The Glade 4.0

Remember kids, DE is the only man to have ever humped a ruck here.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I'm aware of the possible international cosnequences. Let the Chinese spend more money increasing their arsenal. Other nations already deal with the fallout of war in their neighbors via refugees and increased crime. A few millirems of exposure for someone a few hundred miles downwind. I'm sure they would try to plead the UN to interfere but we can ignore paper just as we can veto it. It isn't the job of the US to worry about the conditions of the citizens in other nations - its the job of the US to protect the rights of citizens in the most efficient means necessary. Turning Kabul into a minature sun for a few seconds would have certainly sent a message if we did it a day after they refused to extradite Osama. It's not like there would be any innocents there anyway right?

I wouldn't rebuild the enemy.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Do you have anything useful to contribute, or are you just pissed off that you don't like what I'm saying and you can't think of a decent response?



That's more like it. Now you're trying to think through the larger implications and justify a course of action based on its cost-benefit ratio. It's also, quite frankly, a lot more practical to nuke Kabul and send a message that way (and I would have been in favor of it right after 9/11) as opposed to attempting to annhilate the entire population of Afghanistan, for a number of reasons, most of which I alluded to.

What you've stated above is one course of action. It's a very brief, oversimplified one, but that's ok; it could (and would if it were truely to be implemented) easily be fleshed out.

Now, where it could be improved is that you started with the goal of not rebuilding the enemy, but really your goal is "to defend the rights of citizens in the most efficient manner possible". Those two goals, while not exclusive, are not the same thing. You don't want to rebuild the enemy because it takes tax money and part of your goal is to keep taxes as low as possible based on various principles that you've espoused in the past.

The problem with this way of developing a course of action is that nuking Kabul is not necessarily the most cost-effective way of dealing with the problem. That's ok though. In reality, the most cost-effective way will never be truley known because there is no way to test multiple courses of action under actual conditions (simulations can give general ideas, and are good at eliminating courses of action with significant disadvantages, but they are, after all, simulations, and their ability to replicate what people actually do is limited at best)

Rather than say "Afghanistan has allowed Osama Bin Laden to attack the U.S. from its territory, what courses of action are feasible?" developing several and then comparing them dispassionately, you started with that plus "and I want to spend as little tax money as possible in the process because I want to conform to my political principles. I see a nuclear strike as being very efficient, and given the circumstances right after 9/11 I see the long-term political complications as being less costly than an occupation, all things considered."

Or, to put it another way, you've started with a course of action and looked for ways to justify it rather than start with a goal and pick the best course of action from several. That doesn't mean that your course of action is unworkable or bad. It may have, in the time right after 9/11, have been the best one. We just haven't compared it dispassionately to others to get a better sense of which one would be best (and even if we had, we're still making a best guess).

In fact, if we had several, you and I would probably disagree on which is best. That's fine because there are too many unquantifiables to make a completely objective comparison. It's quite normal on a staff completing the orders process for combat to have serious disagreements over what course of action is the best (and the commander must ultimately pick one to resolve that). For example the intelligence officer may be strongly in favor of one thing because of what he knows about the enemy while the supply officer may strongly favor another because it will make resupply more simple and efficient. These criteria will be weighted against each other and every attempt made to compare them dispassionately and objectively, but there will be a subjective element to it.

All things considered, however, your last post was still a vast improvement. Not onyl did you cite a course of action and some tangible advantages you think it would have, you did it in terms of things that would be meaningful to other people, not just in terms of your own political beliefs, which is, quite frankly, a very refreshing and impressive change.

Where I'm trying to get you to go is a bit like this: Some people love battleships. They come up with absurd justifications to ressurect the Iowas yet again, and failing that will argue for new battleships/battlecruisers with nuclear power and armed with large batteries of the railguns being developed for naval ships. Often these justifications are based on wild, absurd assumptions and a poor understanding of what gunfire can and can't do.

You, in terms of this argument here, have moved past that stage to one of "Ok, how can we solve our naval problems using a nuclear-powered battlecruiser?" and then trying to come up with good reasons why it would work. (Essentially what you did above, you started out with "I want to use a nuclear strike on Kabul to deal with the problem of Afghan-based terrorists, what are good reasons to do that?") This is a HUGE improvement over one-line posts that make no attempt at analysis (although to be fair even in your earlier posts you avoided the rabid wanktardism that plagues battleship advocates).

The real question however isn't "I have a nucelar powered battlecruiser; what can I do with it" it's "what naval challanges are we likely to face and what is the most cost-effective way of dealing with them?" That may or may not include nuclear-powered battlecruisers; despite the idiocy of many amateur advocates there would be real advantages to such ships. There would also be real disadvantages. Whether and how many to build would be based on a dispassionate comparison of feaible courses of action, and in much the same way, a decision to make a nuclear demonstration on Kabul should be weighed dispassionately against other courses of action.

Still, like I said, your ideas above are a vast improvement. I'm actually quite impressed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What exactly does this mean? And how is it relevant to this conversation?

He is commenting how DE always talks down to everyone as if they were a child when it comes to anything conerning the military disregarding many current members have served and always assumes that there is no thinking behind what anyone else posts on these matters.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Jeez, you inferred all of that out of 'humped a ruck' ?

FYI, I'm a 20 year Air Force veteran and I've never felt like DE was talking down to me. He does have strong positions on things and I don't always agree with him, but I've never taken his tone as demeaning (at least not to me or towards veterans in general).

I've known Hannibal for a long time so yes I inferred all of that out of "humped a ruck".

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Completely unrelated to this thread....

Midgen,

Where the fook did that avatar pic come from? It is somehow creepier than Nitefox's BK avatar

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

First of all, I don't disregard the current members who have served, but quite frankly, none of them really post in Hellfire besides me and none really take the time to contradict me on military matters. If they did, I'd address them based on the facts and the degree to which I agree or disagree with them. If Midgen or Timmit wants to disagree with me, I'll expect them to cite something to support their opinion, just like I do. When people stop making proclaimations about the military based on nothing more than their ideas based on how much they dislike the government, the military, war, or what movies they've seen, I'll be less condescending. There have been to many White Phospohrous threads, however, where I'm posting pictures and documentation and someone else is yelling "nuh uh!".

You don't really fall into that category. While that is not a dig at your short period of service (since it was not your fault) it does mean that you're really no more experienced in military matters than anyone else here outside of the basics of how a private is supposed to behave.

Still, all of that is relatively unimportant. I don't "talk down" to people at all, so much as I find myself responding to opinions that are posted by people who A) simply do not have the training, education, or experience to understand fully what they are saying B) in many cases are porting their imaginings about how things are rather than anything they obtained from a valid source and C) are often posted in short, even one-line posts that oversimplify things to the point of absurdity.

Whining about "humping rucks" and complaining about my posting style is basically just saying "I don't like the fact that DE understands these matters better than I do, so I'll complain about his posting style rather than address the points". If you want to have a different opinion, go right the **** ahead. Don't, however, expect me to avoid pointing out when its **** ridiculous based on the facts. I, quite frankly, have an excellent history of citing sources for my facts on these matters, and of basing my analysis on those things. If you can't do the same, don't whine and complain when it's pointed out.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm glad you see it that way.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'll make sure I do that if I ever disagree with you

Anyways, I'm not infantry, and I've only had the basic infantry/base defense training they give to security forces augmentees and AF members who deploy to non-ILO positions. They don't give mid-tier NCOs much training in doctrine, tactics/logistics, or most other "military" knowledge topics you might think of in the AF so anything I know about that kind of stuff is what any halfway motivated person with an internet connection and some free time could learn.

My area of expertise is more network defense/attack and software engineering...my military specialty isn't all that military at all.

/salute DE.

Most solid statements and arguments of the thread.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Maybe not in the traditional sense, but the military is far more "information-oriented" than it used to be (in some ways I think this is wonderful, in other ways, it becomes rather silly) and that specialty is quite critical to modern combat.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

/wave.

I've never been one to pedigree myself on message boards. As to not contridicting you on military matters, as to what ends? What held true for me at my duty stations seems to be a whole lot different then what seems to have held true for you at yours. I'll go as far to say that the width and bredth of your posts encompass more then a lot of officers I've encountered seem to need to know.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Part of that is simply the fact that I'm a Field Artillery officer, and even as a second lietenant you're learning Brigade level and above operations because artillery is normally a Brigade and higher asset and because part of the mission of the Field Artillery is to "integrate all fire support assets into the air-land battle" according to official army doctrine. Since naval fire support and air support are fire support assets, it's necessrily something I'm supposed to be familiar with. I've also served in Engineer units which, like artillery, support maneuver forces (armor and infantry) and so I must understand what they do in order to support them. The units I;ve been in have direrectly supported Marine forces as well, and accompanying naval and air assets and so I've had direct experience at Division and higher levels dealing with every branch except the Coast Guard. I don't "pedigree myself" or say "I'm right because I was an officer", I point out my experience and training so people will understand what I'm calling on to form an analysis.

I also make it my buisness to go out and educate myself on matters beyond that which directly concern me in my job. In fact, that's what a lot more officers should be doing; we might have more success in Iraq and Afghanistan if more officers took it upon themselves to understand the larger impact of what's going on at their level.

In any case, I'm quite confident when I speak on these matters, because unlike a lot of people here I'm not speaking purely from my own direct experience and my predjudices and preconceptions about how things are. I go out and **** research what the **** I talk about; maybe you remember the WP thread where I provided technical documentation and pictures to back myself up? It's not a matter who has carried a **** rucksack for more kilometers; I'm hardly the toughest **** in the military and don't recall ever claiming to be, although I won't fold the first time my socks get wet either. If you want to contradict me, find some solid facts, form an opinion, and explain it in some detail without assuming things based on ideology. I know practically everyone here is more than intelligent enough to do it. Don't, however, whip out your DD 214 and think the mere posession of one puts you on my level. I make it my buisness to understand this stuff, and understand how it really is, not the way I wish it was. Want to dispute me? Do the same **** thing. I'm not a genius or special; my analyis is not sancrosanct, but it's a damn sight better than teenager lines about humping rucks, and from the same people who deride Monty for failure to use good reasoning.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Interesting text wall. Now using the same logic that you've put forth here, how about extending that same courtesy when other posters decide to do some research and post their opinion of a situation?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yes, because any post that atempts to address something in more than 1 paragraph is a text wall.



When I see some evidence of that I will. In fact, I see plenty of research on topics such as the state of the market and the developing HIGCC mess, and I don't bother to respond a lot of the time because they ARE well-researched, and I see no problem with what's being said. Khross, Ladas, and Rafael come to mind as providing good information on both examples.

If, however, you're expecting me to just roll over and agree with something about the military because someone troubled themselves to quote Wiki, forget it. Quite frankly, the hypocrisy of this entire thread is appalling. Everyone's all up in Monte's *** for his various mistakes in reasoning all the time, and I don't recall anyone leaping to his defense in the WP thread or any other where I've gotten on him about it. I contradict your boy's one-sentence line of horse manure about how no innocent people = nuke everyone and you're all up in arms about my posting style without so much as a smattering of fact or analysis.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I believe the modern day vernacular is "all up in my greeeeelll."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'm not "all up in your posting style" I just find your reasoning rather hypocritical. As to attempting to reason it to you, well obviously that would be pointless, so carry on.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Hannibal, what exactly is your frustration here? You seem both to be willing to agree to disagree. Why do you keep throwing in things like "reasoning with you would be pointless, so carry on..." BS?

You may disagree with him, and that's fine.. but I honestly don't see anything unreasonable about his posts.

If all you're going to do is throw out lines like this to try to pretend you're being reasonable and I'm not in the face of the blindingly obvious evidence to the contrary, I won't waste my time or anyone elses responding after this post. Sling whatever bullshit you please; when I see a post that shows evidence of reasoning, I'll respond again.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It can also be "grizzle" or so my teenager tells me.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Grizzle became griz-izzle, which in turn spawned grizzle for shizzle, my nizzle (or hizzle if addressing a female). And now because white people say that too, it is now "Flippity Floppity Floop."

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones