1 posted on
01/12/2006 11:16:16 AM PST by
Fiji Hill
To: Fiji Hill
would reserve the right to respond to Communist aggression with "massive rataliatory poser" I know it's a typo, but it does accurately describe the Clinton policy.
2 posted on
01/12/2006 11:18:51 AM PST by
atomicpossum
(If I don't reply, don't think you're winning. I often just don't bother to argue.)
To: Fiji Hill
Looking for a strategy that competes with the "Massive Retaliation" strategy...
3 posted on
01/12/2006 11:20:08 AM PST by
Paloma_55
(Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
To: Fiji Hill; neutronsgalore; DTogo; TomasUSMC
Massive retaliation ping!
![](http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/SAC.jpg)
Because sometimes...
![](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/07/21/sights.sounds/lbj1/macnamara.lg.jpg)
...empty sac just won't cut it.
![](http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0900/media/0901_012101.jpg)
Got SAC?
4 posted on
01/12/2006 11:40:31 AM PST by
fallujah-nuker
(America needs more SAC and less empty sacs.)
To: Fiji Hill
"Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power. A potential aggressor must know that he cannot always prescribe battle conditions that suit him. Otherwise, for example, a potential aggressor, who is glutted with manpower, might be tempted to attack in confidence that resistance would be confined to manpower. He might be tempted to attack in places where his superiority was decisive."Obviously LBJ didn't buy this. So in Vietnam we ended up with the aggressor prescribing "battle conditions that suit him" and "glutted with manpower" the NVA were able to attack in confidence that resistance would be confined to manpower, i.e. no U.S. ground attacks into North Vietam (to force NVA troops to remain in defensive positions in the North) for fear of provoking China and the Soviets.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson