Eisenhowers warning

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
China's biggest military strength is sheer numbers.
They could drag out catapults and fling people at the enemy.

Wrong answer! Nukes more or less eliminate that argument. I'll try to put this in a US context, a country having a nuke is like a private citizen owning a gun. He can get picked on by a mod of made up of a dozen and as long as this gun has at least twelve bullets he should be ok, a machine gun ensures it.
Even if someone in the mob has a 12mm.

[Wezil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: for some reason, i'm a bit doubtful whether you do or not

Originally posted by Heraclitus


The concept of a symbol is difficult to grasp isn't it?

I quoted your confession.

[Patroklos]

Yes I do. I just want them to have other interests.

Ah yes, well that is the trick, in so many things

I'll try to put this in a US context, a country having a nuke is like a private citizen owning a gun.

Well like guns, in order to use a nukes you have to be attacked by one to retaliate with one in most cases.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Well like guns, in order to use a nukes you have to be attacked by one to retaliate with one in most cases.

cough *WW2 *cough

There are *plenty* of situations were nukes can be used...

[Ecthy]

The American aim in WW2 was (for whatever reason) the total surrender of its enemies, which in the case of Japan was the more diffciult to achieve for geographic reasons. This is not a war goal that is typical in wars today, let alone in geo-strategic situations like the one in summer of 1945.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
Eisenhower's warning (and what he predicted) is older than me. Do we have an Ancient History subforum?

Yeah, wherever you post.

[Wezil]

[Patroklos]

cough *WW2 *cough

There are *plenty* of situations were nukes can be used...

If by plenty, you mean one, and if my one, you mean that one where were were at the conclusion of a total war and operating under 19th century concepts of warfare and morality for the most part, then yes there are *plenty.*

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Ah yes, well that is the trick, in so many things

The trick is cut your job.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by VJ
See, Eisenhower constantly had talks with Republican congressional leaders and was worried of how Republicans were slowly trying to turn the issue of "STRONG DEFENSE TO PROTECT AMERICA!" into their advantage by becoming even bigger spenders on military pork than the Democrats were (something which, sure enough, did happen). He sensed a lot of trouble if this path would continue and warned the voters to judge the increasing influence of the defense industry more carefully in the future.

Just in case, let me tell you that it does not mean that he prophetically predicted that BU****LER would come and start zillions of wars with foreign countries because of the evil MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and BLOOD FOR OIL.

because we all know that prophets do not exist, and he did not need to dream up this scenario, as an appropriate farewell speech. Even if it was a prophecy, it was a good one, so it counts and BU****LER I don't read forums often enough, never seen this one before

MIC's problem, as a citizen interest group, is that the ONLY way they are going to grow, make money, expand, be healthy as a business is that US taxpayers via US gov shower them with dollars.

And really the only way this is ever going to happen post cold war, is to have some sort of big conflict going... a position which easily gets in conflict with the normal peaceful ideas that the rest of citizenry have... I mean even RIAA does not need war to make money, they "only" need to sue single mothers, which really pales in comparison to expanding a market for killing more effectively.

In any case with Neocons they found someone capable of hacking the gov, with their viewpoint on the back of compassionate conservativism marketing campaign... and I bet they are happy with US taxpayers showering them with 1/2 trillion extra for security during last few years... Not to forget that Clinton was as well spending some hard earned taxpayers money on few occassions, showering other countries with explosive gifts made in USA, but surely Bush was a dream come true to MIC.

Well Ike, might just as well dreamed it all up, neverthelles it would not have made it any less valuable. But as you say, there were many "current" reasons back than to make him feel this is the message the American people need to hear. One way or another I do not think Bush, Clinton or anyone else coming in the future will be coming with this type of farewell message. I'd say Ike was saying farewell to the way US used to be. Bush will for sure to come out with: "Terrorsts, terrorists, terrorists, but do not be afraid we will prevail."(and in the back room somewhere in Pentagon new Haliburton executive will be signing a 2 year 25bn extension to their contract to provide troops with clean clothing in Iraq and other amenities)...

Well in the end someone has to call the shots. For groups other than MIC there just isn't that much $$$ reward in controlling the government, so they don't try as hard. RIAA for example only needs a few laws to be passed, and they are set... no need for the president to justify its existance in every budget.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If by plenty, you mean one, and if my one, you mean that one where were were at the conclusion of a total war and operating under 19th century concepts of warfare and morality for the most part, then yes there are *plenty.*

You do have a point in the fact that nukes are more likely to be used in total war...

But you can't deny that in a stalemate of a symmetrical conflict (since most of the post WW2 conflicts involving the US were based on asymmetrical warfare) one side or the other would use nuclear weapons eventually if no peace was reached before hand...

BTW 19th century concepts of morality and warfare may in some aspects be superior to our own, if however hopelessly naive... And the 19th century concpet of morality in warfare and the treatment of civilians died a lot earlier... (WWI)

[Riesstiu IV]

Oh give me a break. 19th century concepts of warfare and morality superior to my own? Yeah I'm sure people all over the world appreciated the moral superiority and civil warfare that came rampant European imperialism, systematic enslavement and relegation of native populations to 2nd class citizens, and those oh so wonderful mass slaughters in places like the Belgian Congo. Or how about the use of concentration camps on South African Boer women and children?

[Meticulous Man]

Heraclitus' "intelligent spam"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Wright_Mills

The Power Elite (1956) describes the relationship between the political, military, and economic elite (people at the pinnacles of these three institutions), noting that these people share a common world view:

the military metaphysic: a military definition of reality
possess class identity: recognizing themselves separate and superior to the rest of society
have interchangibility: they move within and between the three institutional structures and hold interlocking directorates
cooptation / socialization: socialization of prospective new members is done based on how well they "clone" themselves socially after such elites
These elites in the "big three" institutional orders have an "uneasy" alliance based upon their "community of interests" driven by the military metaphysic, which has transformed the economy into a 'permanent war economy'.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
Oh give me a break. 19th century concepts of warfare and morality superior to my own? Yeah I'm sure people all over the world appreciated the moral superiority and civil warfare that came rampant European imperialism, systematic enslavement and relegation of native populations to 2nd class citizens, and those oh so wonderful mass slaughters in places like the Belgian Congo. Or how about the use of concentration camps on South African Boer women and children?

What I mean, was morality in "war" amongst what they considered civilized nations, not the oppression of their own citizens or colonial subjects...

The Second Boer War, does support you're case because it was fought at the turn of the century...

BTW Good to see colonialism still strikes a nerve, perhaps something can be done about neocolonialism after all...