Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (19623)	2/22/2002 9:16:53 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

we have miles to go before we sleep. Thanks for the feedback, West. I am reading Stiners book right now. It is the best, so far, of the "Commander" series that Clancy is doing. The problem with what Stiner thinks is going to happen is the same as Tekboy's friends. From the articles by Woodward, it is obvious that decisions are being made by a very small "Xcom" committee that includes about 5 to 10 people. So the lower echelons really don't know much more than we do.

To: unclewest who wrote (19623)	2/23/2002 9:55:55 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

To me, Stiner's positions make sense separately but not together... I mean, I can accept that the important threats are cyberwar, biological and chemical weapons, and nukes. And I can accept that our conventional military is less extensive and prepared than before. But--how would redressing the latter problems--which presumably is what most of W's defense budget build-up will go toward--help in dealing with the former ones? If those "new" security threats are the real danger, and not a conventional war against some kind of peer competitor, then wouldn't it make sense to revamp the military substantially, perhaps even at the expense of some of the kinds of traditional programs (large conventional weapons, large forces in being, expensive current readiness) that Stiner wants to see boosted? tb@provocateur.com

To: unclewest who wrote (19623)	2/23/2002 10:13:15 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>he said 244 lieutenant colonels turned down selection for command last year and left the service becuse they did not want to lead poorly trained and equipped men...that is incredible to me...<< One aspect of the retention rate argument that gets continually overlooked is the fact that, in the booming 90s, there were also enormous professional opportunities luring folks to the private sector. I'm quite aware of the fact that it was not the central factor, but the self-enrichment factor was clearly present. Btw, I concur completely with Stiner's 4 threats, though I'd rate chemical (sarin & ricin) above the bio, and I'd add a fifth, the most common method they've used thus far: vehicle bombs.