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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (13733)	11/15/2004 8:13:17 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Re: any technology that hugely shifts the military balance of power to one side will be deemed very provocative by others and in itself may cause the war it is advertised to prevent. I'm searching my memory for examples of this, and not coming up with any. Can you help me out here? *** What you are basically referring to is a preemptive attack. In the many cases known in history, I don't believe it was ever the superior technological advance of the enemy that was involved. I'm reminded of the Japanese "sneak attacks" on the Russian fleet circa 1905 and the U.S. fleet in December, 1941. Another seemingly naked aggression, Saddam's attack on Kuwait was not driven by the enemy's technological superiority but rather well grounded in reality as a response to slant drilling and the theft of Iraqi resources which were further crippling Iraq by damping the world price of oil in 1990. The U.S. government's naked aggression of March, 2003 against Iraq had nothing to do with the superiority of the enemy, (though that was hinted at in the propaganda of the time) and everything to do with naked plunder and theft. The great sea battles of the colonial era follow much the same pattern. For example, the one that resulted in the loss of much of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was actually won by the lighter, less technologically advanced British fleet using superior guile and cunning to win the battle and defend against Spanish aggression. Or perhaps it is better stated that it was lost by the Spanish because of hubris, lack of planning and bad luck. And today, it is impossible to imagine any nation whatsoever attacking the United States. To do so would be suicidal. Bush would simply not hesitate to annihilate any enemy who chose such a rash course, and our competitors all know that.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (13733)	11/15/2004 8:23:19 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 20773

What you fail to recognize is that we have grand ability in war, and choose not to use it, over and over again. Others notice. Not Raymond, of course. The potentially tilted balance of power some fear is "provocative," is but a ghost in the end, when it is discovered America did NOT attempt to take Russia down, for instance. Logic dictates that when the truth wills out, reasonable minds won't view us as provocative at all. Dan B.