Hey John,
On 7 Dec 2009 at 11:02, John Carl wrote: > g'day Platt, > > In response to my statement: > > > > > War never results in happy endings either. > > > > > You said: > > > > Oh, I don't know. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW II and the > > Korean War come to mind as wars with happy endings, at least for the > > victors. The Vietnam War didn't have happy ending because we bugged > > out. The Iraq and Afghan Wars are still works in progress. Successfully > > defending individual freedom from tyrannies is a Quality outcome, even > > when the price in blood and treasure is high. > > > > Your examples reminded me of an old country western comic song, "The > Winner". About a guy who gets in a bar fight and loses an ear, gets his > nose broke, maybe a finger. But the OTHER guy loses two ears and an eye and > gets his whole hand broke so that make the first guy... THE WINNER. > > My point about War being a low-quality way of settling disputes is that its > expensive, destructive and tragic and IF another way can be found it is far > better for all, winners and losers. I like your big IF. > Idealistic sounding? Well, you know me. But what if England's Parliment > had more properly analyzed the fallout of armed conflict with their colony > and been a bit more accomodating? They learned a lesson, that's for sure. > Canada didn't have to go to war to break free, nor did Australia or India. > Isn't that much better all around? Yes, England and the U.S. were amenable to change. But Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, North Korea and the Viet Cong? Not so much. > And it proves that people can think and act rationally, even as in the days > of the formation of the Iroquois confederation when the tribes listened to > Degonidewah and chose peace. Yes, but the Comanches? Not so much. > John prev: > > The military doesn't make very good > > > > community organizers or social workers, I admit. I do think when such > > are > > > employed properly, they have a far more ameliorative and long lasting > > effect > > > than bombing rocky mountain caves into rubble. > > > > I doubt it. Defeating an military enemy involves either killing him or > > destroying his motive to fight. > > > > I vote for destruction of motives over destruction of people. You got my vote. In the meantime . . . > > The problem today is that one small band > > of terrorists with an atom bomb can do horrendous damage. That's why > > North Korea and Iran pose a threat because they appear to have no > > compunctions about making atom weapons available. Pakistan is > > another country where there's a risk that atom weapons can fall into the > > wrong hands. > > > > > The problem today? I agree. We have a big expensive civilization built up > with lots of nukes and they've got mud huts and caves (oversimplification, I > know) with just a few nukes. That's known as the "asymetrical threat" and > it obviates the power of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) tension > which has kept the world from massively destructive warfare these past > decades. So yeah, we've got problems. > > I believe the best solution lies with Russia. They got half the worlds > nukes and we've got the other half and if we put the two halves together in > an alliance, the two of us, would be able to guarantee a lasting peace and > the solution to many local conflicts. That's my theoretical solution. > What's yours? We've been trying to get the Russians to help us vis a vis Iran, without much luck to date. But, still worth the effort. My solution? Take out the capacity of the bad guys to build nukes. > I doubt that today's military is any less capable of creativity and > > initiative > > than in the past. If anything, being a volunteer group, it's probably just > > the opposite from a conscripted military. > > > > But, I could be wrong. > > > I think you are. Anybody who'd volunteer for the humiliation of boot camp > is practically by definition an idiot. Conscription at least guarantees a > cross-section of peoples. A cross-section of reluctant participants is not what I would want for an army. Anyway, to call those who protect your ass "idiots" is highly ungrateful to say the least. > We have the technology at our disposal to completely control any given > theater of war with communication networks and remotely controlled gun > emplacements, massive video surveillance from bunkers, as in England. > England uses this technology on her own people but our military can't > figure out how to subdue Bagdad. > > And some 10,000 years or so after the invention of the wheel, infantrymen > are required to carry some 80 pounds of body armor and equipment on their > backs. I'd modify a jogging stroller with armor and they'd be safer and > more comfortable when they did have to venture out into the populace to > install the networks. > > That's just two examples of common sense original thinking that I came up > with about eight years ago, but our guys just keep doing the same old things > because the military isn't about winning any more, it's about the defense > industry selling big expensive helicopters and humvees and predator drones. > There's not much profit in video cameras and jogging strollers. I guess you've heard of drones. But, never mind. We have the ability to carpet bomb them thar hills in Afghanistan into dirt piles, but our politically correct military doesn't want to wage war anymore. Now it's community organizing with armed diplomats. (What's a "jogging stroller?") > Like the old comparison between America and Russia: NASA spent millions > developing a pen that would write in space. The Russians spent a $1.50 on > pencils. Maybe you should do a little fact checking. From Wikipedia: "There exists a common urban legend claiming that the Americans spent millions of dollars developing the Space Pen, and the Russians used a pencil.[1] In fact, NASA programs have used pencils (for example a 1965 order of mechanical pencils[1]) but because of the danger that a broken-off pencil tip poses in zero gravity and the flammable nature of the wood present in pencils[1] a better solution was needed. "NASA never approached Paul Fisher to develop a pen, nor did Fisher receive any government funding for the pen's development. Fisher invented it independently, and then asked NASA to try it. After the introduction of the AG7 Space Pen, both the American and Soviet (later Russian) space agencies adopted it. Previously both the Russian and American astronauts used grease pencils and plastic slates.[2] > And as always, I could be right. Sometimes maybe, but not always. Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
