fast and deadlyherrr_smity wrote:
blitzkrieg rulesRosse_modest wrote:
I believe the word is blitzkrieg. Call it lightning war or blitzkrieg, avoid using blitzgreag at all costs.JahManRed wrote:
Hitler invented a new form of war, Blitzgreag (Lightning war) again changing the battlefield.
Yes the days of Johnny Rebel trading with the Yanks before Civil War battles are gone. The respect is gone. Like in Vietnam and in Iraq right now, the bad guys (Charlie, Insurgents) used/use Guerilla warfare. The sneaky sneaky shit. Sneak into your camp and cut the throat of your brethen but leave you be. Wake up in the morning to see you were inches away from losing your life will put a bend in your psyche. Why America is still fighting the honorable way is beyond me. Could you imagine if America's forces just fought Guerilla Warfare? I know if there were terrorists in my front yard I'm not going to stand right on my porch and shoot them. I guess we can assume that because neither of those wars was on our land we couldn't fight guerilla warfare style?JahManRed wrote:
War was once seen as being near to sport. Clear boundaries were layed out to avoid civilan casulties. In the 17 & 1800s soliders used to line up and walk into eachother in orderly lines. WW1 had some of these elements (football games between trenches at xmass etc) but was an entrenched war. Though Cities and civilians were still out of bounds.
Hitler invented a new form of war, Blitzgreag (Lightning war) again changing the battlefield.In WW2 Churchill & Hitler had an agreement not to bomb cities untill a night raid on an airbase went off target and bombs fell on London. Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin the next day. And throughout WW2 cities and their infrostructure was targeted and so the trend continues to this day. Look at Iraq, Bosnia, Yougosklivia and afganistan. The war may be over but it is the civilians that have to live in the rubble of wars.Dealing with unexploded ordanents and land mines. I think this fact escapes alot of military planners who call it collateral damage so not to put a face on the suffering.
In 100 years war has changed from a game set out on a battle field with clear rules of war, a victor would be found through skill and troop numbers. Now adays it seams its about destroying or crippling the whole country for decades to win a battle. Nowadays the civilian casulty rate, as in Iraq is many times more than the Armys. War is Dirty and the A Bomb is the dirtyest of all, totally indiscriminate. And it trully scares the shit outa me that warmongerers like Rumsvelt and Cheney have their fingures on the button. (Come on you dont really think they are going to let Bush near that big red button. He would probably Nuke Folrida)
Too bad the UN is an international joke.B.Schuss wrote:
Pre-emptive strikes are not covered by the UN charta..
to bad the UN is an "international joke" because of the superpowers' ( specifically the US ) lack of support for the UN. By its nature, the UN can only be as strong as its members make it to be. It is not the UN's job to serve the interests of the US or the western nations. Instead, they were designed to serve the best interest of all the nations on the planet, to provide an opportunity for peaceful dialog and for resolving conflicts between nations peacefully. In those instances when this hasn't worked out, it has only been due to the unwillingness of the participants to put the world's best interest above their own...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Too bad the UN is an international joke.B.Schuss wrote:
Pre-emptive strikes are not covered by the UN charta..
I watched a show on tv about the Manhatten Project, after the first successful test there was no celebrating just a couple of good jobs and pats on the back, many people who saw the test didnt want the A-Bomb to be used in warfare and some think they shouldnt have even made it cause of its extreme powermp30 wrote:
Nuclear weapons were rendered useless as an actual weapon as a result of the mass proliferation, they now exist only as weapons of fear. Considering that, there is absolutely no logical or remotely possible situation where I see the United States ever using nuclear weapons, modern warfare and enemies make the weapons obsolete as I mentioned before. They are still effective as a means of detente to a certain extent, but even that effect seems to be wavering, we cannot jeapordize our international position by even considering their use. The world understood their effect quite immediately after WWII, and just the fact that the Cold War remained cold shows the reluctance of any legitimate power to use such weaponry( a bit of a naive analysis of the Cold War, but it makes a simple point also).
Watch "Dr. Stranglove", then you'll get it.
Sorry I have to disagree on your last statement . The UN & NATO was only formed to stop the commies moving into western Europe. The Communist threat is dead so should the UN & NATO. Its a huge waste of money. And what do they do, feck all. They stood and watched totsi with machetes go and kill 1000s of civilians but cont do anything due to the charter which states that they cant interfere with other countries unless a resolution has been passed, which takes months and by that time the ppl are dead and buried and forgotten about. I probably sound like a broken record but IMO I think its just a ploy for the US to get air bases in Europe. 702 military bases worldwide in 132 different countries. There are 193 Countries in the world.B.Schuss wrote:
Considering the hundreds of peacekeeping missions the UN has performed, and their work for refugees and the underprivileged all around the world, I can say with some confidence that the UN is truly one of the greatest achievements of mankind since WWII.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Too bad the UN is an international joke.B.Schuss wrote:
Pre-emptive strikes are not covered by the UN charta..
With the US being a founding member of the UN, I would have expected a little more support from an american...Wikipedia wrote:
"However, in many cases UN members have shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions. In 2003, the US led the invasion of Iraq, in the face of strong disapproval by a majority of members. For nearly a decade, Israel defied resolutions calling for the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Such failures stem from UN's intergovernmental nature — in many respects it is an association of 191 member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization. Even when actions are mandated by the 15-member Security Council, the Secretariat is rarely given the full resources needed to carry out the mandates.
The UN was very pro-US in it's early days; later in the 60's and 70's it took on a decidedly anti-US slant, and has had it ever since. Given that there is a clear bias against the US at the UN (mostly by third world countries, as the wealthier countries tend to decide issues based on their own interests - just as the US does), WHY SHOULD the us support or respect the UN when it doesn't get support or respect in return? This is basic relationship stuff - if you are miserable to someone, don't expect them to be cheery in return. Why is it that the US was singled out to pay a share of the UN budget greater than it's world share of GDP? Are we supposed to be happy about that kind of thing?B.Schuss wrote:
to bad the UN is an "international joke" because of the superpowers' ( specifically the US ) lack of support for the UN. By its nature, the UN can only be as strong as its members make it to be. It is not the UN's job to serve the interests of the US or the western nations.
This is a pretty idealistic view of the UN. It is a VERY rare thing for any country to put any other country's interests above its own. Sure, they may talk about the common good when there is no vested interest at stake, but as soon as it costs money, or runs contrary to domestic agenda or opinion, the rest of the world can get stuffed. This is NOT a philosophy that is unique to the United States.B.Schuss wrote:
In those instances when this hasn't worked out, it has only been due to the unwillingness of the participants to put the world's best interest above their own...
Greatest acheivement? I can't agree with that, but I do agree that when they focus on humanitarian endeavours, as opposed to grand scale political or international relations, they aren't bad. In the realm of peacekeeping, however, they are incapable of keeping any peace that both sides involved don't already want to keep.B.Schuss wrote:
Considering the hundreds of peacekeeping missions the UN has performed, and their work for refugees and the underprivileged all around the world, I can say with some confidence that the UN is truly one of the greatest achievements of mankind since WWII.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-04-22 05:47:24)
Be worried about Bush the guy needs meds.whittsend wrote:
There is no excuse for the use of a nuclear weapon, other than having NBC weapons used against us first. Unfortunately, this is not US policy. US policy (which is a holdover from the cold war) is that Nuclear weapons may be used in a conventional conflict, as a last resort. Whether any President is insane enough to implement that policy remains to be seen.
Yea that's what sadam told his people the night before shock and awe. weeks later he was in a hole living like a smelly NYC bum.splixx wrote:
Be worried about Bush the guy needs meds.whittsend wrote:
There is no excuse for the use of a nuclear weapon, other than having NBC weapons used against us first. Unfortunately, this is not US policy. US policy (which is a holdover from the cold war) is that Nuclear weapons may be used in a conventional conflict, as a last resort. Whether any President is insane enough to implement that policy remains to be seen.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-23 11:55:55)
Last edited by blacksheepcannibal (2006-04-23 09:36:56)
Comparatively crude targeting systems in the Fifties and Sixties needed larger warheads to compensate. The yield on modern Nuclear strike weapons is very small in comparison to warheads from the Fifties and Sixties, so yes it is feasible that they could be used and even very effectively. Dr. Strangelove was a Dark comedy film made by an industry that doesn't come close to any understanding of reality. The same people hold child rapists in high regard. To take your cues from them seems naive. If our " International Position " becomes one of Survival I will sign off on a Nuclear strike for what its worth.mp30 wrote:
Nuclear weapons were rendered useless as an actual weapon as a result of the mass proliferation, they now exist only as weapons of fear. Considering that, there is absolutely no logical or remotely possible situation where I see the United States ever using nuclear weapons, modern warfare and enemies make the weapons obsolete as I mentioned before. They are still effective as a means of detente to a certain extent, but even that effect seems to be wavering, we cannot jeapordize our international position by even considering their use. The world understood their effect quite immediately after WWII, and just the fact that the Cold War remained cold shows the reluctance of any legitimate power to use such weaponry( a bit of a naive analysis of the Cold War, but it makes a simple point also).
Watch "Dr. Stranglove", then you'll get it.
People note Fox news as conservative because they are honest. ( the people )mp30 wrote:
Will someone explain to me the logic behind noting FOX news as a conservative network.
I thought it was Hienz Guerdian Who copied it from Knute Rocknee Football plays.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
fast and deadlyherrr_smity wrote:
blitzkrieg rulesRosse_modest wrote:
I believe the word is blitzkrieg. Call it lightning war or blitzkrieg, avoid using blitzgreag at all costs.
The responsibility for the death of Non combats can be placed squarely where it belongs.blacksheepcannibal wrote:
The united states would not use a nuclear weapon, period.
Launch SLBMs, ICBMs, or anything on that scale? The sheer destruction, fallout, and radation would scar our names for decades to come. (most SLBMs and ICBMs are MIRV, with 10-12 warheads each with a yield of 340-450 kilotons)
Even if it was just a single B61 (air-dropped tactical nuke, variable yield, anywhere from .3 kilotons to 340 kilotons. hiroshima (little boy) was 14-16 kiloton, for comparison.) on tehran, how could we explain to the international community the need for the deaths of so many non-combatants?
The only way it would launch is in response to a large-scale launch.
a nintendo gamer heard from, check. Bush takes note.Nintendogamer wrote:
I don't think they'll drop another nuke, if bush did he would become even more unpopular than he is now, and same with all world leaders who decide to drop Nukes.
1 The USA was the biggest instrument in the UNs creation.B.Schuss wrote:
to bad the UN is an "international joke" because of the superpowers' ( specifically the US ) lack of support for the UN. By its nature, the UN can only be as strong as its members make it to be. It is not the UN's job to serve the interests of the US or the western nations. Instead, they were designed to serve the best interest of all the nations on the planet, to provide an opportunity for peaceful dialog and for resolving conflicts between nations peacefully. In those instances when this hasn't worked out, it has only been due to the unwillingness of the participants to put the world's best interest above their own...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Too bad the UN is an international joke.B.Schuss wrote:
Pre-emptive strikes are not covered by the UN charta..
Considering the hundreds of peacekeeping missions the UN has performed, and their work for refugees and the underprivileged all around the world, I can say with some confidence that the UN is truly one of the greatest achievements of mankind since WWII.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-23 12:33:05)