Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apocalypse Later- How America can use technology and diplomacy to keep her enemies at bay
The Prometheus Institute ^ | 8/24/2006 | Jason Treece

Posted on 08/24/2006 7:32:47 AM PDT by tang0r

This "War on Terror" is not one with clear objectives, such as "if we take this town and this bridge, we will have accomplished our objective." Today's complex battles are conducted with precision weapons with the accuracy of a laser to destroy cancer and based on detailed intelligence gathering. There is no longer the need to blow up an entire city when only a handful of buildings harbor the enemy.

(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: diplomacy; iraq; libertarian; military; technology; terrorism; war

1 posted on 08/24/2006 7:32:50 AM PDT by tang0r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tang0r

"This "War on Terror" is not one with clear objectives,...."

COUNTEROFFENSIVE TO ISLAMIC JIHAD
COUNTEROFFENSIVE TO ISLAMIC JIHAD
COUNTEROFFENSIVE TO ISLAMIC JIHAD
COUNTEROFFENSIVE TO ISLAMIC JIHAD
COUNTEROFFENSIVE TO ISLAMIC JIHAD

"War on Terror" is just plain wrong, misleading,and inadequate in many ways!


2 posted on 08/24/2006 7:36:10 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

We need to use more technology (guided missiles, bombs, etc.) and much less diplomacy when dealing with islamists.

Save diplomacy for people who don't cherish the thought of their own deaths.


3 posted on 08/24/2006 7:38:16 AM PDT by 308MBR (Dar el Harb feels one 1,400 year long "Jihad" is enough for one planet. Bye, goat pokers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tang0r

The article confuses "Wars" and "battles" as the same which is not a reasonable position but the summary bothers me most in this embracing our allies clap. When have we had allies that we could, or would be our equal allies?

A nation has to do what a nation has to do to survive and the hell with embracing anying except killing your enemy.


4 posted on 08/24/2006 7:40:13 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

This approach may well produce never-ending war. "There is no longer the need to blow up an entire city when only a handful of buildings harbor the enemy."


5 posted on 08/24/2006 7:49:39 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tang0r
This "War on Terror" is not one with clear objectives, such as "if we take this town and this bridge, we will have accomplished our objective."

Sure it is. If we eliminate Islam from the face of the planet, we will have accomplished our objective.

6 posted on 08/24/2006 7:58:13 AM PDT by thoughtomator (There is no "Islamofascism" - there is only Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tang0r

Unfortunately we will ultimately have to blow up entire cities and at least one entire country if we are going to win the Islamic War. The Mohammedans have to suffer a very visible very spectacular defeat, something akin to obliteration, to convince them that Allah does not will them to prevail in this generation. All the surgical precision in the world just convinces them they are on the right path because Allah is keepng the cities and most of the population from destruction.


7 posted on 08/24/2006 7:59:20 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

We are ingaged in The Islamic War. That is what it is.


8 posted on 08/24/2006 8:00:09 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

Exactly my thoughts.

Firstly, the US is not "blowing up the entire city", and has not in the most recent conflicts ever since the push towards tactical missle and precision bombing strikes.

The enemy knows that we along with Israel try to target precisely, which is why groups like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda specifically launch rockets, plan, and hideout from civilian homes.

All of the whining by the international community about civilian deaths due to precision strikes, however regrettable they are, is empty rhetoric when one considers what our true capabilities are.

Plain and simple, we "could" fire up those good ol' B-52s and carpet bomb cities to target enemies, but we do not, because for all of the neo-communist and jihadi whining, they know deep down that if we wished, we could obliterate whole societies and countries in our zeal to target terrorists.

There is NOT an everlasting fount of islamic radicals being born who will grow up to hate. Cultures have been forced to change their views through force from other cultures plenty of times throughout world history.

Our benevolence is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.


9 posted on 08/24/2006 8:05:30 AM PDT by Muttering Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Muttering Mike; All

Yes we will end up unsheathing the sword one of these days. Until a few islamic cities are annihilated they won't understand that they must end their belligerence.

I propose making a well published list of Islamic cities. Publish a warning, in all islamic media, that for each terrorist strike (attempted or successful) we will torch one of those cities, chosen at random.

I believe that should put a dent in terrorist activity very quickly.


10 posted on 08/24/2006 8:19:53 AM PDT by farlander (Strategery - sure beats liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: farlander

Don't choose them at random. Wipe out the home villages of major terrorist leaders.


11 posted on 08/24/2006 8:22:53 AM PDT by Defiant (Let the Muzzies travel on their own airlines so they don't endanger the rest of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Random is to force the masses to turn them in. If you live in one of those, and you see a wanted terrorist, I think you'd have a good reason to call that in.

The idea is not revenge, but deterrence, and denial of sanctuary.


12 posted on 08/24/2006 8:29:35 AM PDT by farlander (Strategery - sure beats liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

This approach may well produce never-ending war. "There is no longer the need to blow up an entire city when only a handful of buildings harbor the enemy."

And we are thankful that our fathers and grandfathers had more sense than to attemp this half-assed appoach with Germany and Japan or we would still be fighting.


13 posted on 08/24/2006 8:39:41 AM PDT by newcthem (Brought to you by the INFIDEL PARTY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tang0r

Bump


14 posted on 08/24/2006 9:23:45 AM PDT by Valin (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tang0r
there is no longer the need to blow up an entire city when only a handful of buildings harbor the enemy.

But we can definitely still blow up the entire city. Great to have a range of options.

15 posted on 08/24/2006 10:45:57 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Muttering Mike

Next time, the ommunication satellites should go first. Let the "journalists" file their reports by carrier pidgeons. NGO's, too.


16 posted on 08/24/2006 12:39:24 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson