I Just Noticed Something

[ERADICATORofDTH]

War of any kind=instant loss

You fight a war, you never win. You just make the other guys lose even worse. Normally...

And yes, I know that war is at times necessary, but still... come on guys... Just work out your problems....

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

War of any kind=instant loss

You fight a war, you never win. You just make the other guys lose even worse. Normally...

And yes, I know that war is at times necessary, but still... come on guys... Just work out your problems....

I disagree. Wars are indeed won. Body counts are not always a good measure. The goal in war is to achieve objectives, whether those objectives are territory, commodities, or even conditions. If you achieve your objectives while denying the enemy his, then you have won. The idea that everyone loses, but to different degrees, is a subjective moral question that ignores the utility of force. One of the failings in modern conflicts is counter-intuitive. Too often, force is seen as a last resort, with diplomacy being seen as being the preferred course of action. This stems from the noble intentions of the politicians, who provide the mandate for the use of force. This course ignores the utility of force. How many genocides could have been prevented, how many dictators' conquests could have been stopped had the proper force been employed. Force can be used to establish a condition that enables diplomatic negotiations to be conducted to maintain the condition that the force established. To do otherwise risks lives and prolongs the conditions which you are trying to curtail.

 

[PillowFire]

I just wonder if we will ever have a full-blown war between two nations or more the likes of which occured in World War II. Perhaps we should start converting our militaries to deal with counter-terrorism and guerilla warfare instead? After all, because of nuclear weapons, it's not exactly possible to have conflicts like we did in WWII anymore.

 

[ERADICATORofDTH]

I disagree. Wars are indeed won. Body counts are not always a good measure. The goal in war is to achieve objectives, whether those objectives are territory, commodities, or even conditions. If you achieve your objectives while denying the enemy his, then you have won. The idea that everyone loses, but to different degrees, is a subjective moral question that ignores the utility of force. One of the failings in modern conflicts is counter-intuitive. Too often, force is seen as a last resort, with diplomacy being seen as being the preferred course of action. This stems from the noble intentions of the politicians, who provide the mandate for the use of force. This course ignores the utility of force. How many genocides could have been prevented, how many dictators' conquests could have been stopped had the proper force been employed. Force can be used to establish a condition that enables diplomatic negotiations to be conducted to maintain the condition that the force established. To do otherwise risks lives and prolongs the conditions which you are trying to curtail.

You bring up several very good points. I just think that war is pretty stupid. If all people were smart and nice to one another, then they would realize that war is childish. And I'm not some pacifist wimp, I just believe that the world could be a MUCH better place without conflict...

 

[chiefer]

You bring up several very good points. I just think that war is pretty stupid. If all people were smart and nice to one another, then they would realize that war is childish. And I'm not some pacifist wimp, I just believe that the world could be a MUCH better place without conflict...

Without conflict, there couldn't be a peace.

 

[ERADICATORofDTH]

Without conflict, there couldn't be a peace.

Well there I have to disagree. If everyone was smart and cared about the world, then conflict would not be necessary. Conflict usually starts by someone doing something that badly affects someone else. If that didn't happen, no wars would happen.

 

[BFDesigns]

Well there I have to disagree. If everyone was smart and cared about the world, then conflict would not be necessary. Conflict usually starts by someone doing something that badly affects someone else. If that didn't happen, no wars would happen.

That ideal will never ever take hold within our civilization due to its fundamental fallacy being deeply rooted in human nature. Those who cannot kill will always be at the mercy of those of us who can!

By the way, Vietnam was a war with all the goodies and extras without the title. Sorta like low fat twinkies; makes you feel better cuz it's not the original but just as bad for you as the actual thing.

 

[Razgriz]

As long as two or more humans exist, there will always be war.

I'm not saying war is good. War is a BAD thing. However, it is necessary because evil will always exist here on Earth.

One last word about "war=instant loss", go tell a veteran of the Battlesof Leyte Gulf, Okinawa, Normandy invasion, Battle of the Bulge, or the myriad of other battles in WWII and ask them if we won the war. It is insulting to them to say that their bravery and sacrifice didn't win the war.

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

I just wonder if we will ever have a full-blown war between two nations or more the likes of which occured in World War II. Perhaps we should start converting our militaries to deal with counter-terrorism and guerilla warfare instead? After all, because of nuclear weapons, it's not exactly possible to have conflicts like we did in WWII anymore.

You, my friend, have hit the nail on the head. The advent of nuclear weapons effectively doomed interstate industrial warfare as it was known from the time of Napoleon up until WWII. What nuclear weapons did was essentially make a a large-scale exchange between nations impossible due to the inevitability of nuclear weapons being employed. As Henry Kissinger said, "First we lost the conventional war. Then we lose the tactical nuclear exchange. Then we blow up the world." So, as a result of the Cold War, both sides ended up with militaries designed to fight World War III. The problem was, if either side faced the other, a nuclear exchange initiated by the side that was losing was inevitable. That's where the problem came in. After WWII, we were trying to fight limited wars against guerrillas and insurgents with equipment and doctrine designed to fight World War III. It didn't work. Only recently, in the grand scheme of things, have the major powers recognized this and begun to restructure their militaries to fight these new wars. However, the place where the most change is needed, the political (strategic) level, is the place where the change is happening all too slowly. How many conflicts have been entered into without a political strategy for victory. I could go on, but I think I have gotten my point across. If you truly have an interest in warfare at the strategic level, read "The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World." I mentioned it in an earlier post, I think. The book contains an amazing analysis of warfare and how it has changed in the 21st century. The author is Gen. Rupert Smith. I bought my copy at Books-a-Million.

 

[shearme]

I haven't read the whole topic, but the only "War" the U.S. "lost" was the Nam War.

I like this quote: "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Einstein?

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

I haven't read the whole topic, but the only "War" the U.S. "lost" was the Nam War.

I like this quote: "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Einstein?

Well, we've had some bad run-ins elsewhere, too. Operation Restore Hope, in Somalia. Operations in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, etc., all went rather poorly for coalition forces (UN, NATO, or whatever force was in control.) Those were not quite losses, but mostly failed to truly accomplish their objectives. Korea wasn't a war, either, and technically never ended. We didn't really win that one, but we didn't lose it either.

 

[darkm2021]

You bring up several very good points. I just think that war is pretty stupid. If all people were smart and nice to one another, then they would realize that war is childish. And I'm not some pacifist wimp, I just believe that the world could be a MUCH better place without conflict...

i agree, war is pretty much pointless, if we just stopped fighting and united then we could probably have developed ships to take us to some nearby planets, or at least have built a space station that a few thousand people could fit into.


but, war will probably never really end, unfortunately

 

[PillowFire]

I will go check out this book by Rupert Smith. To extend my previous point, we, the U.S. specifically, needs to develop weapons and armor and do so fast. We have the future force warrior program, and other pet projects that the pentagon is pouring millions and billions into, and we need to pursue these as the results are, thus far, fantastic. So it really scares me that some politicians want to cut back on all of this, especually when such progress is now being made. If all goes as well as it is now, when 2020 roles around, U.S. troops will be armed with exoskeletons, "smart armor", on-board computers, climate control, medical monitoring, a linked battlefield. As tricky as warfare as of late has been with insurgent tactics, I don't think terrorists can argue when a squad of marines kitted out like something right out of sci-fi role into town, taking bullets like they don't mean anything and seeing every ambush coming from a mile away with high-tech gear.

In fact, every western nations needs to step up it's game and update it's military and to hell with the "peace" stuff. Wars will always be fought, so it doesn't hurt to use some of those billions for something other than government programs.

 

[ninjaspartan]

ok how about humans unite, and we build ships to find more intelligent life forms yu know fight them

 

[freakazoid]

War will eventually end simply for one reason. It will be no longer cost effective to do so. A very big reason people war is because they want each others resources. Whether its water, food, people, oil, minerals etc. Take this last bout that russia had with georgia. The russians only stayed long enough to cripple the infrastructure of the georgia. The russian army left very few bridges, airports, rail stations, and most importantly gerogia's oil infrastructure intact. If georgia cant export oil and goods, then the price for russian oil and goods goes up. Some one made a very pretty penny off of that conflict, and there is the root of the war, why fight if it does not give you an advantage. Eventually it will be economic war, if you can cripple an economy, by taking over industries and seizing assets, while freezing your enemies money you will win. What I mean by freezing is this, it does not matter how much money you have, if you cant move it, its useless , if the money becomes useless their economy will crumble. If you can kill the liquidity of an enemy economy, you directly affect how they run their country.

Untill war is too expensive, people will always fight. Or. some external force allows us to get pass our diferences as individual societies and begin behaving like a species. I believe that Globalwarming could be such a force. If the 99% of global warming scientists are right, we do face a global catastropy, but humans are relativley stupid, and it won't be untill we see drastic damage and loss of life before we respond. At that point it'l probably be to late, so my advice to you all.

1. Live EVERY DAY like its your last on this good green earth

2. Be nice to your fellow man, we all live here.

3. If you were to scale the time of the universe from the big-bang to right now, to a 24 hour clock. Mankind has only existed for a fraction of a second, the universe is huge, it is everlasting, it was here before you were born, and it will be here long after you are gone. so be happy, because if you make a mistake, it really doesn't matter all that much.

 

[just me]

The US has not lost any wars, because it is a Superpower.Nobody wants to be on the side of the US's enemies, because they are awfully outnumbered.And you are not all that awesome after all.(Not trying to be an idiot or selfish, it's just the crude truth.During WWII in Finland(my homecountry) We were against 20 divisions of soviets, and they barely won.Though not possible with generations now, Teenagers now are absolutely idiots.They don't know whay is Patriotism.)

Sorry again, I said what i felt right.

JustMe

 

[BFDesigns]

I will go check out this book by Rupert Smith. To extend my previous point, we, the U.S. specifically, needs to develop weapons and armor and do so fast. We have the future force warrior program, and other pet projects that the pentagon is pouring millions and billions into, and we need to pursue these as the results are, thus far, fantastic. So it really scares me that some politicians want to cut back on all of this, especually when such progress is now being made. If all goes as well as it is now, when 2020 roles around, U.S. troops will be armed with exoskeletons, "smart armor", on-board computers, climate control, medical monitoring, a linked battlefield. As tricky as warfare as of late has been with insurgent tactics, I don't think terrorists can argue when a squad of marines kitted out like something right out of sci-fi role into town, taking bullets like they don't mean anything and seeing every ambush coming from a mile away with high-tech gear.

In fact, every western nations needs to step up it's game and update it's military and to hell with the "peace" stuff. Wars will always be fought, so it doesn't hurt to use some of those billions for something other than government programs.

Hell yeah! I definitely want to see the exoskeletons employed before the end of these current wars! These things are like Mjolnir skeletons that a human can do pretty much anything in as they're motor assisted, the only thing missing right now is a viable power source for them but we're working on that too. And Dragon Skin is very fast becoming our armed forces armor of choice because of its projectile isolation and force dispersion effects. Normal ceramic armor can only take about 2 hits before it's completely f*cked, but the dragon skin system uses individual ceramic plates that stop bullets individually. An army guy that wants me to make him a full bulletproof MKVI suit (he'll be paying me $15,000 to do it!) has an armored vest that he got for $5500 at a gun show is about as close to a Mjolnir gel undersuit as you can get. It actually uses a type of Non-Newtonian gel compound that will stop a 30.06 round without taking damage to the overall vest and he's wearing this thing the next time he gets shipped out to the sandbox.

I also want to see the guy that made the hard suit get a defense contract cuz that suit that he made is amazing and scary as all hell to boot!

 

[PillowFire]

As far as I know, Dragon Skin is all well and good when taking shots from directly in front of it, or back of it, but when you throw in odd angles (such as a sniper on a rooftop) there is a chance that the bullet will force its way in between the plates, shred through the adhesive binding them, and tear right through the soft vest material right into your hide. As well, I read that army testing concluded that it couldn't hold up in all temperatures effectively. Something about melting of whatever substance binds the scales together. In any case, there is a lot of controversy surrounding it, and it is not adopted on mass (the U.S. army also states that all personal must wear only field-issue body armor-ie: the interceptor) so the only ones that would use it are spec. ops. types, but those guys rarely even use body armor to begin with due to the marginal increase in protection with severe sacrifice of agility and mobility (and this could mean life and death and to hell with the body armor). I hope Dragon Skin is really all that it's cracked up to be, but in any case, it's nothing compared to what DARPA is working on. MIT's research into magnetoreological fluids is projected by them to have a working smart body armor vest in about 5-10 years, capable of producing enough strength to stop bullets. This is all part of the Future Force Warrior Program, so scaling back our military means cuts, and Research and Development is usually always the first target of budget cuts. This means that if we get cuts in our funding (as certain politicians have expressed a willing to do ASAP and lead us out of Iraq) we are not going to be getting this technology to our troops for MUCH longer. Progress will be slowed up considerably, or will become non-existent.


As far as Global Warming is concerned. It's a load of BS and one look at a few Satalite Pictures of Antarctica over the past few years or more will easily show that sea ice is expanding. Just this year, October was reported to be the coldest month on record (or one of) with snowing in places in China and across the world where it had never previously snowed before in recent history. Al-Gore and friends continue to mash data and, as the perfectly classic saying goes, garbage in-garbage out. This accurately describes what they are doing with their computer models. Further, these 99% of scientists do not exist, as most scientists unanimously agree that EVEN IF GW is man-made, we have no way to stop it and to do so is foolish. Many scientists actually say that this is all BS. Besides, what are they calling it now-a-days, "Man Made Global Climate Change"? Probably because people got tired of hearing of an impending burning apocalypse while freezing their back-ends off at rallies to protest the U.S. causing Global Warming.


Here is my proposition to you all. You want to end Global Warming and save the Polar Bears if that's your slice of cake? Reach into your pocket, pull out 21 trillion USD, cough them over to the UN, and you can expect to see the first phase of the Kyoto protocol complete, and the average global temperature should drop by about.....less than a friggen degree sometime near the end of the 21st century. Do not, however, steal money from me to fund your self-proclaimed holier than thou crusade against natural temperature changes.

 

[Sigma LS]

I figured for once we could have a hot topic thread where people could be civil.

I also thought you guys would learn that since I study paleoclimate and have a degree in the subject and am working on the second, you would not jabber on about what you think climate trends are doing when you clearly know about as much about it as people with the polar opposite view. You guys want to know about what the actual scientists trying to understand climate change are doing, send me a PM and we can discuss it or form a new topic and we can discuss it in a level-headed fashion there.

Stay on topic or don't post at all. Keep it civil, and propose your opinions thoughtfully with a series of strong rationalities to support it. You guys want these kind of topics available to forum members then do that.

Posts that don't follow those guidelines from now on will be removed and the members warned. In other words
"Don't make me kick your ass."

 

[PillowFire]

I think a more likely scenario is a terrorist getting hold of nuclear weapons from whatever source (Iran, perhaps?) and starting World War III. That brings us back to the discussion, since we do need to think about methods of protecting against nuclear weaponry not just when it's being launched half-way across the world on a rocket, but also when it is set off right in our own back yard. That would limit the risk posed by radicals across the world and hey, a nuke sure does a lot more to change the climate than a few SUV's worth of Co2, right?


There is a good way to put all of these nukes lying around to good use though, by using them to power Orion-type rockets to colonize/explore our solar system and reach out to the stars.