War

[Gav]

And I also agree with Telkarnu on this. Although you can bomb away and not occupy a country. The scale of damage inflicted by the germans on the UK military infrastructure almost destroyed the country. If it wasn't for that German pilot I would probably be typing in German - but also possibly in Russian.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by damion18d

Daylight bombing raids were never very affective. Yes many people may have died but the mission accomplishment rate was dreadful. Not to mention the people you killed that had nothing to do with the war, the lives and aircraft lost. Ya you are making a real educated stance. My appoligies carpet bombing was much more effective than precision munitions you twerp.

The first daylight bombing raids were not very effective, true. Later raids in groups of up to 1000 Fortresses were death from above. Loss rates nosedived (yet another pun) after the external carrying tank for the P-51 came around. Bombing crippled the ability of Germany to keep up in the air war, and thus, they lost, and we're not even counting the psychological impact of the allies bombing the Rhine valley and other things the Lutwaffe said would never happen. Moreover, the second world war is known to historians as the war in which air power came into its own. And that's just the war in Europe. I don't need to lecture you on the importance of the carrier in the Pacific, do I? Or that the bombing of Japan was rather key in the ending of said war? Or that mass firebombing raids by B-29s killed more people than either atomic bomb did? I also never argued carpet bombing > precision. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I am merely refuting the assertion that carpet bombing was pointless before we had precision munitions.

As for vietnam they came right out and said had we continued to bomb the north we would have won in short order.

Yeah, sure, if we destroyed all of the jungle they hid in. Do you mind recalling what was the primary target of bombing? Also, who are 'they'?

You run your mouth about talking about what you know. What do you know about war. See much combat in elementary school did you.

In elementary school I learned that the last two sentances above should be ended with question marks. Actually, what I did in elementary, middle, and high school is read the entire school, public, and university (my HS was affiliated with a university) library collections on WWII. Combat experience? I hope never to have it. History buff? You better believe it. I'm not monday-morning quarterbacking, either. I'm saying all these books say such and such was destroyed having such and such impact on the war. The topic at hand has passing relevance to actual battlefield experience. It's like saying "How do you know how many people died in the Civil War? You weren't there."

Even the thought that carpet bombing is better is absurd. I don't think you know the difference between a simple bombing sortie and a carpet bombing. They are two different worlds.

Again, I never said carpet bombing was better. I merely said it was effective. See above.

As far as WW2 without ground forces you could have bombed for 30 years and never won. The conventional bombs of the time didn't have the capability to destroy hardened facilities without a direct hit. Even with a DH it was questionable. It was a massive waste of resourses, men, and machines.

Disagree on the last point for the reasons above. And warehouses aren't hardened. Additionally, I never, ever said an exclusive air-war would bring the kind of victory needed in WWII (as opposed to Kosovo, etc.). Even today, such a concept is foolish at best. Almost as foolish, in fact, as ignoring air superiority. The key to WWII was air superiority. When the German's had it (or the allies didn't, ie. Battle of the Bulge), they won on average. When they didn't, they didn't. And you remember all those books I said I've read? They're all written by very learned people, and none agree with your assesment. Not proof positive, true, but something to think on.

If you want to throw what ifs out there, what if Hitler had listened to his generals and not invaded Russia. The war may very well have turned out different.

Of course, true. But you threw your own what if out there earlier, about continuing bombing in Vietnam, no? They're rather fun. But my what-if was actually relevant. A continued bombing campaing of the RAF bases would have destroyed the fighter resistance. They were on their last legs when the focus switched. Lucky for everybody. It occurs to me that if Hiter had half a strategic brain in his head, the world would be worse off. Thank heaven for incompetence?

Cheers.

[lochinvar]

My, my. We seem to have attracted more than the normal allotment of acrimony here, haven't we? Please try to keep the conversation in a civil tone. We'll all thank you.

To return to the original topic:

Originally Posted by jBirch

Do rational states go about attacking countries randomly? If not, then what's the purpose of a standing military? That there are irrational entities seeking to do you harm for the mere joy of doing so? This seems unlikely to me. Violence entails risk and that risk is only taken when there is something to be gained. Generally, there is something that they want and some weakness in you that they seek to exploit. Eliminating the weakness prevents them from attacking you. Exagerating it invites attack. Eliminating what they want prevents them from attacking you. Exagerating it invites it.[/

At the risk of sounding facetious, if states attack "randomly" then they are not, in fact, "rational". So your first (rhetorical) question is self-answering--not to say illogical.

Many "rational" states that have no moral qualms about taking by force that which rightfully belongs to another do, in fact, go about attacking other countries--but not "randomly". The first invasion of Kuwait is a prime example. You might argue that the invasion wasn't "rational" in that Saddam had to know that that action would draw retaliation, but I submit that he had--through whatever reasoning process--determined that it would not and that he would get away with it.

So, some states do attack countries without provocation--assuming that the target state has something the belligerant state wants, the target state doesn't have the means to resist, and the belligerant state doesn't cavil at acting the bully.

(requote)Generally, there is something that they want and some weakness in you that they seek to exploit. Eliminating the weakness prevents them from attacking you.

The weakness seen is lack of ability to resist. "Eliminating the weakness" is directly answered by a standing army capable of resisting.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

My, my. We seem to have attracted more than the normal allotment of acrimony here, haven't we? Please try to keep the conversation in a civil tone. We'll all thank you.

Agreed. I lost my cool with damion18d and I apologize.

To return to the original topic: At the risk of sounding facetious, if states attack "randomly" then they are not, in fact, "rational". So your first (rhetorical) question is self-answering--not to say illogical.

Well, sure, to be pedantic. The dichotomy was built in so that you had to choose one or the other. Proof by contradiction. *grin* States that attack randomly are therefor irrational.

Many "rational" states that have no moral qualms about taking by force that which rightfully belongs to another do, in fact, go about attacking other countries--but not "randomly". The first invasion of Kuwait is a prime example. You might argue that the invasion wasn't "rational" in that Saddam had to know that that action would draw retaliation, but I submit that he had--through whatever reasoning process--determined that it would not and that he would get away with it.

Actually, I'd argue exactly the opposite: that the rationale for invading Kuwait was entirely rational. Iraq was being provoked by aggressive oil drilling on it's border, Kuwait was always considered a breakaway province of Iraq, Kuwait is a rich land and whomever owned it had lots of money coming their way, and they thought they could get away with it. If Kuwait had a stronger military, Iraq would, most likely, not have tried the invasion. If Kuwait stopped provoking Iraq on the border issue (though not allowing Iraq to provoke it), Iraq would not have invaded. If Kuwait was a much poorer state, Iraq wouldn't have bothered to invade. If Kuwait had increased diplomatic and economic relations with Iraq, Iraq would not have tried to invade.

So, some states do attack countries without provocation--assuming that the target state has something the belligerant state wants, the target state doesn't have the means to resist, and the belligerant state doesn't cavil at acting the bully.

The weakness seen is lack of ability to resist. "Eliminating the weakness" is directly answered by a standing army capable of resisting.

Agreed. So the primary purpose of a standing army is to be strong enough that belligerant states leave you alone. Why should it be stronger then that though? If we assume that rational states act thusly, would not merely removing the impetus for them invading protect one's state from invasion? Or is all real politik a result of, as Machiavelli thought, fear?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Actually, I'd argue exactly the opposite: that the rationale for invading Kuwait was entirely rational.

Uh, that's what I said...I think. We're in agreement on that one.

(snip)If Kuwait had a stronger military, Iraq would, most likely, not have tried the invasion.

Agreed as likely.

If Kuwait stopped provoking Iraq on the border issue (though not allowing Iraq to provoke it), Iraq would not have invaded.

Not a given, and the evidence to support this assertion is questionable. But I'll concede they might not have invaded.

If Kuwait was a much poorer state, Iraq wouldn't have bothered to invade.

Agreed.

If Kuwait had increased diplomatic and economic relations with Iraq, Iraq would not have tried to invade.

Again, not a given. Had the other three factors remained in effect--drilling on the border, weak army, rich country--then it isn't at all clear to me that Iraq wouldn't have invaded even given stronger diplomatic/economic ties. I will concede that this might have lessoned the chances for an invasion.

So the primary purpose of a standing army is to be strong enough that belligerant states leave you alone. Why should it be stronger then that though? If we assume that rational states act thusly, would not merely removing the impetus for them invading protect one's state from invasion? Or is all real politik a result of, as Machiavelli thought, fear?

While I don't think that realpolitik is based on fear, I do think that it is based on reason. And if all states were shown to be reasonable and rational, then there would be an end of it. But such a principle has not been established, and personal experience informs us that all people--and by extension all states--are not, in fact, reasonable and rational.

When we state that "rational states do not attack their neighbors at random", that does not imply that all states are rational, nor does it imply that rational states would not attack their neighbors, nor does it imply that irrational states--if such there be--would not attack their neighbors non-randomly. None of these possiblities has been excluded.

More later. I have something I have to do now.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

While I don't think that realpolitik is based on fear, I do think that it is based on reason. And if all states were shown to be reasonable and rational, then there would be an end of it. But such a principle has not been established, and personal experience informs us that all people--and by extension all states--are not, in fact, reasonable and rational.

This is facinating. Every bit of literature I've read assumes that ALL states are rational and that their actions follow from their perceptions of the situation. The theory is that, while all people are certainly not rational, ALL large groups of people are rational in that they proceed from their perceived facts in a logical way. Their perceptions are not delusional, though they might not be entirely accurate either. When perception can be altered, action can be influenced. Cool.

When we state that "rational states do not attack their neighbors at random", that does not imply that all states are rational, nor does it imply that rational states would not attack their neighbors, nor does it imply that irrational states--if such there be--would not attack their neighbors non-randomly. None of these possiblities has been excluded.

More later. I have something I have to do now.

Absolutely. But, to tie this back into the original question, does it make sense then to build an army to guard against a random and irrational threat? Is there any other way to guard against a random and irrational threat that is not a massive military? What is the scale of any potential irrational and random threat?

What I'm trying to explore is whether it is rational on our part to guard against an irrational threat. Whether it is paranoia to do so, in fact. I would contend, without strong proof, that it is a foolish thing to do, but I'm certainly open to persuasion. When we discuss the utility of a military, must we take into account irrational entities or can we assume that all external threats of note are rational?

[Soldier]

Without necessarily having read all of this thread, my thoughts, from a purely practical standpoint:

War is not good. Militaries, and the willingness to use them, are.

Money spent on a strong military tends to create a strong economy - indeed, Germany's remilitarization prior to WWII is exactly what pulled it out of such a devastating financial situation that million-mark notes were printed, and their worth calculated by weight. So, building a big strong military is a good idea economically.

Somebody brought up the phenomenon of "whatcha gonna do about it?" With a large enough standing army, this phenomenon can be prevented from any recognizable nation-state. After one or two learn that the answer to "whatcha gonna do" is "kick your *** so hard you can taste my toes", everybody else will suddenly have a much reduced desire to ask the question.

Of course, nowadays there is the problem of terrorism. I think the solution to that is an expansion of the special-forces part of the military, coupled with much heavier spook-work. Not an instant solution, but given time, we'll be able to work agents in deeper - and information is what will make spec-ops effective. That, and a swift and terrible punishment for any country that supports terrorists.

Are these courses of action right, morally or ethically? Dunno. How would we accomplish them? Dunno. A magic answer? Not by any means. Just my thoughts on the general direction to head in if we're looking out for our own best interests.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by jBirch

This is facinating. Every bit of literature I've read assumes that ALL states are rational and that their actions follow from their perceptions of the situation. The theory is that, while all people are certainly not rational, ALL large groups of people are rational in that they proceed from their perceived facts in a logical way. {snip}

Doesn't this presuppose that all states are controlled by large groups of people?

This does not seem to be the case with many countries, which are controlled by a small group whose personal interests often greatly diverge from those of the population--thus making their actions "rational" from their perspective, but "irrational" from the perspective of their own and other countries.

Absolutely. But, to tie this back into the original question, does it make sense then to build an army to guard against a random and irrational threat?

I don't see how the randomness or rationality of the threat should directly factor into the decision. The probability--which can be somewhat influenced by the rationality/randomness--seems to be the better metric.

What I'm trying to explore is whether it is rational on our part to guard against an irrational threat.

As others have pointed out--I don't think you've made a case that all threat of military action by other countries is irrational (or random, for that matter).

Of course, a large part of what makes threats of military action against the US by other nations irrational is the size of the US military....

{snip} When we discuss the utility of a military, must we take into account irrational entities or can we assume that all external threats of note are rational?

I think we have to take into account entities which do not appear rational to our way of thinking. As an example--Al Queda (and other terrorist organizations) do not appear to be rational in a conventional sense (and are certainly random). Also--North Korea has often acted in ways which do not appear rational (at least to me).

--Philistine

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Doesn't this presuppose that all states are controlled by large groups of people?

This does not seem to be the case with many countries, which are controlled by a small group whose personal interests often greatly diverge from those of the population--thus making their actions "rational" from their perspective, but "irrational" from the perspective of their own and other countries.

Well, yes and no. Power derives from the ability to accomplish and that ability is directly proportional to the number of people you can get to go along with your plans. One loon can't run a country. One loon surrounded by people who will do what they say, who are in turn, surounded by people who do what they say, etc... can. A leader must have people to lead before they can inanct their loony ideas. Every country in the world has a very large cadre of dedicated politos who run the country and a large following amongst the population who support it.

I don't see how the randomness or rationality of the threat should directly factor into the decision. The probability--which can be somewhat influenced by the rationality/randomness--seems to be the better metric.

True. But then this implies a targeted military, one that has an actual threat to defend against, rather then just a precautionary one, which has only a general one. It also precludes the concept of Peace-making and other global responsibility.

As others have pointed out--I don't think you've made a case that all threat of military action by other countries is irrational (or random, for that matter).

Of course, a large part of what makes threats of military action against the US by other nations irrational is the size of the US military....

To start, I'm not arguing a position, I'm exploring concepts. What I'm wondering (as a subset of the total question) is whether irrational and random threats should be factored into the utility of a military. Ie// that it makes sense to have a portion of the military "just in case" something unforseen but drastic, pops up. If it does, how much is sensible, how much "too much"?

I think we have to take into account entities which do not appear rational to our way of thinking. As an example--Al Queda (and other terrorist organizations) do not appear to be rational in a conventional sense (and are certainly random). Also--North Korea has often acted in ways which do not appear rational (at least to me).

--Philistine

Well, this is what I was leading up to. Al-Q/NK are certainly rational entities, regardless of the propaganda. How much military is required to deter the threat of Al-Q? How much to deter NK? Is it even possible to deter them? If so, how so? If not, what else might work? Are there economic and political means of coercion that might work? What else? If we presuppose that they are rational, ie working from the premises to the goals rationally, then can we not deter threats somewhat by appealing to rational devices? Diplomacy, economics, etc...? If we can not deal with these entities rationally (ie// Al-Q is completely closed to our appeals) then what have we left but coercion or ignoring them?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Without necessarily having read all of this thread, my thoughts, from a purely practical standpoint:

War is not good. Militaries, and the willingness to use them, are.

Ok. Trying to stay away from ethical and moral good/bad judgements. The military has a utility. What is that utility?

Money spent on a strong military tends to create a strong economy - indeed, Germany's remilitarization prior to WWII is exactly what pulled it out of such a devastating financial situation that million-mark notes were printed, and their worth calculated by weight. So, building a big strong military is a good idea economically.

Yes and no. This is Keynesian economic theory, where the state buys stuff from the people with the people's tax dollars. You need to get outsiders to buy stuff (or take stuff from them with the massive military) for the lot of the people to improve. Otherwise, you just devalue your currency to the point of bankruptcy (a la USSR).

Somebody brought up the phenomenon of "whatcha gonna do about it?" With a large enough standing army, this phenomenon can be prevented from any recognizable nation-state. After one or two learn that the answer to "whatcha gonna do" is "kick your *** so hard you can taste my toes", everybody else will suddenly have a much reduced desire to ask the question.

I brought this up as a problem with massive coercive influence. As a citizen of a state with a massive military one has the ability to disregard local customs, laws and norms with impunity. Their answer when faced with prosecution, "Whatcha gonna do about it?"

Of course, nowadays there is the problem of terrorism. I think the solution to that is an expansion of the special-forces part of the military, coupled with much heavier spook-work. Not an instant solution, but given time, we'll be able to work agents in deeper - and information is what will make spec-ops effective. That, and a swift and terrible punishment for any country that supports terrorists.

About the force disposition, I agree, from a purely militarily strategic standpoint. About the "swift and terrible punishment", I disagree. It leaves a state open to drastic manipulation and essentially cedes control of its massive military to anyone that can effectively point the finger.

Are these courses of action right, morally or ethically? Dunno. How would we accomplish them? Dunno. A magic answer? Not by any means. Just my thoughts on the general direction to head in if we're looking out for our own best interests.

Thanks. Again, let us try to keep "morally and ethically" out of the discussion. Your comments about "own best interests" are great. What interests are served by a massive military? Economic ones? Political ones? How much military serves your best interests and how much is too much? Or too little?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Ok. Trying to stay away from ethical and moral good/bad judgements. The military has a utility. What is that utility?

To wage war. War, however, is extremely expensive. Building a military strengthens an economy; using it, I think, is too expensive.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yes and no. This is Keynesian economic theory, where the state buys stuff from the people with the people's tax dollars. You need to get outsiders to buy stuff (or take stuff from them with the massive military) for the lot of the people to improve. Otherwise, you just devalue your currency to the point of bankruptcy (a la USSR).

...I don't really think a comparison to the USSR works, since they weren't exactly a free-market economy. I understand that outsiders also need to buy stuff; I think that building a military provides a good boost/foundation, which helps stimulate an economy; then this economy can produce commercial goods, which can be exported. But, I'm no economist; this is just my general theory here, which may well be wrong.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I brought this up as a problem with massive coercive influence. As a citizen of a state with a massive military one has the ability to disregard local customs, laws and norms with impunity. Their answer when faced with prosecution, "Whatcha gonna do about it?"

...didn't quite follow that, sorry.

Originally Posted by jBirch

About the force disposition, I agree, from a purely militarily strategic standpoint. About the "swift and terrible punishment", I disagree. It leaves a state open to drastic manipulation and essentially cedes control of its massive military to anyone that can effectively point the finger.

Definitely a possibility. That's why I was stressing greater intel work; this lets us figure out for ourselves who needs the punishment, not rely on finger pointing. Again, let me point out my inexperience in this area and that I'm just throwing stuff out there.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Thanks. Again, let us try to keep "morally and ethically" out of the discussion. Your comments about "own best interests" are great. What interests are served by a massive military? Economic ones? Political ones? How much military serves your best interests and how much is too much? Or too little?

If we're not looking at anything moral or ethical, then a military should first serve the interest of preserving a nation-state's very existence. Once that is secured, then it should be the final instrument in securing said nation-state's interests, whether political or economic. How much does this...? Dunno.

[drippingwet]

Well, some might say war is just another piece of evidence for evolution - primitive minds evolving into more complex ones but still left with a bit of primitive thought processing?

Why do we fight each other? Why do we need different countries?

The world annual military expenditure seems to be over a thousand billion dollars (may vary). Imagine if that money was spent on medical research and getting the world's food problems sorted out. I mean, read this (currency is US dollars):

- An educated guess is that it costs about half a dollar/day to feed a person (no frills included).

- There are about 6 billion people in the world, so it would cost about 3 billion dollars a day to feed every one. Multiply this by the number of days in a year and it would costs 1.95 thousand billion dollars per year.

- So, the military money roughly equates to the money required to feed everyone on the planet.

- However, it seems that it wouldn't cost more than a thousand billion dollars per year to feed the starving at all, becuse most of the world seems OK for food. So you can feed the starving, and have money left over for medical/scientific research.

All a dream??? Well, if humans can do this, then imagine how far we could go. No more famine, no more war, no more AIDS for instance. More of our efforts and our money could be focused on research and development for the good of humanity, rather than conflict and the security of territorial borders.

Maybe it will happen one day - global unity. You might say it's the way forward???

[Soldier]

Okay, now get everyone to get along nicely.

[Epee_Pox]

The problem with "feeding the starving" is that there already is enough food produced to feed everyone, there are tons of governmental and nongovernmental organizations that send free food to the starving, and the food is hijacked by the warlords and thugs who run the various locations. Back in the Clinton years they tried using the US military as an armed escort to make sure the food got there. Don't know if they're still doing that.

Better to treat the causes of starvation -- bad agricultural practices usually combined with shortsighted thugs running things into the ground or deliberately starving their opposition -- in addition to merely handing out food to those who don't have any. And what's going to get those thugs and warlords to stop what they're doing? Diplomacy? Nice talk? Bribery? Or maybe a gun to the head?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

Without necessarily having read all of this thread, my thoughts, from a purely practical standpoint:

Money spent on a strong military tends to create a strong economy - indeed, Germany's remilitarization prior to WWII is exactly what pulled it out of such a devastating financial situation that million-mark notes were printed, and their worth calculated by weight. So, building a big strong military is a good idea economically.

Not always. Counterexample: Soviet Union in 80ies.

Originally Posted by Soldier

Somebody brought up the phenomenon of "whatcha gonna do about it?" With a large enough standing army, this phenomenon can be prevented from any recognizable nation-state. After one or two learn that the answer to "whatcha gonna do" is "kick your *** so hard you can taste my toes", everybody else will suddenly have a much reduced desire to ask the question.

Not sure how to interpret what you actually are saying. I can see 2-3 possible interpretations, but none seems more likely than the others. Care to rephrase?

Originally Posted by Soldier

Of course, nowadays there is the problem of terrorism. I think the solution to that is an expansion of the special-forces part of the military, coupled with much heavier spook-work. Not an instant solution, but given time, we'll be able to work agents in deeper - and information is what will make spec-ops effective. That, and a swift and terrible punishment for any country that supports terrorists.

Are these courses of action right, morally or ethically? Dunno.

I do not think that the problem will ever be solved (much less an instant solution!), in the meaning that it will be eradicated. Political murders have