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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (240849)	3/6/2008 6:34:06 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Mainly I agree occupation is becoming less viable in today's world, but large militaries will continue for the foreseeable future. * * *

To: LindyBill who wrote (240849)	3/6/2008 9:15:00 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793955

The main thing I have learned here the last few years is to separate out the short term pessimistic position we need to assume from the long term optimistic position that should guide our overall thinking. Sure, we need to be ready in case China or Iran or NK go "wog" on us and start something. But we shouldn't run our long term FP around those assumptions. Or let the people in charge of our short term kinetic needs guide our long term policies. Profound! Profound because using short term kinetic oriented thinking to guide long term policy is precisely what is happening in our country today. The men running our military today only know kinetics. They do not comprehend the principles of by, with and through. They may talk it - they cannot walk it. They have spent 4,000 American lives in a personal OJT program that has yet to yield measurable results. And those same leaders tell us to expect 25-50 more years of the same. Worse - America tolerates them. Pathetic!

To: LindyBill who wrote (240849)	3/6/2008 12:57:54 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793955

Thanks for the well put reminder. It fits for so many areas of our lives. The main thing I have learned here the last few years is to separate out the short term pessimistic position we need to assume from the long term optimistic position that should guide our overall thinking.

To: LindyBill who wrote (240849)	3/25/2008 1:38:36 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793955

Sure, we need to be ready in case China or Iran or NK go "wog" on us and start something. But we shouldn't run our long term FP around those assumptions. They shouldn't be the centepoint of our foreign policy but we should be militarily prepared for such actions. And while North Korea is in decline and will presumably never be a major naval threat, China and potentially other countries may be. We were unprepared for WWII. After WWII we demobilized so much that we were unprepared (to a lesser extent) for Korea. (See the history of Task Force Smith, and than later US and allied forces getting pushed back to the Pusan perimeter). Back then we could gear up for war quicker, now if we take out of service most of a major category of weapon and stop producing new ones, it would take longer (even under the pressures of war time) to restore that capability, because modern weapons are more complex. I suppose we could design new simpler and less capable weapons, and combine that with throwing out a lot of the red tape and delays inherent in large new government initiatives, but even if we do that there will still be delays (including the delay for the new design work) and less capable weapons systems means more casualties if we have to use them.