Nuklear bomb

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

It's pretty interesting how the British were always better versed in this type of warfare, in fact it's due to them being the main advisors of the Greek army during most of the civil war that the local guerrillas were defeated.

Completely understandable when you consider they had the largest Colonial Empire ever established.

Pre WWI the Zulu Wars and the Boar War were significant influences.

It was during the Boar War that Britain formulated and implemented the Concentration Camp as a solution to isolating political dissidents and undesirables. A system adopted and taken to extremes later by Hitler.

Early 20th Century the British fought counter insurgency campaigns in Somali, in Iraq (Mesopotamia) and faced an extended insurgency in India.

More recently major insurgencies occurred in Malaya, Kenya and lets never forget Northern Ireland.

These are worth a read:

http://www.jepeterson.net/sitebuilde...s_and_Iraq.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA479660

[BadAim]

I have resisted 'till now, but I can do so no longer. This is a unique time in history, where there is a deep dichotomy between two types of folks. There are, on the one side, those who believe that "Moral Fiber" is a real and useful thing, quite apart from any attempt to reason it away. On the same side would be those that consider "Valor", and "Bravery" to be "good". These folks might, as an example, give a grave sort of respect to the men of the U-boat service, for their "valor in the face of overwhelming odds", even though they might have killed their grandfather (as an aside, one of the very best of these men, Otto Kreshmer, became a high ranking Officer in the German Navy after the war, and as such an ally to the very men to whom he was such a grave danger during the war).

On the other, are those who don't hold to such things as "good" or "evil". For these folks, there is a great difficulty in defining anything along the "gray area" that is war, for these poor folks, there can be no way of grasping such matters of the heart as the other sort of men do, who subscribe to the idea of "aughtness". The idea that there are things that aught to be done, and things that aught not be done. Those who can't call to reference what C.S. Lewis called the "Tao", that which past generations have always simply accepted as "good" and "right", these poor fellows have no way of relating to us poor unenlightened wretches who don't understand the "party line" or whatever is the latest fad of political correctness.

I suppose that such dinosaurs as us who believe that there is such thing as "good" and "evil" and actually believe there might be some greater judge of the lesser or greater of the two, should "go quietly into the night". Alas, it is not our nature.

It is merely fact that the one should not fathom the other.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I do know this....I now need to go research the Greek civil war...I had no idea there was such a thing.

Splitter

Just make sure to split your sources so you can come up with your own impartial conclusions
A lot of the memoirs were written by people who fought and they are understandably tainted by their personal experiences...or to put it mildly, there's a lot of biased books on either side.

That war resulted in a series of opposing pendulum swings that still affect the country to an extent. The communist faction dragged the nation into yet another war right after WWII with their refusal to take part in the election and their reluctance to disarm, this resulted in the demonization of all communists regardless of their actions, leading many to exile based only on their political beliefs (even people who didn't fight against the government army), not to mention that the government was initially short on troops (most of the Greek army that managed to evacute after the occupation was still in the Middle East where they had fought against the Axis, we even had a couple Flower class corvettes in the D-Day fleet yet almost nothing back home, truth be told it was mostly the commies that manage to drive wermacht out from most of the rural areas, hence their initial approval ratings by the general populace) and re-instated into active service a minority of people that sided with the Axis occupation forces during the war as a stop-gap measure (the kind of axis-collaborating auxiliary troops found in many parts of occupied Europe), which then resulted in the general public showing resentment towards the ruling elite (the king at the time and the official governments), this led to another flare up of socialist ideologies and instability during the mid-late 60s, which was followed by a coup and a 7 year military junta to crack down on dissent, which ended after the war and partitioning of Cyprus and the student uprisings, giving us the democracy we have today, where politicians behave like they are untouchable because of the collective bad memmory of the junta ( the lesser of two evils mentality) and have made it a business to bestow their position upon their children like they were, well, kings practicing hereditary succesion, but they again have recently been largely devalued on the whole due to their failures and scandals in economy and protecting interests and rights that are ours by treaties and international laws, yet they bow down to foreign centers of power for personal gain. Confusing, eh?
Ok, deep breath

Lot's of dirty back-room deals and secret blows in that story, some coming from those that were expected to act in such a way, yet an alarmingly significant portion coming from allies as well. It should make a good read if you can get a clear idea of the timelines and persons involved.

Wikipedia is your safest bet to get the gist of things, start from 1936 and go from there

[Friendly_flyer]

Civil wars are always ugly, and take a long time to heal.

[Splitter]

BadAim, you nailed my thoughts better than I could have. (Sorry to have been absent from a thread I have really enjoyed, but we are fighting for some 2A rights down here and I have been onto that topic elsewhere ).

Right and wrong have been obscured by moral relativism. People sitting nice and comfy in their homes watching TV have a hard time believing that there is evil in the world. They have an even harder time making sacrifices to fight evil "over there". I think we call that complacency? lol

Our collective mentality is not unlike what it was just prior to WWII. Then as now, it allows threats to grow. We usually let them grow until they appear on our doorstep...then we fight desperate battles.

All wars are ugly and when you try to fight them under the misguided conception that they can be "clean", well, you get Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Blackdog, thank you for the tutelage on Greece. Extrapolating some from what is common through history, your write up explains a lot of what is happening in Greece today. Once again, it shows that people who do not learn from history (even recent history) are doomed to repeat it. Those of us in the US, Britain, Australia, and other Western "Democracies" are very close to what the Greeks have gone through recently AND for very similar reasons.

The next few years will be....interesting. I can't help but think that a lot of people had similar thoughts in the 30's.

Splitter

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Completely understandable when you consider they had the largest Colonial Empire ever established.

Pre WWI the Zulu Wars and the Boar War were significant influences.

It was during the Boar War that Britain formulated and implemented the Concentration Camp as a solution to isolating political dissidents and undesirables. A system adopted and taken to extremes later by Hitler.

Early 20th Century the British fought counter insurgency campaigns in Somali, in Iraq (Mesopotamia) and faced an extended insurgency in India.

More recently major insurgencies occurred in Malaya, Kenya and lets never forget Northern Ireland.

These are worth a read:

http://www.jepeterson.net/sitebuilde...s_and_Iraq.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA479660

It was during the Boar War that Britain formulated and implemented the Concentration Camp as a solution to isolating political dissidents and undesirables

This is true Galway, but it is not true that Britain was somehow the "originator" of this method (if that is what you are suggesting?). De facto "Concentration Camps" had existed well before, the US for example interning Native American tribes in the 1830's, as well as the Spanish doing employing this method in Cuba. Probably many more countries prior. The only seminal thing about the Boer camps is the British coining of the phrase itself, not their usage and employment.

A concentration camp is a concentration of individuals, where not necessarily political dissidents, but certainly "undesirables" are detained. Militarily in the short term it was very successful in quelling the effectiveness of the Boer Guerilla campaign, if undoubtedly morally dubious. Civilian Boers died whilst in detention, though it was not its purpose. "Concentration Camp" has now become a synonym for "Death Camp" with this express purpose, primarily because of the Nazi's.

There are "Concentration Camps" ongoing as I write, many just have lovely new sanitized names like "Refugee detention Centres" where adults and children fleeing persecution from terrible regimes are treated like criminals in often appalling conditions, (I believe you are an Aussie so you should be familiar with them?). Smart move by Howard on the 'Christmas Island' job, out of sight out of mind eh? They held one bloke for over 7 years.....his only "crime" being to want to live in Australia.

How are things going with that? I'd be interested to know as I have not been following developments recently. I hear that some have been closed down though, and that things are getting better. Conservatives eh? Smashing folk.

See you may be joining us in "coalition mania", anyway its all the rage! (groan....)

Thanks for those two links mate, will give em a read.

[Friendly_flyer]

This discussion has remained surprisingly civil, I hope it will remain so.

Originally Posted by Splitter

Right and wrong have been obscured by moral relativism. People sitting nice and comfy in their homes watching TV have a hard time believing that there is evil in the world. They have an even harder time making sacrifices to fight evil "over there". I think we call that complacency? lol

When you are in a fight, or a famine or in any other situation where your life is in danger, "right" or "wrong" comes down to very simple questions of what will help you, your family or your tribe survive. When you sit peacefully in your secure home, warm and full, you have the luxury probing the concept of moral a bit deeper. There is where "relativism" comes into play. When you have 500 rabid and heavily armed Viet Kong storming your camp, your moral compass is to survive the night, and killing the enemy is very much right. When you are at home, you can dabble in thoughts on whether your nation should be over there in the first place, and whether the farmers who have given up their ploughs to become VC soldiers actually deserve to die.

Morale and resolve are not the same thing. The American (actually most of the Western) public in the early 1970ies was starting to wonder whether a war in Vietnam had any real bearing on their life. The general consensus seems to be that it did not, hence most people came to the conclusion the war itself was immoral. While moral thoughts was applied perhaps more than before, resolve withered away. Seeing the situation with the benefit of hindsight, a communist takeover in Vietnam did not threaten Western security. Considering the insane horrors sparked by the Vietnam war in Cambodia and to some extent in Laos, the war was indeed not worth fighting, and thus immoral.

So, will leaving the Arab world to their own devices in our day and age threaten our existence in the Western world? Do our current involvement in e.g. Afghanistan help improve our security situation, or will it only make us more enemies? To my mind, "resolve" to bomb our way is not a good idea.

All wars are ugly and when you try to fight them under the misguided conception that they can be "clean", well, you get Vietnam or Afghanistan.

I do beg the differ. There are wars that are less dirty than others. When nations invade other nations the fronts are usually a bit more clear cut, and the moral less dubious. How was the US resolve to fight during the First Gulf War? How about the war in Kosovo? While not on the same level as WWII (non of the aggressors posed any real any threat to the US), bout were relatively clear-cut. The enemy wore uniforms and were under orders. They even had tanks and planes and the soldiers surrendered when facing overwhelming forces. I do not remember any great problems with resolve back then.

The really, really dirty wars occur when the wars are highly asymmetrical, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Vietnam. This is not just because the civil war/tribal war aspect, but also because the underdog (i.e. the insurgents) have everything to win by making the war as dirty as possible, and nothing to gain by fighting cleanly. A German soldier fighting in France in 1944 had nothing to gain from hiding in civilian clothing and attacking Allied soldiers in liberated France. Hence, the fighting was relatively "clean". To the Iraqi insurgents or the VC the same strategy was not only effective, it was often the only option available. Thus these wars became extraordinary dirty, "bad wars" as opposed to nation-against-nation "good wars".

It may possibly be that we are headed into a situation were the Western world is attacked openly in real war against our territories in the near future, but I really do not think so. Any war will probably be economical rather than military. "Moral fibre" to bomb some small patch of land to Kingdom Come to ward off perceived threats is in my mind not going to stop a war against the Western World, rather the opposite.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

This discussion has remained surprisingly civil, I hope it will remain so.



When you are in a fight, or a famine or in any other situation where your life is in danger, "right" or "wrong" comes down to very simple questions of what will help you, your family or your tribe survive. When you sit peacefully in your secure home, warm and full, you have the luxury probing the concept of moral a bit deeper. There is where "relativism" comes into play. When you have 500 rabid and heavily armed Viet Kong storming your camp, your moral compass is to survive the night, and killing the enemy is very much right. When you are at home, you can dabble in thoughts on whether your nation should be over there in the first place, and whether the farmers who have given up their ploughs to become VC soldiers actually deserve to die.

Morale and resolve are not the same thing. The American (actually most of the Western) public in the early 1970ies was starting to wonder whether a war in Vietnam had any real bearing on their life. The general consensus seems to be that it did not, hence most people came to the conclusion the war itself was immoral. While moral thoughts was applied perhaps more than before, resolve withered away. Seeing the situation with the benefit of hindsight, a communist takeover in Vietnam did not threaten Western security. Considering the insane horrors sparked by the Vietnam war in Cambodia and to some extent in Laos, the war was indeed not worth fighting, and thus immoral.

So, will leaving the Arab world to their own devices in our day and age threaten our existence in the Western world? Do our current involvement in e.g. Afghanistan help improve our security situation, or will it only make us more enemies? To my mind, "resolve" to bomb our way is not a good idea.



I do beg the differ. There are wars that are less dirty than others. When nations invade other nations the fronts are usually a bit more clear cut, and the moral less dubious. How was the US resolve to fight during the First Gulf War? How about the war in Kosovo? While not on the same level as WWII (non of the aggressors posed any real any threat to the US), bout were relatively clear-cut. The enemy wore uniforms and were under orders. They even had tanks and planes and the soldiers surrendered when facing overwhelming forces. I do not remember any great problems with resolve back then.

The really, really dirty wars occur when the wars are highly asymmetrical, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Vietnam. This is not just because the civil war/tribal war aspect, but also because the underdog (i.e. the insurgents) have everything to win by making the war as dirty as possible, and nothing to gain by fighting cleanly. A German soldier fighting in France in 1944 had nothing to gain from hiding in civilian clothing and attacking Allied soldiers in liberated France. Hence, the fighting was relatively "clean". To the Iraqi insurgents or the VC the same strategy was not only effective, it was often the only option available. Thus these wars became extraordinary dirty, "bad wars" as opposed to nation-against-nation "good wars".

It may possibly be that we are headed into a situation were the Western world is attacked openly in real war against our territories in the near future, but I really do not think so. Any war will probably be economical rather than military. "Moral fibre" to bomb some small patch of land to Kingdom Come to ward off perceived threats is in my mind not going to stop a war against the Western World, rather the opposite.

Well said.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by winny

Well said.

Very well said, actually, but short sighted.

Why go to war? That's the question it seems. Let us take the current situation in the middle east as an example.

In no particular order;

Oil: The Green Peace brigade (environmentalists if you will) would love a world that needed no carbon based fuels. That is at least a couple decades away (more). Oil is the fuel of the world economy. The world's economy collapses without free flowing, cheap oil. While that would make many of the environmentalists happy (who cares about economic collapse when a tenth of a degree of temperature change is at stake?), the rest of us see the horror of such a collapse.

No entity can be allowed to threaten or control the world's oil supply. By doing so they would control the world economy.

Israel: No matter what one may think about Israel, they are the only ally to the West in the middle east. They are hated by virtually all of their neighbors. But, they will not be abandoned by the West, nor should they be. The West will not allow Israel to be threatened and conquered. For the record, neither will Israel.

Nuclear Proliferation: When countries that actively work to eliminate other countries gain nuclear capability, the risks go sky high. When a country that espouses the destruction of Israel (the West's ally), the US (the lone remaining super power for the time being) and any allies to those countries gets nuclear capability, you have to consider the real possibility that they will use that new found power to bring about the destruction they have wanted.

Radicalism: People LOVE to point to the Crusades as a low point in civilization. Granted. That was 500 and more years ago. Similar motivations are present today, just not in the Christian world.

Moral Relativism: That's their culture, whatever they do is their business. Really? Is that still true when all the other circumstances described above come into play? "But Christians did it, this is no different!". Wrong, this is 500 years later. The world (or much of it) has evolved.

So when to fight? Do we wait until the enemy is on our doorstep? Do we believe and hope that they will never decide to come to our doorstep? Do we let the world economy collapse by giving over control of the world's most needed energy resource?

Leaving the Arab world to their own devices is a recipe for economic disaster, the destruction of Israel, and a guaranty that the "war" will be fought much closer to home in the years to come. Delaying the inevitable makes no sense when the other side can only get stronger and your side can only get weaker.

Is it the entire "people" of the middle east our enemy? Of course not, it is the radicals in charge of nations or in charge of militant organizations. Their numbers are not great but their power is. Do you think we can talk to them and come to an agreement? That is not possible because you (we) do not qualify as friends or even acceptable neighbors to the radicals. And some countries are controlled by radicals.

Ask yourself this: why would Iran want nuclear power (fuel recently supplied by Russia, BTW) when they are sitting on the world's second largest energy supply? It would have made much more economic sense to build refineries instead of reactors.

Answer: To be able to threaten their neighbors AND the larger powers in the world. It really is that simple. The leadership is radical.

Why should we keep nations out of the nuclear family? Is that fair? Why, yes when the new member of the nuclear family will seek to sell radioactive fuel, or nuclear devices, to organizations whose sole purpose for existence is the destruction of infidels. The new member of the nuclear family has continually expressed the desire to destroy other nations through violence.

One atom bomb is enough to ruin your whole day . Fight them there, or fight them when they attack your allies, or fight them when they are attacking "here". It really is the only choice unless the other side backs down. True? Do you expect the other side to back down? Do you expect them to accept "us" as world neighbors? Or will they do exactly what they have said their objective is?

Fighting for one's home or in a time of famine is about survival. Choosing to fight that battle at an earlier time to avoid those circumstances is intestinal fortitude. That is where we in the West are lacking right now. We would rather trade a few more years of relative peace and comfort for having to fight now. We are putting off the hard choices until tomorrow.

This is exactly where the Untied States was prior to WWII. How the Brits ever forgave us for abandoning them for so long is beyond me. But we were recovering from a depression (familiar?) and pretty comfy here with two huge oceans between us and invasion. The US did not want to go to war in Europe or the Pacific, we wanted to put that off and hope (HAH! Never works) that the situation would work itself out. It wasn't our war until Pearl.

Since then, we learned that the situation does not usually work itself out. Morally and strategically we have been right....tactically, because we do not want to fight dirty and costly wars, our execution has often been abysmal.

That's about the US....where is the rest of the world? WTF are the other countries doing as the sky is falling? Talking? Negotiating? Coming up with sanctions? Really, look at history...how often do those tactics really work?

Fight them on their terms, that's survival. Fight them on your own terms, that's a willingness to sacrifice today to avoid fighting for survival tomorrow.

Splitter

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

It may possibly be that we are headed into a situation were the Western world is attacked openly in real war against our territories in the near future, but I really do not think so. Any war will probably be economical rather than military. "Moral fibre" to bomb some small patch of land to Kingdom Come to ward off perceived threats is in my mind not going to stop a war against the Western World, rather the opposite.

Very sorry to posts back to back, but I want to address this point more precisely as it goes back to the question of when and why to fight (which goes back to WWII and goes back to the dropping of the A-bomb).

When does a perceived threat become real?

There, sir, is the million dollar (million? it's TRILLION these days lol) question.

Is the "reason" to go to war good enough when your adversary has the motivation and declared intent to destroy your city? Or do you have to wait until they have the means also? Or do you need to wait until they actually make the attack?

What if they cut off your sustenance? (oil?)

Or is it ok to go to war when they threaten you ally? What about once they get the means to attack your ally? Or do you have to wait until they attack your ally? Or is obliterating your ally a good enough reason to retaliate?

Splitter