Article

2006-03-05 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john 2006-03-05 10:56|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hush John. It's bad manners to talk about painless first strikes.

Posted by 6 2006-03-05 13:22|| 2006-03-05 13:22|| Front Page Top

#2 The U. S. aresnal growing rapidly? Do we even need to read the link?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-05 13:35|| 2006-03-05 13:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Yup. Buck Turgidson is at the controls of the US of A ready to coerce the rest of the world with its nuclear superiority. One section is even entitled "Stop Worrying and Love the Bonb?" The conclusion is:

The United States is now seeking to maintain its global preeminence, which the Bush administration defines as the ability to stave off the emergence of a peer competitor and prevent weaker countries from being able to challenge the United States in critical regions such as the Persian Gulf. If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks. But if the United States adopts a more restrained foreign policy -- for example, one premised on greater skepticism of the wisdom of forcibly exporting democracy, launching military strikes to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and aggressively checking rising challengers -- then the benefits of nuclear primacy will be trumped by the dangers.

If any body takes this seriously I'd be happy to discuss. Otherwise it seems to be a waste of time to state the obvious.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-05 16:57|| 2006-03-05 16:57|| Front Page Top

#4 I think that the era of MAD may indeed be ending, but for a very different reason: the era of the ballistic missile may be ending.

It's called the "wet blanket", in this case a term coined by a science fiction writer who postulated that there might be some method, some new technology, by which ballistic missiles would no longer work. His idea was simple: if such a thing is invented, then what do we do?

He continued by pointing out that we had become over-reliant on nuclear missiles. What if we had to go back to war the old-fashioned WWII way?

Or more likely, the Korean Conflict way?

Few people know that the American-led UN forces in Korea had been in extreme danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemy, and were saved *only* by an outbreak of hemorrhagic smallpox among the Chinese army, that decimated their ranks.

Even with today's advances in technology, we are sill vulnerable to attacks with vast, overwhelming numbers of enemy, even with very low technology. If nuclear weapons are not available, do we even have enough high explosive available to do the job?

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-05 17:49|| 2006-03-05 17:49|| Front Page Top

#5 What if we had to go back to war the old-fashioned WWII way? Or more likely, the Korean Conflict way?

There are other alternatives than those.

Even with today's advances in technology, we are sill vulnerable to attacks with vast, overwhelming numbers of enemy, even with very low technology. If nuclear weapons are not available, do we even have enough high explosive available to do the job?

First, if we are really in danger, nukes may not be off the table.

And second, it really only depends on public support for all-out slaughter.

More likely is a nibble-at-the-edges approach that tries to replicate Vietnam and Mogadishu, staying under the level of intensity that would provoke an all-out response. Depends a whole lot who is in office and what has come before, what our response would be.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-05 17:56|| 2006-03-05 17:56|| Front Page Top

#6 careful LOTP - Moose is "Quagmiring"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-03-05 18:42|| 2006-03-05 18:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Amazing that the US/UN Forces escaped such a virulent disease.

Posted by 6 2006-03-05 18:56|| 2006-03-05 18:56|| Front Page Top

#8 I know, Frank. I'm just refusing to jump into that wet area and call it quicksand, personally ... ;-)

Posted by lotp 2006-03-05 19:28|| 2006-03-05 19:28|| Front Page Top

#9 "Sheer numbers of the enemy" - yes, iff you LOCAL danger as to unit integrity; no, iff you mean the UN forces were in danger of being kicked off the Korean Peninsula as in the early days of the NK offensive vv Pusan. The gist is, coupled wid non-combat casualties induced by operations in the normal NK climate, espec winter, the US-led UN Command were killing, wounding, and capturing so many Chicoms Mao and his generals were concerned over the ability of the Party vv the Party-controlled Army to both maintain the anti-US-UN effort in Korea plus Party-led Commie domestic control back in mainland China. We were destroying or rendering ineffective many the best mil formations the Chinese had, includ those they relied upon to protect mainland China.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-05 21:15|| 2006-03-05 21:15|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:36 C-Low
23:24 Sherry
23:17 Captain America
23:15 Captain America
23:13 2b
23:08 Frank G
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:06 C-Low
22:56 incarnate of lee atwater
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:53 C-Low
22:40 Frank G
22:38 Danking70
22:38 SteveS
22:38 Angineth Glaviper9578
22:34 anymouse
22:30 Angineth Glaviper9578
22:25 3dc
22:02 .com
22:00 .com
21:57 .com
21:56 SteveS