Have we lost the ability to wage a full scale war?

[Agent11]

When was the last time we fought a war to then occupy. Never.

???

You seem to have missed the 20th and 21st centuries, and all previous.

 

[Savatar]

.....
As a society we are being more peaceful. Crime rates are down, murders are down,,, but at what cost?

If the time ever comes, will be able to find enough men filled with blood lust to defeat the enemy?

Wow. I am shocked that nobody has addressed this, regardless of whether a full-scale war is practical in the modern day or not because of the absolute devastation it would cause. I never thought I'd read something that implies that lower crime rates is a bad thing. War absolutely isn't about blood lust, and perfectly moral people are more than capable of engaging in warfare when the time calls for it - we all fight our own personal wars. It's normal to hope that full-scale war doesn't happen, though, because as a society we know it is ugly. It is normal for the news to report on deaths and for us to react to that, because we must never forget that it is a very tragic thing - it is a newsworthy thing. Training people to not care about stuff like that, or promote violence, would definitely not be what we want - and that seems to be what your line of thinking is. That is very concerning to me.

I have no doubt that we as a society have the resolve to go to war for a worthy cause, or to risk our lives for the greater good. If you speak generally, there will be some people who refuse to - as there has always been. There will be some people who are cowboys and rush to war - as there has always been. But ultimately, society will respond to circumstances as it always has. As we see things develop that require action in the world, whether that action is mercy or severity, we will surely act because at the end of the day we know that leaving things alone is not acceptable.

My last point is absolutely critical and I cannot stress this enough: war is not born out of a 'lust' for war or bloodshed as you say. Both war and mercy are born from a thirst for security and righteousness, and an enduring hope for something better - that idyllic and ever-near yet seemingly just out of our reach land of promise. This is true on both sides if you look hard enough, they believe they are pursuing the right thing. The question of whether those aims are really misguided or not has ever been the problem in history.

 

[xBiffx]

???

You seem to have missed the 20th and 21st centuries, and all previous.

What countries do or did we occupy after a war? Having a few military bases isn't occupying. If those countries wished it, we would leave. Once a theater was secured we didn't have a constant military presence roaming the countryside nor did we install governments. The draft had nothing to do with this regardless.

 

[Agent11]

Originally Posted by Texashiker View Post
.....
As a society we are being more peaceful. Crime rates are down, murders are down,,, but at what cost?

If the time ever comes, will be able to find enough men filled with blood lust to defeat the enemy?

You should really watch Seargent York.

'The film was based on the diary of Sergeant Alvin York, as edited by Tom Skeyhill,[3] and adapted by Harry Chandlee, Abem Finkel, John Huston, Howard Koch, and Sam Cowan (uncredited). York refused, several times, to authorize a film version of his life story, but finally yielded to persistent efforts in order to finance the creation of an interdenominational Bible school. The story, that York insisted on Gary Cooper for the title role, derives from the fact that producer Jesse L. Lasky recruited Cooper by writing a plea that he accept the role and then signed York's name to the telegram.[4]'

I've seen this movie numerous times and besides Gary Cooper being awesome it shows the life and the theological/philosophical musings of a pious man who morally was conflicted between being a conscientious objector and serving his country in WWI, Sergeant Alvin York the most-decorated American soldier of World War I.

 

[Agent11]

What countries do or did we occupy after a war? Having a few military bases isn't occupying. If those countries wished it, we would leave. Once a theater was secured we didn't have a constant military presence roaming the countryside nor did we install governments. The draft had nothing to do with this regardless.

We occupied Germany and Japan for decades.

We occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and are still in Afghanistan.

We occupied territories that we absorbed to various extents in the 18th-19th centuries as well, and the west and European powers in general have been doing it a lot longer.

There is quite a lot of information out there, if you look.

 

[xBiffx]

We occupied Germany and Japan for decades.

We occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and are still in Afghanistan.

We occupied territories that we absorbed to various extents in the 17th-19th centuries as well.

You confuse occupy with secure. Someone had to stay behind and secure and assist in rebuilding until a government was capable. That isn't occupation when there isn't another authority (government) present. We would have left Germany or Japan if we were asked. We have been guests in those countries for many years. We, for the most part, left Iraq even though it is arguably not over and Afghanistan is still and active conflict.

Again, none of this has anything to do with a draft, however. You bring up Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars happened without a draft.

 

[Agent11]

And they were failures. A draft allows you to meet the requirements of military doctrine for manpower in such a situation.

 

[Texashiker]

Wow. I am shocked that nobody has addressed this, regardless of whether a full-scale war is practical in the modern day or not because of the absolute devastation it would cause.

<snip>

This is true on both sides if you look hard enough, they believe they are pursuing the right thing. The question of whether those aims are really misguided or not has ever been the problem in history.

Over the past 30 years or so, that I remember anyway, there has been a movement to protect children from violence.

At one time or another US congress, and state law makers have tried to restrict violent video games, books, movies. Lately there has been a zero tolerance on play guns.

Frankly, law makers and liberals are turning this nation into a bunch of sissies.

We are fighting an obesity epidemic and the majority of young men have little to no experience with firearms.

How are we supposed to fight a war when the next generation would rather be playing video games than doing anything outside?

Companies warn parents about the dangers of bacteria, and how everything needs to be sanitized, but those same mothers are supposed to send their kids off to war?

A draft allows you to meet the requirements of military doctrine for manpower in such a situation.

Between obesity and autism, what makes you think we have enough men?

 

[Spungo]

My line of work (Automation Engineer). I have yet to work on a robot that replaced a human worker. The human worker's job just changes, they are never terminated. Someone has to be there to feed the robot after all.

Of course robots and machines replace jobs. To do my job without a computer would probably require 5 people. The bombing runs that required hundreds of men during WW2 can be done by a single ICBM. This is why it never really bothers me when people say China's army has millions of people because it doesn't really mean anything. WW1 demonstrated that men are easily destroyed by things like machine guns and artillery. I'll start to worry when they have a million fighter jets.

 

[Agent11]

Over the past 30 years or so, that I remember anyway, there has been a movement to protect children from violence.

At one time or another US congress, and state law makers have tried to restrict violent video games, books, movies. Lately there has been a zero tolerance on play guns.

Frankly, law makers and liberals are turning this nation into a bunch of sissies.

We are fighting an obesity epidemic and the majority of young men have little to no experience with firearms.

How are we supposed to fight a war when the next generation would rather be playing video games than doing anything outside?

Companies warn parents about the dangers of bacteria, and how everything needs to be sanitized, but those same mothers are supposed to send their kids off to war?




Between obesity and autism, what makes you think we have enough men?

People can lose weight, they will just have some extra skin.

The autism 'epidemic' is to some extent in my opinion bogus. Just like ADD people are being misdiagnosed and medicated to fix personal problems, caused in no small part by the growing number of dysfunctional homes and schools.

The term has been broadened to include such a diverse spectrum of conditions so as to have absolutely no meaning.

Of course there are the traditional varieties that are serious conditions, but that is not the average example these days.

 

[Pocatello]

America is ready for an army of mech warriors to do the fighting. Then we all can watch the war fighting on ESPN or youtube.

 

[xBiffx]

Of course robots and machines replace jobs. To do my job without a computer would probably require 5 people. The bombing runs that required hundreds of men during WW2 can be done by a single ICBM. This is why it never really bothers me when people say China's army has millions of people because it doesn't really mean anything. WW1 demonstrated that men are easily destroyed by things like machine guns and artillery. I'll start to worry when they have a million fighter jets.

You aren't talking about robots.

 

[Savatar]

Over the past 30 years or so, that I remember anyway, there has been a movement to protect children from violence.

At one time or another US congress, and state law makers have tried to restrict violent video games, books, movies. Lately there has been a zero tolerance on play guns.

Frankly, law makers and liberals are turning this nation into a bunch of sissies.

We are fighting an obesity epidemic and the majority of young men have little to no experience with firearms.

How are we supposed to fight a war when the next generation would rather be playing video games than doing anything outside?

Companies warn parents about the dangers of bacteria, and how everything needs to be sanitized, but those same mothers are supposed to send their kids off to war?

Between obesity and autism, what makes you think we have enough men?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're trying to get at here.

Of course law makers naturally try to do what they think will make this nation safer, and reduce crime rates. While I don't necessarily agree with their methods, those were their motivations. Regardless, considering those laws to limit or otherwise censure violent movies/games/books were largely unsuccessful - as well as most of the gun control efforts, it is kind of a moot point. Not to mention that those things would make no difference in how capable of an army the nation can field. You seem to be still thinking that kids should be violent in order to be ready for war. That's just misguided... that's just wrong, and disturbing.

The United States has one of the best military training programs in the world, so saying that kids aren't trained to shoot and kill is kind of bizarre, considering they wouldn't need to be and probably shouldn't be. And, the last time I checked the Boy Scouts still teach how to use basic firearms and let kids shoot. Going to the range is still a popular past-time in different regions in the US.

The last point about obesity is actually a trend that is reversing, and I expect the trend will continue to reverse over the next decade as more and more companies and businesses promote healthy living via menu changes and insurance incentives.

If you look it up, playing video games can actually improve a child's reflexes and hand-eye coordination, as well as problem solving skills. To say that people who play video games wouldn't go to war is also kind of weird, because these kids are also more connected to the news than ever before. Any event which generates large public sentiment, the kind that would require the nation to go to war, would likely still generate just as much if not more people than before. It's just that a lot of people don't enlist until something happens. Regardless, even though our army may be smaller than other armies, as Spungo pointed out, the raw number of troops doesn't mean quite as much as it used to in times past because of fundamental shifts in the way wars are fought.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Actually I'm less concerned about your ability to wage war and more concerned about the current rules of engagements and war crimes stuff. If you tried fighting WW2 like you did in Iraq/Afghanistan it would be impossible to win when we will have anti-wars foaming over their collective mouths over civilian casualties when those peeps are actively colluding with their military forces and vice-versa.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're trying to get at here.

Over the past few decades there has been a change in our society from hardwork and sacrifice, to being fat and lazy.

Lets take the IRS targeting and the NSA as an example.

The public does not care. As long as they can go to work, go home, watch TV and play on the internet nothing else is important.

Would the people even care if the government was overthrown? As long as the people can watch american idol and get a cheeseburger, is anything else important?

 

[moonbogg]

We had full scale war and we won. That's the end of it. It can happen again but not until America's power becomes level with other potential enemies. Trying to wage war on America right now would be absolutely lunatic.

 

[brycejones]

Ok, everyone just agree with the OP that American men are a bunch of pussies and we couldn't defend our country from an invasion by Priscilla queen of the desert because that seems to be the OP's angle.

Now OP what the fuck do you want to do about it?

 

[Savatar]

We had full scale war and we won. That's the end of it. It can happen again but not until America's power becomes level with other potential enemies. Trying to wage war on America right now would be absolutely lunatic.

It depends on the strategies employed. There are many different aspects of 'war' and things that even groups with limited resources could do to cause damage - depending on their motivations or targets - not just the military might card. History has shown many times that David can beat Goliath. I'm not advocating that at all, just pointing out that our national security relies on a lot more than just our armed forces. We should always be vigilant.

China, for example, is doing a lot of that today according to many different news sources. Corporate and industrial espionage is giving them huge returns and really hurting our American businesses. Whether we want to call it 'war' or not, it is what it is. I think I remember that there were even stories about them shipping chips to companies that supply the military that have been compromised with back-doors or other defects so they will not work as designed. In light of that, perhaps you can understand the Huawei controversy - since it is [at least partly] government-funded.

 

[Spungo]

You aren't talking about robots.

Alright well how about manufacturing? That show about how things are made is always interesting. The machines are so fast that film needs to be slowed down just to see what the machine is doing. There was a time when that stuff was all done by hand by people who were paid almost nothing. Those jobs went away but it freed up a lot of man power to work on bigger and better things.

 

[Jaskalas]

If the time ever comes, will be able to find enough men filled with blood lust to defeat the enemy?

I think I could strain myself to push the little red button and launch nuclear missiles. War ain't what it used to be.

It is becoming a field of highly trained specialists, not blood lusting grunts.

 

[raildogg]

Man has sent man to the moon yet has no idea whatsoever how to end wars. Instead, he is constantly trying to perfect the art of killing.

 

[Pocatello]

Man has sent man to the moon yet has no idea whatsoever how to end wars. Instead, he is constantly trying to perfect the art of killing.

It just business. War is very good business.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not lost the ability as in physically, but physiologically.

If we lose a handful of troops in a single day in Iraq there is all kinds of news about it.

Battle of Gettysburg 51,000 men were killed or wounded between July 1 - 3.

How would the public respond now if 50,000 men were killed or wounded in 3 days?

In this thread about how schools are hostile to boys, how can we teach boys not to be aggressive, then expect them to go off to war?

As a society we are being more peaceful. Crime rates are down, murders are down,,, but at what cost?

If the time ever comes, will be able to find enough men filled with blood lust to defeat the enemy?

You ignore why we war at all. Given sufficient cause, America has risen to the task. Notice the qualifier, "sufficient cause". There was insufficient cause for great sacrifice in Vietnam, In Afghanistan, and in Iraq. When any Army starts to take a lot of casualties, the question of worthwhile sacrifice always comes to the surface.

So when leaders don't really have sufficient cause, they have to minimize casualties in order to wage war at all.

If we think about it much, that's why weapons like drones & GPS guided cruise missiles are rapidly becoming weapons of choice. Govts like our own can wage war with near impunity to public opinion, because there are very few casualties on our side. The threshold for war is therefore lowered far below the standard for self defense.

 

[Jaskalas]

Man has sent man to the moon yet has no idea whatsoever how to end wars. Instead, he is constantly trying to perfect the art of killing.

Nixon "went to china". I'd say we're making strides.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a bit like asking if we've lost the ability to ride horses into battle. Yes we have an it does not matter. Full scale war? That's nukes. How many bodies do you need for that? War is now about precision. We aren't going to have Panzer divisions invading. They'd be vaporized.