12:22 AM 10/31/04 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
Major Variola
The large pit of smoldering radioactive glass is probably not an option..
Why not?
They're called downwinders. Which way do the winds blow in the middle east?
You keep assuming that Muslims unite, escalate, etc, but if they do, US will escalate also.
No, I assume you can nuke whereever you want, just because we can. This is my take on your thesis that we are discussing. Kicking hegemony up a notch, finishing the job, let's roll... It will get easier when a US city gets nuked. The folks on the West coast might not like a few trillion curies in their soup even if we did get rid of the Indonesian Problem in the process. Maybe they just need to suck it up, ask not what their country can do for them, but how they can bend over for it. Childhood leukemia is getting easier to cure anyway.
There is a decreasing chance the US can apply its military might to defeat an unconventional enemy. That kind of enemy is not what long-standing military strategy and most tactics are aimed at. Rumsfeld was hoping to revise that when yet one more mighty military war appeared to head off changing military policy. The US has demonstrated in Afghanistan and post-Hussein Iraq that it does not know how to fight unconventionally. That inability appeared in Korea, then Viet Nam and has been shown in every combat the US has engaged in since WW 2. Military professionals know this and are hamstrung by the narcotic dependency the defense industry and its beneficiaries has for big iron and every bigger and more expensive platforms. This has been coupled with gigantism in intelligence, big science and big technological research advocated and overseen by giant corporations and institutions. And to gloss this a huge spin and propoganda machine has been funded to pump up the threats and the hefty defense tax boondogling. Special forces and operations were devised to piss-ant an alternative to this spread across the US pork-barrell behemothicism. But they have seldom been applied beyond pinprick displays, with much hoorahing about their stealthy effectiveness: "we can tell you about our successes, only failures make it to the media." Commentators have noted the corrupting influence of empire Britain thinking its global navy would assure continuance of hegemony. The more that conceit was believed the weaker the military became by its failure to recognize new forms of warfare and new ways of thinking. That empire was undermined by non-hegemonic forms of combat and thinking. The US might get a bye with its arrogant belief in military might for another generation if its lucky, if unlucky it will not survive this one. Well, parts of it may survive, away from the cities. Imagine one of the few cypherpunks holed-up in northwest Utah and one bunkered in Corralito escape the food-and-water-borne disease. President Attila or May?
At 1:12 PM -0800 10/31/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Which way do the winds blow in the middle east?
East of Jerusalem. :-). Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
To state the obvious to Major Variola, CDC will have first indication of a devastating US attack, reported fragmentarily under its links to hospitals, clinics and physicians, against which the might military and law enforcement have no defenses. By time the attack is understood it will be too late to mount a national defense. Food and water are the means and methods, not the hardware and electronic infrastructure, seaports and airports, so loudly warned about. The last terrorist attack is not the next one. Elderly and children first to show the signs. Those not watched all that carefully by the big warfighters, indeed overlooked by design, so disdainful are they of caregivers.
-- John Young wrote:
There is a decreasing chance the US can apply its military might to defeat an unconventional enemy. That kind of enemy is not what long-standing military strategy and most tactics are aimed at. Rumsfeld was hoping to revise that when yet one more mighty military war appeared to head off changing military policy.
The US never intended to use its military might to defeat an unconventional enemy. It intended to use its military might in the entirely conventional way to destroy or deter governments that foster terrorism, as was accomplished very successfully in Afghanistan. Regime change in Iraq was supposed to deter Syria and Iran, but they have not in fact been deterred. Saudi Arabia and Libya have been deterred. Indonesia has changed its policy on terror, but it is unclear whether this was the result of the spectacle of Saddam and his bullet ridden sons or honest soul searching. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG nVs3V7urdcH8GOjfhlNYzb0/JWqCDKupA3RE8WE3 4YdwLgC/LWPMsXcHeSFlqJW/NrcK/eDjuprNNcJok
participants (4)
-
James A. Donald
-
John Young
-
Major Variola (ret)
-
R.A. Hettinga