To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (200629 ) 11/8/2001 5:52:52 AM From: Walkingshadow Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670 <<Taliban do not have a major power supporting them in their battle.>> I think they do: they are fighting on their home turf (that they are very familiar with and we are not) defending their homes and families; they are fighting for God; they are fighting for their very lives. Moreover, they are more than happy to give their lives for their cause. They are maniacal. There exists no more formidable foe than one that has these three elements. History has shown that again and again. Technology becomes of secondary importance at best under these circumstances. Witness the Viet Cong, for example, miserably equipped, who were more than willing to endure unimaginable hardships and die for their cause against a technologically vastly superior enemy that outnumbered them. I mean not just the US forces, but all their predecessors. The French learned that lesson the hard way in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu. Reminds me of a time when I personally assisted roughly eight burly paramedics restrain a skinny little 10-year old kid who had overdosed on PCP. You would never have believed it had you not been there. And that wasn't the only time, and was hardly an exception. It is absolutely unbelievable what humans are capable of under extreme circumstances. I have seen it many times, sir. I know. I also saw what happens to people who underestimated such things in emergency rooms. It was not pretty.<<Taliban are rejected by many who live in Afghanistan. >> That matters little. Those ruling Afghanistan like so many other countries have frequently not enjoyed popular support, but hold power effectively just the same. That factor is only relevant in countries where the populist will determines who rules. Regarding technology, simulations and rehearsals are wonderful. But just as paper trading doesn't accurately simulate the real-thing, so too war simulations don't either. Were your statements true, we would never see civilian targets mistakenly hit by "errant" bombs and missles. But even if true, how do you target people entrenched in a labyrinth of caves and hardened bunkers? I don't even think a direct nuclear strike could touch them significantly. How do you target things you can't see and don't have any clue where they are?<<Our forces and technology can identify with remote undetected sensors what and where the Taliban and Arabs are hiding and any movement. >> Pity your amazing sensors can't seem to figure out where the most wanted man on the planet is. Or any of his staff, for that matter. Or any of the Taliban higher ups either. <<Bad weather also freezes the enemy in place. >> Didn't work out that way when Napoleon invaded Russia, or when Hitler invaded Russia either. Both, BTW, with vastly superior technology and numbers. Both suffered stunning, devastating defeats, of course. The enormous costs incurred by the Germans in that woefully misguided campaign was probably the single most important factor that led to us winning that war. Note that this defeat was set up and driven by Hitler's overconfidence, who had just run amok across Europe.... which led him to disregard both the stern lessons of history and the advice of his military advisors. And note that in both cases, the Russians still had the advantage, and partly for the same reasons. Bad weather is to the enemy's advantage, not ours.<< As to future terrorism....I expect that many have been detected and detained and other plans may have been destroyed by the actions to freeze money and look closely at all suspects. >> I think you are likely correct. Problem is, there is virtually zero tolerance for lapses in interdiction efforts. The DEA has been trying for decades to catch drug smugglers, and despite all the technology and manpower probably manages to get about 25% or so at best of the drugs coming in. It would be nice if our anti-terrorist efforts were so successful, even nicer if twice as successful (but probably unrealistic). BUT..... if you have 30 terrorists trying to get into the US with 30 suitcase-sized nuclear weapons, for example (and Bin Laden is thought to possess just that right now), consider the downside if your interdiction efforts are an astounding 75%, lets say. That means seven nuclear weapons get through. The sort of damage that even one of those could cause would make the 9/11 disaster small potatoes. But worse yet, nuclear weapons are not the major source of potential damage, but biologicals. A computer simulation published in the journal Science about a month ago showed that spraying Oklahoma City on a windless night with smallpox (technologically quite feasible, BTW) would cause, in one month's time, one million deaths and three million sick worldwide and virtually all economies halted in their tracks. These considerations and others lead me to conclude that any defense is misguided, that the only possible course is an overwhelming offense.<<In my prior posts I spoke poorly and I apologize if my words caused offense. >> N' worries, mite. I'm on your side. Virtually all of America are on the same side. I don't know anybody who wants terrorists exterminated yesterday as bad as I. We just differ on our estimations of the difficulty of the task ahead, not on what needs to be done. It must be done. PERIOD. NO MATTER WHAT THE DAMN PRICE. There is no other rational option that I can see. But, we can still discuss it all openly (and, I pray, with civility), because---thank God ---this ain't Afghanistan or any other two-bit excuse for a country. This is the greatest country this planet has ever seen. And may it endure and flourish, with the grace of God. Regards, Walkingshadow