Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars

  1. #21
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    Then I must ask: when do punitive operations make sense? If we determine that military action is an appropriate response to a given scenario, must we always rebuild the country?

    I would think that the Israeli scenario is somewhat different than ours however. Israel's threats are only a rocket launch away since their enemies live among and beside them. We have not faced an enemy capable of sustained attacks on our country. We always take the fight to them. Does this make a difference?
    Some punitive actions are responses to unwarranted aggression; their goal is to reverse the affects of that aggression. I would consider Desert Storm to have been a punitive action that did not require rebuilding of the aggressor. We did not do enough damage to the aggressor's infrastructure to warrant rebuilding. Additionally any cost that Iraq incurred to rebuild damage to itself as a result of its invasion of and subsequent ouster from Kuwait should be considered punishment for the aggression.

    In World War II, our two primary opponents were capable of conducting sustained attacks against. The Japanese successfully invaded two American islands (Kiska and Attu), were defeated in their effort to occupy Midway, and inflicted a real hurt on our capabilities across the Hawaiian Islands. German submarines operated within our coastal waters and the Germans developed aircraft ostensibly capable of completing a trans-Atlantic bombing run (Me 264,
    Ju 390). During the Cold War,and even today, America was only a rocket launch away from a potential enemy.

  2. #22
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    I would think that the Israeli scenario is somewhat different than ours however. Israel's threats are only a rocket launch away since their enemies live among and beside them. We have not faced an enemy capable of sustained attacks on our country. We always take the fight to them. Does this make a difference?
    Echoing WM somewhat I would add that in looking at threats to the US (especially pre-missile age and to a certain degree pre-strategic airpower) those threats were often naval. We were and still are in many ways a clone of our British heritage (my Black Irish ancestors just flopped like a frog leg in a skillet over that one); we were/are a maritime power. Even as we broadened the reach of our airpower with the B17 we sold it to Congress as an extension of our martime defense (the flying fortress was a metaphor for extending "fortress America"). During WWII one could swim at the beach on the Gulf by the light of the burning tankers. And as a kid I remember doing the crouch and cover in the elementary school hall way over missiles in Cuba. Strategic reach of the Soviets was quite a reality.

    I would also agree with WM that Desert Shield/Storm was very much a strategic coalition-based punitive action.

    Best

    Tom

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •