The AB burns up that kind of coin in a few min..Those skiffs cost millions to sink.. that is one way to lose a war. Go broke fighting it. Every time you see the US GQ Generals sending F16s with $100,000 JDAMS out to kill three Taliban or AQ you are watching the enemy win a fight. The WOT will break US unless someone learns that we are not made of money and if we spend ourselves into the poorhouse AQ and Taliban will win by default.I'm not going to insult you by calling you stupid but I will state that IMHO is that while you may not be ignorant, your response leads me to believe that yours to be one of the greater uneducated naivete postages I've ever seen on this board.
Let's step back to 1860 and examine what we discovered since then. The world was shocked at what we did to ourselves (and in some sense I believe some areas of this country hasn't ever recoverd) over the course of 4 years. Case in point: Vicksburg didn't celebrate fourth of July until the year after VJ day.
After all the lessons learned during that interminable struggle of the mid 1860's, lets fast foward 50+ years. What were the results of when the mighty Army of the Potoamac entered into the fray (one that had been going on for about 4 years at the cost of how many 100,000 thousands?) WE GOT OFF LIGHT no matter how you look at it.
Now lets fast foward another 30 years. What were the results of the Grand Army of the Potomac's first incursion onto the Afrikan continent to address Rommel? And then how did the grand scheme to flank the enemy at Anzio work out
Do you have any clue that McArthur modeled his operation against Inchon according to the Anzio operation plan? There was one major difference between Anzio and Inchon though: McArthur insisted that all the planning officers would partake in the initial wave.
I'm almost certain that without Korea and Vietnam driving the "military/industrial complex", we'd have gotten to the moon before the commies. Conventional wisdeom holds that that objective was a bunch of nonsense and was a waste of time and resources (kind of like today).
Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, the point I'm trying to belabor is that perhaps we should just forget all that wisdom and knowledge, and just hope that we'll never need it again. Pray tell, what just may prevent that?
It is said that "war" is the failure of diplomacy. And so the present day "State Departments" the world over would negiotiate until the stars die out (regardless that there being no hope whatsoever of any resolution).
Let me ask one qwexion:
- how does one negotiate with someby that is irrational.
- can the person that you're negotiating with, who has sworn to destroy you at all costs, be considered rational?
The objective of such a launch was to take out the U.S. Navy fleet in the vicinity of Cuba. Such action could not be without reprisal, and the result of such reprisal would undoubtedly be a large smoking crater in the ground where Cuba once had lain on the world's map.
Kruschev's son said that his father was in quite a pickle. Should a nuclear attack against the U.S.A. occur, then quite frankly Kruschev had two choices in response: suicide or attack the West. The former would've occurred almost immediately through "death by KGB, et ali" due to perceived incompetance (and then all out war would've been launched against the West anyways), or Kruschev could've launched either all out nuclear war against the U.S.A., and then a major assault against Western Europe (or vice versa).
The thing is that in an interview shortly before his death, Guevara was asked about his motivation to launch such nuclear attack against the U.S.A. His response was: "even so such attack would've undoubtedly be the destruction of Cuba, the utter annhilation of the United States of America would be he result."
So the question remains: are we better off now (after 1/2 century post-WWII) or not? And could we benefit from just laying down our arms, and furloughing our soldiers? After all, if we're negotiating with individuals akin to those that I mentioned in '62, it all sounds like a win=win doesn't it? Live and let live, right? What if the person that you've been talking to for the last 50 years has the attitude of ("I live or you die?" or "I die and and you die") is true?
How much of he that "me" thing that is stated concerns "me" not dying? Very little IMHO.
Very little of what you said makes any real sense to me, either in RealPolitik terms, or State Department terms. But then, you can find vindication in that very little of what I've said makes sense to you.
There's a major difference between the action of this:
and this:
Make certain that you get your Arleigh Burke anti-pirate (on the High Seas) operations straight against JDAM strikes.