USA Army is breaking down according to GENERAL

[planosteve]

not looking for any revisionist history Steve , japan was an enemy , they deserved what they got in my opinion . Some in the middle east should get the same deal , imo !!

I assume by revisionist history you are referring to anything that doesn't follow the govt. line in the govt school textbooks. If that's all you know you are missing a whole lot.

[ralph]

I'll stick with what my Dad and Mom , school , Uncles , , family neighbors and friends taught me Steve . I have no use for revisionist history .

[ralph]

thing is that there was a war , japan started it and japan eventually lost the war that they started .

[planosteve]

thing is that there was a war , japan started it and japan eventually lost the war that they started .

I guess you believe the South started the civil war and Viet Nam started that war also.

[ralph]

OFF TOPIC alert , off subject ALERT . I know about the south , also know about Vietnam which shoulda been won by the USA but I can't be drug to that in this here thread Steve !!

[Castle Doctrine]

All we need are Nukes and Daisy Cutters..all situations covered.

All of our problems in winning wars have come from trying to pinpoint targets and avoid "collateral" damage.

Wars are won by killing civilians..not people in uniforms.

Where do you get these bizarre ideas about the application of military force?

Nukes? That was just a one off with Japan. When others have nukes an exchange is what happens and that isn't war...it is an extinction event. MAD had a point and it kept us safe. I can only guess that you are just demonstrating how macho you are with the nuke talk. Do you even know what a Daisy Cutter is or was designed to do? It is not a very versatile weapons. We have a lot better items in the inventory than either you are aware of...but, NOTHING covers all situations.

Do you know anything about the strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and the Pacific? Are you aware they had different objectives and used different tactics and ordinance? How familiar are you with the post-WWII strategic bombing studies? If you were familiar with any of these you would know your comment is nonsensical.

What they found was that killing civilians DID NOT win in either Theater. Destruction of the German Army ended the war in Europe. If you don't defeat the hostile forces in the field it doesn't matter how many civilians you can murder from afar. In Japan it took an unimaginable shock to the Japanese national psyche. Before the Nukes they were prepared to resist to the last civilian. Killing civilians had no effect there either.

Another thing you would know if you were familiar with this topic is that PRECISION was what the Allies were constantly striving for. The problem was they were after precise targets they couldn't hit with precision. "Bomber" Harris would have surrendered his male appendage to get the kind of PRECISION we have today.

As for your pronouncements regarding our problems winning wars...again, I ask, where do you get these ridiculous ideas. Do you even think about the things you say? It isn't apparent.

[ralph]

no one has nukes in the areas where nukes could be used at the moment . USA probably doesn't need nukes to take care of the 'Islamic state' or 'iran' though . Course , with this new 'iran' deal worked out by mrobama and 'kkerry' that situation of 'iran' not having nukes will probably change 'cd' .

[GFB]

no one has nukes in the areas where nukes could be used at the moment . USA probably doesn't need nukes to take care of the 'Islamic state' or 'iran' though . Course , with this new 'iran' deal worked out by mrobama and 'kkerry' that situation of 'iran' not having nukes will probably change 'cd' .

The Daisy Cutters are good enough for lighter duty. Good for leveling smaller areas.

The nukes are for..bigger jobs.

[planosteve]

OFF TOPIC alert , off subject ALERT . I know about the south , also know about Vietnam which shoulda been won by the USA but I can't be drug to that in this here thread Steve !!

OK back on topic. The Japanese Fleet was steaming toward Hawaii and nobody knew they were coming to make a sneak attack. Is that right?

[Castle Doctrine]

no one has nukes in the areas where nukes could be used at the moment . USA probably doesn't need nukes to take care of the 'Islamic state' or 'iran' though . Course , with this new 'iran' deal worked out by mrobama and 'kkerry' that situation of 'iran' not having nukes will probably change 'cd' .

Ralph, you seem to be under some misconceptions regarding the Middle East and Nukes. The Paki's are full members of the Nuke Club. While they usually are focused on India, I think they would take extreme umbrage if we started dropping nukes on their neighbors and fellow Moslems.You simply cannot use nukes without an expectation of a similar response from SOMEONE.

Nukes would not be the indicated strategic weapon for most targets in this area anyway. They are really area denial and anti-infrastructure weapons. Who, what and where would you propose to nuke?

I think we can count on Iran getting a nuke...sooner rather than later if the Iran deal is not completed. Approving the deal moves that at least 10 years down the road...not approving, well, 8 to 10 months if we are lucky. But, I am still not convinced they would use it. They probably understand MAD as well as we and the Sovs did...it is just them and Israel this time. The balance of terror remains about equal I believe.

[GFB]

no one has nukes in the areas where nukes could be used at the moment . USA probably doesn't need nukes to take care of the 'Islamic state' or 'iran' though . Course , with this new 'iran' deal worked out by mrobama and 'kkerry' that situation of 'iran' not having nukes will probably change 'cd' .

The Daisy Cutters are good enough for lighter duty. Good for leveling smaller areas.

The nukes are for..bigger jobs.

I think I'd also add neutron bombs to the arsenal.

Sometimes you want everybody dead..but things like buildings and oil fields left intact.

[ralph]

yeah , I stand corrected about Pakistan so yeah , we'd need nukes if'n they were to get involved . Course , current targets are of the USA should be 'iran' and the 'Islamic state' . Supposedly , iran has no nukes so its my thinking that both can be eliminated with conventional weapons .

[GFB]

What's more conventional than nukes?

[planosteve]

What's more conventional than nukes?

Are you in ignoration mode with CD?

[GFB]

What's more conventional than nukes?

Are you in ignoration mode with CD?

Is he rambling again?

[planosteve]

What's more conventional than nukes?

Are you in ignoration mode with CD?

Is he rambling again?

He's asking where you get your ridiculous ideas. I've been wondering that for years!

[GFB]

Be thankful I don't turn them into 8 or 10 torturous paragraphs.

[planosteve]

Be thankful I don't turn them into 8 or 10 torturous paragraphs.

Well he seems to question your familiarity with the post-WWII strategic bombing studies?
Boy, I guess he doesn't know you very well.

[GFB]

Yeah I get the post WW 2 era.

It's called..Let's lose!

[GFB]

If we're going to war, it should be fought to win..and that means ending it quickly with maximum casualties on the other side..and minimal, preferably NONE on our side.

Bombing to take out dis widdle building and dat one..is a sure loser.

If we don't have the stomach for it..we shouldn't bother..we should stay home.