I'm starting to think "precision" war is a scourge on humanity

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-04-2006, 03:22 PM

Nowadays because of modern technology, the USA and other countries like Israel seem to think they can cleanly wage wars...you know, sort of neatly remove the people or things they don't like, sweep and buff a little, and then things will be put back to normal. However, I'm starting to think this is a fucked strategy.

Why did Germany and Japan turn out different in WWII? Could part of it be that their societies were utterly destroyed in the end? Could it also be that they (as in the entire population) understood continued war meant total destructiona and death for damn near everyone?

What happens now instead? We have these sterile precision strikes which are just messy enough to enrage the population, but underpowered enough to make people not fear war with the USA or anyone else. And then to make things worse, the fact that this sort of war is supposedly more antiseptic makes us all the more likely to engage in it.

Perhaps humanity would be better off if we adopted an all or nothing attitude toward war like we used to have...where we'd be very hesitant to go to war, but when we do, there's nothing left of the loser. That way there is either peace, or war and then finality...not this ongoing quasi war permashit we have now.

I think an all-or-nothing mentality is why the cold war never turned hot. It's probably also why we're in the Iraq mess in the first place...the fact that in Gulf War I we simply did a little and then left only caused the threat to remain. And now that we went back in, we are still refusing to do the job completely.

Maybe countries who use precision warfare aren't morally superior after all. Maybe they're just perpetuating the notion that violence can solve problems.

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 03:33 PM

I've actually read something very similar before. Someone was saying that we expect a lot from our precision missiles, and often more than they can actually perform. They had examples of precision missles dropped by America who claimed to have hit the exact target what actually it hit quite a few yards away and in some cases even killed innocents.

Claiming precision definately perpetuates the idea that we can get away with more. It's a bad deal

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:34 PM

you'd prefer carpet-bombing or nuking?

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

you'd prefer carpet-bombing or nuking?

I think I'd probably prefer no bombing

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-04-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

you'd prefer carpet-bombing or nuking?

Yes, but only provided war is an absolute last resort...not bullshit rhetoric like Bush claiming we had no choice but to invade Iraq, but literally an absolute last resort.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Yes, but only provided war is an absolute last resort...not bullshit rhetoric like Bush claiming we had no choice but to invade Iraq, but literally an absolute last resort.

'a last resort' is up for debate though.

is a last resort after we've been bombed first? after 9/11-type incidents? or perhaps in a situation like with iran? what is a last resort?

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think I'd probably prefer no bombing

who doesn't. but then there's this thing called 'reality'

beez · 08-04-2006, 03:45 PM

The thing is you can't have perpetual wars if they're that destructive. You need these small conflicts to give you just enough justification to send your military in and keep them around but not enough death and destruction to allow the population to feel as if it's urgent to finish the conflict.

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

who doesn't. but then there's this thing called 'reality'

you asked for my preference

I'm not against precision bombs, I'm just against using them so freely... like when we're not at war and shit.

Phantom · 08-04-2006, 03:51 PM

I tend to think the middle east needs to go through a massively destructive war before any peace can be acheived. There's just too much history and too many people with guns and hatred living in close proximity for peace to exist. Some groups need to be annihilated and some need to emerge. Once a pesky group is broken, it can integrate into the new society, move away or just disappear entirely.

Those groups that emerge can have both the opportunity for peace and to build a country that can be held responsible for its actions.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-04-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

'a last resort' is up for debate though.

is a last resort after we've been bombed first? after 9/11-type incidents? or perhaps in a situation like with iran? what is a last resort?

I think Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden, and knowing 100% that they have him, and knowing 100% that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, and trying everything possible to negotiate and failing...that's a last resort.

I think the Iran situation is the epitome of NOT a last resort. I don't see how a country trying to get the same technology that we, and many other countries, have leaves us no choice but to go to war.

Last resort is the Nazis trying to take over Europe or Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-04-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by beez

The thing is you can't have perpetual wars if they're that destructive.

That's the point.

7960 · 08-04-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I've actually read something very similar before. Someone was saying that we expect a lot from our precision missiles, and often more than they can actually perform. They had examples of precision missles dropped by America who claimed to have hit the exact target what actually it hit quite a few yards away and in some cases even killed innocents.

Claiming precision definately perpetuates the idea that we can get away with more. It's a bad deal

On the other side I remember reading a story written by an iraqi after persian gulf v1, and how they used to go watch from the rooftops as we dropped bombs in the city because they knew they weren't in a building that housed anything important so they knew they were safe.

But to the thread starter, precision is a scourage on humanity. War should be ugly. Soldiers should fight with knives and sticks. We shouldn't be able to back up 200 miles and lob 2,000 bombs and then go home and eat a warm meal. Seeing a war *should* make anyone who was involved *never* want o go back.

7960 · 08-04-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by beez

The thing is you can't have perpetual wars if they're that destructive. You need these small conflicts to give you just enough justification to send your military in and keep them around but not enough death and destruction to allow the population to feel as if it's urgent to finish the conflict.

so countries create war so they can justify having a military??!?!??/

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-04-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I tend to think the middle east needs to go through a massively destructive war before any peace can be acheived. There's just too much history and too many people with guns and hatred living in close proximity for peace to exist. Some groups need to be annihilated and some need to emerge. Once a pesky group is broken, it can integrate into the new society, move away or just disappear entirely.

Those groups that emerge can have both the opportunity for peace and to build a country that can be held responsible for its actions.

Maybe the reason the middle east is such a mess is because it hasn't had a chance to sort itself out yet. Unlike the rest of the world that went through war and emerged in its present form naturally, the West has been controlling the middle east forever, preventing wars by supporting strongmen and influencing the outcome of wars by supporting their side. This is in addition to the West drawing their country lines in an unnatural way in the first place.

DosEquis · 08-04-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden, and knowing 100% that they have him, and knowing 100% that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, and trying everything possible to negotiate and failing...that's a last resort.

I think the Iran situation is the epitome of NOT a last resort. I don't see how a country trying to get the same technology that we, and many other countries, have leaves us no choice but to go to war.

Last resort is the Nazis trying to take over Europe or Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

preemptive strikes are not a last resort.

Phantom · 08-04-2006, 04:09 PM

something this thread needs: Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not perfectly on point, but relevant and you can quickly see why Powell left the Bush admin.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden, and knowing 100% that they have him, and knowing 100% that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, and trying everything possible to negotiate and failing...that's a last resort.

I think the Iran situation is the epitome of NOT a last resort. I don't see how a country trying to get the same technology that we, and many other countries, have leaves us no choice but to go to war.

Last resort is the Nazis trying to take over Europe or Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

so essentially we get attacked first.

i don't like that thought.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-04-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

so essentially we get attacked first.

i don't like that thought.

Think about it...

First, how likely would someone be to attack us if they knew we'd completely destroy everything and everyone in their country? That's a hell of a deterrant.

Secondly, it's not necessarily that you are attacked first. If the military determines that another country is about to invade you, then go ahead and attack first.

Third, what do you propose we do instead? Do little "precision" strikes and occupations on every country that could potentially attack us one day? Have the past few years not taught us this doesn't turn out well? Is this a sane strategy?

People try to shit on "waiting to get attacked first" but how do you get around this without becoming an aggressor warmonger yourself? I don't see how that's any more appealing or sustainable, especially when total destruction is such an effective deterrant anyway.

archangel003 · 08-04-2006, 04:29 PM

So, given this scenario, what do you think should be done?

290 missiles a day are launched into your country from MLRS sites based in and around civilian housing.