posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by SplitInfinity
I agree. One of my greatest fears is that another large scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil will one day take place. I don't think people necessarily
fully digest the historical significance of 9-11 from a military and even political standpoint. Even Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack on the U.S.
mainland. There were submarine and other assaults on the U.S. mainland during WW2 (which most people seem to forget,) but seeing iconic structures in
New York city being toppled is an entirely different matter. It set a historical precedent in terms of asymmetric tactics inflicting casualties on the
civilian population within the U.S. mainland. If that were to happen again, both the political and therefore military response would be - and would
likely have to be - unimaginably robust and unrestrained.
We are not presently using our total manufacturing and economic capacity as we would in a true major theater war, despite people saying we use "every
instrument at our disposal to combat terror," etc. It's not like WW2 where we mobilized a high percentage of every manufacturing center in the
country - and created more to boot - or even Vietnam where we had active selective service. People think it's bad now with Homeland Security,
increased domestic surveillance, and increased military spending (and I agree,) but if we got hit again that bad or worse, I believe it would almost
certainly precipitate (eventually at least) those kinds of steps. And even failing that, we aren't utilizing the maximal logistical and power
projection capabilities at our disposal right now, as we could if no thought were given to casualty reduction. So I agree on that factual point as
well. Given that our response to 9-11 was actually a comparatively restrained one (sad but true,) I don't even want to think about what our response
would be to another equivalent or more damaging attack.
Which is one reason I hope a true Cold War isn't being kicked off (or reinvigorated, if you believe it never ended) - because of the direct link
between the last one and the current war on terror. The last thing we need in my opinion is a litany of comparatively minor theater conflicts sewing
the seeds of future, well armed, well trained asymmetric forces who hate us. (To say nothing of a renewed missile race between us and Russia if it
came to that.) I know your point was to say that the true capacity of the U.S. to wage war against Russia et al if it came down to it, isn't
indicated by our current posture. And I agree. But I'm equally concerned about the unintended, tertiary side effects of a renewed Cold War.
In a nut shell, my overly-empathetic, peace-desiring person feels that we have seen enough death lately. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. I'm
less concerned about who is capable of what and who would "win," than I am about it not coming to that in the first place. (As I'm sure you are;
I'm not indicating you want war. I'd like to think no one does though, sadly, I know that's not the case.)