Printable View
For the answer... read history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Churchill recommended that the push be made up through the Balkans and Italy and not across the channel and through France. But no, FDR was one of those "smart" guys who knew everything.
I'm not sure State or the CIA actually have any USA-made missiles and that may be a good thing :pQuote:
Originally Posted by JMA
I won't go agreeing that we actually already tried that routine because Operation El Dorado Canyon's mission specifically targeting barracks, bases and an airfield with (ahem) 60 tons of munitions in 12 minutes. That we missed Gaddafi's tent is mind boggling. But, I do recall the French military attaché in Zaire being a little upset blowing their Embassy in Tripoli :D
At a 100 million for a single Tomahawk (assuming we buy 65 each), estimated production time and lead time to lease a frigate, Gaddafi will have died of old age :cool:
It would be easier to offer 50K to the first person who nabs him, dead or alive.
Yes, you did -- but said subtractions should lead to said losses. They did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Fully tipped? Eye of the beholder, I guess. In my recollection it was a mixed bag and Kerry ran essentially on an anti war platform with near total mass media support.Quote:
In terms of elections, Bush won his second term before public opinion had fully tipped against the action in Iraq (2005 was the earliest a poll showed a majority--56% of Americans--thought that invading Iraq was a mistake).
They really went south because Our Bill escalated the mission from humanitarian aid ala Bush 41 to his very own "Get Aideed" mission via Jonathan Howe. Bill screwed it up and most Americans knew it. That's why I cited Clinton -- who fired his SecDef after the debacle. Said firing was justified because Les was inept -- but trying to pin Mogadishu on him was a bum rap, that was pure Clinton... :rolleyes:Quote:
Operations in Somalia were initiated under Bush I, and when they really went south, Clinton pulled out.
Most history of the Viet Nam era is deeply flawed due to ideological bias -- be very careful what you absorb on the topic. The 1972 election was effectively over Viet Nam and how to end it. Nixon was deeply unpopular for several reasons including his conduct of the war. The left was heavily mobilized against him and the rhetoric was vile particularly over the incursions into Laos and Cambodia plus restarting the bombing of the north and Watergate was a known event but he still won with one of the largest landslides in US history.Quote:Heh. True, I said third when I should have said fourth. Point was by that 1944 election, the War was rapidly losing popularity, winning or not and people were starting to realize they had been led into a major war on many bogus, FDR directed, pretexts. That was offset by the fact that we were winning -- though in the fall of 1944 with the Bulge yet to come, it was not nearly as obvious as it is in hindsight...Quote:
As for WWII, Roosevelt won his third term more than a year before the US was drawn into the conflict (and spent time on the campaign trail issuing reassurances that the US wouldn't be drawn in); by the time of his fourth term, the Allies were clearly winning.
It was also offset by the desire not to change leaders in mid stream effect, an effect which also aided the others. Regardless, history shows that the awarding of votes is not nearly as clear cuts as political and policy wonks would dearly like to believe... :wry:
Hey Stan,Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
...and me an USAF brat and all...:o...ok, in the interest of fairness all of the services to include the PHS (Public Health Service) and NOAA are a great place to serve and give back a small part of the many amazing things we take for granted here ;)
DoS, heh, you know where I stand there...I am a fan...looks like I'll have to step up my DoS stories for you, JMA, and Bill Moore to enjoy. I have in my mind the Young Frankenstein soup scene for some reason when thinking about my lack of ability to properly share...here is a youtube link...Civil Affairs at it's best!
Dude,Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
That was funny ! Sums up my life with State... having hot soup dumped on my nuts :D
Are we talking about the same cruise missiles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
Tomahawk (missile)
For $100m worth of cruise missiles we could have a lot of fun, all I ask for is a paltry three per country (Libya, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Somalia (pirates)).Quote:
Manufacturer General Dynamics (initially) Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost $US 569,000[1]
Specifications
Weight 1,440 kilograms (3,200 lb)
Length Without booster: 5.56 m
With booster: 6.25 m
Diameter 0.52 m
Warhead conventional: 1,000 lb (450 kg) Bullpup, or submunitions dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb, or a 200kt (840 Tj) W80 nuclear device (inactivated in accordance with SALT)
Sorry, I was looking at some old contract data for the whole package deal :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JMA
I doubt we're going to get these at 569K a pop if you only want four each:rolleyes:
Lastly, no reason to go with a unitary warhead... it's a waste of explosives and you'll miss someone. Best to go with a"Clinton disapproved" D model with conventional submunitions ;)
We need precision stuff but if no one is home the message is that "you are safe nowhere so hit the road, Jack". Eventually they will pull him (them) out of a pitiful earth bunker somewhere with no lights, water or crapper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
I have, and I think you're oversimplifying it, and reorganizing it retrospectively to serve an agenda... but since it's way off the topic there's no real point in pursuing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Back on topic...
I'm not sure there are enough discrete targets along the Somali coast to justify the use of cruise missiles, and since they aren't going to be used anyway it's all a bit on the fantasy end.
If there's one lesson to be learned from this, it's that these things need to be stepped on early, before you have 700 hostages spread over 30+ ships up and down the coast. If the first effort had been met with no ransom and an armed rescue, it's not likely that there'd have been a second. Bit late for that now, but something to remember next time around.
Of course these things don't grow because of poverty or resentment at illegal fishing, dumping, etc. Those factors may have something to do with how crime starts, but it grows because the money is really really good and there are no adverse consequences. Unfortunately, by waiting this long to impose adverse consequences we've let the scale get to a point where imposing effective consequences would go beyond what the US and Europe are wiling to do. We are what we are. It is sometimes frustrating that we place so many restrictions on ourselves, but it goes with what we are, and I'm not altogether sure I'd want it otherwise. Unintended consequences, and all that. Sure, the Russians and the Chinese can get away with anything. You want to live in Russia or China?
Maybe the Chinese should have a go. They're well invested in the African trade, and I understand they've some hardware that needs field testing...
No agenda here about FDR. In fact history has been very kind to a man who fed half of Europe to the Soviets. Learn to live with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Actually I recommend the use of armed UAVs for purpose. They are not being used either... yet.Quote:
Back on topic...
I'm not sure there are enough discrete targets along the Somali coast to justify the use of cruise missiles, and since they aren't going to be used anyway it's all a bit on the fantasy end.
That's obvious. What is equally obvious is that it won't be remembered the next time around as we will have a brand new bunch of smart guys in the decision making positions who are too smart to learn from history.Quote:
If there's one lesson to be learned from this, it's that these things need to be stepped on early, before you have 700 hostages spread over 30+ ships up and down the coast. If the first effort had been met with no ransom and an armed rescue, it's not likely that there'd have been a second. Bit late for that now, but something to remember next time around.
Dayuhan:
Why does one have to be Russia or China in order to take decisive action against pirates? The ability to use the seas freely was given to us by the same men who built the culture we live in (I don't know the history all that well, but I would be surprised if it wasn't mostly the RN that lawed the sea). They suppressed piracy and built the institutions of the English speaking peoples that we enjoy mostly at the same time. The USN and RN circa 1910 would not have put up with this and the societies that had those navies built the society we live in. I don't think their intention was to leave us a culture that refuses to defend itself against that which would destroy it. And I don't see any reason we can't handle pirates now. We just have to do it.
Now why we aren't doing it, that is another question; one that speaks to things like decadence etc.
Maybe for the same reason we couldn't go into Afghanistan, wreak havoc, growl "don't make us come back", and leave. We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Maybe for the same reason we don't approve of spanking our children.
We are very devoted to our self-image, and our self-image does not allow us to simply punish. We have to bring salvation as well, and we've taken on more of that than we can manage already.
No Western leader wants to go into an election burdened with the deaths of a few hundred hostages and a bunch of Somali collateral damage, let alone the possibility of another Mogadishu-type incident. They'd rather just let it go on. The Russians and the Chinese don't give a $#!t.
Are we too nice? Probably. On the other hand, think what we could turn into if we started getting nasty...
There haven't been many nastier forms of warfare than atom bombs and fire raids. We did that. But we didn't do the Holocaust, the Great Hungers in Russia and China any of the other "peacetime" horrors inflicted on people. I don't agree that taking decisive action against pirates would turn us into the monsters that roamed the earth in the 20th century.
We are too diffident. But which "we" are we talking about? The flyover people shake their heads in wonderment at what we won't do. The "we" that has the problem is our elites. The elite decision makers are the one who won't do anything. The standard response to that is they can't because the flyover people are too squishy. I don't buy it. They may not be paying much attention but if a leader would take the time to explain, the Americans would get it and they would go for decisive action. The thing that bugs the flyover people is indecisiveness, not hard action.
(That was clever the way you wrote $#!t; only one letter used but the eye is able to pick it up immediately. Cool.)
If the US is to be destroyed, I don't think it will be by Somali pirates. As has been noted, few of the ships and crews being held for ransom are American anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I think it speaks more to how small the problem actually is, once stripped of its romance. One or two of those cruise missiles being discussed would cost us more than the entire yearly pirate industry, even if the pirates were ransoming US ships and crews exclusively--which, again, they're not; quite the opposite. Two cruise missiles would almost certainly kill more people, by themselves, than the pirate industry does in a year. And that's not even counting the retaliatory executions that would result from such an action. (Same goes for using Predators, obviously.)Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Again, that's the thing--it seems like everyone except maybe Stan is imagining that we can just go in and kill pirates piecemeal. We could do that, but it would result in the execution of tens or hundreds of hostages.
Any action we take is going to cost us--just us--more per year than the pirates take from the entire world. And any offensive action is going to cost more hostages their lives than the pirates kill.
I figured that would be the response of somebody. Unbridled piracy and uncontrolled criminality does destroy culture and civilizations. That is one of the hallmarks of civilization, it does not allow piracy. We are indeed refusing to fight that which would, seeks to, destroy us.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Romance? What is romantic about some poor slob Thai fisherman dying of neglect or the people on the Quest being murdered? This ain't romance. TIA. There ain't nothing romantic about TIA. It is death come to get you and it won't be swayed by talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
You might want to check the total cost of ransoms, ship detours, delayed cargos and naval vessels doing fuax navy things vs. the cost of one or two cruise missiles. The figures might surprise you.
Please keep your players straight. I don't want to go onshore. I want to keep things offshore. Piracy occurs at sea. You can stop it at sea. The ships held are anchored in the ocean, just offshore, not onshore. You want to get those hostages out, the first thing you do is keep more hostages from going in.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Check the figures again. And double check the motivation of the guys guarding the ships anchored offshore. Ask yourself if they really really want to face the Marines after one or two of the ships have been retaken and the MEU is headed their way.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Remember the story of Gen Grant and the Army of the Potomac staff? When he first took over that army they kept telling him about what Lee was going to do. He listened to them for awhile then told them to knock it off. He was tired of hearing Bobby Lee this then Bobby Lee that and how Bobby Lee was going to do a double back flip and end up in their rear. He told them that the only thing he would hear from then on was what they were going to do to Bobby Lee.
We are that staff and Grant ain't showed up yet. I hope he gets here.
At last we almost agree on something... but did the US hang around to bring T&J and the American way? Or was it (as it is seen from here) that styaing and escalating in Afghanistan was the cover for Obama to get out of Iraq without being seen to be weak on security and the war on terror?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Why would Obama need "cover" to get out of Iraq? Why would Obama (or anyone) have wanted the US to stay in Iraq? Not like drawing down in Iraq was a terribly unpopular move, or inconsistent with intentions stated while campaigning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
All sounds a bit conspiracy theory-ish to me.
That's a fair ways from piracy, but I'd repeat that the US and Europe are at this point largely prevented from taking any effective steps against piracy by having allowed the problem to expand to a point where effective steps would require a higher commitment and a higher probability of collateral damage than they find acceptable. Not like that observation helps much, but it remains.
Actually I think they're just seeking to make easy money. "Civilization", through the course of history, has allowed some remarkably nasty stuff, as long as the easy money was being made by somebody civilized.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I still wonder what on that coast you could find to shoot a cruise missile at.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
They wouldn't face the Marines. They'd hose the hostages, go ashore, pretend to have been civilians all along, and point the finger at someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
It's easy for us to find or propose easy "solutions". Might be less easy if we were the ones who actually had to implement those solutions and manage the consequences. I agree that it's gotten out of hand and that a lot more is needed - mainly because it was allowed to get so far out of hand - but I don't think it's going to be quite so easy or simple as some would like to believe.
That's really stretching the point. I doubt that we need to worry about undercommitting the forces of law and order, these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Fair enough. I was considering the ransoms, which even in 2010 totaled less than the cost of one Tomahawk annually. Including everything, though? It seems to tally up to around a touch over 13 billion. Still less than any reasonable estimate of the cost of stopping it, considering that at one point the US was spending as much as 12 billion a month in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
That's one estimate of the situation. Another is that they're being held onshore. Whichever it is, you're not addressing the difficulty of freeing the hostages who have already been taken, nor those who would be taken immediately following any action.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I imagine they'll react about the same way the pirates on the Quest did--pop the hostages and then surrender. Which adds up to far more deaths per year than piracy alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
ah... that selective historical memory again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Obama called it "Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Further from the White House: "In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources..."
So what I'm saying his decision to stay on and expand operations in Afghanistan had nothing to do with what you allege being: "We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way."
You were wrong.
I have never figured this one out. How does one manage to surrender in the middle of a fire fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox