Should governments & their defense establishments plan for future conflicts?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

and the great international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Heh...that aired on AFN tonight...caught the last 15-20 minutes. Hadn't seen it before.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Assume for a moment that the planning meetings are all closed, i.e., no press or PR. Just the planners. Does that change the potential value of being intentional in geographic choice?

I still think it biases the minds of the people attending in favor of thinking about the last time it happened, against focusing on additional threats and therefore should be avoided.

Quote

And do you really mean "as many different scenarios you can possibly think of" ? Or was that just short hand?

Yes and no. Yes we should plan for as many different scenarios as have an actual possibility of occurring. It makes little sense to think of some scenarios, for instance, I doubt the US will be taken over by circus clowns wielding rubber chickens, so we can probably skip that. Likewise as you've stated, we probably don't need to worry about technologies that don't actually exist yet like the nano-goo. What we probably DO need to worry about is how our existing technologies can be used against us. IEDs are good examples. Take some unexploded ordinance and hook it up to a cell phone and boom; remote controlled mayhem.

Ya know, hiring a couple of hackers and MIT engineering students to look at how our existing technologies can be used against us probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Quote

Quote

I personally think the things that should scare the crap out of us are things like home-built drug running submarines.

Add a couple improvised or smuggled multi-kiloton nuclear weapons & I concur.

See, short hand does work sometimes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

I will say that there are people who refuse to see the answers that failures and sacrifices that are so tragic have provided.

The worst wars in the history of the world were exacerbated by the fact that the other nations were not prepared and therefore could only muster a token response.

WWI the allies were grossly under trained and ill equipped.


WWII same thing, only a bit worse.

Korea, same thing again, MiGs vs Prop driven planes,

After every great war there is a large segment of society that believes we do not need a military and therefore spending should be cut, standing armies eliminated, training done away with etc.

After each war we got rid of the sniper program, the politicians were only too happy to pander to the whining public.

We always seem to get caught with our pants down.

After Viet Nam we were hit with Asymmetrical warfare, were there lesson that were not learned?

We need to get our heads out of the sand and our collective thumbs out of our asses.

The only time we get attacked is when there is a weak underbelly to invite those who think they can pull it off.

Whether it be annihilation, suing for peace after gaining territory, breaking political will (easily done), turning public sentiment (easy), or just causing damage we will always have those who say it cannot happen again.

I was involved doping OPFOR years after my active duty was over, the reason was that I could assemble a small team of people who were both dedicated and trained.

That is not different than what we face.

Hell even a cruise missile is easily done with very little money.

[AdamLanes 1]

I voted no, because governments pay for this "defense" by forcibly taking money from people. I find that to more accurately fit the description of an offense. I mean if a private individual or group took money from you by force, most people would accurately describe that as aggression and find it offensive. Also an entity that can legally take money from you by force will inevitable find reasons to increase their take. Defense should be provided like any other good and service in the open market, where you can choose how or if your money is spent, and there will be competition for your business ensuring a competitive product, service, or price.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

I voted no, because governments pay for this "defense" by forcibly taking money from people. I find that to more accurately fit the description of an offense. I mean if a private individual or group took money from you by force, most people would accurately describe that as aggression and find it offensive. Also an entity that can legally take money from you by force will inevitable find reasons to increase their take. Defense should be provided like any other good and service in the open market, where you can choose how or if your money is spent, and there will be competition for your business ensuring a competitive product, service, or price.

I think I get it: door to door weapon salesman with an option to buy bonds if you don't like touching the stuff.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

I voted no, because governments pay for this "defense" by forcibly taking money from people. I find that to more accurately fit the description of an offense. I mean if a private individual or group took money from you by force, most people would accurately describe that as aggression and find it offensive. Also an entity that can legally take money from you by force will inevitable find reasons to increase their take. Defense should be provided like any other good and service in the open market, where you can choose how or if your money is spent, and there will be competition for your business ensuring a competitive product, service, or price.

Yay for mercenaries!!! [/sarcasm]

[jcd11235 0]

I'm not sure it is possible to effectively plan for future conflicts. I do believe it is possible (and wise) to prepare for future conflicts.

Some very important aspects of preparation include understand potential enemies' cultures, familiarizing ourselves with the physical terrain of future battlefields, and understanding the capabilities of future enemies. When it comes to war, knowledge is power. Without knowing and understanding our enemies as well as we know ourselves, the outcome of war is no more predictable than the outcome of a (fair) coin toss. Spending billions on our own military won't change that.

Bigger bombs, stronger armor, more powerful rifles, etc. will never effectively replace better intelligence.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, Know your enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Not replace but compliment each other, they are both without any benefit if we only possess one or the other,