I’m guessing that he penned that one prior to 1945?
Thanks to…certain technological advances…a short decisive war is now a dangerous human option!
As a certain recently published and then quietly yoinked strategy paper put it:
“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability.”
The mighty US military didn’t win WWII – certainly not in the European theatre. The Red Army did most of the heavy lifting.
It’s even better: Replacing all that expensive ordnance and material amounts to a huge incentive package for the arms industry, i.e., jobs. Roll out the pork barrels!
I know that, but you wouldn’t know it from the endless Hollywood productions in which the US ARMY (and a few supporting characters) SAVED THE WORLD!
The western front was largely a sideshow that helped the Red Army do most of the fighting (and dying) in the East. Important (my grandfather was there, along with several other relatives) but just a small part of a big war.
A good friend of mine dodged the French mandatory service (now not a thing, but 30 years ago) by taking 3000 mikes of LSD before being inducted. A week later he was shown the door. YMMV.
Iraq 2 was different – America was still in a patriotic post-9/11 haze with a popular president, and Iraq had all these WMDs we needed to do something about.
These days we have a president that’s unpopular, and people see exactly what the fuck he’s doing.
You’re not being serious about “Iraq had all these WMDs we needed to do something about”, surely?
The history-repeats-itself there is it was Britain/Tony-Blair who offered Bush-43 some of the false evidence for supporting the Iraq ‘war’ and here again Britain is offering evidence to trump for a putative war with Iran (Britain ‘Almost Certain’ Iran Was Behind Tanker Attacks)
No. Sarcasm was implied.
When someone tells you “Go kill these guys, or we’ll throw you in jail,” you probably should be trying to shoot him, instead of whoever he’s telling you to shoot.
Thank you, thank you. I have been trying to find that quote and source.
Such a belief in early 20 C Russia helped destroy the Russian Empire.
Not arguable. Iraq 15 years ago did not have a military. It had a bunch of men and some 20 year old clapped-out and rusted Soviet equipment.
Iran has a real military with about 500,000 people that it looks like they can expand to roughly a million very quickly.
It has a very formidable missile component (see drone) that almost surely has the capacity to completely interdict the Persian Gulf to US forces.
It has a functioning navy, including a submarine force especially designed to operate in the shallow confines of the Gulf. It has drones, it has cruise missiles. It has cyber warfare capacities.
I don’t see Iran pulling any punches in their defense.
No. At last report, it has the capacity to completely destroy the Saudi and Emirati oil infrastructure and rumours are that it will.
If the US attacked Iran, it would be the first time that the US has fought an enemy that has equivalent technical capabilities since Korea.
Its people also have the examples of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to encourage resistance.
Iraq was a pariah. Iran has friends, or at least allies.
I suspect that if USA wanted to go to a full war footing as it did in WWII, it could defeat Iran but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.
The invasion would only be the start of the clusterfuck. Like Iran, the real problem would be the “and then what?” after a military victory. No doubt they expect the population will kiss the ground at the troops’ feet, thank them for freeing them from a theocratic dictatorship, and get on with being a docile client state.
Neither of my children will serve in the US military as it is now constituted and led by our present Commander-in-Chief. If there is a Chinese armada off the coast, I’ll be right there next to them defending our nation. Until then…
Doomsday moots the point. Aside from that, Lynd’s observation remains relevant. Creating a foreign power vacuum in the midst of a resistance is a great way to paint a target on your back.
It’d be interesting to see if the US could muster any active allies at all, now that Obama’s treaty is gone.
Israel? Unlikely – too vulnerable, and attempting to use their nukes would invite ruinous retaliation. It’s a very compact target.
Saudi Arabia? – possibly, but their anti-Shiite efforts against the Yemenis haven’t worked too well; Wahabbists might be up for it, but the Royal House of Saud wouldn’t be happy.
The UK? – Teresa May might have gone along with it to curry favour with Raper-In-Chief Trump, but she’s gone now and the current load of Tories can see what a joint venture with the US in Iraq did for Tony Blair and New “Labour”.
Turkey? – between his shakey popular support, the Kurds, Syrian Alawites and Iraqi Shiites, Erdogan would not be keen.
Poland or Hungary? – Nah. They’ve enough refugees already, the racist bastards.
Honestly, RIC Trump should have left this one piece of Obama’s work in place, even if that Washington Correspondent’s Dinner was humiliating for him. Shit Creek beckons…
I agree about the corruption, but you think it’s worse when the weapons never get used? Ok.
“Instead of trying to build newer and larger weapons of mass destruction, I think mankind should try to get more use out of the ones we already have.”
-Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
The other big difference- Iraq is a kludge of assorted ethnic and religious groups thrown together by colonial-era borders, many of whom hate each other, and very few of whom feel much, if any, loyalty to the idea of “Iraq”. Iran has a national identity that dates back millennia.
(Yes, there are ethnic minorities in Iran- as far as I know none of the larger ones are particularly known for separatism)
Something something petroleum something something.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
