+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Two wars at once? (/thread-11931.html)
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-04-2003
Tactical nukes were what President Bush, the older, went to great lengths to get out of the inventory.
The media get it wrong as often as they get it right. Anything might want to do with a "smaller tactical nuke" can be better done with:
A BLU-15 or a large FAE, without any of the toxic fallout. FAE is a Fuel Air Explosive. It sends out an aerosol cloud and ignites it, after which a pretty big fire ball goes off and ceates some pretty interesting over pressure effects, particularly to folks in bunkers. The BLU-15 is a '15,000 tons of TNT bomb' deployed by a parachute and rolled off of a C-130, a purely conventional munition, whose explosive signature resembles that of a very small nuke. However, it 'just' goes boom, leaves a nice sized hole, and is absent the fallout effects of a nuke. Of course, you might want to ask any of the Iraqis who were around when a few of those went off in the Gulf War back in 1991, if they can still hear you.
And yes, the US is, IMO, the least likely to use a nuke for two reasons:
1. We have so many other ways to deal damage that does not require a nuke, and those weapons have cost billions to build. Why would we bother to do that if we could just nuke folks? The tactical battlefield nukes that were developed in the 1950's were eventually realized to be a mistake, one reason being that the chance for error and "first use" was deemed to be too great.
2. You Europeans amuse me, sometimes. :) You did not mind Bill Clinton throwing a random Tomahawk missile now and again, you did not seem to mind 16 nations bombing Serbia for 71 days, you did not mind our money and effort in Bosnia when Europe showed it could not handle its own security without our help. Nope, the Europeans begged for the strong neighbor to help, and now cry 'bully' when we are dealing with someone who is a threat to both Turkey, our ally, and Israel. Most amusing.
I guess anti Semitism is not dead, and I guess that you Europeans still think of the Turks as second class citizens of the World Order, and at best maybe second class citizens of the EU if they ever get into it.
Really amusing to hear the "US" sucks from such morally upstanding and non self absorbed Europeans. Marvelously humorous. :D
Two wars at once? - AtomicKitKat - 03-04-2003
Damn, I stopped posting in the Utopia Politics forum precisely because of this sort of debate (Euros claim US sucks at diplomacy, too impulsive, etc. US crys foul, claims "anti-semitism", "less talk, more action" and other silly catchphrases)
My $0.02
Bush is more than a little off his rocker.
If ANYONE fires a nuclear missile, smart money says the guy whose country actually HAS one(as well as a history of use) does it first.
Saddam is what, 75? My grandmother is over 75, and I'm not kidding myself that she'll be around much longer. What, you think even if he's shot he'll still bark orders from a brain in a jar? I'd rather let the old guy die from geriatric complications than see another idiotic war.
The world has never been without war for the last century(probably century and a half)
Draft should include women, even if it's only for non-combat positions. It's not like being a signaller is THAT physically strenuous, and it's not much different from traditional "female only" jobs like switchboard operator.
Countries should each pick a "champion" who would be sent into battle for the resolution of disputes. Challenger chooses the contest, challenged party picks the location.
Well, that looked more like $200 than $0.02, but I hope it gave you all something to think about. And chill, the common enemy is the one who wants war.
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-04-2003
*sigh* I was hoping for interesting discussion about strategy, logistics etc. I specifically wanted to avoid the flamewariness.
Thanks to the few who honored this request.
Quote:Firstly, there are elements of the US military that are not being deployed to the Gulf. In particular, forces set up for the defence of the Pacific
How strong are these troops. Do you have an OOB available? It seems to me, that for example the carriers will be mostly concentrating on Iraq. Five near, Nimitz on the way. Yet NK actually has a somewhat capable air force, unlike Iraq. About troops, I recall reading a long time ago, that US had an active roster of around 4-500k troops. (a bit) More than half of these are deployed or being deployed to the Gulf. Yet again, NK has much larger (effective) army than Iraq.
I must admit I was indeed thinking that US might have to enlist more men, National Guard most probably. Now this will have it's obvious (if slight) impacts on the society and economy. What about general discontent?
What are US options? Halt war in Iraq and concentrate on the larger threat? Or keep a holding action in South Korea until Hussein is deposed? Obviously in this scenario US doesn't have surplus men it can just leave to stabilize Iraq after the war. Will this mean the economic benefits will be diverted to another direction? Towards the countries that will send the peacekeeping force into Iraq. Also, the US budget probably cannot handle fighting the NK war and rebuilding Iraq. Will Europe cough up the money?
Furthermore, if there will be war in NK, it is quite possible that it will be a lengthy one. This will ofcource have a huge effect on the presidential campaigns.
Finally with US so stretched out, I could imagine other hostile countries taking advantage of the situation.
Tongue-in-cheek: It'd make a heck of a strategy game.
Quote:Secondly, a confirmed nuclear strike would get the kind of reaction from the international community that we saw in the wake of the WTC destruction.
Umm, with all respect. I think you magnify the 911 here. Reaction to a nuclear attack for example on Seoul would be of a totally different magnitude. I don't rule out even a panic reaction of total nuclear destruction of NK.
Two wars at once? - TheDragoon - 03-04-2003
Quote:Saddam is what, 75? My grandmother is over 75, and I'm not kidding myself that she'll be around much longer. What, you think even if he's shot he'll still bark orders from a brain in a jar? I'd rather let the old guy die from geriatric complications than see another idiotic war.Ah, but this assumes that the problem goes away when Saddam dies. You think he'd be willing to see his empire come crashing down just because of his death? More likely he'll work to put someone into power who is very much like himself but perhaps even more messed up (like his son(s?)).
Two wars at once? - NiteFox - 03-04-2003
Yes, I believe his eldest son is next in line on the hierachy, and I also gather he's more of a straightjacket case than his old man :)
The problem won't go away if we just stick our fingers in our ears saying "la-la-la" over and over again.
Two wars at once? - TheDragoon - 03-04-2003
Quote:Finally with US so stretched out, I could imagine other hostile countries taking advantage of the situation.You mean like North Korea? Personally, I don't see how other countries could think they can get away with what North Korea has been. If war with Iraq happens, then I'm sure it'll be over in a rather short period of time at which point a good portion of the forces centered there will likely just go right back over to the Pacific. The reason that such overwhelming numbers are centered around Iraq right now would be to proceed with an overwhelming attack that effectively wins the war in as short a period as possible so that they can get out of there quickly.
In addition, I think that many people lose sight of the fact that the US is most likely working toward resolving the North Korean solution in a more round-about manner. They could very likely be pressuring China to pressure North Korea to back down as we speak but they don't want to let it get out lest China lose face from the situation. With respect to North Korea, there are many, many different ways in which the situation can be resolved, most of them not causing war at all whereas with Iraq, most options have been tried and they have resisted, fought, and lied the entire way. For those reasons, I see the two situations as very different and there's really no reason to lump them together, assuming that both will lead to war. :)
Two wars at once? - AtomicKitKat - 03-04-2003
Actually, I DO like the "la-la-la-la" option. :P
But personally, I say let the old fool drop dead(that goes for Bush Junior too), and shoot his son before he comes to power. But seriously, the Shi'ite Muslims(I think their the ones) that Saddam has been "opressing" are more likely to work for Osama than Saddam himself(who is actually like number 3 on the Al Qaeda hitlist)
Two wars at once? - Roland - 03-04-2003
...I didn't want to hit. And that says alot, if you know me. (Edit: Before I get flamed to hell, NO, I have never hit a woman, and never will.)
I hate feminists. Always have, always will. But, that's not the point of this topic, so I'll hold my tongue on that issue.
As to fighting two wars... I honestly don't know. I think, if things go well enough, we can handle it just fine. Then again, I don't think Iraq is going to be a long battle. Likewise, or perhaps because of that, North Korea will probably fold before committing to open war. I don't doubt their hostility. I just doubt their commitment if we're not hogtied. As the Japanese once put it, "We have awoken a sleeping giant." Mayhap we're not as "giant" as we once were, but we're no midget, either. I don't think North Korea has the resources to outlast us in a war. Which, unfortunately, says nothing about actually STARTING a war. :/
My gut tells me we'll be in and out of Iraq before a war, a REAL war, with North Korea breaks out. If, that is, a war breaks out at all. Time will tell, as it always does.
Two wars at once? - Roland - 03-04-2003
Quote:And most importantly, the full cooperation of various allies.
Isn't that one of our biggest problems right now? :P Loyalty doesn't mean much anymore.
Two wars at once? - Chaerophon - 03-04-2003
Quote:Never met a feminist...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...I didn't want to hit. And that says alot, if you know me.
I hate feminists. Always have, always will. But, that's not the point of this topic, so I'll hold my tongue on that issue.
There's a difference between feminists and... extremists and/or man-haters. True feminists are reasonable and thoughtful. I would generally say that the TRUE feminists are worthy of respect. e.g. Iris Marion Young, Virginia Held, Annette Baier. The other kind... I would definitely agree. They drive me nuts.
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-04-2003
TheDragoon,Mar 4 2003, 07:04 PM Wrote:You mean like North Korea?Err, you are allowed to read the post before asking. ;)
Above I was talking about a scenario where US in in simultaenous war with both Iraq and NK.
I could see other (third, fourth, fifth, etc.) hostile nations taking advantage of such a situation.
Two wars at once? - TheDragoon - 03-04-2003
And I addressed that.. I was merely pointing out that North Korea's actions fit right into what you were saying other nations might do and why I doubted it. :)
Two wars at once? - Skandranon - 03-04-2003
Note that in the event of a war with North Korea, the USN can rely on support from the Japanese MSDF, currently the most powerful navy in the Asian area. Four AEGIS-equipped missile destroyers as well as a large number of other guided missile destroyers, as well as an amphibious assault ship and a number of diesel submarines, if necessary. I don't see any circumstances where North Korea starts something and the Japanese don't jump in - North Korea likes firing missiles over their country, after all, and is more of a threat to them than to the US. With MSDF support, the USN needs only to expedite training and workup schedules for two more carriers (the US has 14, IIRC - 7 in and 7 out of overhaul is pushing it, but not impossible if really necessary) and send them with an understrength battlegroup to Japan. As for actually invading North Korea with ground forces, I don't think the US will do that, but rather will diplomatically point out to China that instability in North Korea is substantially less good for them than it is for America, whereupon the PLA will do the job.
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-04-2003
That is an interesting guess. I wonder if you are right. :)
The South Koreans, however, also have considerable combat power. The real question is that, given their political imperative not to start anything, which means that they cede the initiative to the North, how long they will last after the opening salvo.
And about The Bear: I wonder if they want to play, or not.
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-04-2003
. . . A French, or at least Frankinsh, hero. :) Even if some of our allies are not all that fired up to go and stack arses, many have been supportive. See Italians, Brits, et al.
Allies are always on their own side first, and then as much on your side as is convenient. The biggest exception to that rule that I have personally seen is the special relationship between London and Washington.
It really is no surprise that the French have taken the line they have at present, particularly as they have been trying to get sanctions lifted since about the mid 1990's, except for one thing: they voted for 1441. The Russian's are on their own side, and the Germans? Well, I have always wondered if some of their firms did in Iraq what they did in Lybia: presented the how of building, inside a mountain, chemical munitions. That would color how Schroeder plays his hand, I imagine.
Two wars at once? - Griselda - 03-04-2003
That was a much more measured reply than the one that I had been considering. :)
Roland, "feminist" is a very broad term that can mean everything from "man hater" to "prefers that women don't get beaten up on a regular basis", as well as everything in between. While you might have been using a more narrow definition of the term, that is not how a lot of people are going to interpret your comments (myself included).
While I have my own views that borrow heavily from many different camps, I do consider myself to be a feminist. I'd also prefer that people wouldn't want to hit me based upon this broad categorization of myself.
- Griselda
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-05-2003
TheDragoon,Mar 4 2003, 09:30 PM Wrote:And I addressed that.. I was merely pointing out that North Korea's actions fit right into what you were saying other nations might do and why I doubted it. :)Ah I misunderstood, sorry.
Well for one candidate to be the third, how about the third member of the "Axis of Ev0l"? ;)
Two wars at once? - Roland - 03-05-2003
...that I didn't feel justified in killing, Gris. My father was that way. I made a vow never to be like that. It's a vow I'll take to the grave.
And you're right, "feminist" is a broad view. But I've known alot of feminists in my time, and no matter how non "man-hating" they were, they said or did things that just made my blood boil. To me, there's a difference between being proud, and standing up for yourself, and being just as bad as the people you hate. I respect all women, generally. But any woman who doesn't respect me doesn't deserve my respect.
I'm sorry if my comments offended you, or anyone else Gris. I understood my comments were a firebomb when I posted them. I didn't say them to start a war. I said them because it's what I feel. But, as I've already stated, I have never, and will never hit a woman, under any circumstances. And yes, that does include self-defense. After all I've seen and been through, I just can't bring myself to do it. It's a personal issue.
I don't think I could ever want to hit you, Gris. But then again, I don't see you as any sort of a feminist. Maybe I don't use the term properly. But if I don't, a good portion of feminists don't, as well. I have no problem with a women wanting to feel independent, strong, and proud. For all that, I encourage them. What gets to me is how they feel justified in taking out past wrongdoings on men. Abuse is abuse, and I don't tolerate it no matter who it comes from. It's not justified, ever. Two wrongs don't make a right. And that's where my dislike (sometimes even hatred) for feminists comes from. I've never met a single one, no matter how non-man-hating they were, who didn't feel justified in badmouthing, and just generally mistreating men solely because of their gender. And I've known some very nice, respectable "feminists" in my time.
At any rate, I'd rather drop the issue, at least publicly. It wasn't a can of worms I wanted to open. If you want to take it to private, be my guest. I'll respond. It's not a topic for this forum, though, and especially not for this thread.
Two wars at once? - Roland - 03-05-2003
...I ain't French. ;) Greek, Norwegian, and English. And yes, I am damn proud of my Viking roots. :D My callsign may be French, but I sure as hell ain't. And damn proud of it, too. ;)
I agree with you on the French. That doesn't mean I like it, though. ;) You and I seem to have mirrored thoughts regarding them. As for the Germans... I don't trust 'em. Never have, really, and probably never will. Could never put my finger on why. Then again, I never trusted the damn French, either, but at least I know why: damn cowards. ;)
As for allies, aye, always caring about yourself first. Human nature, of course, but that doesn't mean I like THAT, either. Then again, my views on such things are not the norm. I'm about as loyal as they come, and would sooner die for an ally than save my own skin for them. But that's me. Things don't work that simply when you weigh in a couple million more lives. One of the reasons I hate politics: makes things too complicated.
Isn't it amazing how tight of a bond we seem to have with the English? Not more than a couple generations ago, we were at total war with them. Yet these days they're our best friend. Amazing how quickly things change, and how drastically. And yet, not ironically, some things never change (the war over Jerusalem, for instance), no matter how much time goes by. Funny how the world works, eh?
Two wars at once? - Brimstone - 03-05-2003
Hmmm...not a very pleasing thought, eh? I could see, in the rare event of a two-hemisphere, two-war America, a bit more saber-rattling from anti-American countries, but whom? Israel is perfectly capable of handling Pakistan...Somalia, maybe? Ah, but I'm just pulling names out of a hat here.
Back to the original question, as someone already said, the Japanese "woke a sleeping giant." We ARE still a giant, perhaps even a larger one, but our sleep is deeper now. Even if we have to go into Iraq alone (which is unlikely, given that a number of countries have said they will back us, with or without the UN), NK will most likely have more than one country to deal with, as, I think Occi said. But, (out on a small limb here) even were we required to go it alone in both cases, we ARE the only real superpower at this point. Make no mistake; America has the mightiest military force ever to walk the earth. And should both tinpot dictators want some at once, we'll be waiting. The Marines have already doubled the number of recruits going through training, and called in most of the IRR (inactive ready reserve, a sort of 'half-out-of-active-duty, still on my contract' Marine), and, although I can't say for sure, I suspect the same is true for the other branches. The 6-month enlistee-to-soldier time period is already nearing completion for the first of the post-1441 classes of American warriors. Trust me, ladies and gents, we on the Lounge are not the first to ponder these questions, and the others who were planned for them long before we even caught wind.
A draft? Possible, but unlikely. Americans have grown used to the "volunteer force" mentality, and the public outcry would be a bit loud. Besides, we don't really need one. As others have said, Iraq should be a short war, followed by a long, er, "non-occupation." NK's window of opportunity would be very short-lived, in this case. Any infantryman (read: reservist, or 18year old fresh from AIT) can pull police duty, and hey, maybe we could even get in a peacekeeping force. (Irony, no?) The high-speed, 'storm the beaches' forces would be out of Baghdad and into NK faster than crap through a goose, God help the poor guys, where, once again, we have about a 0.01% chance of having to go it alone. Besides, there are still reservists waiting for the call. Just ask my roommates.
Best case scenario? No war with NK, plenty of help with Iraq. Most likely? No war with NK, a little help with Iraq. We all know the worst case...NK nuking someone (HIGHLY unlikely, but not out of the range of possibility). Only time, and more political maneuvering, will tell.