PRC v. Taiwan
Miles Smith
they can't win conventionally and decide to eliminate the ROC Navy and
Air Force at once with a nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons again they
could protect and blast open beach heads on Taiwan and occupy the island.
Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
Brian William Schoeneman
work it has done with China to help out Taiwan, a nation we don't even
recognize? I'm sure that after a while, China will be able to wear down
the Taiwanese with shear manpower. Still, the policy question begs a
serious analysis.
Miles Smith (mis...@gold.interlog.com) wrote:
: I beleive Mr. Clancy left left out a #7. That is the Chinese realize that
--
******************************************************************************
Brian W. Schoeneman -"Love is the most important
George Washington University thing in the world. But
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue baseball is pretty good too."
Sub-Level 3 --Dave (Age 8)
Washington D.C., 20006
bsy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
******************************************************************************
shawnh
says...
>
>I beleive Mr. Clancy left left out a #7. That is the Chinese realize
that
>they can't win conventionally and decide to eliminate the ROC Navy and
>Air Force at once with a nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons again
they
>could protect and blast open beach heads on Taiwan and occupy the
island.
>
>Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
>arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
>matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
>
>
that decision.
Shawnh
pete...@uk.ibm.com
>I beleive Mr. Clancy left left out a #7. That is the Chinese realize that
>they can't win conventionally and decide to eliminate the ROC Navy and
>Air Force at once with a nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons again they
>could protect and blast open beach heads on Taiwan and occupy the island.
>
>Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
>arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
>matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
>
>
maintain their independence from the PRC. Taiwan has not been part of
Mainland China for a long time as the Japanese occupied it for 50 (?) odd
years before WWII.
Whatever happened to self determination of peoples? The US could tell the
PRC to back off as they could win neither a nuclear nor conventional war
against the US. A few troops as a tripwire in Taiwan would be all that was
required. Could the PRC be crazy enough to Nuke US troops???
Mind you the Japs were almost that daft in DOH and it sounded plausable
in the book.......................
Szu-yuan Huang
> I beleive Mr. Clancy left left out a #7. That is the Chinese realize that
> they can't win conventionally and decide to eliminate the ROC Navy and
> Air Force at once with a nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons again they
> could protect and blast open beach heads on Taiwan and occupy the island.
What PRC wishes to achieve is not to destroy Taiwan, but to "re-unite" with it.
Taking out ROC naval and air force installations means nuking the entire
Taiwan simply because these bases are all over the place. Remember that we
are talking about an island smaller than most states in the US, but with the
world's second highest population density. The great number of civilian
casualties will ensure that China does not "win" because the hatred will be
remembered for generations.
> Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
> arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
> matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
I hardly think so. US interests in Taiwan do not justify direct confrontation
with a regional superpower at all. The best we can hope for is that the US
will not turn down our purchase orders for more weapons.
--
Mike Huang
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Software Engineer, AC6000CW Locomotive Control System (814)875-3207
GE Transportation Systems, Erie, PA hu...@crypt.erie.ge.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** GETS and I do not speak on each other's behalf ***
===============================================================================
Joseph C Wang
<pete...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>I am a regular visitor to Taiwan. I know the people I have talked to want
>maintain their independence from the PRC.
On the other hand, support for a formal declaration of independence is
small. The distinction is important since the PRC has said that it
will tolerate de-facto separation, but will react harshly to a formal
declaration of independence. Since a formal declaration of
independence is highly unlikely, the situation has a sort of
stability.
>Whatever happened to self determination of peoples?
It died after de-colonialization. Self-determination was a useful slogan
for the newly independent states of Asia and Africa to use against Europe,
but once people starting carrying it through to its logical conclusion
it lost its charm.
>The US could tell the
>PRC to back off as they could win neither a nuclear nor conventional war
>against the US.
The problem with this is that it might cause the PRC to call the
U.S.'s bluff. The basic problem is that I do not think that there is
the political support in the United States for a war lasting several
years and costing several hundreds of thousands of causalities over
Taiwan.
On the other hand, I think that the PRC would accept such a war if the
alternative would be to permanently lose Taiwan.
>A few troops as a tripwire in Taiwan would be all that was
>required.
and the political willingness to go all the way if one's bluff is called.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang The opinions expressed here should not be considered
j...@mit.edu official policy of the Globewide Network Academy
http://www.gnacademy.org explicitly unless marked as such.
Steve White
> I am a regular visitor to Taiwan. I know the people I have talked to want
> maintain their independence from the PRC. Taiwan has not been part of
> Mainland China for a long time as the Japanese occupied it for 50 (?) odd
> years before WWII.
Someone help me with the political history here. I had thought that Taiwan
was returned to the Republic of China (the whole enchilada, Chiang
Kai-Shek, et al.) at the end of World War II. Thus, Taiwan was officially
a province of China. When the communists took over, Chiang and buddies
just evacuated to Taiwan. Each side, as I recall, considered Taiwan a
province of China, and each side thought it was the rightful ruler of all
of China.
So in a technical sense, the PRC is right, in that Taiwan can be
considered a rebellious province.
From what I have read in the papers, one ongoing debate in Taiwan (again,
I'm no expert, and the experts should please jump in) is whether Taiwan
should indeed declare its independence, or whether the fiction of a 'one
China' should be maintained, as far as the Taiwanese are concerned. Of
course, even if they declared independence, that doesn't mean that the
rest of the world would recognize it.
steve
Miles Smith
: In article <4gi821$b...@steel.interlog.com>, mis...@gold.interlog.com (Miles Smith) writes:
: What PRC wishes to achieve is not to destroy Taiwan, but to "re-unite" with it.
: Taking out ROC naval and air force installations means nuking the entire
: Taiwan simply because these bases are all over the place. Remember that we
: are talking about an island smaller than most states in the US, but with the
: world's second highest population density. The great number of civilian
: casualties will ensure that China does not "win" because the hatred will be
: remembered for generations.
Your point is well taken the PRC would never employ a massive nuclear
attack upon Taiwan, but by using low yield tactical devices dropped from
aircraft they could neutralize Taiwan's air force and navy. Sure there
would be civillian casualties but these would exist even in a
conventional conflict. Forget exactly which Chinese leader said it but
"so we loose a few million" comes to mind.
Of course I was only suggesting a possible military situation not
suggesting that it was politically likely. The conventional wisdom that
Taiwan can defeat a Chinese invasion overlooks the fact that the Chinese
do possess a wide variety of nuclear weapons.
Tom Clancy
Until the PRC has the sealift capacity to land multiple divisions in a
forced-entry assault, this question is pretty moot. I ask the members of
the group to see what it took for the Allies to land on Normandy.
On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
our international credibility.
TC
ph...@tiac.net
>Clancy reminds everyone:
>TC
Given as we are selling the Chinese everything but the kitchen sink,
How long before they have the ability to achieve localized air/sea
superiority in an area sufficient to allow a landing? As our economic
ties get stronger with PRC, how willing are we going to be to go to
war with a country that is a major trading partner? One that will
undoubedly be responding to some sort of "provocation" from Taiwan and
will have muddied the political waters. Is Clinton willing to order
the USN into what would be a major naval engagement? I'm not sure he
really cares about credibility. Look at his snub of the British on VE
Day.
Jay Maynard
>On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
>small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
>largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
>our international credibility.
Uhm, do you mean while Taiwan assaults China? I doubt that would
happen...the Taiwanese are no dummies.
The American political dimension isn't quite so simplistic, at least until
the Republican convention. Pat Buchanan strikes a responsive chord among a
large number of Americans, and an American naval intervention would hand him
an issue he could flog all the way to the nomination, and maybe the White
House. It may be the Right Thing to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it
will be done. Just look at all the flak over our presence in Bosnia...and
that's not (yet) a real shooting war, as far as our presence there goes.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Are we going to push it to the edge of the envelope?" -- Pinky
"No, Pinky. We may, however, reach the sticky part." -- The Brain
Joseph C Wang
Steve White <swh...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Someone help me with the political history here. I had thought that Taiwan
>was returned to the Republic of China (the whole enchilada, Chiang
>Kai-Shek, et al.) at the end of World War II. Thus, Taiwan was officially
>a province of China. When the communists took over, Chiang and buddies
>just evacuated to Taiwan. Each side, as I recall, considered Taiwan a
>province of China, and each side thought it was the rightful ruler of all
>of China.
It's a bit more complicated than that. When Chiang evacuated his
troops to Taiwan, there were already a few million people living
there. Because of friction between Chiang people and the local
people, there grew up the idea of a "Taiwan independent from China"
and the notion of "Taiwan independence" means that there is a third
party involved.
During the 1950's and 1960's, the Kuomintang begin including a lot of
local people into the government, and over time local people have
moved up in the government to the point that the current President is
local. This has considerably reduced tension between the new people
and the local people as well as reducing support for "independence."
>From what I have read in the papers, one ongoing debate in Taiwan (again,
>I'm no expert, and the experts should please jump in) is whether Taiwan
>should indeed declare its independence, or whether the fiction of a 'one
>China' should be maintained, as far as the Taiwanese are concerned.
That's basically the debate, and as with a lot of political issues,
it's a lot about emotional and symbolic issues. Right now it seems
that the majority of people in Taiwan support the position of "wait
and see."
>Of
>course, even if they declared independence, that doesn't mean that the
>rest of the world would recognize it.
My suspicion is that if Taiwan were to declare independence, the
United States would put heavy pressure on Taiwan to withdraw this
declaration thereby removing the source of conflict with the PRC.
Joseph C Wang
>Given as we are selling the Chinese everything but the kitchen sink,
>How long before they have the ability to achieve localized air/sea
>superiority in an area sufficient to allow a landing?
My rough estimate is 15 to 20 years. This assumes that U.S. defense
spending stays constant in real dollars, and the PRC economy continues
to grow at a rate of 8 to 9% while PRC military spending stays
constant in real dollars.
To justify these numbers:
1) Unless the world political situation changes, I don't see any
possibility that the U.S. will increase real defense spending.
2) The PRC economy has been growing at an average of 9% over the past
fifteen years. There is the possibility that this numbers are
illusionary as was the Soviet growth rates in the 1950's, but one
should point out that the PRC is following the economic (and
political) policies of the East Asian dragons, all of whom have
sustained growth rates for a considerable period of time.
3) As far as percentage of GDP, PRC defense spending is about 10%,
which is sustainable. Thus far, the growth of the PRC economy has not
been translated into increase military spending. This is because the
political leadership has convinced that by reducing the percentage of
the economy devoted to military spending, one would free up resources
for economic growth which would translate into more resources later
on.
Since the late 1970's, percentage of GDP available for military has
thus decreased from 30% to 10%. Since 1989, PRC has been increasing
defense spending, and one is starting to see a number of modernization
programs that were not evident in the mid-1980's.
Incidentally, the later statistic is why I think it is impossible that
the PRC will reverse economic reform. The military is starting to
benefit from economic reform and will not allow a return to the old
economic order.
If you make these assumptions, then PRC military spending will double
every 8 years, and in 15 to 20 years, the PRC military will be roughly
six times as large as it is now. Making those assumptions, the PRC
navy will still be smaller than the United States. The difference is
that the PRC could devote all its naval resources to the recovery of
Taiwan while the United States has various commitments elsewhere.
The only naval commitment the PRC has other than Taiwan are the
Spratly islands, whereas if the United States were to put all its
naval forces in the Taiwan straits, it runs the risk that someone will
do something silly in the Middle East.
It seems to me that the PRC strategy regarding Taiwan can be looked at
as "running down the clock." I'm sure that someone in Beijing has
looked at those numbers, and figured that assuming the status quo
continued, they will be able to force a settlement to the Taiwan
situation in a few decades.
One thing that really surprised me was being taken to task by someone
for looking at the situation 20 years from now. Washington has to
think 20 years ahead since I'm sure Beijing is.
Incidentally, my suspicion is that this is why the PRC is admanant that
Taiwan not get formal diplomatic recognition. Formal diplomatic
recognition would make it much easier for Taiwan to accquire weapons.
I'd be interested if anyone can spot a hole in my analysis.....
Steve Martin
mis...@gold.interlog.com (Miles Smith) wrote:
>Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
>arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
>matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
The western world and England in particular are going to quietly hand over
several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY believes
that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
hand.
If the PRC goes after Taiwan we might do something really drastic like boycott
a womens gymnastics competition, that will have'em shaking in their boots.
Taiwan doesn't have any oil and other people can make decent computer
monitors, so what if they are a democrocy? When placed against the possible
trade with the largest market in the world -- significant action just ain't
gonna happen.
Steve Martin
Harold Hutchison
> a womens gymnastics competition, that will have'em shaking in their boots.
> Taiwan doesn't have any oil and other people can make decent computer
> monitors, so what if they are a democrocy? When placed against the possible
> trade with the largest market in the world -- significant action just ain't
> gonna happen.
issue: There is more to this than you realize. If we sit back and let
The PRC bully Taiwan, American credibility will be badly damaged (not
that Clinton hasn't already accomplished that, but that is another
issue). The fact is that psychologically, our allie might wonder,
"Will the US leave US in the shit if WE are attacked by Russia or Iraq
ort fill-in-the-blank?" If the PRC attacks, we would HAVE to respond.
And I dunno whether or not it would go nuclear.
--
Check out Harold's Hangout!
http://wwwacn.cornell-iowa.edu/~hhutchison
Joseph C Wang
Tom Clancy <tomc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Until the PRC has the sealift capacity to land multiple divisions in a
>forced-entry assault, this question is pretty moot.
One important question is how long it would take the PRC to get such a
sealift capibility. I think if the PRC could get this capability in
two to three years, if it choose to put its industry on a war footing.
One mistake that I see people making is to assume that the war would
determined by what the power balances are at on day one. I don't
think this is wise. One thing that should be clear is that a war over
Taiwan would not be a quick one, but would be long, bloody, and
attritional. The PRC simply cannot win a quick war over Taiwan, but
if it decides to make the war a long and bloody one, there seems to me
the good possibility that the war would lose political support in the
United States.
>On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
>small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
>largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
>our international credibility.
One's credibility is damaged only when one puts one's credibility at
issue. If the United States makes public statements that guarantee
the security of Taiwan, then one is forced to do something. If the
United States doesn't make any guarantees (and it has carefully
avoided doing so thus far), then the United States has the flexibility
to decide what to do when the situation arises.
Another point is that the credibility issue will force the PRC to take
some military action if Taiwan makes a formal declaration of
independence. The PRC has repeatedly stated that it will take
military action if this happens, and if a DOI is issued, the PRC will
have to do something.
The other point is that one reason that the PRC has taken a much
harder line in the past few months has to do with the lack of
credibility that United States statements have in Beijing. This is
due to two events which have shreded U.S. credibility in Beijing.
1) The United States said that it would impose trade sanctions if
Beijing did not improve its human rights record. Except for releasing
one or two token prisoners, Beijing didn't do anything, and the United
States backed down.
2) One reason that the PRC reacted very harshly to the visit by Lee
Deng-hui was that they were told by Secretary of State Warren
Christopher that Lee Deng-hui would not get a visa a week before a
visa was issued. My suspicion was that the fact that what was
promised was not what happened was what led to the harsh reaction by
the PRC to the visit. By contrast, the visit by the Taiwanese Prime
Minister and the transit visas issued to Taiwan's vice-president
aroused relatively little reaction.
Paul Jonathan Adam
>The western world and England in particular are going to quietly hand over
>several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
>population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY believes
>that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
>hand.
The enormous problem is that it's all legal and there's very little we can
do. The lease on Hong Kong runs out in 1997: after that it's Chinese soil
again. Short of declaring war, what are we meant to do?
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Simon Lam
: small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
: largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
: our international credibility.
Mr Clancy and all others who read this,
Does the US have the guts to risk a nuclear war for
"international credibility"? They have 4 ICBM's. Assuming that only 2 of
them are operation at any one time, that still leaves 2 to hit cities
inside the United States. Patriots you say? Patriots are great for
defending airfields and military bases, but are useless for defending
large areas. 2 US cities for internation credibility...
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Markus Nybom BKF
: Clancy reminds everyone:
:
: Until the PRC has the sealift capacity to land multiple divisions in a
: forced-entry assault, this question is pretty moot. I ask the members of
: the group to see what it took for the Allies to land on Normandy.
: small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
: largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
: our international credibility.
: TC
(Er... that's a large nation assaults a smaller one, right?)
Darn, I hope you guys remember that the day our eastern neighbour
decides to take a trip over the border! I admire the US for fuctioning as
world police, but this is all up to politicians. If enough americans
decide they don't want their soldiers dying for the sake of another country,
or simply for US national prestige, there can be no such fucntion as the US
is a democracy. The European Union has everything needed for such a function,
except unity... Sadly, the EU has already shown just how much it can work as
a peacekeeping factor.
Finally, if USA acts as a world police force it still has to
consider who the bandit is. China is pretty big and has nukes.
I still hope you're right Mr. Clancy!
Markus
pete...@uk.ibm.com
>In article <4gi821$b...@steel.interlog.com>,
>
>The western world and England in particular are going to quietly hand over
>several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
>population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY believes
>that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
>hand.
>
Hong Kong British citizens BUT we are a small country with a only 50 million
odd population on the wrong side of the world. Once as a super power we would
told the PRC where to go but now.............
The US however is a large country on the right ocean and is the only superpower
left able to extend that power anywhere in the world. As for the Trade, what
good is it doing the US, if I remember right the balance is way in China's favour.
China has more to lose than the US in a trade war (as Japan did in DOH)
>If the PRC goes after Taiwan we might do something really drastic like boycott
>a womens gymnastics competition, that will have'em shaking in their boots.
>Taiwan doesn't have any oil and other people can make decent computer
>monitors, so what if they are a democrocy? When placed against the possible
>trade with the largest market in the world -- significant action just ain't
>gonna happen.
>
Yeah, you are probably right.....pathetic though, isn't it.
Harold Hutchison
> : small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
> : largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
> : our international credibility.
> Does the US have the guts to risk a nuclear war for
> "international credibility"? They have 4 ICBM's. Assuming that only 2 of
> them are operation at any one time, that still leaves 2 to hit cities
> inside the United States. Patriots you say? Patriots are great for
> defending airfields and military bases, but are useless for defending
> large areas. 2 US cities for internation credibility...
Tridents and Minutemen on the way to THEIR cities, and it would be a
LOT more than two that ended up glowing in the dark. They might be
willing to bully Taiwan, and they might be encouraged by the current
occupant in the Oval Office, but they are NOT loony or stupid enough
to launch an ICBM. Clinton DOES have a spine if he is pushed far
enough. Remember back in 1993, when Saddam tried to assassinate Bush
in Kuwait? Clinton responded with FORCE. Nuking two cities would
DEFINITELY provoke a response in kind. And he'd do it.
Furthermore, let me drop another little secret about
"Credibility", which you seem to snort at. Saddam didn't think we
WOULD respond to an invasion of Kuwait. How much of that was a fuckup
on APril Glaspie's part and how much of it was our actions in Vietnam
and Beirut, I dunno exactly, but he didn't think we'd stay in.
If you got the punch, and nobody thinks you are willing to use
it, you end up in a war. OTOH, if the bad guys know you'll hammer
them if they cross a line, they'll not cross the line if they are
sane.
Szu-yuan Huang
> Clancy reminds everyone:
> On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
> small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
> largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
> our international credibility.
Last time I checked, the mutual defense treaty between the US and the ROC
(Taiwan) went down the drains when the former switched recognition to the
PRC. I am not sure if the Taiwan Relations Act authorizes the use of US
forces to defend Taiwan. There is probably no question on credibility if
there is no commitment in the first place.
Personally, I would be very grateful if the US will sell Taiwan weapons
to defend herself and go easy on the payment during a crisis. Direct
involvement? I would not even dream of.
Szu-yuan Huang
> Szu-yuan Huang (hu...@erie.ge.com) wrote:
> : In article <4gi821$b...@steel.interlog.com>, mis...@gold.interlog.com (Miles Smith) writes:
> : What PRC wishes to achieve is not to destroy Taiwan, but to "re-unite" with it.
> : Taking out ROC naval and air force installations means nuking the entire
> : Taiwan simply because these bases are all over the place. Remember that we
> : are talking about an island smaller than most states in the US, but with the
> : world's second highest population density. The great number of civilian
> : casualties will ensure that China does not "win" because the hatred will be
> : remembered for generations.
> Your point is well taken the PRC would never employ a massive nuclear
> attack upon Taiwan, but by using low yield tactical devices dropped from
> aircraft they could neutralize Taiwan's air force and navy. Sure there
> would be civillian casualties but these would exist even in a
> conventional conflict. Forget exactly which Chinese leader said it but
> "so we loose a few million" comes to mind.
I don't have enough data to do a credible study here. However, based on
my first-hand knowledge of the island, I argue that "low yield tactical
devices" will minimize civilian casualties in any helpful extent. Several
military bases are now next door to cities because the increasing population
took more and more land to house. I would imagine the long-term risks of
cancer to the people is far less if the PRC sticks to conventional warheads.
Furthermore, even if casualties can be limited to the military, we are still
talking about thousands of parents losing their sons to the PRC. In this
respect, it does not matter whether the weapons used were conventional or
nuclear.
> Of course I was only suggesting a possible military situation not
> suggesting that it was politically likely. The conventional wisdom that
> Taiwan can defeat a Chinese invasion overlooks the fact that the Chinese
> do possess a wide variety of nuclear weapons.
The war will have to be fought in the political level as well. We can very
well free ourselves of politics, but in this case the discussion simply
becomes pointless. What is there to talk about in a fight between a force
of 4 million against another 1/10 of its size?
Szu-yuan Huang
> Someone help me with the political history here. I had thought that Taiwan
> was returned to the Republic of China (the whole enchilada, Chiang
> Kai-Shek, et al.) at the end of World War II. Thus, Taiwan was officially
> a province of China. When the communists took over, Chiang and buddies
> just evacuated to Taiwan. Each side, as I recall, considered Taiwan a
> province of China, and each side thought it was the rightful ruler of all
> of China.
Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan in 1945. Troops from the Republic of
China entered the island to accept the surrender of Japanese troops there.
A provincial government was also established in the same year.
You are right in saying that both Beijing and Taipei claim that Taiwan is
a part of China.
> So in a technical sense, the PRC is right, in that Taiwan can be
> considered a rebellious province.
However, Taiwan was never a part of the People's Republic of China. In
fact, as far as the Republic of China is concerned, the "other side" is
the renegade.
C. Ligh
>
> In article <4gpbu3$1...@nuhou.aloha.net> Mar...@aloha.net "Steve Martin" writes:
> >several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
> >population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY believes
> >that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
> >hand.
>
> do. The lease on Hong Kong runs out in 1997: after that it's Chinese soil
> again. Short of declaring war, what are we meant to do?
>
> --
> "When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
> him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
> or for worse, you have acted decisively.
> In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
>
> Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Let's see if China is dumb enough to kill the goose that lay the golden egg.
CL
Tim McFeely
>: On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
>: small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
>: largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
>: our international credibility.
>Mr Clancy and all others who read this,
> Does the US have the guts to risk a nuclear war for
>"international credibility"? They have 4 ICBM's. Assuming that only 2 of
>them are operation at any one time, that still leaves 2 to hit cities
>inside the United States. Patriots you say? Patriots are great for
>defending airfields and military bases, but are useless for defending
>large areas. 2 US cities for internation credibility...
First of all your attempts at prose suck. If I read your post
correctly, the US has four (4) ICBMs. Now I know that to be untrue so
I can, hopefully assume, you mean the PRC has 4 ICBMs. To further
discuss this means that we have transcended several other posts, which
requires me to have read them to understand the rest of your ravings.
The Patriot question is mute my dear man. This has been discussed
several times over and we have determined (and remember this is an
unofficial naval newsgroup that can/will not spout classified info)
that the Patriot was less than effective. However the usage of the
Patriot in this thread was not directed as a defense of the
continental United States, but one of the Taiwanese. Just a small
point, but one of great consequence.
Secondly, the whole premise of an enlarged nuclear inventory was to
maintain MAD (mutually assured destruction). PRC has no such
capabilities, nor immediate hopes to attain such levels. The first use
of strategic nukes by the PRC is akin to the Jonestown massacre.
Lastly, Mr. Lam, the question is not one of Taiwan per se. The whole
region is critical to present US foreign policy. I can not imagine
that S. Korea, Japan, Australia, etc would be pleased with a nuclear
strike by the PRC on Taiwan. The pressure to respond in kind would be
immense. The real war, if PRC was to strike nuclear, would be amongst
the US government and the American people.
>--
> Simon Lam
> It's the man, not the machine.
> (But it often helps)
> E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Scope's under...
Tim McFeely
ex-TM2(SS)...a dying breed
tim...@mail.usa.net
INSG web pages at http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/insg.html
and http://www.usa.net/~timmcf/insgmain.html
Lenin
On 26 Feb 1996, Simon Lam wrote:
> : On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
> : small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
> : largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
> : our international credibility.
>
> Mr Clancy and all others who read this,
> Does the US have the guts to risk a nuclear war for
> "international credibility"? They have 4 ICBM's. Assuming that only 2 of
> them are operation at any one time, that still leaves 2 to hit cities
> inside the United States. Patriots you say? Patriots are great for
> defending airfields and military bases, but are useless for defending
> large areas. 2 US cities for internation credibility...
> --
> Simon Lam
> It's the man, not the machine.
> (But it often helps)
> E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>
>
>
A massive theater ballistic missile defense program is currently in the
works. Funding has been provided by Congress already (I don't know what
sort of a miracle made that possible), and possibly as soon as the year
2000 the US will have theater ballistic missile (as well as smaller,
tactical missile such as the SCUD) defense capability. The Air Force, at
least, plans to field a plane with a multi-megawatt laser board with
enough fuel for, I believe, 30 engagements.
Alex Velkov
C/4C AFROTC Det 905
Deron T. Lundy
>A massive theater ballistic missile defense program is currently in the
>works. Funding has been provided by Congress already (I don't know what
>sort of a miracle made that possible), and possibly as soon as the year
>2000 the US will have theater ballistic missile (as well as smaller,
>tactical missile such as the SCUD) defense capability. The Air Force, at
>least, plans to field a plane with a multi-megawatt laser board with
>enough fuel for, I believe, 30 engagements.
>
>Alex Velkov
>C/4C AFROTC Det 905
Is that anything like the PALS (Protection Against Limited Strikes) system
that was proposed a few years ago? If I remember correctly, that was
supposed to be a **very** scaled down version of Reagan's SDI. PALS
would have used satellites as its main antiballistic missle system. Also,
anyone heard that there has been some talk in the past few years of scrapping
the ABM treaty so that a new system of antimissle defenses could be built
in the U.S.? There was a little talk of doing just that, but it didn't go
very far that I know of.
"Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions."
-Paul A. Samuelson
Deron Thomas Lundy
lund...@osu.edu
Political Science and Physics, The Ohio State University
Niraj Agarwalla
I say let's bring back SDI.
--
Niraj Agarwalla -=- naga...@cs.uml.edu -=- http://www.eskimo.com/~niraj
Dwayne Allen Day
: A massive theater ballistic missile defense program is currently in the
: sort of a miracle made that possible), and possibly as soon as the year
Nope. THAAD's operational date has been pushed back and the other
programs have also been downscoped. The continental defense system
Congress was urging didn't make it into the final bill.
Check last week's newspapers.
D-Day
--
"Why lower yourselves? You're the scum of the earth!" (one of Jackie
Chan's better soliloquies...)
Markus Nybom BKF
: In article <4gltmg$h...@steel.interlog.com>, mis...@gold.interlog.com (Miles Smith) writes:
:
: > Szu-yuan Huang (hu...@erie.ge.com) wrote:
: > : In article <4gi821$b...@steel.interlog.com>, mis...@gold.interlog.com (Miles Smith) writes:
: well free ourselves of politics, but in this case the discussion simply
: becomes pointless. What is there to talk about in a fight between a force
: of 4 million against another 1/10 of its size?
Chances are bleak, but wars with those odds have been won by the lesser
force before. You have to consider the different aspects of victory as well.
Taiwan "only" needs to win a Defensive Victory, that is, remain independent.
They don't have to conquer China. All else equal, war is always harder on the
attacker. And if the attacker is storming a mountainous island, he may very
well need an army at least 10 times the strength of the defender.
I don't find the discussion any more pointless than any other military or
political discussion on the net. ;)
Markus
pete...@uk.ibm.com
>In article <4gpbu3$1...@nuhou.aloha.net> Mar...@aloha.net "Steve Martin" writes:
>>The western world and England in particular are going to quietly hand over
>>several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
>>population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY believes
>>that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
>>hand.
>
>The enormous problem is that it's all legal and there's very little we can
>do. The lease on Hong Kong runs out in 1997: after that it's Chinese soil
>again. Short of declaring war, what are we meant to do?
>
Kong itself is really British but since it has no water etc our Leaders thought it
best just to give the whole lot back.
We Should have given proper passports to all the legitimate HK Chinese (most
probably would stay as long as the PRC doesn't go crazy again) and made the
rest welcome here (Put them in Ulster increasing the Pro UK population!), they
might even stir up our economy again and get us out of our seemingly terminal
decline............................
Joseph C Wang
Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The enormous problem is that it's all legal and there's very little we can
>do. The lease on Hong Kong runs out in 1997: after that it's Chinese soil
>again. Short of declaring war, what are we meant to do?
Minor nit. The leased territories for Hong Kong include only the New
Territories which were leased in 1898 after the Boxer Rebellion. The
island of Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1841, and technically
Britian didn't have to turn it over.
In practice, the distinction is not important. The boundary between
these two areas runs right through the middle of the city and
separating the two is impossible. Also, from a military point of
view, Hong Kong is indefensible. All its food and water comes from
the PRC.
Joseph C Wang
>As for the Trade, what
>good is it doing the US, if I remember right the balance is way in China's
>favour.
>China has more to lose than the US in a trade war (as Japan did in DOH)
1) The trade balance figures don't take into account of the fact that
a lot of U.S.-China trade through Hong Kong. Essentially, what
happens is that if a Hong Kong company buys a piece of American
machinery for its China factory, it's not counted as a Chinese import,
whereas if that factory manufactures a good, it's counted as a Chinese
export.
If you take into account Hong Kong, then the Chinese trade surplus is
much smaller. Also, it needs to be pointed out that total Chinese
trade is running at a deficit.
2) If there is a trade war between China and the United States, all
China will do is to move the trade that would have happened with the
United States to Europe and Japan. Everyone involved realizes that
for every American company could pull out in a trade war, there is a
British, Japanese, German, or French company that would be willing to
take its place.
This makes the American bargaining position extremely weak.
Deron T. Lundy
SDI, no, but a PALS system, yes. SDI was to be a large scale system that
would have cost the U.S. hundreds of billions over a few years. It was
supposed to be an "inpenetratable shield" for a large scale (1,000+) missle
attack by the Soviets. Now we really don't have to worry about a massive
ICBM attack on the U.S. What we **do** have to lose rest over is an attack
by some rogue nation that gets its hands on a dozen or so SS-20s and launches
them against the U.S. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was
projected that any attack would be with less than 100 missles. QED, a large
constellation of laser sats designed to repel 1,000 missles is neither
needed nor cost effective. **However**, a system of a few satellites whose
mission is to protect American soil against a small scale attack is, IMHO,
cost effective and **necessary**. Some estimates for PALS, the proposed
Protection Against Limited Strikes system, a scaled down SDI designed to
intercept an attack with 100 or so missles, was priced at about $50 billion.
Well worth the cost involved.
Szu-yuan Huang
> Chances are bleak, but wars with those odds have been won by the lesser
> force before. You have to consider the different aspects of victory as well.
> Taiwan "only" needs to win a Defensive Victory, that is, remain independent.
> They don't have to conquer China.
This is, of course, a victory condition driven by political considerations.
At the same time, while we are on politics, we have to consider the
possibility of the PRC renewing the war even after an initial defeat. It
is simply too convenient to assume that she will take a change in policy or
even the entire leadership after a defeat like the USSR in Red Storm Rising.
> All else equal, war is always harder on the
> attacker. And if the attacker is storming a mountainous island, he may very
> well need an army at least 10 times the strength of the defender.
That is entirely possible.
> I don't find the discussion any more pointless than any other military or
> political discussion on the net. ;)
I apologize if I have offended anybody. What I meant was that the possibly
upcoming conflict betwen PRC and Taiwan cannot be adequately discussed without
getting politics involved. It is a far bigger factor that will determine the
ultimate outcome than the strengths of the armed forces on both sides.
sc
sha...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (shawnh) wrote:
> In article <4gi821$b...@steel.interlog.com>, mis...@gold.interlog.com
> says...
> >
> >I beleive Mr. Clancy left left out a #7. That is the Chinese realize
> that
> >they can't win conventionally and decide to eliminate the ROC Navy and
> >Air Force at once with a nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons again
> they
> >could protect and blast open beach heads on Taiwan and occupy the
> island.
> >
> >Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
> >arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
> >matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
> >
> >
> I shiver at the prospect of Prsident Clinton being in charge of making
> that decision.
>
> Shawnh
What are you talking about? Clinton has been a good president so far.
And I don't think China will ever nuke Taiwan and then try to occupy it;
it's not such a smart thing to do. <g>
BTW, didn't the U.S. face a similar situation in Southeast Asia about
thirty years ago?
Sherwin
Steve Martin
writes:
>>The western world and England in particular are going to quietly hand over
>>several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
>>population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY
believes
>>that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
>>hand.
>
>do. The lease on Hong Kong runs out in 1997: after that it's Chinese soil
>again. Short of declaring war, what are we meant to do?
>
passports. If they desire to stay fine, offer them the same protection as any
other british subject living in China would receive through the british
diplomatic mission.
At the risk being soundly slammed I will also say that Britian and the west in
general wouldn't hand over several million Caucasians to the PRC's tender
mercies.
Not giving a exit or at least some legal fiction of protection to the citizens
of Hong Kong who were born under and are used to living under democracy is
equivalent to shutting the jews out of Palestine before during and after WWII
Steve Martin
pete...@uk.ibm.com
Yeah, and your Gov. blew it that time too!
Joseph C Wang
Deron T. Lundy <lund...@osu.edu> wrote:
>**However**, a system of a few satellites whose
>mission is to protect American soil against a small scale attack is, IMHO,
>cost effective and **necessary**. Some estimates for PALS, the proposed
>Protection Against Limited Strikes system, a scaled down SDI designed to
>intercept an attack with 100 or so missles, was priced at about $50 billion.
>Well worth the cost involved.
The trouble with this is that:
1) If you are worried about a terrorist attack, the system is useless,
since the terrorists would like not use ballistic missles.
2) If you are worried about an attack from a medium sized nuclear
power such as China, the system is useless. By the time you've
deployed the system, the nuclear power will have developed
anti-satellite weapons for far less money.
Joseph C Wang
Szu-yuan Huang <hu...@erie.ge.com> wrote:
>At the same time, while we are on politics, we have to consider the
>possibility of the PRC renewing the war even after an initial defeat.
Or else waiting a few decades to start a war when the situation is
more favorable. One must remember that the initial invasion plan for
Taiwan was to have taken place in the early-1950's. The PRC has held
a claim to sovereignty over Taiwan for almost 50 years. Waiting
another 20 or 30 years is nothing.
That's why I thought it was very strange that someone took me to task
for estimating PRC military strength 20 years from now.
>I apologize if I have offended anybody. What I meant was that the possibly
>upcoming conflict betwen PRC and Taiwan cannot be adequately discussed without
>getting politics involved. It is a far bigger factor that will determine the
>ultimate outcome than the strengths of the armed forces on both sides.
One thing that I've also noticed is that people are completely missing
the economic aspect of this issue.
Szu-yuan Huang
>Or else waiting a few decades to start a war when the situation is
>more favorable. One must remember that the initial invasion plan for
>Taiwan was to have taken place in the early-1950's. The PRC has held
>a claim to sovereignty over Taiwan for almost 50 years. Waiting
>another 20 or 30 years is nothing.
>That's why I thought it was very strange that someone took me to task
>for estimating PRC military strength 20 years from now.
The political climate may have changed by that time to negate the need for
an invasion. The last two decades have seen much changes in both sides. I
do think that as the old guards fade away, the newer generation of leaders
who bear no personal grudge against each other may arrive at a peaceful
resolution of the conflict.
Dwayne Allen Day
: My point is hand over the land, thats required. Give the people british
any other british subject living in China would receive through the british
: diplomatic mission.
: At the risk being soundly slammed I will also say that Britian and the west in
: general wouldn't hand over several million Caucasians to the PRC's tender
: mercies.
About six years ago I worked for a British Tory Member of Parliament (I'm
an American). This was a temporarily hot issue and we discussed it a
bit. It thought that it would not only be the honorable thing to do, but
also the economically smart one to do as well--all those rabid
capitalists are just what dowdy old Britain needs. He agreed, but said
that the public would NEVER go for it. "They look different." he said.
Chuck Buckley
Steve Martin <Mar...@aloha.net> wrote:
>In article <825282...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4gpbu3$1...@nuhou.aloha.net> Mar...@aloha.net "Steve Martin"
>writes:
>>>The western world and England in particular are going to quietly hand over
>>>several million people who are at least morally british subjects (the
>>>population of Hong Kong) to the PRC, next year? Everybody who REALLY
>believes
>>>that those folks will retain any rights after a few years pass, raise their
>>>hand.
>>
>>The enormous problem is that it's all legal and there's very little we can
>>do. The lease on Hong Kong runs out in 1997: after that it's Chinese soil
>>again. Short of declaring war, what are we meant to do?
>>
>passports. If they desire to stay fine, offer them the same protection as any
>other british subject living in China would receive through the british
>diplomatic mission.
>
>At the risk being soundly slammed I will also say that Britian and the west in
>general wouldn't hand over several million Caucasians to the PRC's tender
>mercies.
>
>of Hong Kong who were born under and are used to living under democracy is
>equivalent to shutting the jews out of Palestine before during and after WWII
>
"used to living under democracy"?
The first time public elections were held in HK was in the 1990's. If
there is one thing that HK does *not* have, it is a democratic history.
Charles Buckley
Jack Love
>In article <4gvknb$j...@flounder.trans.ge.com>,
>Szu-yuan Huang <hu...@erie.ge.com> wrote:
>>At the same time, while we are on politics, we have to consider the
>>possibility of the PRC renewing the war even after an initial defeat.
>
>Or else waiting a few decades to start a war when the situation is
>more favorable. One must remember that the initial invasion plan for
>Taiwan was to have taken place in the early-1950's. The PRC has held
>a claim to sovereignty over Taiwan for almost 50 years. Waiting
>another 20 or 30 years is nothing.
>
>That's why I thought it was very strange that someone took me to task
>for estimating PRC military strength 20 years from now.
>
As said before it is a CURRENT crisis(?). 20 years gives everyone else
20 years to respond to actions. Estimating strength in 20 years in
isolation is fairly silly. You can't simply assume that Taiwan, not to mention
the US would permit a 20 year build up of PRC power without counter.
Containment is a policy that worked against the USSR, focused on
PRC MAD and conventional respnse would probably keep things
fairly neutral.
And if we get them to wait 50 or 100 years...that's a win in anyone's
book. Didn't happen on my watch!
TI...@vm.temple.edu
bsy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Brian William Schoeneman) writes:
>
>I also have a question....why would the United States risk all of the
>work it has done with China to help out Taiwan, a nation we don't even
>recognize? I'm sure that after a while, China will be able to wear down
>the Taiwanese with shear manpower. Still, the policy question begs a
>serious analysis.
>
Well this is a good question, why risk everything over Taiwan ?????
For Strategic reasons #1. The island of Taiwan commands the major North/South
shipping routes from Japan & S. Korea. This is area like the chokepoint near
Singapore controls alot trade between the Far East & Europe/Mid East regions.
Japan, dependent on imported oil shipments from the Mid East would be in dire
strights if its supply was in jepardy. South Korea also uses these same routes,
but for them more importantly is the idea that forces helping to protect them
would be drawn south. This of course leads to the chance the North Koreans
might use our preoccupation with China to launch a attack while our backs are
turned.
Strategic reason #2. If the U.S. only picks fights with small nations like
Haiti, Cuba, or Panama we look bullies when it comes time to step up to the
plate with Class 1 nations like China. Dumb street logic really (If I don't
Stand up I'll lose my reputation kind of thing). Our regional Allies would
then question our commitment to back them in times of crisis, if we let Taiwan
swing in the breeze.
Political reason #1. It's an ELECTION YEAR,both here in the U.S., but Taiwan
& S. Korea as well. Right now Clinton's Foreign Policy is falling apart at the
seams. HIs MID EAST peace;highlight for his Admin. is on shakey ground due to
the death of PM Rabin of Israel & the rise of Terrorist attacks changing
public support for peace plans now & future. BOSNIA; Clinton already has little
backing for this operation which could flare up to real fighting on a moments
notice. THE UK/IRA ceasefire; another foreign policy gamble thats blowing up in
his face, litteraly. The Brits are not going to be in a talking mood while
IRA guys are running around London with plans of Winsor Castle in their coats.
CUBA; after trying to ease the embargo & reversing our long standing refugee
stances,The Cubans shoot down some private planes flown by an anti-Castro
group. This is a problem that is going a prime election topic in FLA,NY, & NJ,
due to their large Cuban Communities. To sum things up, a fight with China is
the last thing he needs going into a convention. However a weak response opens
him up to both DEM & Republican criticism.
In Summary, while a real shooting war is not likely, Some shows of force are !
The U.S. will try to get both parties to the bargaining table while increasing
naval exercises, moving Air Force bombers to Guam,or sending a P-3 or S-3 unit
to Taiwan for ASW duty. While the Elections are going on however all attempts
will be made to stall any overt action.
LIVE FREE OR DIE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| |
| WALTER T. BROADDUS 4TH TIGER@TEMPLEVM |
| COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SERVICES TI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU |
| TEMPLE UNIVERSITY- PHILADELPHIA,PA |
| |
| "WHEN A MAN WITH A WINCHESTER |
| MEETS A MAN WITH A .45, |
| THE MAN WITH RIFLE WINS." |
| FROM- (MR.ROJO IN FIST FULL OF DOLLARS-1964) |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Markus Nybom BKF
: In article <4guahm$q...@josie.abo.fi>, man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) writes:
:
: > Chances are bleak, but wars with those odds have been won by the lesser
: > force before. You have to consider the different aspects of victory as well.
: > Taiwan "only" needs to win a Defensive Victory, that is, remain independent.
: > They don't have to conquer China.
:
: This is, of course, a victory condition driven by political considerations.
: possibility of the PRC renewing the war even after an initial defeat. It
: is simply too convenient to assume that she will take a change in policy or
: even the entire leadership after a defeat like the USSR in Red Storm Rising.
No, I'm not thinking of any such kind of coup d'etat, rather she might
just change her, then, currennt political (of course) objectives and leave
Taiwan be in exchange for some kind of peace terms, that make it appear as
she had won the war. And perhaps later on, after analysing strategy and
regaining strength.
: > I don't find the discussion any more pointless than any other military or
: > political discussion on the net. ;)
:
: I apologize if I have offended anybody. What I meant was that the possibly
: upcoming conflict betwen PRC and Taiwan cannot be adequately discussed without
: getting politics involved. It is a far bigger factor that will determine the
: ultimate outcome than the strengths of the armed forces on both sides.
No, I guess you're right. But this is all true of any political crisis.
Anywyay, you certainly haven't offended me.
MArkus
Deron T. Lundy
>
>In article <4gvuoc$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Deron T. Lundy <lund...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>**However**, a system of a few satellites whose
>>mission is to protect American soil against a small scale attack is, IMHO,
>>cost effective and **necessary**. Some estimates for PALS, the proposed
>>Protection Against Limited Strikes system, a scaled down SDI designed to
>>intercept an attack with 100 or so missles, was priced at about $50 billion.
>>Well worth the cost involved.
>
>The trouble with this is that:
>
>1) If you are worried about a terrorist attack, the system is useless,
>since the terrorists would like not use ballistic missles.
>
>2) If you are worried about an attack from a medium sized nuclear
>power such as China, the system is useless. By the time you've
>deployed the system, the nuclear power will have developed
>anti-satellite weapons for far less money.
While I agree that PALS would be useless against terrorists. it could be
useful against a medium sized nuclear power. While I don't have the exact
numbers, I would bet that the PRC has only, at most, a couple of hundred
missles. They most certainly don't have MAD capability yet. Hence, a
Chinese attack on the U.S. makes little sense. If we had PALS, they could,
at best, destroy a few cities, while we could destroy the PRC as a functioning
nation. As for ASAT, I again doubt the PRC has done much on that front.
Yes, they do have space launch capability, but ASAT? I don't think so.
Matt Giwer
>
>In article <4gvuoc$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Deron T. Lundy <lund...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>**However**, a system of a few satellites whose
>>mission is to protect American soil against a small scale attack is, IMHO,
>>cost effective and **necessary**. Some estimates for PALS, the proposed
>>Protection Against Limited Strikes system, a scaled down SDI designed to
>>intercept an attack with 100 or so missles, was priced at about $50 billion.
>>Well worth the cost involved.
>
>The trouble with this is that:
>
>1) If you are worried about a terrorist attack, the system is useless,
>since the terrorists would like not use ballistic missles.
>
>2) If you are worried about an attack from a medium sized nuclear
>power such as China, the system is useless. By the time you've
>deployed the system, the nuclear power will have developed
>anti-satellite weapons for far less money.
Other than reaction time, which gets longer the faster the
computer, what is the difference between hitting a satellite and a
warhead? And why did the Soviet Union have such a problem with
developing such a system? Rather why did they bother objecting
to SDI when they could have defeated it so easily?
It would have been a win-win situation for them.
Some conferences would require spoiler space here.
The answer is that an attack upon the satellites would be considered
preliminary to a nuclear attack and we would react with a nuclear strike. Thus
they would have to have both an antisatellite system and a missile system
and the ASAT would have to work so quickly and efficiently that it gives no
warning of the impending missile attack. That is not a trivial problem.
Rather the nuclear extortion scenario in DOH is one of the more
plausible ones that PALS would deal with.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
One finger is all a real American needs to deal with the government.
It takes a village idiot and other truths children have already learned.
Lenin
On 27 Feb 1996, Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
> Lenin (ave...@wsunix.wsu.edu) wrote:
> : A massive theater ballistic missile defense program is currently in the
> : works. Funding has been provided by Congress already (I don't know what
> : sort of a miracle made that possible), and possibly as soon as the year
>
>
> Nope. THAAD's operational date has been pushed back and the other
> programs have also been downscoped. The continental defense system
> Congress was urging didn't make it into the final bill.
>
> Check last week's newspapers.
>
>
> D-Day
>
>
I knew it was too good to be true. No doubt, they're scaling everything
back to pay for the Bosnia mission..
Steve Martin
Yep, he whupped them Hatian's real good. Managed to get a bunch of Rangers
killed in Somalia. Just the man I want standing toe to toe with the PRC.
Have a nice day
Steve Martin
sc
You forgot Bosnia.
The problem with peacekeeping/peacemaking is that there are so many ways
to measure failure but so few ways to measure success.
As for dealing with the PRC, I'd rather have RN and HK at the helm for the US.
Sherwin
W.E. Nichols
+In article <syc225-2702...@hin082039.res-hall.nwu.edu>,
+ syc...@nwu.edu (sc) wrote:
+>Clinton has been a good president so far.
+
+Yep, he whupped them Hatian's real good. Managed to get a bunch of Rangers
+killed in Somalia. Just the man I want standing toe to toe with the PRC.
I have to tell you of one of my heros. Just prior to going to Europe for
the D Day commeration, Slick Willy handed out a couple of CMHs to the
families of two Army Sgts killed in Somalia. The father of one flat out
told Klinton that if he had done his job (klinton) that his son would not
have been killed. Apparently there was a heated exchange. Don't forget
that Aspin (SecDef) was fired over this fiasco.
Anyone that will stand toes to toes with the most powerful man in the world
and tells him he is fucked up, is my hero.
Nick
W.E. Nichols Sir Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 100 foot clipper
w...@infi.net
Deron T. Lundy
>
>In article <syc225-2702...@hin082039.res-hall.nwu.edu>,
> syc...@nwu.edu (sc) wrote:
>
>
>
>Steve Martin
Don't forget that it was **BUSH** who sent forces to Somalia. Clinton was
just the poor guy who inherited the mess from the previous administration.
Also. a lot of the mess was made by SecDef Les Aspin, who committed a fatal
REMF error: he didn't follow the recommendation of the field commander, who
requested more tanks as backup in case it hit the fan. Aspin vetoed this
request, and as a result, about 20 Americans lost their lives. Aspin resigned
shortly after this incident. So, to blame Clinton totally for the incident
is really quite unfair. He can, though, rightly be accused of a lack of
judgement when it came to his selection of DoD leadership.
P.S. ***PLEASE***, let's not drag political opinions into this newsgroup.
I really hate mudslinging. If you don't like Bill Clinton, that's fine, but
just don't pin all of the world's problems on him, since the two administrations
before him made more than their fair share of mistakes in foreign policy.
Also, I consider myself a moderate Republican, so please don't accuse me of
being a liberal.
Joseph C Wang
>useful against a medium sized nuclear power. While I don't have the exact
>numbers, I would bet that the PRC has only, at most, a couple of hundred
>missles. They most certainly don't have MAD capability yet. Hence, a
>Chinese attack on the U.S. makes little sense. If we had PALS, they could,
>at best, destroy a few cities, while we could destroy the PRC as a functioning
>nation.
This is true without PALS. So what is the point of spending $50 billion
that could go to other things?
One thing to note is that the PRC has pledged "no first use" of
nuclear weapons. While pledges such as these aren't worth much in a
crisis situation, it does indicate that nuclear weapons are probably
not an integral part of PRC strategic thinking.
Also, from a military/political point of view, it would make more
sense for the PRC to use tactical nuclear weapons against a CVBG than
to attack the United States mainland.
>As for ASAT, I again doubt the PRC has done much on that front.
>Yes, they do have space launch capability, but ASAT? I don't think so.
The PRC doesn't have an ASAT capability right now, but in the time it
would take to put up a PALS (ten years or so), it could easily develop
one. Also it could also choose to ramp up production of nuclear
missiles (or of dummy warheads) if it felt that a PALS was directed
against it.
You have to think three or four moves ahead in this game.
Joseph C Wang
> Other than reaction time, which gets longer the faster the
>computer, what is the difference between hitting a satellite and a
>warhead?
The satellite's orbit is known years ahead of time, and there's only
limited maneuvering possibility. If you want you can keep throwing
missiles at it till it runs out of fuel to maneuver and then hit it.
>And why did the Soviet Union have such a problem with
>developing such a system?
We aren't talking about a full-fledged SDI system which would have
bankrupt the Soviet Union. We are talking about a limited SDI system.
You can deal with the countermeasure I just mentioned by throwing up a
lot of satellites, and this was the idea of SDI. The trouble with
this is that it's extremely expensive, and while the United States is
building up a strategic defense, the PRC will be spending its money on
conventional weapons and acheiving a local superiority in conventional
forces in East Asia.
> The answer is that an attack upon the satellites would be considered
>preliminary to a nuclear attack and we would react with a nuclear strike.
So you have the chance of World War III each time a resistor blows?
Not a good idea.
Also, you run the problem of having the PRC say "We don't believe you,
and we'll attack your satellites anyway if tensions increase." If the
PRC publicly made that declaration, I suspect that the political
support for the previous declaration would evaporate.
The other point is that blowing all of the satellites out of the sky
is not necessarily a precursor to a nuclear attack. One BIG advantage
that the United States has is its network of reconnaisance and
satellite communications network, and that would be a tempting target
in case of conventional hostilities.
Harold Hutchison
> just the poor guy who inherited the mess from the previous administration.
> Also. a lot of the mess was made by SecDef Les Aspin, who committed a fatal
> REMF error: he didn't follow the recommendation of the field commander, who
> requested more tanks as backup in case it hit the fan. Aspin vetoed this
> request, and as a result, about 20 Americans lost their lives. Aspin resigned
> shortly after this incident. So, to blame Clinton totally for the incident
> is really quite unfair. He can, though, rightly be accused of a lack of
> judgement when it came to his selection of DoD leadership.
big time and got 18 Rangers killed. Sorry, but that FUCKUP was
Bill's. We didn't get anyone killed while BUSH was in office.
Just to get the record straight. Furthermore, Somalia is
EXACTLY why the GOP President-elect in 1996 will have NO choice but to
ask Congress to provide an exemption so Schwarzkopf can serve as
Secretray of Defense.
Clinton has been a sad joke. 99 out of 100 troops must have
busted Article 89 in the past three years.
--
Check out Harold's Hangout!
http://wwwacn.cornell-iowa.edu/~hhutchison
Greg Sigler
>
>Don't forget that it was **BUSH** who sent forces to Somalia. Clinton was
>just the poor guy who inherited the mess from the previous administration.
>Also. a lot of the mess was made by SecDef Les Aspin, who committed a fatal
>REMF error: he didn't follow the recommendation of the field commander, who
>requested more tanks as backup in case it hit the fan. Aspin vetoed this
>request, and as a result, about 20 Americans lost their lives. Aspin resigned
>shortly after this incident. So, to blame Clinton totally for the incident
>is really quite unfair. He can, though, rightly be accused of a lack of
>judgement when it came to his selection of DoD leadership.
>
successful. The Clinton Administration changed the mission, heightened
tensions, and refused to either get out or place the proper force at the local
commander's disposal.
I'm sorry, but blame for the deaths of the Americans and a lot of Somalis
should be placed on the incumbent President.
--
Greg Sigler (gr...@apsg.eds.com) |
EDS Advanced Product Support |
--- Unless I say otherwise, I speak solely for myself ---
Steve Martin
w...@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) wrote:
>Mar...@aloha.net (Steve Martin) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
>+Yep, he whupped them Hatian's real good. Managed to get a bunch of Rangers
>+killed in Somalia. Just the man I want standing toe to toe with the PRC.
>
>I have to tell you of one of my heros. Just prior to going to Europe for
>the D Day commeration, Slick Willy handed out a couple of CMHs to the
>families of two Army Sgts killed in Somalia. The father of one flat out
>told Klinton that if he had done his job (klinton) that his son would not
>have been killed. Apparently there was a heated exchange. Don't forget
>that Aspin (SecDef) was fired over this fiasco.
I thought I remembered hearing Mike Reagan talk about a rangers dad throwing
(I believe) a medal of honor back in our esteemed leaders face. But I could
not remember for sure of the specific medal involved. I also seem to remember
the major networks some how neglecting to cover the incident. Because I
couldn't recall for sure I chickened out and left it out of my orginal post.
How ever as much as I hate to say it, not listening and using the military in
stupid ways is not limited to slick willie. Ronald Reagan's administration
got a whole bunch of marines killed one fine morning in Lebanon.
Steve Martin
Deron T. Lundy
>Bush sent the troops there on a mission of mercy which was moderately
>successful. The Clinton Administration changed the mission, heightened
>tensions, and refused to either get out or place the proper force at the local
>commander's disposal.
>
>I'm sorry, but blame for the deaths of the Americans and a lot of Somalis
>should be placed on the incumbent President.
As I stated in my original post, it was **Aspin** who was mostly to blame
for the Somalia debacle. Did nayone notice that shortly after the American
deaths there, we had a brand new SecDef? Coincidence? I think not. I
strongly suspect that Clinton told Aspin to resign, which is, in effect,
a firing at that level. If that is the case, which I beleive it is, Clinton
took the proper action: he dismissed the official who messed up, and later
pulled the U.S. out of Somalia. The President did what he could in a no-win
situation.
Jack Love
>lund...@osu.edu (Deron T. Lundy) wrote:
>>
>>Don't forget that it was **BUSH** who sent forces to Somalia. Clinton was
>>just the poor guy who inherited the mess from the previous administration.
Bush sent the troops in AFTER consulting with Clinton. This was a issue
campaigned on by Clinton and implemented in the between election and
inauguration period by Bush. Clinton approved. Bush, simply couldn't
pass up handing him the anchor personally....who could?
>
>I'm sorry, but blame for the deaths of the Americans and a lot of Somalis
>should be placed on the incumbent President.
>
Matt Giwer
>In article <4h2qhb$k...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>> Other than reaction time, which gets longer the faster the
>>computer, what is the difference between hitting a satellite and a
>>warhead?
>The satellite's orbit is known years ahead of time, and there's only
>limited maneuvering possibility. If you want you can keep throwing
>missiles at it till it runs out of fuel to maneuver and then hit it.
To a first order approximation and to a second order approximation,
once a missile is out of the thick atmoshere both the satellite and
the ballistic missile obey exactly the same equations. Solving those
equations is a matter of the speed of the computer.
Neither a satellite nor a ballistic missile has any ability to
maneouver out of the way of an incoming 36,000 mph weapon at the
current state of the art.
>>And why did the Soviet Union have such a problem with
>>developing such a system?
>We aren't talking about a full-fledged SDI system which would have
>bankrupt the Soviet Union. We are talking about a limited SDI system.
Agreed, we are not. We are talking about a relatively low cost system
that will neutralize a PRC threat.
>You can deal with the countermeasure I just mentioned
It was not what you imagine.
by throwing up a
>lot of satellites, and this was the idea of SDI. The trouble with
>this is that it's extremely expensive, and while the United States is
>building up a strategic defense, the PRC will be spending its money on
>conventional weapons and acheiving a local superiority in conventional
>forces in East Asia.
As it was not what you imagine, this does not follow.
BTW: It already has a local superiority in conventional forces in
East Asia.
>> The answer is that an attack upon the satellites would be considered
>>preliminary to a nuclear attack and we would react with a nuclear strike.
>So you have the chance of World War III each time a resistor blows?
>Not a good idea.
An attack upon ONE satellite would not be considered such a threat.
Please, think about hwat you are posting before you post. You
supposed "argument" was the same that was used in many a fiction novel
throughout the entire Cold War. Note we never had such a false war
despite even those incidents made public. Do you really think the
professionals have not been far ahead of your "resistor blows" since
the early 1950s? They were. What do you think you are going to add
now?
>Also, you run the problem of having the PRC say "We don't believe you,
>and we'll attack your satellites anyway if tensions increase." If the
>PRC publicly made that declaration, I suspect that the political
>support for the previous declaration would evaporate.
What does political support have to do with the Commander in Chief?
And of course I invite your attention to the Cold War where similar
rules NEVER resulted in such a confrontation. Do you really think you
invented this stuff?
>The other point is that blowing all of the satellites out of the sky
>is not necessarily a precursor to a nuclear attack. One BIG advantage
>that the United States has is its network of reconnaisance and
>satellite communications network, and that would be a tempting target
>in case of conventional hostilities.
And of course you are not aware of but I will tell you that attacks
upon them were and still are considered an act of war. That was the
real issue behind the Baikanal blinding.
W.E. Nichols
+lund...@osu.edu (Deron T. Lundy) wrote:
+>
+>Don't forget that it was **BUSH** who sent forces to Somalia. Clinton was
+>just the poor guy who inherited the mess from the previous administration.
+>Also. a lot of the mess was made by SecDef Les Aspin, who committed a fatal
+>REMF error: he didn't follow the recommendation of the field commander, who
+>requested more tanks as backup in case it hit the fan. Aspin vetoed this
+>request, and as a result, about 20 Americans lost their lives. Aspin resigned
+>shortly after this incident. So, to blame Clinton totally for the incident
+>is really quite unfair. He can, though, rightly be accused of a lack of
+>judgement when it came to his selection of DoD leadership.
+>
+Bush sent the troops there on a mission of mercy which was moderately
+successful. The Clinton Administration changed the mission, heightened
+tensions, and refused to either get out or place the proper force at the local
+commander's disposal.
+
+I'm sorry, but blame for the deaths of the Americans and a lot of Somalis
+should be placed on the incumbent President.
I have to agree with Mr. Sigler. When you send a force into a country in an
attempt quell the hostilities, there must be some form of government already
in place. The basic concept of a peacekeeping force is to difuse a
situation to the extent that the government can "again" take control of the
country. Somalia was and still is an anarchy.
W.E. Nichols
+In article <3135b673...@allnews.infi.net>,
+ w...@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) wrote:
+>Mar...@aloha.net (Steve Martin) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
+>
+
+>+Yep, he whupped them Hatian's real good. Managed to get a bunch of Rangers
+>+killed in Somalia. Just the man I want standing toe to toe with the PRC.
+>
+>I have to tell you of one of my heros. Just prior to going to Europe for
+>the D Day commeration, Slick Willy handed out a couple of CMHs to the
+>families of two Army Sgts killed in Somalia. The father of one flat out
+>told Klinton that if he had done his job (klinton) that his son would not
+>have been killed. Apparently there was a heated exchange. Don't forget
+>that Aspin (SecDef) was fired over this fiasco.
+
+I thought I remembered hearing Mike Reagan talk about a rangers dad throwing
+(I believe) a medal of honor back in our esteemed leaders face. But I could
+not remember for sure of the specific medal involved. I also seem to remember
+the major networks some how neglecting to cover the incident. Because I
+couldn't recall for sure I chickened out and left it out of my orginal post.
+How ever as much as I hate to say it, not listening and using the military in
+stupid ways is not limited to slick willie. Ronald Reagan's administration
+got a whole bunch of marines killed one fine morning in Lebanon.
Please justify your comment on the BLT in Beruit.
Fred McCall
:In <syc225-2702...@hin082039.res-hall.nwu.edu>, syc...@nwu.edu (sc) writes:
:>In article <1996Feb23.0...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
:>sha...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (shawnh) wrote:
:>
:>BTW, didn't the U.S. face a similar situation in Southeast Asia about
:>thirty years ago?
:>
:>Sherwin
:
:
:Yeah, and your Gov. blew it that time too!
And just where were you whiney Brits at the time? Busy pissing away
the remnants of Empire, no doubt, which is why you now work for a US
company.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Fred McCall
:I beleive Mr. Clancy left left out a #7. That is the Chinese realize that
:they can't win conventionally and decide to eliminate the ROC Navy and
:Air Force at once with a nuclear attack. Using nuclear weapons again they
:could protect and blast open beach heads on Taiwan and occupy the island.
Unlikely. The Chinese can count as well as we can. I doubt they'd
risk American intervention on a nuclear scale.
:
:Which begs the question will the Americans up the ante with their own
:arsenal? My quess is no, and they would quietly shun it off as a Chinese
:matter rather than risk a Chinese ICBM attack.
The Chinese only have about 5 ICBMs that can reach here. The
calculation might run that we could take them out before they could
launch them, leaving them with only IRBMs. Alternatively, we might
just convince the Russians to launch a preemptive strike (which they
wanted to do right after the first Chinese weapon test) by bringing up
the subject and pointing out that we wouldn't view such an undertaking
on their part badly.
Going nuclear isn't a good choice for the Chinese.
Tom Clancy
The mission, it is true, was poisoned from the beginning, but it was the
Clinton Administration which extended the mission in terms of time; which
made efforts to bag Adid, then diddled so much as to prevent timely intel
from getting to the people at the sharp end; which did not provide
heavy-weapons support begged for by the guys over there; which then lost
troops because they were not properly supported; which condemned those
resonsible for the deaths; and which, finally, gave USAF transport to the
same people who arranged the deaths of the Rangers.
Bush may be faulted for getting us involved, and I invite the group
members to speculate on how such missions should be structured from the
beginning. I have my ideas, and I am interested in yours.
The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
people at risk is central to the entire question.
TC
Fred McCall
:: On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
:: small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
:: largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
:: our international credibility.
:
:Mr Clancy and all others who read this,
: Does the US have the guts to risk a nuclear war for
:"international credibility"? They have 4 ICBM's. Assuming that only 2 of
:them are operation at any one time, that still leaves 2 to hit cities
:inside the United States. Patriots you say? Patriots are great for
:defending airfields and military bases, but are useless for defending
:large areas. 2 US cities for internation credibility...
You assume we'd let them get them off and that they'd have the guts to
fire them, knowing that they'd get 2000 warheads back in return for
their 2.
Tom Clancy
Heavy weapons were denied to the troops because it was felt that M1A1
main-battle tanks and M2 Bradley IFVs would "send the wrong message" to
the people of Somalia.
This is something that needs addressing. When you put soldiers in the
field, one message you MUST deliver is the one on the old Rattlesnake
Flag. "Don't Tread on Me."
No matter how purely humanitarian such a mission might be, troops would
not have been dispatched unless there were people present in Somalia who
do not look upon a just peace with equanimity. For those people it must be
clear that trifling with American military personnel is dangerous. There's
nothing like an armored vehicle rolling down the street to get someone's
attention.
However, in the case of Somalia, the message actually sent was that we
were not serious. I suppose somebody figured that we had good troops there
(we did) and that they could take care of themselves (they did, but not
without taking losses in what was a nasty little battle).
(The battle, as reported to me by a senior officer, was curious. Most
casualties occurred from RPGs lofted into the troop area like mortar
rounds. The few attempts at infantry assault were extinguished. Ranger
sharpshooters gradually eliminated enemy riflemen firing from cover,
expanding the sanitized radius outward until RPGs could no longer be
lofted in. Helicopter crews, in keeping with their traditions, took
enormous chances trying to get help to the surrounded Rangers.)
Okay, there was a fair fight, and we won. On the whole, the kill ratio was
quite favorable, but war isn't accounting, people. We aren't supposed to
trade one American life for X number of enemies and call it a success.
Some very fine men were lost unnecessarily. That is not our business. What
troubles me greatly, and this is not new, is that too many people regards
soldiers as expendible assets. They are not expendible. Sometimes they are
expended, but that's not the same thing. Every one of them matters.
I don't want to get into an argument about over-caution v. boldness. We're
not talking about that. That's tactics, and very often what looks a little
crazy is the safest way to carry out a mission.
This question is the strategic or operational ethos that causes us to
commit troops anywhere. The most effective way of keeping troops safe is
to make them look like the meanest, toughest sons of bitches in the Valley
of Death. In Somalia we didn't do that -- for aesthetic reasons, and we
lost people. For aesthetics. That's a poor reason to have to explain to a
father or wife or kid. I suppose what I'm saying here is that there's only
one (1) test governing the deployment of troops into danger. You'd damned
well better have a form letter for the survivors to explain why their
soldier -sailor - airman - marine isn't around anymore. And they deserve
to know also that their departed family member had the best shot at
survival that our nation could arrange.
End of today's sermon.
TC
Fred McCall
:The problem with peacekeeping/peacemaking is that there are so many ways
:to measure failure but so few ways to measure success.
Which is why it's a stupid use of troops in the first place.
:As for dealing with the PRC, I'd rather have RN and HK at the helm for the US.
Personally, I'd prefer John Foster Dulles (if he were still alive). I
think the Chinese would understand him better and we'd be more
successful than with the duo that presided over our surrender in
Vietnam (the phrase "peace in our time" comes to mind, somehow).
pete...@uk.ibm.com
>snip
>When you send a force into a country in an
>attempt quell the hostilities, there must be some form of government already
>in place. The basic concept of a peacekeeping force is to difuse a
>situation to the extent that the government can "again" take control of the
>country. Somalia was and still is an anarchy.
>
incorrect to do that nowadays but if can say that any African country is better of
running their own affairs than when the British were there you're kidding
yourselves.
The US had its own empire and ran several other parts of the world (haiti?) is
the world a better place since it stopped trying to run other peoples affairs? I
personally doubt it.
An Imperialistic US (for humanitarian) reasons would make a good subject for a
book................
pete...@uk.ibm.com
>pete...@uk.ibm.com wrote:
>
>:
>:Yeah, and your Gov. blew it that time too!
>
>And just where were you whiney Brits at the time? Busy pissing away
>the remnants of Empire, no doubt, which is why you now work for a US
>company.
>
in hindsight we were smart to pass on Vietnam!
I wonder if Veitnam had been fought like Korea we would now have a seperate
north and south as in Korea, would this have been better than what actually
happened? I don't know, but it would probably have cost less lives both
Veitnamese and US etc.
Jack Love
>Mar...@aloha.net (Steve Martin) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
>+In article <syc225-2702...@hin082039.res-hall.nwu.edu>,
>+ syc...@nwu.edu (sc) wrote:
>+>Clinton has been a good president so far.
>+
>+Yep, he whupped them Hatian's real good. Managed to get a bunch of Rangers
>+killed in Somalia. Just the man I want standing toe to toe with the PRC.
>
>I have to tell you of one of my heros. Just prior to going to Europe for
>the D Day commeration, Slick Willy handed out a couple of CMHs to the
>families of two Army Sgts killed in Somalia.
Surely not Congressional Medals of Honor???
I don't know the circumstances, so possibly they are well earned BUT
I am sorely distressed by the trivialization of the word 'hero' by the media
and even more by the debasement of the honors of war. Handing them
out two at a time for a backwater incident certainly smacks of it.
The father of one flat out
>told Klinton that if he had done his job (klinton) that his son would not
>have been killed. Apparently there was a heated exchange. Don't forget
>that Aspin (SecDef) was fired over this fiasco.
>
>Anyone that will stand toes to toes with the most powerful man in the world
>and tells him he is fucked up, is my hero.
>
sc
Clancy) wrote:
Neither can actions taken by our government be divorced from God. For
spiritualism--not money--is what really makes the world go round.
Have we all forgotten that even on our money the message is made clear?:
In God We Trust.
Sherwin
Harold Hutchison
open to them.
You start off by using Caspar Weinburger's checklist, which
after Somalia was EXPANDED by him and Representative Robert K. Dornan.
Those ten questions must ALL be answered with an UNQUALIFIED "Yes", or
the troops are NOT sent.
For something like Somalia or even Bosnia, I would start off
by saying, "This goes under OUR commanders and OUR ROEs. If the
on-scene commander requests something short of unconventional weapons,
he gets it."
Second off, out ROEs are NOT going to be as screwed up. We
take NO orders from diplomats AT ALL. I don't care whether it's
Warren Christopher himself, the chain of command is military except
for the NCA.
Finally, there's an ARG reinforced with a dozen Apaches to go
with its Harriers, Cobras, and other hardware serving as backup. And
the Marines will be there.
> The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
> case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
> people at risk is central to the entire question.
Folks, this is something we need to remember ALWAYS when it's
a matter of foreign policy.
Harold Hutchison
> main-battle tanks and M2 Bradley IFVs would "send the wrong message" to
> the people of Somalia.
rather have sent the stuff.
> No matter how purely humanitarian such a mission might be, troops would
> not have been dispatched unless there were people present in Somalia who
> do not look upon a just peace with equanimity. For those people it must be
> clear that trifling with American military personnel is dangerous. There's
> nothing like an armored vehicle rolling down the street to get someone's
> attention.
Especially if it is the M-1 Abrams. Some around here can
understandably think the thing is invincible. Heck, after all the
abuse one of them (24th MEchanized Infantry Division, IIRC) took, I'd
be amazed if something COULD destory an Abrams.
> However, in the case of Somalia, the message actually sent was that we
> were not serious. I suppose somebody figured that we had good troops there
> (we did) and that they could take care of themselves (they did, but not
> without taking losses in what was a nasty little battle).
And the worst part about that was that we could have saved
some of them if they'd sent the armor.
> (The battle, as reported to me by a senior officer, was curious. Most
> casualties occurred from RPGs lofted into the troop area like mortar
> rounds. The few attempts at infantry assault were extinguished. Ranger
> sharpshooters gradually eliminated enemy riflemen firing from cover,
> expanding the sanitized radius outward until RPGs could no longer be
> lofted in. Helicopter crews, in keeping with their traditions, took
> enormous chances trying to get help to the surrounded Rangers.)
That's interesting. I also heard that most of the casualties
were head and upper-shoulder wounds. Anyone got confirmation on that?
> Okay, there was a fair fight, and we won. On the whole, the kill ratio was
> quite favorable, but war isn't accounting, people. We aren't supposed to
> trade one American life for X number of enemies and call it a success.
> Some very fine men were lost unnecessarily. That is not our business. What
> troubles me greatly, and this is not new, is that too many people regards
> soldiers as expendible assets. They are not expendible. Sometimes they are
> expended, but that's not the same thing. Every one of them matters.
One thing I forgot, "`Fair' means all my Marines get back home
alive." - Without Remorse, p. 353.
Folks on sci.military.naval will remember how my theoretical
fleets got kinda big. There's a reason for this. "A war never fought
is always the cheapest war. We should always look for the REAL
bargain." - Fighter Wing, p. 193.
It's cheaper in commodities MUCH more valuable than money.
> This question is the strategic or operational ethos that causes us to
> commit troops anywhere. The most effective way of keeping troops safe is
> to make them look like the meanest, toughest sons of bitches in the Valley
> of Death. In Somalia we didn't do that -- for aesthetic reasons, and we
> lost people. For aesthetics. That's a poor reason to have to explain to a
> father or wife or kid. I suppose what I'm saying here is that there's only
> one (1) test governing the deployment of troops into danger. You'd damned
> well better have a form letter for the survivors to explain why their
> soldier -sailor - airman - marine isn't around anymore. And they deserve
> to know also that their departed family member had the best shot at
> survival that our nation could arrange.
>
> End of today's sermon.
One that needs posting in EVERY foreign policy wonk's office.
Right on his/her desk. One has to wonder how many troops we might
lose due to these excessive cuts in defense.
Harold Hutchison
Jack Love
>In <313717c6...@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) writes:
>>pete...@uk.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>>:
>>:Yeah, and your Gov. blew it that time too!
>>
>>And just where were you whiney Brits at the time? Busy pissing away
>>the remnants of Empire, no doubt, which is why you now work for a US
>>company.
>>
>Yeah, you're right! Our Goverment is probably is no better than yours but
>in hindsight we were smart to pass on Vietnam!
Just as a carp, the Brits are responsible for Viet Nam. A Brit General
(name escapes me) was occupational commander in French Indo-China.
It was he who re-armed the Japanese troops and held the turf with
them until the French could ahhh, take up residence again.
Another of the glorious actions of Empire as history might have been
quite different without the frustration of the nationalistic goals of Ho
forcing him into the socialist brotherhood.
Fred McCall
:
:What are you talking about? Clinton has been a good president so far.
BWAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
:And I don't think China will ever nuke Taiwan and then try to occupy it;
:it's not such a smart thing to do. <g>
Because?
:BTW, didn't the U.S. face a similar situation in Southeast Asia about
:thirty years ago?
No, it did not.
sc
> syc...@nwu.edu (sc) wrote:
>
> :The problem with peacekeeping/peacemaking is that there are so many ways
> :to measure failure but so few ways to measure success.
>
> Which is why it's a stupid use of troops in the first place.
Yes, it is, but only if there's a correlation between the number of ways
of determining failure and the *magnitude* of failure itself.
Sherwin
Joseph C Wang
Jack Love <ja...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>As said before it is a CURRENT crisis(?).
There is no current crisis. The PRC is just trying to make people
nervous before the March Presidental election, that's all. There is
no sign that the PRC is making any sort of effort to invade Taiwan
today or in the next two to three years. Regardless of whether an
invasion would succeed or not, it would completely disrupt the PRC
economy, and the economy is the top priority of the PRC leadership
right now.
>20 years gives everyone else
>20 years to respond to actions. Estimating strength in 20 years in
>isolation is fairly silly. You can't simply assume that Taiwan, not to mention
>the US would permit a 20 year build up of PRC power without counter.
I'm assuming nothing in isolation. What I'm doing is to take some
reasonable economic projections of the future, and to look at the
military implications of those projections.
It's perfectly reasonable to challenge those economic figures. After
all, if you took the economic figures for the Soviet Union in the
1950's, you'd have a totally misleading picture of what would happen.
However, I think its unreasonable to stick one's head in the sand and
ignore what is going on in front of you. If you don't have a long
term game plan, you'll just be reacting to events and you won't get
anywhere.
Remember that the typical peacetime weapons system takes about a
decade or so to go from planning to implementation. In order to make
coherent military policy, it is essential to make at least 10 to 20
year projections.
>Containment is a policy that worked against the USSR, focused on
>PRC MAD and conventional respnse would probably keep things
>fairly neutral.
The trouble with containment as a foreign policy is that it is getting
zero support from any of America's allies. Heck, even relations
between the PRC and South Korea are cordial.
The Europeans and Japanese are hoping that relations between the
United States and China break down so that they can make lots of money
in China.
Also, the fact that so many American corporations are making money in
China is also making a containment policy difficult to impossible to
gain support in the United States.
>And if we get them to wait 50 or 100 years...that's a win in anyone's
>book. Didn't happen on my watch!
This is an example of short term American thinking. If you look at
the economic plans that are coming out of Beijing, they are looking at
least to 2050. I'm sure that the poltical and military plans also
have a similar time horizon. Mao himself said that the PRC was
willing to wait at least a hundred years to recover Taiwan.
Deron T. Lundy
>Bush may be faulted for getting us involved, and I invite the group
>members to speculate on how such missions should be structured from the
>
>The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
>case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
>people at risk is central to the entire question.
>
First of all, these missions need clearly defined missions and goals for
their completion. There must also be either a timespan for deployment
or a prerequisite number of goals completed before a troop pullout. So,
the President must state either that soldiers will be there n months or,
say until something resembling order is established. Most importantly,
however, is the need for adequate support. What the commander on the scene
needs, he gets, short of nukes. *****NEVER***** second guess the guy who
is running the show overseas. The Gulf War showed that it is a lot better
to go in with way too much force than to have too little. Overwhelming
force in a situation like Somalia is not such a bad thing, since it shows
the locals we mean business. Sure, it might hurt the U.S. in the opinion
polls, but what is more important, opinion polls or soldiers' lives??
Benjamin William Dyer
> No matter how purely humanitarian such a mission might be, troops would
> not have been dispatched unless there were people present in Somalia who
> do not look upon a just peace with equanimity.
>
> This question is the strategic or operational ethos that causes us to
> commit troops anywhere. The most effective way of keeping troops safe is
> to make them look like the meanest, toughest sons of bitches in the Valley
> of Death.
>
> TC
In my humble opinion, it is the justifications for aggression
(humanitarian intervention being one of them) that are the crux of the
discussion on why we send our troops abroad. This is not to say that the
viability of the means we adopt has nothing to contribute to these
decisions, but rather that it comes second to the moral issues at stake
where our decision to enter war is made. Consider that the United States
regarded Somalia as a clear cut case of a nation where atrocity and
instability were so oppressive to the will of the Somalian people where
political self-determination was concerned that we judged an intervention
to be morally imperative. The goals we set for ourselves and the means
we adopted to expedite those goals came after the realization of a moral
imperative, and this I regard to be an important distinction.
Because we determine the moral imperatives before the military
feasibility, when we move to consider the means and ends which will carry
out our imperatives the consideration is most often utilitarian. The
history of war I would argue _has_ come down to accounting because of
exactly this. When we say that we limited our soldiers methods in hostile
situations, we are saying that we failed to make the utilitarian calculation
come out with a solution amenable to our ideology and our national image.
It troubles me that we measure ideological costs against the lives
of our fighting men, and it troubles me even more to consider that people
do it so easily. However I hesitate to say that our history of
utilitarianism regards our fathers and brothers as expendable. Rather
the people making the policy decisions most often seem troubled because
they know that the moral imperatives forcing us to commit to aggressive
action must be paid for in blood. It then remains for us to commit as
much of our national resources as possible to insure that as many of our
soldiers as possible make it home.
Summarily I mean this: our losses in Somalia were not due to a lack
of justification for being there, but rather a lack of realism in our
deployment of forces. This seems obvious without having written
everything above, but it is my contention that judging whether we should
commit troops abroad is decided first by the justifications of aggression
and secondly by the feasibility of our military to carry out clearly
defined goals in response to our moral imperatives. If we lack one of
these, we have no business sending our troops abroad, and it seems to me
that both of these were present and possible if not perfect in Somalia.
Then again, what did we ever do that was perfect?
Ben Dyer
mag...@u.washington.edu
Matt Giwer
>Okay, there was a fair fight, and we won. On the whole, the kill ratio was
>quite favorable, but war isn't accounting, people. We aren't supposed to
>trade one American life for X number of enemies and call it a success.
>Some very fine men were lost unnecessarily. That is not our business. What
>troubles me greatly, and this is not new, is that too many people regards
>soldiers as expendible assets. They are not expendible. Sometimes they are
>expended, but that's not the same thing. Every one of them matters.
I am reminded of some of the folks who said that because the present
army is a volunteer army they had no right to object to being sent to
Bosnia, with Corporal New particularly in mind.
I have envisioned there are still several million able WW II veterans
who would like to explain what volunteer means to those folks,
preferably in a dark alley.
>This question is the strategic or operational ethos that causes us to
>commit troops anywhere. The most effective way of keeping troops safe is
>to make them look like the meanest, toughest sons of bitches in the Valley
>of Death.
The rule is, if you are going to risk someone's life, you give them
what they need to defend their life or you are responsible for their
death.
If the reason to have sent the military was not to kill people who got
out of hand then they should have sent the Peace Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
One finger is all a real American needs to deal with the government.
It takes a village idiot and other truths children have already learned.
Arved Sandstrom
[ Stuff obviously violently removed ]
>+stupid ways is not limited to slick willie. Ronald Reagan's administration
>+got a whole bunch of marines killed one fine morning in Lebanon.
>
>Please justify your comment on the BLT in Beruit.
>
>Nick
>W.E. Nichols Sir Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 100 foot clipper
>w...@infi.net
Oh, Nick, you did it now :)
Very similar to the discussion about the Vincennes we've been having. In
Beirut basic security was ignored.
As far as Ron goes, he had no business sticking a BLT in there. _You_
just stated the same opinion about Somalia. Lebanon was and is anarchic.
And US Marines are triggers. Every anti-US group in the world has wet
dreams thinking of being able to blow up leathernecks.
And putting everyone off duty rotation into one big target - Jesus
Christ.
--
Arved H. Sandstro"m | YISDER ZOMENIMOR
Physical Oceanography Group | ORZIZZAZIZ
Dept.of Physics, Memorial Univ. of NFLD | ZANZERIZ
asnd...@crosby.physics.mun.ca | ORZIZ
Phil Ngai
Joseph C Wang <j...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
<2) If you are worried about an attack from a medium sized nuclear
<power such as China, the system is useless. By the time you've
<deployed the system, the nuclear power will have developed
<anti-satellite weapons for far less money.
I would hope that a PALS system that was half-way effective
for its intended purpose would also be able to defend itself
against ASATs.
--
In ten years, Apple Computer has gone from a company which talked
about how great their computers were to a company which talks
about how great their computers were 10 years ago.
Sue Thing
>>Clinton has been a good president so far.
>Yep, he whupped them Hatian's real good. Managed to get a bunch of Rangers
>killed in Somalia. Just the man I want standing toe to toe with the PRC.
Gee... As I recall, it was George Bush who sent the initial troops to Somalia.
Even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, I knew it was a tar-baby, and
George's little parting gift to Clinton.
Sue, posting from: plbu...@indirect.com
>>>+<<<--->>>+<<<--->>>+<<<--->>>+<<<
"Rubbish. You have no power here. Begone,
before somebody drops a house on you, too!"
--Glinda the Good
PL Burton
>> : On the political question, were America to stand by and do nothing while a
>> : small nation assaults a larger one (all the more so when the world's
>> : largest navy - ours - happens to be in the area) would do grave damage to
>> : our international credibility.
I don't know that our "credibility" is particularly at stake; I doubt that it
has gone without notice that we don't recognise Taiwan. I may be mistaken, but
it seems to me that the *real* US interest lies with the mainland: Big US
companies want to sell Q-tips and Coke to the PRC. If that means selling the
same to Taiwan as part of the PRC, I suspect that that is just fine with them.
>> Does the US have the guts to risk a nuclear war for
>> "international credibility"? They have 4 ICBM's...[snip] 2 US cities for
internation credibility...>>
-->> Simon Lam
I think not. Americans start to whine if it looks like anyone is going to get
hurt in a war. Consider the rantings and ravings just prior to Desert Storm,
and the tell me that Americans as a whole wouldn't totally freak out at the
thought of even a limited nuclear exchange.
>A massive theater ballistic
missile defense program is currently in the >works. [snip]
Might help militarily, but would not help the political disaster at home if
anything went wrong.
>Alex Velkov
>C/4C AFROTC Det 905
Regards,
____________________________________________
PL Burton plbu...@indirect.com
We'll chase them like rats across the tundra.
- Alexander Nevskii(?)
_____________________________________________
ernest johnstone parkin
> mis...@gold.interlog.com (Miles Smith) wrote:
> launch them, leaving them with only IRBMs.
what is an IRBM?
ernest johnstone parkin
> In article <3137061e...@allnews.infi.net> w...@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) writes:
> [ Stuff obviously violently removed ]
> >+stupid ways is not limited to slick willie. Ronald Reagan's administration
> >+got a whole bunch of marines killed one fine morning in Lebanon.
> >
> >Please justify your comment on the BLT in Beruit.
> >
> >Nick
> >W.E. Nichols Sir Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 100 foot clipper
> >w...@infi.net
> Oh, Nick, you did it now :)
> Very similar to the discussion about the Vincennes we've been having. In
> Beirut basic security was ignored.
> As far as Ron goes, he had no business sticking a BLT in there. _You_
> just stated the same opinion about Somalia. Lebanon was and is anarchic.
> And US Marines are triggers. Every anti-US group in the world has wet
> dreams thinking of being able to blow up leathernecks.
> And putting everyone off duty rotation into one big target - Jesus
> Christ.
I read in a book somewhere that the Marines had an informer who
attempted to pass on pictures taken by the terrorists of the Barracks.
As I recall, the gaurds took the picture and told her to run on her
way. Shortly after said informer was founded murdered and a bomb
exploded after a truck drove into the barracks. Has anyone else heard
of this, or was it historical fiction?
Ernie
sc
> syc...@nwu.edu (sc) wrote:
>
> >In article <4h77lv$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tomc...@aol.com (Tom
> >Clancy) wrote:
>
> >> Clancy remarks on Clinton and Somalia.
>
> >> The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
> >> case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
> >> people at risk is central to the entire question.
>
> >Neither can actions taken by our government be divorced from God. For
> >spiritualism--not money--is what really makes the world go round.
>
> >Have we all forgotten that even on our money the message is made clear?:
> >In God We Trust.
>
> Have you forgotten the second part of the message? All others pay
> cash? Next time you want something done, send in the Pope. The rest
> of us will rely upon the Marines.
Why not send both?
We should all be idealists but who act in reality--that was my original point.
Sherwin
Steve Martin
P.J. O'rouke suggested in "All the Trouble in the world" that countries such
as Somalia who prove to be perpetually unable to get their act together be
assigned a "nanny" country by the UN. The UN could give Somalia to, say, the
Italian's (since it used to be a Italian colony) and in return for keeping
them from killing each other and starving their kids the Italians (or who
ever) could keep what ever profits they made with economic development and
natural resources. I guess you could even appoint a 3rd party like
Switzerland to act as the social worker and determine when the Somalis were
ready to place nice with the rest of the children. Maybe they could break
even and keep us from having to spend US tax money.
Steve Martin
Steve Martin
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
In article <4h7910$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
> (1) test governing the deployment of troops into danger. You'd damned
>well better have a form letter for the survivors to explain why their
>soldier -sailor - airman - marine isn't around anymore. And they deserve
>to know also that their departed family member had the best shot at
>survival that our nation could arrange.
Forgot the Coastie's Mr. Clancy? I bet there are a bunch of my fellow
Coasties who are real thrilled to be on the front line of the administrations
foreign policy this weekend off Cuba (Better watch out what you do with
those Mig-29's we just might send a C-130 out to observe you!). I agree with
your thought above. When ever I feel that we should send troops somewhere I
apply the what I call in my own mind the "Jacob" test. Would what ever we are
thinking about doing, be worth getting my son killed over if he were in the
military?
Steve Martin
Matt Giwer
>Bush may be faulted for getting us involved, and I invite the group
>members to speculate on how such missions should be structured from the
>beginning. I have my ideas, and I am interested in yours.
>The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
>case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
>people at risk is central to the entire question.
Doubt you are interested in mine but I will give it anyway.
My first answer is of course to stay out of it. It no longer had any
use to the US.
My second answer is to admit the problems there were due to the end of
the cold war and the cessation of the US and the SU giving away money
and such to control the country and then act to put the folks we
bribed back into control of the country. That is only honorable.
Thus we would move in, take over the country, organize and arm our
"friends" turn the country over to them with a constitution for a
demcratic dictatorship and leave.
=====
The third answer presumes were are going to be international good
guys, so was the Praetorian Guard when it started, sort of, you get
the analogy. The original mission was to protect the UN food
distribution efforts for open theft by what were euphamistically
called warlords and get the distribution back to the bribery and
blackmarket channels the UN personnel favored. That was a legitimate
us of military personnel under the international good guy presumption.
That requires that at all times those doing the protecting have the
ability of overwhelming response such that losses are minimized and
they are caused only by those with a suicide wish. I am not talking
about a hundred tanks but rather calling 16 inch guns or B-52s on any
trouble makers if that is what it takes to shut them down yesterday.
If we are protecting something then the military is there to kill
those who make that protection necessary. If we are to kill then we
will kill well and impressively.
On the other hand, we got involved nation building, a term without a
definition. In some manner that term came to mean that if one person,
the current president I believe, were taken out of pictures a stable
democracy would appear like planting dragons teeth. That is a search
and destroy mission, not a find and apprehend mission. It was treated
like the latter. The solution is again to destroy and provide the
equipment of destruction.
And finally, the fourth solution. Round up all the nerfbrains in the
US who have in some manner gotten it into their heads that the
machinery of war can possibly be used for peace. after rounding them
up get them professional counseling or active deprogramming for the
worst cases. At least remove them from positions of responsibility
before they hurt themselves or others again.
If it is a peace mission, send the peace corp. If the military is
needed is it because there are people who are likely to need being
recycled into the biomass.
Matt Giwer
>In article <4h77lv$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tomc...@aol.com (Tom
>Clancy) wrote:
>> Clancy remarks on Clinton and Somalia.
>> The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
>> case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
>> people at risk is central to the entire question.
>Neither can actions taken by our government be divorced from God. For
>spiritualism--not money--is what really makes the world go round.
>Have we all forgotten that even on our money the message is made clear?:
>In God We Trust.
Have you forgotten the second part of the message? All others pay
cash? Next time you want something done, send in the Pope. The rest
of us will rely upon the Marines.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fred McCall
:Mar...@aloha.net (Steve Martin) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
:
:+How ever as much as I hate to say it, not listening and using the military in
:+stupid ways is not limited to slick willie. Ronald Reagan's administration
:+got a whole bunch of marines killed one fine morning in Lebanon.
:
:Please justify your comment on the BLT in Beruit.
The Marines were sent in without a well defined mission, without the
wherewithal to achieve ANY kind of aims in that environment, and the
ROE had people standing sentry with UNLOADED WEAPONS. They got put
into what was a war zone without Rules of Engagement or a mission that
were appropriate. Then when they got their nose predictably bloodied,
we cut and ran.
Who do YOU blame?
Fred McCall
Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. This class of missile has
ranges of 1800-3000 miles. The Chinese can't hit us with them.
W.E. Nichols
wrote:
+In article <3137061e...@allnews.infi.net> w...@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) writes:
+[ Stuff obviously violently removed ]
+
+>+stupid ways is not limited to slick willie. Ronald Reagan's administration
+>+got a whole bunch of marines killed one fine morning in Lebanon.
+>
+>Please justify your comment on the BLT in Beruit.
+Oh, Nick, you did it now :)
+
+Very similar to the discussion about the Vincennes we've been having. In
+Beirut basic security was ignored.
Yep, some one should have fried over the security issue.
+As far as Ron goes, he had no business sticking a BLT in there. _You_
+just stated the same opinion about Somalia. Lebanon was and is anarchic.
+And US Marines are triggers. Every anti-US group in the world has wet
+dreams thinking of being able to blow up leathernecks.
Yep, another foreign policy issue that was doomed to failure from the git
go. When are those stupid people (State and others) going to learn about
the anarchy issue.
+And putting everyone off duty rotation into one big target - Jesus
+Christ.
And then some!
As an aside. We were sitting in Bella Napoli when it went down. It gave us
and the Virginia (or was it SoCar) and excuse to transit the Straits of
Messina at 28kts. That was kewl!!!! Of course the rest of the battle group
was still trying to light fires and get underway as we exited the Straits.
W.E. Nichols
+syc...@nwu.edu (sc) wrote:
+
+>In article <4h77lv$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tomc...@aol.com (Tom
+>Clancy) wrote:
+
+>> Clancy remarks on Clinton and Somalia.
+
+>> The exercise of military force in the international arena cannot in any
+>> case be divorced from politics, and the mindset of those who put our
+>> people at risk is central to the entire question.
+
+>Neither can actions taken by our government be divorced from God. For
+>spiritualism--not money--is what really makes the world go round.
+
+>Have we all forgotten that even on our money the message is made clear?:
+>In God We Trust.
+
+ Have you forgotten the second part of the message? All others pay
+cash? Next time you want something done, send in the Pope. The rest
+of us will rely upon the Marines.
Yeah, your right, Matt. It also kinda grates my ass when religion gets drug
in to fighting armed conflicts. They (religious folks) let their beliefs
get in the way of killing the enemy. And like they have a lot of room to
talk. They have killed more innocent folks in the name of religion than we
have on purpose because they were our enemy.
sc
Nichols) wrote:
The Marine's Prayer
Almighty Father , whose command is over *all* [my asterisks] and whose
love never faileth; let me be aware of Thy presence and obedient
to Thy will. Keep me true to my best self, guarding me against
dishonesty in purpose and deed, and helping me so to live that I
can stand unashamed and unafraid before my fellow Marines, my
loved ones and Thee. Protect those in whose love I live, give
me the will to do the work of a Marine and to accept my share of
responsibilities with vigor and enthusiasm. Grant me fortitude
that I may be proficient in my daily performance. Keep me
loyal and faithful to my superior officers; make me considerate
of those entrusted to my leadership and faithful to the duties
my country and the Marine Corps has entrusted to me. Help me
always to wear my uniform with dignity, and let it remind me
daily of the traditions of the service of which I am a part.
If I am inclined to doubt, steady my faith; if I am tempted,
make me strong to resist; if I should miss the mark, give me
courage to try again. Guide me with the light of truth and
grant me wisdom by which I may understand the answer to my
prayer.
AMEN.
Sherwin
Benjamin William Dyer
> One thing that I do not quite understand about American foreign policy
> is why the terms "national interest" seem to be dirty words, and why
> there is a need to put everything into a moral framework.
I would contend that in every instance where nations have gone to war,
there was an attempt to justify their actions to the international
community. When I speak of morality, it is not so much some kind of
personal morality, but rather a morality attached to statecraft that
follows what's called the legalist paradigm. The legalist paradigm is
just an academic way of talking about the nations of the world as
individuals living in a neighborhood and using the metaphor to
describe how they should treat each other. It has its holes, but I
think that it accurately describes many of the kinds of interactions that
states have with each other, and is certainly accurate where it concerns
our views on the responsibility we have to justify (to other members of
our "neighborhood") sending troops abroad.
> The trouble with doing that is that it makes it difficult to make
> anything close to rational decisions about when force is to be used,
> how much force, and what losses are acceptable for what goals.
I would argue that the justifications of aggression/intervention and
military intervention are seperate from the methods we adopt to carry our
goals to fruition. How we fight is quite a different issue from why we
fight.
> But Somalia was not and is not the only place in the world where "bad
> things happen."
This is true, but the criteria I believe to be overriding in the American
decision to intervene in Somalia were twofold. Firstly that our media
was covering a famine greater than the one in Ethiopia in '86 (?), and it
drew our attention. Secondly, that our aid efforts were intercepted by
the warring factions there. We judged the latter to be sufficient on the
scale of atrocities to justify intervention there, and this was supported
by the fact that there was no central governing authority in Somalia to
whom we could appeal. Additionally, since the factions there prevented
the people of that nation from determining their method of government, we
seemed to feel (not unambiguously) that we as a more well-to-do member of
the international neighborhood had some responsibility to not stand by.
It's true that many places in the world are worthy of our help, but not
all of them meet these international, military, and moral (humanitarian
aid) criteria. Even some that do lack the attention of the American
media ;) and may or may not require direct military intervention
according to our national opinion and the opinion of our leaders.
> But you simply *HAVE* to make these sorts of cost and benefit analysis
> if you want to involve yourself in the world of foreign policy. If
> one tries to get out of making these sorts of decisions, then I think
> much more harm ultimately results than by simply facing up to them.
It was exactly my point that we make these analyses because we consider
the means and ends that will satisfy our moral imperatives (as a state)
after we determine the nature of those imperatives. Because they're
imperative we have to get the numbers to come out as best we can. Never
will I argue that we shouldn't make them, but my point was that we should
never make them without remembering that people actually have to carry
out our decisions and pay the price (in blood) of our imperatives.
When we lose that sensitivity we start to regard our troops as
expendable which is what Mr. Clancy is concerned about. (An example
of an international moral imperative is the removal of the Nazi regime.)
Such is my humble scrawl,
Ben Dyer
mag...@u.washington.edu