Day of Infamy Options

[The Fanatic]

I just...what the?

I'm talking about Americans having more resolve and fortitude back then. I don't recall ever saying anything about "wanting to go to war". But when pushed, the didn't tippy-toe or be PC or political about it. They obviously banded together for the common good and took care of business.

That hasn't happened since...and we've only grown more PC and divided. Have we not?

You have to keep in mind the nature of the war being fought. The united states was physically attacked by Japan when they entered world war 2 and the united states was just beginning to emerge from the depression. Of course everyone backed the war effort, it meant both jobs and patriotism. Wars like Iraq and Vietnam are different. There was no clear reason for entering these wars (in the case of Vietnam it was somewhat more clear but still a convoluted rationale for entering the war). Also, it is safe to say that America changed after Vietnam imo. The nature of war has changed. It is like comparing apples and oranges. I think if America was put in a truly dire situation, we would step up and fight the war. Then again, this is the age of apathy...

[Hartmann]

which points out the problem of who the decision makers are. technology is key, yes, but when you've got morons in charge (or smart people making the wrong decisions, or both), you're no better than the other guy.

I am not really sure it's about decision making, it's about U.S. troops seeing a problem that has no technological solution (or easy solution) and they innovated.

[impala454]

Yes, technology wins it all, yet our troops turn to silly string to make sure it's safe to enter a room.

and iraq isn't a conventional war on the american mainland, which is what i was talking about

[Timbo]

http://www.sflistteamhouse.com/Misc/Pearl%...or/original.htm

[jonathan83]

there's no way in hell the people who wish us dead are as fat and spoiled as we are.

you can't possibly make that argument.

being fat and spoiled isn't relevant. that just proves our economy is better... plus kinda lazy.

my point is that there are fewer jobs "out in the field" because it's just basic reality that machines are taking over certain jobs...and more jobs nowadays are with computers than hacking some axe.

[impala454]

well everyone used to be farmers & ranchers. now, one old over-subsidized asshole can drive a $300,000 machine the govt paid for to do the work of like 200 people in 1/10th the time.

[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...

[pebkac]

I used to have one of those actually. Made for pretty good party conversation.

[Billy]

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...

Get real. Technology wins wars. Period. No one is claiming technology is better than man...yet. However, men with technology, are stronger than men without.

[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?

[cupcake]

i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

not in our lifetime. if we go down it will be from within.

edit...what I mean is all our infighting will weaken us. our PCness will run amuck. and they will exploit our graciousness, weakness, etc and infiltrate. albeit not by conventional means. hell they might even have a rad team of american attorneys. needless to say, it will be asymmetrical, just like everything post-Korea. ps...I would really like to see the technosavvy designed to fight guerilla warfare.

[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.

[Trespass]

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.

Give the iraq army our Abram tanks, and give us their Soviet T-72 Battle tanks, and our soldiers would have still won the battles. Because of superior battlefield tactics and training. Your technology gives our soldiers increased ability to survive and win in battle, true, but its our soldiers better training that wins the day.

I think the point they are making is yes technology can help win the war, but if your enemy goes low-tech and goes to a battle of attrition technology can help, but the success depends on the soldiers, not the technology itself. Vietnam and somolia proved that simple soldiers with Aks could challenge the super power of America when the will wasn't behind the "technologically" superior army.

[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.