Why can't the USA win a war w/o using an Atomic bomb?

[JEDI]

We used the A bomb in Japan, and they surrendered. We rebuilt them into a friendly nation.

With all the military and tech advances, why havent we won a war since? (Korea = won???)


Also:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...eadly.fight/index.html

"The United States was able to get air support overhead within half an hour of the attacked troops' call for help, but a series of problems hindered mounting any sustained counterattack. The source said smoke from a fire lit by the insurgents obscured vision on the ground and in the air, and the narrowness of the valley hobbled any intense close air support."

And with all my tax $$$ dumped into military R&D, a simple smoke screen stopped state of the art attack choppers?! WTF?!

We cant even control a simple mountain ridge occupied by poorly trained people with low grade hand held weapons with their best tech being 2 sticks of wood to create fire!?

WTF?!

 

[nageov3t]

because we care about collateral damage?

I suspect that we could easily win any war we wanted to without using nuclear weapons by carpet bombing the country of choice into the stone age but don't.

 

[Amused]

WWII was the last true "total war."

Limited wars cannot be won.

And we won in Europe without an atom bomb, dumbass.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: loki8481
because we care about collateral damage?

I suspect that we could easily win any war we wanted to without using nuclear weapons by carpet bombing the country of choice into the stone age but don't.

^ this. Wars previously never really gave a flying fuck about collateral damage. Now we have to fight "nice" wars. Really things would be easier if we could just go in and blow everything up, but people are babies and would throw a fit if that happened so it costs us a lot more in man power and money to fight a war without trying to hurt "innocents." I'm not saying innocent people should suffer, but war is supposed to be disgustingly ugly.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Amused
WWII was the last true "total war."

Limited wars cannot be won.

That's a good point.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Because we haven't fought a war since WWII, those you listed were/are military police actions. This won't change until military mongers that run this country stop trying to be policeman for the world.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Because we haven't fought a war since WWII, those you listed were/are military police actions. This won't change until military mongers that run this country stop trying to be policeman for the world.

what's the point of being the most powerful country in the history of the world if we can't use our military to project and protect our national interests?

 

[DaveSimmons]

When we nuked Dresden it was just to retaliate for the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's the point of being the most powerful country in the history of the world if we can't use our military to project and protect our national interests?

I dunno, maybe because we are better then that? Maybe our interests should be whats in our borders? Maybe we should stop killing people for resources? Maybe we should stop killing people for profits?

 

[Nebor]

"the guerilla wins if he does not lose; the conventional army loses if it does not win." -Kissinger

And FWIW, the Russians tried the whole bomb everything genocide approach to Afghanistan. An estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, and it strengthened the resolve of both the insurgents and the civilian populace. The lack of funding and ensuing collapse of the Soviet Union brought this campaign to an end.

My point is, with our stronger military and financial position, I believe we could wage a much more effective bombing\genocide campaign on modern Afghanistan. Modern mine technology alone could maim their children for the next century, easily.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Nebor
My point is, with our stronger military and financial position, I believe we could wage a much more effective bombing\genocide campaign on modern Afghanistan. Modern mine technology alone could maim their children for the next century, easily.

but as we live in a democracy we won't tolerate this kind of warfare. Jeez haven't you guys ever played civilization?

 

[DaveSimmons]

if we clean out the place with neutron weapons Big Oil can run pipelines in peace alongside the factory farms for Big Pharma's opium needs.

 

[piasabird]

We did not win the war in Korea. I have been to the DMZ and north korea was never conquered. We were gutless and settled for a standoff. Probably too many liberals in charge.

First the russian backed north koreans kicked our ass, then the Chinese north koreans kicked our ass. We were too chicken to escalate the war, and they were better equiped (at first). Their supply lines were too close the the war zone and we had to ship supplies all the way from the USA. At that time we had the advantage and we should have nuked all of china and USSR.

We dont have the neutron bomb, because we never made any. (Official Story)

 

[dainthomas]

We beat Grenada.

I agree that lack of funding doomed the USSR in Afghanistan. If we opened up on them with everything we have regardless of civilian casualties, they'd be done in a week or two tops. It worked on the Germans and Japanese, and they were far more badass than the assorted goat herders we're fighting now.

 

[BarrySotero]

After WW II liberals increasingly sympathized more with the enemies. Now we have a president who attacks the CIA while letting Cole bombers off. Dems turned on troops openly in 2005 -6. Al Qaeda was quoting Dems in their videos. They hoped for military failures to get at Bush. Lib media makes Tokyo Rose look helpful. PC rules of engagement make winning hard.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
After WW II liberals increasingly sympathized more with the enemies. Now we have a president who attacks the CIA while letting Cole bombers off. Dems turned on troops openly in 2005 -6. Al Qaeda was quoting Dems in their videos. They hoped for military failures to get at Bush. Lib media makes Tokyo Rose look helpful. PC rules of engagement make winning hard.

threadcrap.txt?

 

[piasabird]

Some people would say that we won the war in Iraq. However, we were trying to change who is in charge not necessarily destroy them. In this instance I dont think there was anything worth winning. Too bad the government wasnt man enough to give up and we had to hunt them down and kill them. It is kind of hard to declare any victory against a country run by terrorists. I think the only way to win against terrorists is kill every man woman and child. Well at least Sadam and his sons are dead.

I wish we would have spent that much money drilling for oil and freeing the west from the oil of the middle east.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's the point of being the most powerful country in the history of the world if we can't use our military to project and protect our national interests?

I dunno, maybe because we are better then that? Maybe our interests should be whats in our borders? Maybe we should stop killing people for resources? Maybe we should stop killing people for profits?

If Russia were to start conquering all of Eastern Europe, should the US and Western Europe look within our own borders?

If there had been world powers prior to WWI and WWII, Germany would have been stopped before they annexed half of Europe and entrenched themselves. The police-action war would have been minuscule in scale compared to the 50-70million killed in WWII. I suppose everyone could have sat back and allowed the Nazis to overwhelm Europe, exterminate all but the "Aryans," and move on throughout the world at will...

 

[Xellos2099]

We could have easily won some of the past war, like Vietnam and Korea. However, due to the US policy of trying to have peace talk with them over and over again, we end up losing since US was afraid to take the victory. Some people just don't understand, either you win or you lose. Nothing nice ever happen whenever there is so call peace talk. Remember World War II? Eureope try to have peace talk with Germany and offer Poland to Germany, guess what happen?

A true peace talk can only happen when both side are sick and tire of war and all the death. We have seen in many time in human history that most peace talk are attempt to buy times to rest and recoup and then continue fighting. Why should a winning nation offer peace talk?

 

[StageLeft]

This has less to do with collateral damage and more to do with the enemy, which is not a sovereign government. Iraq's government was easy to topple as was Afghanistan's, but now the rest of the resistance just blends in and dicks around.

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, the premise is false, militarily we have won all those wars. Fault not the military.

What we failed to do is win the peace, and for that we have to blame our politicians who have demanded that our military win an occupation on the cheap. And the handmaiden of any occupation on the cheap is the anarchy that creates a power vacuum that empowers local thugs and destroys the local governmental institutions. Gradually the local populace grows to hate the occupation because the anarchy and thuggery drags on and on.

Maybe some future US Powell type doctrine will get the military and politicians on the same channel, with the opening tenet of that doctrine being to hit the ground running to rebuild the economic and political infrastructure. And the second tenet being, go big or stay at home.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
When we nuked Dresden it was just to retaliate for the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

We getting our news from Animal House now?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's the point of being the most powerful country in the history of the world if we can't use our military to project and protect our national interests?

I dunno, maybe because we are better then that? Maybe our interests should be whats in our borders? Maybe we should stop killing people for resources? Maybe we should stop killing people for profits?

If Russia were to start conquering all of Eastern Europe, should the US and Western Europe look within our own borders?

If there had been world powers prior to WWI and WWII, Germany would have been stopped before they annexed half of Europe and entrenched themselves. The police-action war would have been minuscule in scale compared to the 50-70million killed in WWII. I suppose everyone could have sat back and allowed the Nazis to overwhelm Europe, exterminate all but the "Aryans," and move on throughout the world at will...

ohh noes strawman! when did I say that? Right now we bomb 3rd world brown skin people.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

...Speed for the sake of unambiguous victory has been America's way, not speed for the sake of a quick war that leaves the enemy unbeaten and low casualties on each side. This is a basic lesson of military history since Alexander, one, moreover, taught in our military academies, war colleges, and on staff rides that analyze the dazzling speed and maneuvering of Jackson's divisions in the Shenandoah Valley and at Chancelorsville. It is drummed into the heads of U.S. officers and becomes their default response when asked to define victory. For this reason, it is stunning that no U.S. general officer has had the moral courage to resign and speak publicly about the dangers accumulating from the type of war America has fought since the Iraq war in 1991. Our two current half-fought wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- are good examples of what happens when generals silently accept their civilian leaders' "political" requirements for war-fighting...

...Most of us learn this lesson early in life. America, too, learned it early, but seems to have forgotten. UN mandates, coalition-building, and multinational forces are contemporary concepts meant to limit the U.S. expenditure of blood and money. When such efforts are made on issues peripheral to U.S. national interest, such as the 2003 Liberia intervention, they are tolerable. But for defending core U.S. interests they usually yield delay, limits on U.S. military power due to squeamish allies, and problems half-solved or wars half-fought. The lesson is not only that others will not do our dirty work, but that others will stop us from doing our dirty work as completely as possible...

...Because Americans are not used to a professional military fighting their wars, they are too worried by casualties -- though not as worried as their elites believe. No soldier's life can be wasted, but America should not be less optimally defended for fear of losing military lives. Gone, for now, are the days of valorous volunteers and eager draftees flocking to the colors in a national emergency. The U.S. military's men and women are professionals; they are soldiers by choice; it is their chosen career. For whatever reason they joined -- love of country, money for college, avoiding jail, a taste for violence, a desire to travel, shelter from the competitive economy, or a hundred other reasons -- the contract is as it was in ancient times: In return for getting what you sought by enlisting, the nation sends you where you are needed and you die if necessary. Only the U.S. Marines always recall this truism and go quietly and efficiently about the business of killing.

This is a harsh statement, but no less true for being harsh. The sooner our leaders start speaking of the cruel reality of professional soldiering, the sooner Americans will stop knee-jerk yellow ribboning -- itself a constant reminder of our defeat by Iran's Islamists -- and calling to "bring the troops home" almost before they deploy to a war zone. Common sense and the extraordinary expense of a professional military demand that U.S. leaders spend the capital accumulated between wars -- trained, professional soldiers -- as needed when the nation is at war. Today's military is, more than at any time in our history, a professional killing machine. The decision of when and how to use it must not be made in the nostalgic fog wrought by the unending deification of World War II's fuzzy-cheeked draftees, but rather in the clear-eyed recognition that each U.S. soldier put in harm's way goes there not just for the country, but for pay and other recompense...

Excerpt's from Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris.

Half-fought wars FTL.

 

[bfdd]

TheSkinsFan, good post.