely reasoning that proves your point

"You've yet to explain yours though....why it wouldn't."

-It isnt an attack on a non-state actor so it does not prove the US's abilities to punish a group that isnt confined to a certain territory. Therefore, there is still no credible threat and therefore no deterrance. Its quite simple really.

-Furthermore, forfeiting the hunt to find OBL and moving on to Iraq, if anything, proves to the terrorists they can get away with their attacks. It shows that the US doesnt have the resolve to hunt them down. Therefore, no deterrance.

-Thirdly, it destabilizes the region and has quite clearly led to more terrorism within Iraq. The inability of the US to bring order to Iraq shows the terrorists that they are capable of winning. No deterrance, motivation to continue attacks

[betsy]

Have you heard of North Korea??? Iran who is clearly going to walk the same road. Actions like those taken in Iraq do not deter nations from going nuclear, they only prove the necessity of doing so. They increase the demand of WMD as a deterrance against future attacks. For the actions in Iraq to deter a country from going nuclear they need to believe the US willalways leave them alone if they dont go nuclear. SUch a belief will never be held.

North Korea and Iran...the two other axis of evil.

I wouldn't say the attack on Iraq had made them bold. Check out the timing when they started getting bolder in insisting to "walk the same road." It started right after the popularity of Bush in the USA had gone down dramatically and Americans were clamoring for change! Saying Iraq is a mistake!

If you were Iran and North Korea...wouldn't you seize the moment? Here you have a weakened president...because his citizens not only do not support his policy...but are now demonizing him as well!

Of course the terrorists learn from Vietnam! From American reactions that led to its end and the effective type of warfare! The vietcongs were "invisible" then....that's why it was a hard war to win...and the terrorists are "invisible" now!

So, couple that with an unabated global hate and global bashing for Bush...I'd say thanks a lot! I think I know who helped made Iran and North Korea much, much bolder...and the world in a much greater danger today!

[bradco]

Have you heard of North Korea??? Iran who is clearly going to walk the same road. Actions like those taken in Iraq do not deter nations from going nuclear, they only prove the necessity of doing so. They increase the demand of WMD as a deterrance against future attacks. For the actions in Iraq to deter a country from going nuclear they need to believe the US willalways leave them alone if they dont go nuclear. SUch a belief will never be held.

North Korea and Iran...the two other axis of evil.

I wouldn't say the attack on Iraq had made them bold. Check out the timing when they started getting bolder in insisting to "walk the same road." It started right after the popularity of Bush in the USA had gone down dramatically and Americans were clamoring for change! Saying Iraq is a mistake!

If you were Iran and North Korea...wouldn't you seize the moment? Here you have a weakened president...because his citizens not only do not support his policy...but are now demonizing him as well!

Of course the terrorists learn from Vietnam! From American reactions that led to its end and the effective type of warfare! The vietcongs were "invisible" then....that's why it was a hard war to win...and the terrorists are "invisible" now!

So, couple that with an unabated global hate and global bashing for Bush...I'd say thanks a lot! I think I know who helped made Iran and North Korea much, much bolder...and the world in a much greater danger today!

I find it highly unlikely that Bush's public opinion was the determiner for Iran and North Korea. Either way it still stands that Iraq was not a significant deterance. If anything by your line of reasoning Iraq was a big mistake because it ruined Bush's legitmacy since Iraq did not have WMD. It is then Bush's decision to go into Iraq that has led to the bolder Iran and North Korea. Even if public opinion was the main reason, which is highly unlikely, that public opinion would not have nose-dived if Bush hadnt made a mistake and/or lied to the American public.