Replies

I have nothing against taking out the leaders of a radical group--but how many times do you have to take out "the #3 leader in Al Queda" (as we have in the past) to realize that the cost of one JDAM is a lot more than a couple of a few .35 cent bullets directed by Spec. Ops guys?

One of Peters' sub-theses is that we will soon run out of expensive multi-million dollar technology used against a few 'gooners' in a tent. It's not a smart way to wage war and meet the threat.

You are right. Point taken...the defense industry is way out of control...but so are most gov't programs. My thoughts follow the line of military=technical advancement. It is ugly but true. All the most significant technical advances have come from the military for the sole purpose of killing people and blowing sh-t up. If there is any program that should be bloated it is the military. We just need a sensible defense dept. One can dream.

We know what the Germans would have done in WWII -

We know what we finally did in Japan -

We are not fighting one enemy nation or several axis nations

We are fighting a sub-human 1200 year old insane Islamic cult invented by a mad butcher who "married!" and raped young girls under 8 years old and that sends their sons and daughters to wear bomb-belts to blow up innocent civilians - including other Muslims

Somewhere between the ACLU and killing every Muslim on the planet lies the answer.

That answer is much closer to one than the other.......

All pansies and liberals and delude morons might as well slice off the heads of their children and grandchildren right now if they disagree

have nothing against taking out the leaders of a radical group--but how many times do you have to take out "the #3 leader in Al Queda" (as we have in the past) to realize that the cost of one JDAM is a lot more than a couple of a few .35 cent bullets directed by Spec. Ops guys? One of Peters' sub-theses is that we will soon run out of expensive multi-million dollar technology used against a few 'gooners' in a tent. It's not a smart way to wage war and meet the threat.

First, who do you think provided the coordinates to drop the JDAM? Second, just how many Spec Ops guys do you think it would take to surround a site and effectively neutralize all of the terrorists? Third, I'll bet the cost of insertion, extraction, and logistics support of that small army of Spec Ops folks would cost a hell of a lot more than the cost of the air strike. Forth, what do you think the cost of a JDAM is, anyway, compared to the cost of brinking back the bodies of paying off the insurnace on, providing rehabilitation for, and training the replacements of all of the Spec Ops soldiers you are planning to kill off to save a JDAM?

I don't think you understand what SpecOps folks are actually trained to do and where they are really effective.

One of Peters' sub-theses is that we will soon run out of expensive multi-million dollar technology used against a few 'gooners' in a tent.

This is a fundamental fallacy. A JDAM is not multi-million dollar technology, and we are not going to run out any time soon. That is why we use them, say unlike a Tomahawk missile which is multi-million per copy and which we could easily run out of. We can afford to trade JDAM's against enemy soldiers all day long.