"Protecting our freedom overseas"

When someone's about to start a war of aggression with you, all options are exhausted by definition. You don't coddle aggressors, you crush them.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

To be honest, if someone has already mobilised their forces, you're pretty much at war by defacto anyway.

edited 19th May '11 5:56:02 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Um, no actually and it's not really an attitude that worked out well for Germany 1914.

If the enemy is going to attack you anyway, a pre-emptive strike at a national level isn't a good choice.

International support is legitimately powerful, so you really should bring your evidence before the world. Not because you care, but because you damage any alliances or trade they have by making the other country look like assholes, regardless of if they attack or not afterwards.

And strategically, I'd rather know they are coming and be dug in with the home field advantage so I can weather the initial shock better. Invading a country is a serious pain in the ass, especially while they are fully mobilized, even with the element of surprise.

^ Because that worked so well for France in 1940...

It works fine when you use maneuver warfare instead of building trenches and static fortifications. There's a reason we almost never use permanent fortifications anymore.

I'm not saying you've gotta invade straight away, but it's a good moment for trying to cripple their military capabilities before they invade you.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I guess a lot of it depends on how you are regarded by the rest of the world. Some countries could get away with that and come out ahead, others could not.

Or you can send UN inspectors to check that their military capabilities are indeed crippled, then invade.

edited 19th May '11 7:42:19 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Not all nations have the maneuverability of the US military nor the numbers to dance their forces around as if it were guided by a puppeteer. 1974 S. Vietnam couldn't do that and were crushed in a defensive war. Kuwait in 1990 barely put up a fight against Saddam's Iraq. South Korea would be a Communist state today had US troops (and thus assuring US involvement from the beginning) not been in the area in 1950. A similar case can be made for Georgia in 2008 against the Russians.

The goal of a pre-emptive strike is to prevent a losing defensive war. Rarely if ever are wars won purely by defensive actions. The Confederates in 1861 would realize that.

You overestimate international support and siding with you. Look at Libya, the NATO commitment is pathetically small compared to the combined air force capabilities of the members involved. (And don't get me started on the Arab League's total lack of involvement at all) If a backwater gains so little support for an action that's widely regarded as doing better than letting Qaddafi slaughter his people, what makes you think a much more major conflict will suddenly resurrect the Allied Powers of WW 2? A lot of nations are going to keep their asses out unless the war comes to them.

So what option does that leave you against an enemy you know is massing troops with all probability to invade you? There's been contemporary happenings of just that scenario. Where? Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights in 1967. Israel saw Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian troops massing for an attack on Israel proper and they hit first and crushed the Arab forces in a swift pre-emptive attack. 6 years later they would do as you say and the only real support internationally was US shipments of new equipment. In 1973 they stood a very real chance of being destroyed by doing what you want. The end result was much bloodier than 1967, much longer, and it toppled the notion of Israel ever allowing a defensive war on Israeli soil again.

The same will happen again and again across the world for the rest of time.

There is no way US could possibly have a war with anyone other than a fellow superpower and have it actually be protecting US citizens. (And, of course, the other superpower would have to have started it.) None of the countries US has invaded since World War II pose any significant threat to US whatsoever.

Oh, and terrorism doesn't count as military action. Terrorists are a policing issue, not a hostile army.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Treating terrorism as a police issue got us two attacks on the World Trade Center, each more devastating than what was before. Treating terrorism as a military affair has landed us almost 10 years of jack shit happening on US soil an interval already longer than that between the WTC attacks.

Oh, we also found some old dude in a compound.

Would you like my tiger-repelling rock?

edited 19th May '11 8:32:29 AM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Did we really treat terrorism as a police issue? Or did we just not pay any attention to it at all and assume that it wasn't our problem? I don't recall hearing much about the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or terrorism in general prior to our being attacked.

Also, treating it as a military problem has led to us being in a war that is fundamentally unwinnable. If the choice is between that or having some nutjobs murder people on our home soil every once in a while, I'll take the latter. Less casualties and less expense.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

America's defense spending has risen 80% to over $600 billion since 2001. I don't see Americans 80% safer. This notion of the world power keeping the peace by itself is not even Cold War. It's iron age.

More like Victorian. The British Empire was the "World's Policeman" before the Americans too over after the end of World War Two.

And terrorism's more of a Security*

issue than a Police one.

Keep Rolling On

To be fair, that's because a large fraction of the world was The British Empire.

edited 19th May '11 9:42:25 AM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

^^ I guess. I usually think of FBI as police, myself.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

I'm not sure if I'd trust the CIA or European intelligence agencies with protecting us from terrorism - as I've said in many threads before, it's been proven that the CIA and European intelligence networks were responsible for almost all terrorist attacks in Europe during the cold war.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I know because France totally lost WW 2 and no allies helped it out. Oh wait.

It didn't get much international support. Neither the Americans nor Soviets were rushing to their aid after Hitler crushed the French in a matter of weeks. (Instead both parties were content to let them rot...at least until the war came for them directly.)

Actually, the war had already come to the US directly - hundreds of sailors had died when German submarines sunk American vessels, civilian and military, long before Pearl Harbor.

And what that BS about no-one coming to France's aid? The UK had a major army in France, and then there were troops from pretty much all of the allied countries - Belgium, Poland, Netherlands, and probably some Canadian and ANZAC troops to boot.

France certainly did get international support. It's just that the Germans were better - they had superior manpower, superior equipment (except tanks at that point), and most important of all, superior tactics.

It almost sounds as if you only consider things important and are only interested when the US is involved.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

But after France had already fallen which was my whole point. The world didn't rush to France's defense as the fighting intensified in 1940. Sure they had a few friends in the area like Belgium, the UK and Commonwealth forces, but the rest of the world shied away (or were the belligerents themselves). The Chinese didn't care about France, the Americans didn't jump into the conflict over France, the Soviets didn't jump in over France.

Thus my point, don't count on international aid or intervention when determining a threat of nearby massing troops. (And don't count on a defensive war either.) You will always be disappointed at the reluctance of everyone else even if someone else stepped up to the plate.

France fell because they were reliant on a system of static defenses, while the Germans used maneuver warfare and either bypassed or ignored those static defenses. That the Allies liberated them is irrelevant; they had to be liberated due to a heavy reliance on obsolete tactics and strategy.

Interestingly enough, German units that took over parts of the Maginot Line proved to be pretty hard to dig out. The Germans had trouble actually taking out parts of the Line, until the Armistice was signed and the French defenders of that line were told to surrender. The Line survived the attack, mroe or less, but it did not sucessfully deter the invasion, thus it is a strategic failure. I'd like to tour the ruins of the Line someday. A few bits of it continue to see use even today.

"Generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it."

Anyway, what were we talking about again?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.