WMD's - the hottest thing since sliced bread

[Edric O]

With the recent news about the Libyan WMD's, it increasingly looks like the Bush administration managed the outstanding performace of invading the only Middle Eastern country who did NOT have a functional WMD program.

Of course, it's true that Colonel Gaddafi has vowed to dismantle his WMD's, in a move similar to that of the Iranians, but it would be silly and naive to believe that this is the end of WMD's in the Middle East. Right now, the United States is trying to impose a sort of monopoly on these weapons, but such a monopoly will only last as long as America is the undisputed ruler of the world. As soon as the iron fist of American military power dissapears - and it will, eventually - WMD installations will start popping up like mushrooms after a summer rain. (ok, maybe the mushroom analogy is a little sinister)

The point is that we are inevitably heading towards a world in which the smallest of countries have the capability to wipe out the human race. I find the perspective of such a world to be chilling, to say the least. But we will have to learn to deal with it. Our species has gone through worse situations (World War 2, the Cold War) and survived.

However, if WMD's do become widely available, the nature of warfare will change forever. Open war will be made impossible. Covert operations and guerrila wars will be the only kinds of warfare in existence. Terrorism itself may well be the most successful military strategy of the future.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Wolf]

Well, I think that Libya is afraid of America, and with good reason. I had this discussion today, and here is what I learned.

You have America, a nation that is somewhat unprepared socially and politically for the leading role that it now possesses. Every 4 years (or 8) a new President comes to office, with a new theory of foreign policy. Because of this, the American government is a little schizophrenic with regards to its foreign policy. There are general guidelines (terrorism is bad) but the lines blur often. Bush is a prime example, it is not clear what Iraq had (in 25 years it will be, though), but it is clear that making an example of it has caused other countries to... cooperate (though you won't hear that from the Libyans). I think that America's unpredicitability has leant it a kind of jeering-poke-fun-at attitude from the world for the last several decades. America is a little... funny in the head, it seems, with no clearly set agenda. However, in 2002-2003, that all changed. It was believed that the American army could not handle Afghanistan, when it did, there was still hope that Afghanistan was a fluke. When America demolished Iraq, it was clear that one thing was true;

1. American foreign policy is a little schizo.

2. America can destroy *anyone* without the bomb.

We draw the obvious conclusion.

I think Edric's WMD analogy to mushrooms after a summer rain is as clever as it is sinister, but also sadly true. Does America want to create an environment where the only way to wage diplomacy OR war is to have the A-bomb? Apparently it has. But this is not Bush's fault totally, America made this abundantly clear 59 years ago. All Bush did was drive the matter home. Terrorism may very well be the next form of warfare, if so, we had better find ways to combat it, for it is not just small contries that could destroy humanity, but even small groups of people. I do not think there is a way to outlaw war, nor is there a way to effectively remove a dictator. I wonder, then, what the solution is. If we cannot eliminate those who would destroy humanity, what do we do? We cannot let them commit the species' destruction, but it is so hard to eliminate them.

What's the solution? I definately don't know, but what I do know is that America doesn't need the A-bomb to cripple the world. All it has to do is shoot down as many aircraft as it can and then bomb everything conventionally. Should we live in a world where the foreign policy goal of all nations is "don't piss off the US?" or do we need a sort of global moderator and policeman?

[Atomic Mitten]

You seem to be forgetting that both in Afghanistan and Iraq, British troops were involved, who are very experienced in Terrorist warfare,Northern Ireland was a live training ground , so to speak.

[Caid Ivik]

Isn't USS America with her fleet still patrolling the Syrta Bay?

[Gobalopper]

I'm pretty sure the USS America was decommissioned...

Carriers:

USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Arabian Gulf

USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) - Atlantic Ocean

USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean

Personally I think Libya giving up its ideal of attaining WMD is mainly due to the stronger foreign policy under Bush. People may not like it but it seems to be working. The Telegraph revealed today that Britain and the US intercepted a shipment of weapons which increased that pressure. There is no way countries are going to give up those weapons without pressure and Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the consequences if they don't. It is possible that small countries could gain weapons and threaten to use them but if the response from the rest of the world is their removal from power I think they are likely to avoid it.

[Wolf]

NIMITZ-CLASS VESSELS (Name, Registry, and Home Port)

Overall length is 332.85 meters, flight deck width is 76.8 meters, displacement is 87,996.9 metric tons, top speed is 30 knots, carries 85 aircraft, has a ship's crew of 3,200 and an air wing of 2,480, is armed with 3 NATO Sea Sparrow Launchers, and 3 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts (The USS Carl Vinson has 4), cost is $4.5 billion.

USS Nimitz (CVN 68), San Diego, Calif.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Newport News, Va.

USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Bremerton, Wash.

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, Va.

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, Wash.

USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, Va.

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), San Diego, Calif.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, Va.

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), San Diego, Calif.

George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) (keel laying 6 Sept 2003)

ENTERPRISE-CLASS VESSELS (Name, Registry, and Home Port)

Overall length is 335.6 meters, flight deck width is 75.6 meters, displacement is 81,283.8 metric tons, top speed is 30 knots, it carries 85 aircraft, has a ship's crew of 3,350, and an air wing of 2,480, it is armed with 2 Sea Sparrow Launchers and 3 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts, exact cost is unavilable, presumed to be comperable to the NIMITZ-CLASS.

USS Enterprise (CVN 65), Norfolk, Va.

JOHN F. KENNEDY-CLASS VESSLES (Name, Registry, and Home Port)

Overall length is 315.6 meters, flight deck width is 76.8 meters, displacement is 74,389.1 metric tons, top speed is 30 knots, it can carry 85 aircraft at maximum, ship's crew is 3,117, and the air wing is 2,480, it is armed with Sea Sparrow missiles in modified box launchers, and 3 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts.

USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67); Mayport, Fla.

KITTY HAWK-CLASS VESSELS (Name, Registry, and Home Port)

Overall length of 323.8 meters, flight deck width of 76.8 meters, displacement at 73,300.5 metric tons when fully loaded, top speed at 30 knots, it carries 85 aircraft at maximum, it has a ship's crew of 3,150, and an air wing of 2,480, it is armed with a Sea Sparrow Launcher and 3 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts.

USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), Yokosuka, Japan

America now has 13 supercarriers, one of which is in construction (the USS George H. W. Bush).

[Digital Guerrilla]

What about countries that want to develop into an industrial nation? A nuclear program is a must for an industrial nation. What about small developing countries that want better energy sources will they be accused of "developing WMD" just because they have or want a nuclear research programs? Minus those nations the US has identified as "rouge states" what happens to them in their development as a nation(s).

[Gobalopper]

Sandwraith there are nations that have nuclear programs and no intentions of making weapons from them.

And countries that are building reactors are usually under UN scrutiny, its countries like Iran where they won't allow inspections that you have to worry.

[Atomic Mitten]

Apart from that , there is no reason for small countries to develop Nuclear power, there are alternatives being worked on at present.Based on water.

[Edric O]

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), San Diego, Calif.

George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) (keel laying 6 Sept 2003)

Errr... is it just me, or is it a tiny bit distasteful to name ships after people who are still alive? As I see it, it sounds a bit like inviting them to die...

But anyway, getting back to the issue of WMD's, it is perfectly clear that making an example out of Iraq ("Look! This is what happens to those who disobey us!") will get all Middle Eastern dictators to grovel at the USA's feet. But they will carry a deep resentment for this humiliation, and they will hate America with a passion. As a result, they will stab the USA in the back as soon as it begins to show signs of weakness.

The problem with an empire like the one Bush is trying to build is that it forces you to pump huge amounts of money into the military just to prevent your subjects from rising up against you. The War on Terror is a war fought against an enemy which cannot die. Terrorism is a Hydra: As soon as you cut off one head, two more grow in its place.

As a friend of mine likes to say, "You cannot kill ideas with bullets".

Don't get me wrong, though, the War on Terror will be hugely successful in the short run. Bin Laden will eventually be captured and Al Qaeda destroyed. But the USA will have to keep spending vast amounts of resources on policing the world, and that can't go on forever. Sooner or later, America will lose its status, and then everyone in the Middle East, Africa and Asia will go on a WMD shopping frenzy.

In other words, to use a Dune analogy, the USA is now playing the role of the God-Emperor Leto II. This is a very dangerous role to play, and I certainly wouldn't trust the Bush administration with it.

[Dante]

Yet more things we agree on. This is getting weird, Edric. :)

[Atomic Mitten]

Please God help him to see !

[attachment deleted by Gobalopper]

[Dante]

Don't you have anything better to do than plea to a nonexistant entity? Which, incidently, is something Edric and I don't agree on.

[Atomic Mitten]

This was intended as a joke, but never mind !

[NeoLogiX]

it's easy to eliminate whoever you want with 'racist' policy, such blame & blasphemy.

You goverments spends too much 'caring' to protecting. On contrary they were also accusing the next target to achieve, oil & asset monopoly, proxy empowering ... :O

US: 'It's okay for WE have WMD, but you will not, don't worry we're not dangerous, no harm will come, ::)

[Digital Guerrilla]

Sandwraith there are nations that have nuclear programs and no intentions of making weapons from them.

And countries that are building reactors are usually under UN scrutiny, its countries like Iran where they won't allow inspections that you have to worry.

Yes I know Gob I stated that in my post but their is still no reassurance about anything that my happen with any country that has a nuclear reactor, friend or foe.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, it would be weird if they would name a ship after Carter, who opposed their construction ;D

[Wolf]

Edric; I disagree on your assessment that America will have to spend massive and massive amounts of money to keep the world pinned down and that this will cripple it. Granted, massive amounts of money ARE being spent, and more money WILL be spent, but, I would like to point out that the US military is funded on less than 5% of the US GDP (including Iraq and Afghanistan). With a GDP of 10 to 12 trillion USD per year, and growing, America may only need to double this amount of military spending in order to keep the world down. I make this assessment based on the information that the United States currently possesses 43% of the world's military capability. This number, when boosted to around 60%% (or greater, since other nation's defense budgets have been steadily decreasing, especially with those progressive Europeans) should be sufficient to hold the world down. In that case, America would be able to both outnumber AND out-tech the rest of the world's militaries. America is currently working on solving the problem with the development of drone combat weapons (pick up a copy of National Geographic, they have a side-article about the next generation of dron fighter/bombers). With drones costing 1/6 of conventional aircraft, America could employ thousands of them and wreak havoc without ever setting foot out of it's borders.

This worries me. This is because that all of that I said up there is only what we KNOW. I can trust the American Department of Defense to keep some trump cards hidden, so we do not know what the true capabilites of the American military are. Now, consider Iraq. Here is a situation in which the American military is hard-pressed to comabt the insurgents. This can be solved by NOT FIGHTING Iraq-style conflicts, and just by bombing everyone else far into the stone age.

Now, it is my OPINION that this MUST NEVER happen. I spoke with the older brother of a good friend of mine, who is a 2nd Lieutenant in the Marine Corps, earlier today. The way to "win" Iraq is to win the hearts and minds of the people. It is up to the soldiers to help out the people whenever possible, to make life better for them, and to heal the wounds of war. Apprently, 95% of the Iraq population DOESN'T want to kill Americans, but that picky 5% can cause a lot of trouble.

It is my sincerest hope that the new President, or Bush, if re-elected, will continue his war on terrorism in the way that it should be continued; to win the HEARTS and MINDS of those the United States shares this world with. Like the troopers in Iraq on a global scale, the US must rebuild, heal, help, and make life better. If that happens, then I think that the rational people of the world will dismiss the wave of terrorism as whackos, and protect the US, which has committed itself to peace and humanity.

However, should America commit herself to peace and humanity, and STILL be attacked, and have countries CONTINUE to threaten her destruction, even after a generation of America working to make the world better, I must say that I do not like the kind of world we live in, from any point of view, and that we, as a species, will get only what we deserve.