09-07-2004, 07:07 PM
"What is an easier problem to solve, Jester, a two variable problem, a five variable problem, or a 25 variable problem?"
"Your line seems to be that a treaty would be equal protection, and of course cheaper, however treaties are breachable, as any contract is, and then where are you?"
"You have to deal with both, not either-or."
"Risk: how much can you stomach?"
There is no ability to manage this risk. It can't be done, except perhaps in the very short term, and even then, it's not likely. You *are* vulnerable. No treaty, no missile shield, no homeland defense, is ever going to afford more than a token security against nuclear attack. Treaties are better than Star Wars, I'm fairly sure, not because they're perfect, but because they deal with a different aspect of the problem. Still, they're no shield at all against an enemy who wants to nuke you; I'm pretty sure this is a permanent condition, unless you can build a nuke-proof human being, living in a nuke-proof city. You don't have to deal with just "both". You have to deal with *all*, every last potential mode of attack. That's not just difficult, that's impossible. The risk is permanent, the problem is unsolveable. There is no question "how much can you stomach?", except as an empty, philosophical question. The questions are "how much risk exists, and how much will exist?", and the answers are "too much, and much more". Two variables or a thousand, you can't solve any of these problems, or at least they are becoming unsolveable very quickly.
I have no objection to a fully scaleable defensive posture. (Your attack posture, that's another matter.) The value of that is large, but the money required to pull it off is not infinite. One does not have to believe in constant increases in armaments to support an effective military. This is especially true once you reach the level of major power combat, since it is basically impossible to avoid nuclear conflict in a situation where both sides are using strategic bombing as part of a near-total war. So, you don't need power to scale beyond a certain point, in the nuclear range. Once nukes are more or less essential for one side to win the war, conventional forces become obsolete. Otherwise, why have a war at all, if you know you're going to be forced into nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Russkies? (Granted, I would ask that question about *any* war, but...)
What is needed is a flexible and effective military, able to deal with real threats in the real world. But it's pointless not to acknowledge the severe restrictions on the value of conventional force in an increasingly nuclear-armed world. Tanks are great if you know your opponent hasn't got the ability to liquify them at will. And there remain many such potential opponents, although (unless one buys into the Bush doctrine, which I very much don't) I can't see why very many of them would choose to threaten the US (actually threaten, not just the crap spouted by the Bush administration).
The role of conventional forces has changed utterly since the time of Bismarck and the Kaisers, although it remains remarkably similar to the British Empire: maintain the ability to prevent any major power from attacking you (in their case, the navy, in your case, nuclear weapons), and maintain the power to dominate insolent countries who step out of line. The difference here is that neither any amount of nuclear weapons, nor any conventional force will allow the "Kaiser" to defeat you.
Jester
"Your line seems to be that a treaty would be equal protection, and of course cheaper, however treaties are breachable, as any contract is, and then where are you?"
"You have to deal with both, not either-or."
"Risk: how much can you stomach?"
There is no ability to manage this risk. It can't be done, except perhaps in the very short term, and even then, it's not likely. You *are* vulnerable. No treaty, no missile shield, no homeland defense, is ever going to afford more than a token security against nuclear attack. Treaties are better than Star Wars, I'm fairly sure, not because they're perfect, but because they deal with a different aspect of the problem. Still, they're no shield at all against an enemy who wants to nuke you; I'm pretty sure this is a permanent condition, unless you can build a nuke-proof human being, living in a nuke-proof city. You don't have to deal with just "both". You have to deal with *all*, every last potential mode of attack. That's not just difficult, that's impossible. The risk is permanent, the problem is unsolveable. There is no question "how much can you stomach?", except as an empty, philosophical question. The questions are "how much risk exists, and how much will exist?", and the answers are "too much, and much more". Two variables or a thousand, you can't solve any of these problems, or at least they are becoming unsolveable very quickly.
I have no objection to a fully scaleable defensive posture. (Your attack posture, that's another matter.) The value of that is large, but the money required to pull it off is not infinite. One does not have to believe in constant increases in armaments to support an effective military. This is especially true once you reach the level of major power combat, since it is basically impossible to avoid nuclear conflict in a situation where both sides are using strategic bombing as part of a near-total war. So, you don't need power to scale beyond a certain point, in the nuclear range. Once nukes are more or less essential for one side to win the war, conventional forces become obsolete. Otherwise, why have a war at all, if you know you're going to be forced into nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Russkies? (Granted, I would ask that question about *any* war, but...)
What is needed is a flexible and effective military, able to deal with real threats in the real world. But it's pointless not to acknowledge the severe restrictions on the value of conventional force in an increasingly nuclear-armed world. Tanks are great if you know your opponent hasn't got the ability to liquify them at will. And there remain many such potential opponents, although (unless one buys into the Bush doctrine, which I very much don't) I can't see why very many of them would choose to threaten the US (actually threaten, not just the crap spouted by the Bush administration).
The role of conventional forces has changed utterly since the time of Bismarck and the Kaisers, although it remains remarkably similar to the British Empire: maintain the ability to prevent any major power from attacking you (in their case, the navy, in your case, nuclear weapons), and maintain the power to dominate insolent countries who step out of line. The difference here is that neither any amount of nuclear weapons, nor any conventional force will allow the "Kaiser" to defeat you.
Jester