Day of Infamy Options

[cupcake]

65 years ago, on this day, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

When the Dec. 7, 1941, onslaught was over, there were 2,403 dead and thousands others wounded.

Besides the mass causalities in the two waves of attacks that lasted less than two hours, the Japanese also had sunk or damaged 18 ships and destroyed more than 180 aircraft.

It was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare, "a day of infamy."

The next day, America was at war.

Although it was a day of great tragedy, it was also a day that revived our national pride and strengthened our determination as a nation.

This spirit of unity and reborn patriotism had "awakened the sleeping giant" and ultimately led us to victory and the end of World War II.

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

[cupcake]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

[impala454]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

again, like i keep saying, i'm talking about defense of our country against conventional warfare. due to our overwhelming technology and firepower, i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

[Hartmann]

again, like i keep saying, i'm talking about defense of our country against conventional warfare. due to our overwhelming technology and firepower, i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

[Billy]

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

Your first statement is bullshit. They were never one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world. However, they were one of the largest in the world.

You attribute our victory to tactics. But what gave those commanders their tactical maps so they knew where the bases were, and what infrastructure to bomb? Satellites. And you know, missiles aren't exactly something everyone and their mother has either. And what else. Our yeah, I've only seen a few war videos of Iraq and one of those was where they basically shot up all these iraqs at night using night vision and from a very far distance away. These poors fool didn't ever have a chance. They couldn't see their enemy nor even know where they were getting killed from. Technology won it. Machines guns, tanks, aircraft. All technology. And it doesn't matter how tough your soldiers are, a hundred thousand poorly equipment troops will not take down a jet aircraft or a tank. Of course you need people to operate the machines. No one is claiming otherwise. But a carpenter with a nail gun can build much faster than one with only a hammer.

It is foolishly arrogant to think American soldiers are much more elite than other armies. What Americas are, is very well equipped. A man is nothing without his machine.

[Hartmann]

Your first statement is bullshit. They were never one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world. However, they were one of the largest in the world.

You attribute our victory to tactics. But what gave those commanders their tactical maps so they knew where the bases were, and what infrastructure to bomb? Satellites. And you know, missiles aren't exactly something everyone and their mother has either. And what else. Our yeah, I've only seen a few war videos of Iraq and one of those was where they basically shot up all these iraqs at night using night vision and from a very far distance away. These poors fool didn't ever have a chance. They couldn't see their enemy nor even know where they were getting killed from. Technology won it. Machines guns, tanks, aircraft. All technology. And it doesn't matter how tough your soldiers are, a hundred thousand poorly equipment troops will not take down a jet aircraft or a tank. Of course you need people to operate the machines. No one is claiming otherwise. But a carpenter with a nail gun can build much faster than one with only a hammer.

It is foolishly arrogant to think American soldiers are much more elite than other armies. What Americas are, is very well equipped. A man is nothing without his machine.

Yes, they were technologically advanced. I'm sorry they didn't have stealth aircraft but Saddam actually invested heavily in a lot of technology, Mig-29s can easily go up against anything in the U.S. arsenal.

I am not talking about the strategic bombing, I am talking about the full out assault on retreating forces that teetered very close to a war crime (first Gulf War). My uncle flew an A-10 in the Gulf War and talking to him is a very interesting conversation, more than once he came back to base with his plane in a miserable wreck. He has stories about fighter pilots going into a type of shock after landing because the amount of fire (accurate fire) that the Iraqis were able to put into the air.

Night vision wasn't some huge advantage in the Gulf War, just because CNN presented video that way at least... It was a big deal in Vietnam. Just like smart bombs, they had a big effect in the Gulf War but a lot of that was because you actually saw them being used, I mean, they were huge in Vietnam as well. I think that the initial tactical win in the first Gulf War was due to the crippling of their radar system, which as far as I know was attacked based on information gained by defectors, not by satellites, considering most of the stations sat next to hospitals.

Our technology has increased greatly, but I look at something like Korea or Vietnam and even the first Gulf War and really wonder if technology made it easier for us or just made us complacent.