There is this concept in war - that there is a western way of

[bill for obama]

war and that it started with the Greeks at Platea in 479 bc and continues to this day. There are many, many scholars that say so - maybe they are right - maybe not.

The basis of western war goes like this- seek decisive battle - no limits - to conclusion. Right then. You know the problem - we are not chucking spears at each other - and we are not lining up in linear formations to exchange musket fire. What is that ultimate weapon now??

There are people like a Halden that say openly - limited tactical nuclear war is possible -lose a city and so what. And these assholes are advising our leaders.

Understand - they are literally talking about "limited armageddon" - honest to god.
There are and have been exercises run at our war colleges in these kind of scenarios - you know, exchange chicago for some other city- I shit you not. How to "win " a limited nuclear war - my dear god. Against anybody - you know??

Consider this - this guy is an idiot right now - he has none of the competence of a Kennedy or a Johnson or a Nixon or a Reagan (may not like them but they were competent in such matters)- he really is just an idiot - with the numbers to our ultimate weapons.


Don't trust this "wannabe" cowboy - he gives cowboys a bad name.

[Arctic Dave]

1. They have been trying to hash this scenerio out for

over fifty years. Lucky, so far, the more reasonable minds have won. there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Its like saying your going to have a limited addiction.

[smaug]

2. Ah - referencing Victor Davis Hanson

The right wingnut 'conservative' ""historian"" (like Ben Stein the scientist) - Victor Davis Hanson writes repeatedly on this subject. He's at the Hoover Institution (yep, on winger welfare). I've read some of his 'books' - they are great entertainment, but extremely racist. His hypothesis (conveniently forgetting the Mongols, Huns, etc.) seems to focus on the superiority of western warmaking and its 'fight to the ultimate conclusion' which devolves from Clauswitzian 'politics from other means' - but Hanson deftly (he's a good writer, just starts from assumptions that are wrong) inserts little digs about how the Persians quit their war against the Athenians and their alliance after Salamis, because the Persians weren't 'fight to the ultimate conclusion' or finish or whatever. Since anyone who understands the context (geography, weather, etc.) knows that without their fleet to keep resupplied, the huge (for the time) Persian army would have melted away in the stripped environment of Greece in the winter (not enough forage for the army), the only sensible alternative for Xerxes was to retreat and try again. According to VDH, the Persians simply lacked the 'guts' (why didn't VDH serve his country in Viet Nam? - I'm practicing my digs at these slimeball rw war cheerleaders who won't fight themselves - I'm a vet) to stick to their last and finish off the Greeks on land.

But, the land wouldn't have supported the army, and with a hostile populace, food and water would have been severely diminished. Guerrilla warface would have sapped the main strength of the army, forcing it into defensive postures and alienated further the locals - and any idiot knows that. Occupation only really works when the local area is depopulated, or if enough other populations are imported or enabled to immigrate to swamp out the local ethnicities. The Assyrians used to completely transfer the leadership elites and most of the other individuals who would rise as leaders, and bring in new populations (Samaritans, anyone?) to completely pacify an area. Or, something like the Mongol solution - completely wipe the population a la northern Iraq during Halugu's regime. Oh, and how does VDH explain the defeat of the Mongols in Palestine later? Guess the Egyptians were 'western' at that particular point in history (ok, I'm being snarky).

[Forkboy]

3. With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War

I read this a long time ago, and many of the same people are still involved in this administration. It highlights their thinking, or lack thereof, all too clearly.



An interesting article on the debate at the time under Reagan.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2008/0308nuclear.asp

[Edweird]

4. "exchange one city for another" I recall that story line from a book called "Fail Safe"

I believe "Dr. Strangelove" parodied that book as well. I digress.

Any politician or military adviser that sees that as rational or logical is a moron of biblical proportions and should be removed from any position of authority immediately.