It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What does "war" even accomplish? (NOT a Pacifist)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I'm worried for our future.

You see, I'm joining the Air Force. The paperwork is already being processed, I should be signing a contract soon. (For those interested, the preferred MOS would be Airborne Linguist for Asian nations).

Anyway, my worry: in 20 years, America has collapsed due to too many wars stretching us out thin, weakening our economy and possibly leaving us open for attack. Frankly, I'd like to make a career out of military service ... but I can't if I have no country to serve.

Why must we go to war? Why is "WAR!" the answer? I'm not a pacifist, I just see better means of aggression than war. Heck, I say go tactical most of the time. Send in covert teams to get the jobs done.

For instance, take the past 9 years.

*World Trade Centers attacked
*Radical Islamic Militants blamed

3 routes available:

1.) WAR!! Send in the troops! 'MERICA!! - This route lead to a temporary gain, but a LONG term struggle because ... how can you win a war without an objective?

2.) Do nothing, the UN will handle it. - Well, way to go, America. Now we look like a bunch of wimps.

3.) Black Ops. - They say Al-Qaeda hit us, eh? Will, let's go send some covert teams over there, kill the "insurgents", and get out. Maybe it will be the top news story of the year ... maybe.

Am I off my rocker, or is my thinking valid?




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I totally agree with the 3rd option. Special Operation Forces are trained to fight things like terrorist groups and turning it into a conventional war made it worse The politicians were hoping for an easy win and tried to turn it into a big show which didn't work out to well. Most wars of the future, or at least the near future will be fight by Spec Op Units and if conventional troops are used in wars like this they should only be used as a distraction while the black ops guys can work even more covertly. At least thats what I think should be done



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
To understand war you must understand human beings. To fully understand human beings is incomprehensibly difficult, if possible at all. However, wars are fought over two basic things: resources and territory. Almost all wars can be linked back to these two basic concepts.

Fighting for resources is rather obvious - when one group of people is scarce on resources, they become more likely to resort to violence as a form of procuring the resources they need to survive. In ancient times, these resources were as simple as food, water, basic materials (including salt), etc. As time has gone on and economies have developed, the overall health of the economy is synonymous with survival. In an abstract sort of way, a country that goes to war can salvage their economy due to the "let's get it done" mentality - a war cry can rally many to a job in a sort of temporary communist society that can invalidate typical quantitative economics models. Even if the war, itself, fails to procure more resources, it can salvage an economy, in theory. Prolonged wars, however, tend to negatively impact the economy, particularly when no imminent threat is perceived by the nation's population.

Territory is a little different - while it can reference physical territory, it also means personal and regional territory, as well. Revolutions are territorial wars where one group of people asserts it is no longer under the authority of a given power. Policing actions are also territorial wars - asserting control or influence over a region. The rise of modern industry and mass production have ensured almost everyone can live comfortably without worrying about basic needs. Wars over resources are far less frequent and likely with growing political interest and ideological views ensuring plenty of territorial wars will start over the next chapters in human history.

As for what war solves?

It really depends upon what/who you are fighting. An ambiguous force like AQ is tricky to fight. Neither a standard army or special ops are going to cut it, alone. You need the standard army to, sadly, take some sacrificial losses in order to expose the cells and structure for special operations to take advantage of. You also need them to interface with the public and secure construction sights and the like.

Special-ops only procedures are what solidified groups like AQ in the middle east. While successful at aiding in the dissolution of the USSR - these groups later came around to cause more problems for us and the countries they had power in. Special ops are a force-multiplier, not really a silver bullet solution.

We could also have done nothing - it is a perfectly valid option. I will admit I do not like that option, but people were either going to hate Bush for not going to war or hate him for going to war - and neither option provided any kind of guarantees.

As for the economy - yes, the wars have had an impact on the economy. However, the major causes of the economic problem are not the wars - never was. The problem was due to banking practices encouraged by the Federal Reserve and legislation, as well as poor consumer choices (buying houses they could not afford - they teach you how to add, subtract, etc in school for a reason - you should be able to realize you can't afford mortgage payments that are 60% of your income when you have a car payment, insurances, kids, a need to eat, etc). Banks were encouraged to be irresponsible by legislation, and consumers notoriously neglect responsibility when it concerns credit.

The end result is predictable - and was predicted by many economists dating back to the 70s when legislation was being put into place and bad lending and consumer habits started to take form. No one took note, however - stocks were climbing and the economy "had nowhere to go but up" due to market bubbles driven by real estate inflation. Everything appeared not only great - but spectacular. Naysayers were shown stock reports and purchasing power of the dollar versus other nations as evidence they were crazies on about conspiracies.

From the moment the inflating bubbles began to be noticed, there were not many politicians willing to repeal their inflammatory legislation that would ultimately lead to a slow-down of the economy. No one wanted to pop the bubble, nor did anyone want to be responsible for dispelling the economic wave everyone was enjoying (false as it was).

Wars are wars - they are going to happen, and none of them are ever going to be a particularly good idea, no matter how you go about it. Wars are always necessary - when one side is committed to violence, it's not really practical to counter with anything but violence. Neither side is particularly right or wrong - they just are on different sides of a fundamental disagreement that goes so deep as to require bloodshed.

I believe the decision to go to war was 'correct' and appropriate. As for the strategies and policies used... we can Monday-morning quarterback until the end of baseball season, but every "if" is predicated on something that didn't happen and only exists in one's mind. Since no one of us fully understands human beings - it all amounts to a guess. And that is all anyone does in a war - guess. At some point, action takes priority over observation and you make your best guess at how to go about it. You either get lucky and end up in a documentary on how awesome your strategy was, unlucky and become a blunder, or simply manage to survive to see another day.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Wow. Was reading one of my kids' books today, and ran across (again) something I always thought was a reasonable statement regarding that. It hit me with that weird mental bell I get when I know something's coming up, so I mentally flagged it, thinking - someone will ask me that today, so I'll set this aside, and it was YOU!

"There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how - or why - he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people - 'older and wiser heads' as they say - supply the control." R.A. Heinlein

It's another way of saying "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock", I guess, or as Clausewitz put it "War is the continuation of policy by other means".



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Firstly i salute u/
Just some history i have lived through, yes i am old lol, ,,,U laughing boy! just kidding, getting u ready
.
1) how can you win a war without an objective? vietnam been there done that,, when realized we shouldn't be there got out,soldiers unfortunatly where spit on when they returned, but North East asia didnt not fall as in Domino affect ie Macnamera,, there is a lesson learned .,,no wait still in Afganistan.

2. north/south korean u.n mandated war where the u.n did not want china losing that war, a lot of good soldiers betrayed, and still technically the only congresionally sactioned war that American forces are and should be used untill Congress declares peace with North Korea (i know i'm a sticler for details), but if u want to fight for something sanctioned by congress therefore the people of america,, learn Asian,, very good.
3 . If u found the guilty on that one u might hesitate in pulling the pin but speaking of black opps, the payback on that one was for Tehran Hostige crisis, i mean still waiting, remember Khomanie came from political,asylim in France, but im sure i would bore u with old memories,
Ya go middle number 2 and learn all the Chinese u can,, just might come in real handy.
Thats my advice.
Peace out



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gatorboi117
 


Dear gatorboi117

The big problem with your thinking is this.

You have no idea who your foe really is.

I will give you a clue it is not who you think.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.


I respectfully disagree.

The empire has enslaved the planet.
Fascism is alive in the corporate rule.
Nazism is an American born philosophy.
Communism still exists.

The news lies to you.

War makes bankers money, period.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by Carseller4
Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war never solved anything.


I respectfully disagree.

The empire has enslaved the planet.
Fascism is alive in the corporate rule.
Nazism is an American born philosophy.
Communism still exists.

The news lies to you.

War makes bankers money, period.


Let me guess....you are a college student?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


nope. that was nearly 20 years ago! I am just awake versus the prime time programmed.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join