From: Dougster 30/06/00 15:55:19 Subject: warfare post id: 92223 Ok - here is one for ya folks: just been reading the 'talking to aliens' thread and some folks reckoned we should tool up in case any green men come with big guns. the flip side was any advanced race would be beyond all that etc etc so the question is - does anyone reckon humans will figure out a way to resolve differences without warfare? Or figure out how not to have differences? The most technologically advanced nation state on Earth is the US and they have a big fuck-off army and they have been in some sort of warfare continuously since WWII. Indeed the driving force for technological advancement has been the nation-state - invented 4 to 500 hundred years ago - and the thing that created it (or the main factor) was warfare. So given that the most advanced societies that humans have created so far are war machines - how are we going to escape um war? From: Chris (Avatar) 30/06/00 16:02:38 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92228 Personal opinion mode: We (where we is defined as any group of humans) seem to unite best when faced with a common adversary. I think while we're trapped on this rock and appear to be alone we'll always be fighting. We don't have natural enemies, we're at the top of the tree at the minute and we need something to fight against because that's the way we are. So I think the first time we'll unite is when we start sending people off the planet (cause then we can define the whole planet as "us" and still have a "them"). Pessimistic, yeah sure, but have a look around you. Peaceful utopia is a myth. Evolution and survival is about competition. Cheers Chris From: Dougster 30/06/00 16:15:45 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92232 Sorry Chris I don't agree in the slightest. Our evolutionary success was precisely because we co-operated with each other not competed. I also don't think it's in our nature to be always fighting - that's a Hobbessian idea 'life is short nasty and brutish' every man is our for himself etc etc As for peaceful utopia - I agree utopia is an ideal which probably can never be reached - but the peaceful part, that's different. From: Chaingun ® 30/06/00 16:19:53 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92236 Once an armed force gets above a certain size it tends to take on a life of its own. It has an annual budget which it jealously guards, it has men in charge who wish to aggrandise themselves, it has parasites which feed off it (arms industry)and so forth. And every so often it has to go out and flex its muscles. While we as humans look jealously at the people on the other side of the river who look and speak a little different to us, warfare will always be with us. From: Gary 30/06/00 16:25:32 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92242 Actually, I would think survival of the fitest is predominant in human culture. Once they're threatened, or just feel threatened, you'd be suprised at what people would do to "protect" themselves. Just look at the NRA (ooo... I'm going to cop it from someone over that). Any contact with an alien race would have to be conducted with great caution... From: Chaingun ® 30/06/00 16:28:28 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92246 By the way, while the US indeed has a powerful army, it's their NAVY which really makes them a world power. It's been estimated that the US Navy could take on every other navy in the world SIMULTANEOUSLY and win. There is literally NOTHING in the world to match the force-projecting power of a Nimitz-class carrier battle group. With this power, they can shut down the sea lanes of any country they don't like. I find this a little unsettling... From: Chris (Avatar) 30/06/00 16:33:29 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92248 Sorry Chris I don't agree in the slightest. Your prerogative! :o) Our evolutionary success was precisely because we co-operated with each other not competed. I don't think you can exclude competition from collaberation. I can't remember the name of the scenario (I'm sure someone else will jump in with it) but models of collaberative/competitive behaviour seem to indicate that both are required for optimal progression. The example I had in mind was of a society in which some people obey the law (cooperate) and some do not (compete). This is vastly simplified because there are just two strategies to choose from, but the result is still that elements of both result in the fastest progression. But this is just strategy on a human scale. Unconscious evolutionary strategy (eg mutation vs mutation) is built on competition (and cooperation). Eg the success of predator-prey interrelationships require that predators compete against prey to evolve: the prey evolves a new defensive strategy which forces the predator to evolve to compete or die out. In a way this is cooperative too - any may even involve individual cooperation. But the moment the species runs out of competition it starts to lose adaptability and that's evolutionary trouble. Once again its oversimplistic to cast our every single action in terms of an evolutionary goal, but I think competitiveness is a reasonably easily explain strategem. We compete every day in some way or other to improve ourselves. I also don't think it's in our nature to be always fighting - that's a Hobbessian idea 'life is short nasty and brutish' every man is our for himself etc etc Haha... Hobbes was a star, no? :o) (I was always of the impression he had tongue firmly planted in one cheek!) In any case I think competition is not necessarily brutish, nasty or Hobbesian, I think that's a pretty miopic description - as I hope I've explained above. Cheers Chris From: Cybernaut ® 30/06/00 16:44:14 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92254 Dougster, your disagreement with Chris seems a little hard to understand. On the one hand you postulate that technology is the direct result of warfare, whilst on other, go on to discount competitive principles in human nature. Warfare is competition in raw, unadulterated form. Human beings have cooperatively produced few things of military significance (for example, I don’t recall the Manhattan project being a collaboration between the Reichstag and the U.S. Congress). I could not agree with the comment ‘Peaceful utopia is a myth. Evolution and survival is about competition.’ that Chris made more. It would be lovely, but then so would perpetual motion. From: Anthony 30/06/00 17:06:56 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92260 so the question is - does anyone reckon humans will figure out a way to resolve differences without warfare? Or figure out how not to have differences? I really despise formulating an opinion that is based on the plot of a movie, however I have made an exception with this particular movie. Now with that exemption clause in pace..... Many of you will have seen the movie "FightClub". Amongst a number of interesting themes, one seemed to be that you can't subdue the aggressive trait that has developed in man over tens of thousands of years in a few centuries. Part of our central survival instinct is to regress to aggression and therein violence to resolve problems. As sad as this sounds, it may take "Man-kind" many more years to truly overcome this natural instinct. In all reality warfare cannot be avoided, we simply cannot resolve our differences with words. Different value systems throughout the world, different cultures etc. will in many cases conflict with each other and may leave no alternative than violence to resolve matters. I now descend from my soapbox. (Sorry people, I got a bit carried away). From: Dougster 30/06/00 17:32:52 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92276 I'll answer cybernaut first: 'you postulate that technology is the direct result of warfare' No I didn't - I said our most advanced societies to date were created from warfare. Warfare has been the most succesful engine of technological advance so far. However technological advances have taken place before (or independently of) warfare. Warfare has merely accelerated advance. This doesn't preclude an advanced non-warmongering society being able to exist. (but at the moment it couldn't - if a peaceful society were to spring into existence tomorrow then existing warrior societies would force it to go to war - or be conquered). 'Peaceful utopia is a myth. Evolution and survival is about competition' You must seperate the terms 'peaceful' and 'utopia' Utopia is an ideal society (presumably an ideal society is peaceful - so using peaceful before utopia is redundant - like saying homicidal murderer) I said earlier utopia is an ideal never to be reached - but a peaceful society? Can a peaceful society be achieved? Chris: 'the success of predator-prey interrelationships require that predators compete against prey to evolve' Surely the predator isn't competing with its prey? Its eating it not competing with it. A predator would be competing against other predator species. 'But the moment the species runs out of competition it starts to lose adaptability' ??? How so? From: Alexander 30/06/00 18:50:19 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92300 It is in human nature to fight the "other". I think the only way humans will stop fighting each other is if we are attacked by a common enemy such as hostile ETs. Some people say that over time, we can "learn" to live in peace with ourselves and other civilizations. I really doubt that because aggression is so deeply ingrained in our evolutionary makeup. Ask yourself: Is there any evolutionary pressure that can reduce aggression so that future generations might evolve to live in peace? For this to be true, the following must be demonstrated : - groups/nations can acquire inheritable traits that make them less aggressive. - less aggressive groups/nations are more successful, ensuring higher rate of reproduction, compared to their more aggressive competitors. Clearly, this is not true in today's world. In fact, competition is getting tougher for ever dwindling resources, leading to more desperate conflicts. If a nation suddenly decides to fully disarm and not seek the protection of a powerful ally, it'll be overrun by its neighbour in no time. Its people, if not exterminated, will be assimilated into the culture of the conquerer. Just suppose there are some aliens that don't have a violent bone in their bodies. They evolved in a very comfortable environment, and never developed any concept of weapons of war or the need for them. How long do you think they'll last if they ever meet up with a warring civilization that possesses weapons that have been refined over the ages? For this reason, I believe that if such peaceful aliens exist, they must keep a low profile. Consequently, this also means that we are less likely to contact them. By this reasoning, if we do meet an alien civilization boldly extending its reaches into space, I think it is more likely that they have some form of weaponary and aggressive instincts. Another way of thinking about this is to put yourself in the shoes of the hypothetical alien. If you are an advanced peace-loving alien, why would you want to share your knowledge and technology with an aggressive (but resourceful) species like humans? It makes more sense to keep away from the Sol system altogether, or even try to contain humans from expanding into neighbouring systems. On the other hand, if you are a more military minded alien, it makes perfect sense to launch a preemptive strike while you have a technological edge. Similarly, if you are an alien seeking to exploit the resources of other planets, it'll also make perfect sense to conquer Earth before humans become too strong. In my opinion, the absence of alien attack on Earth might indicate either: - there are no advanced hostile aliens near our system, or - we have been very lucky to avoid detection. Does anyone see any flaw in my logic? Alex. From: Cybernaut ® 30/06/00 18:52:50 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92303 Dougster, evolution tends to promote two broad types of mutation. The first are those that garner advantages that enhance reproductive success, whilst the second are those that contribute to the survival and general vitality of the organism before reproduction. Neutral traits or disadvantages that do not markedly affect the survival or reproductive fitness of the organism could generally be expected to remain within the genome. Most of the instincts that we recently so desparately required to compete on the open savanagh, are still with us on that basis alone. Man is instinctively teritorial. Territoriality leads to nationalism and nationalism equals war. There is intense competition within a species for the right to pass on the genoplasm. That not withstanding, within a species, cooperation strategies are often critical to the survival of the group. Those concepts are in equalibrium for a species that has survived to date using such a strategy. The same concept is equally applicable to humans. Technology is developed in the presence of that same paradoxical equalibrium. The precence of one includes the other. Splitting them up is nonsensical, regardless of the premise. Incidentally, eating something is the ultimate form of reproductive competition, as the consumed organism tends to stop reproducing. Predators do indeed compete with prey, and their prey compete right back at them. For want of an example: prey mutates for thicker skin whilst the predator evolves larger piercing fangs to combat its impending starvation. You may be correct in saying that I overstepped the mark commenting about technogenisis. You say technologies 'were created from warfare' and I said that you said that technology 'is the direct result of warfare'. One is a comment on the ingredients of warfare technology, whilst the other is a cause and effect statement. Non the less, I was generally correct in the general thrust whence paraphrasing you. However you implication is that the chain of effect is warfare begat advanced society begat technology, and I implied that you said warfar begat technology. I agree, either way. I'm not quite sure if your are playing advocate or taking a position. If you are taking up a position, then you will have to show the link between peacefully coexisting humans living in a society that has, by your admission, rapidly advanced technologically, and an eternally peaceful society. Yes, technically a 'peaceful utopia' is a tautology, or is it? It would be perfectly valid to say a warmongers utopia. Utopia is a real or imagined place that is said to be perfect or ideal. Perfect means complete, and it does not necessarily have a positive verb implication (although it is most often used that way). Anyway, I just quoted it verbatim from earlier in the thread at any rate (no offence to the quotee). What do you mean that the 'nation state' was invented four to five hundred years ago? How do you define the term 'nation state'? From: Cybernaut ® 30/06/00 19:10:35 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92314 Alexander, There is the possibility that if the said race existed and were technologically advanced enough, their society could take a wait and see approach (and therefore not preemptively strike)! It is after all a huge universe. It really depends on the distribution balance of usable, accessable deposits/exhibits of whatsoever it is deemed a requirement for survival of the species in question. There may be no need for them to do so if it were self evident that their needs would be met. Particularly if they surmised that eventually we could come to the same conclusion. Otherwise I generally agreed with the thrust of your argument. From: James Richmond (Avatar) 30/06/00 19:25:30 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92319 I'd like to try to answer the original question a little more optimistically than most of the contributors so far. so the question is - does anyone reckon humans will figure out a way to resolve differences without warfare? Or figure out how not to have differences? Humans will always have differences and disagree about things. We are all individuals. I sincerely hope that we can grow up a bit and learn to resolve our differences without war. I consider it a sign of enlightenment that some people can resolve even major disagreements without physical violence. As a species, though, humanity has a fair way to go. Several people have brought up our evolutionary heritage. Warfare of a sort has always been necessary in the fight for survival, they say. War is in our genes, they say. This is, to an extent, true. We have been programmed to exercise violence if we need to in order to survive. But we are also free to make choices apart from the dictates of our genes - even in spite of them. Humanity has developed sufficient intelligence to be able to suppress baser instincts and to sometimes look at a bigger picture than just the gratification of self. A large portion of humanity is no longer in a fight for survival. We have time to pursue other goals. With most of the Earth's territories already claimed, there are worthier goals than the acquisition of more territory on Earth. Eventually, lack of space will no longer be a problem for nations, since we will move into outer space. On Earth, lack of space will always be a problem. We can choose to fight over it, or to share it. The current idea of the "nation state" will in the long term become outdated as a political structure. Already we have only one "superpower". As communication improves across the globe, nationalistic barriers will gradually be broken down. You cannot hate someone if you truly understand them. With the dissolution of nations, there will be no need for war (though this unfortunately does not guarantee that it won't happen). JR From: Mars 30/06/00 19:32:10 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92323 "You cannot hate someone if you truly understand them" But what if you truly understand that they are totally detestable? From: Spazgaz (AIT) ® 30/06/00 19:35:39 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92325 Mars, if you fully understand them, you can understand their reasons/motivations for their hatred. Yeah? Thanks. SPAZGAZ (AIT) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 30/06/00 19:36:53 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92326 Chris: I don't think you can exclude competition from collaberation. I can't remember the name of the scenario (I'm sure someone else will jump in with it) but models of collaberative/competitive behaviour seem to indicate that both are required for optimal progression. The example I had in mind was of a society in which some people obey the law (cooperate) and some do not (compete). This is vastly simplified because there are just two strategies to choose from, but the result is still that elements of both result in the fastest progression. Actually, in a simple system where the only choice is to co-operate or defect (do something which gains you a greater advantage at the expense of the other party), the best strategy tends to be "tit for tat". This involves co-operating unless and until the other party defects against you. You then "take revenge", but only sufficient to get back on an even footing again. Once this is achieved, co-operation again becomes the best strategy. Once again its oversimplistic to cast our every single action in terms of an evolutionary goal, but I think competitiveness is a reasonably easily explain strategem. We compete every day in some way or other to improve ourselves. I'm not sure about your last sentence here. Surely most of us aren't in a continuous direct competition with other people. Much of what we do in an effort to improve ourselves is not done at the expense of anyone else. And if I can add a moral judgment here - an effort to improve oneself should not, in my opinion, be at anyone else's expense. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 30/06/00 19:42:46 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92327 I apologise if I start to repeat myself, but I actually feel quite strongly about this. Anthony: In all reality warfare cannot be avoided, we simply cannot resolve our differences with words. Different value systems throughout the world, different cultures etc. will in many cases conflict with each other and may leave no alternative than violence to resolve matters. What about "live and let live"? Agree to differ on certain things? Or reach a compromise? Surely there are very few situations where there is no alternative to war. JR From: Spazgaz (AIT) ® 30/06/00 19:46:48 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92329 I apologise if I start to repeat myself, but I actually feel quite strongly about this. Definetly no need to apologise. Please continue, I find this discussion very enlightening. Thanks. SPAZGAZ (AIT) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 30/06/00 19:51:37 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92331 Alex: Just suppose there are some aliens that don't have a violent bone in their bodies. They evolved in a very comfortable environment, and never developed any concept of weapons of war or the need for them. How long do you think they'll last if they ever meet up with a warring civilization that possesses weapons that have been refined over the ages? For this reason, I believe that if such peaceful aliens exist, they must keep a low profile. It is unlikely that advanced aliens would have survived the evolutionary battle without some concept of weapons. If they choose to be peaceful this does not mean that they must keep a low profile. Having a weapon and using it are two different things. Weapons can be used for self defence as well as attack. I think if you're a peaceful civilisation and you're attacked by a warring civilisation you have every right to defend yourself to the best of your ability. But this doesn't mean you go around attacking other civilsations unprovoked. Another way of thinking about this is to put yourself in the shoes of the hypothetical alien. If you are an advanced peace-loving alien, why would you want to share your knowledge and technology with an aggressive (but resourceful) species like humans? You're right. You may not want to, at least at the present time. You might want to hang around and watch for a while to see if the potential beneficiaries deserve your help or not, or develop to the stage where they might deserve your help. JR From: Min-Zhao Lee (TRO) 30/06/00 21:02:31 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92370 To bring more factors into the argument, realise that how someone thinks has a lot to do with the way they are brought up. If someone has had absolutely no experience of a 'different way' of doing things/thinking, they often find it difficult to see why others use that way. And also, a little word of warning. ... they have a big fuck-off army ... OK, so "This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages. " Note the last sentence. Corrupted individuals are not the exclusive users of this forum. From: DV (Avatar) 30/06/00 22:02:36 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92420 In reply to the first post... One way to avoid war might be to divert all of this expertise, energy, enthusiasm, technology and MONEY towards some worthwhile, constructive goal. I dunno, a manned Mars mission or something... I take your point about the vicious cycle: we have a big army, so we need a war to occupy its time. Shakespeare makes reference to this trend in Hamlet. From: Trev(TAO) ® 1/07/00 1:01:22 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92610 sissors, paper, rock. Trev(TAO) From: Evil Roy Burton ® 1/07/00 1:46:01 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92623 It's been estimated that the US Navy could take on every other navy in the world SIMULTANEOUSLY and win. Incorrect. The US battle plan is to be able to fight 2.5 wars at once; two major battle fronts and a "small" engagement elsewhere. Using convential weapons. But today, they are strapped to fight half a war. The Gulf War demonstrated that. They won, but only because they had a miltary alliance, and the ragheads couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. From: Evil Roy Burton ® 1/07/00 1:54:22 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92625 A defence force is a dynamic organism that must grow and reduce according to the threat. If it is too big, then it becomes uneconomical and wasteful. But if it is too small, it won't be capable of fulfilling it's primary role: avoiding a war by being able to fight one and win. It's the threat of defeat that is the most effective weapon in deterring an agressor. From: B.C. ® 1/07/00 8:20:11 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92654 I like your thoughts on the matter D.V.I think that sought of project would go a long way to unifying and uniting. From: Kate (TUO) ® 1/07/00 11:59:00 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92675 This thread has been bereft of women so far and as we constitute over 50% of the human population you guys are discussing the destruction of (simply because humans have "evolved" to kill things) I just want to say, GET YOUR HAND OFF IT! What would entitle us to determine whether or not we should take life, human or otherwise? Why/ how would a peace loving creature/civilisation even know that it should fear stupid, death happy humans? If they're peace loving, imagining such futile, destructive stupidity would be beyond (or should that be beneath) them. Love of money is the root of all evil and if humans wage war against fellow humans it is usually in order to achieve or maintain some economic/ego based advantage. WWII was preceded by dire economic depression in Germany - therefore nationalism was exploited in order to convince a nation that it should be at war with its neighbours and before that, with its own citizens. Furthermore, Germany had lost territory (and colonies) in WWI so it was avenging or trying to reclaim its former territories and also overcome reparations which crippled the country following WWI. Humans have a capacity for violence in order to defend themselves - aggression is another thing entirely and part of being civilised and intelligent is knowing how and when to control such "instincts". From: Gus ® 1/07/00 12:09:28 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92676 *snicker* From: B.C. ® 1/07/00 12:10:35 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92677 Good onya Kate!could'nt agree more, my sentiments exactly. ps. Are you the same Kate that loves Gough Whitlam so much? From: Di ® 1/07/00 12:14:21 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92678 GET YOUR HAND OFF IT! You mean the trigger, don't you kate :) Time for a group hug. *Huggles* From: Dougster 1/07/00 14:58:35 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92695 Ok, there are quite a few points raised :- Cybernaut you say 'Man is instinctively teritorial'. Maybe. Dunno if I agree with that. In fact I don't think I do - the idea of territory probably only came into existence with the advent of farming 10,000 odd years ago. Before that people were nomadic. "Territoriality leads to nationalism and nationalism equals war." Really from this and the first statement you are saying man is inherently warlike. I don't agree with this. We have all sorts of 'instincts' and (I think someone else said this earlier) we have the ability to transcend them. We are aggressive, selfish and hateful but humans are also capable of mercy, love and generosity. For every 'negative' trait we possess an opposite 'positive' trait. I don't think our 'instincts' can solely account for our wars. More important are societal influences. The societies we live in are a greater influence on our actions I think. If we place too much emphasis on our instincts we are saying that we are as bound by our 'instincts' as a migratory bird. Nationalism is a realtively new phenomenon - as I said the nation state is only 4 to 500 years old. The nation-state being a country with fixed borders, one centralised power that has the monoploy on violence and generally speaking has the loyalty of its subjects/citizens. People haven't been thinking of themselves as a fellow 'countrymen' for all that long. The nation state originated in France and England closely followed by the other European countries in umm roughly the 1500's (if memory serves). Before this borders were permeable and unfixed, power was not wholly centralised - usually it was a monarchy that was rivalled by others for power. People did not see themselves as 'English' or 'French' or whatever. Loyalty was to a village, a liege lord or somesuch not a distant 'crown'. Many countries in the Third World are not nation-states - tribal loyalties are greater, there are competing power structures etc. Consequently those countries that did not form themselves into nation-states were dominated by those that did. The nation-state was an invention. As such it has been the most powerful military unit humans have come up with to date. (Empires are a larger unit again - however going on past performance they seem to be unstable and crumble - Roman, Greek, British, Austro-Hungarian, Persian etc etc. The interesting thing will be to see how long the American empire lasts) 'None the less, I was generally correct in the general thrust whence paraphrasing you. However your implication is that the chain of effect is warfare begat advanced society begat technology, and I implied that you said warfare begat technology' Yes I agree there is a chain of effect - the nation-state is a powerful war machine. War needs advanced technology - advanced tech means a more powerful state - a more powerful state goes to war - which needs more advanced tech - and so on. Humans have come up with a very efficent societal structure that is based on war - which has produced technologically advanced societies. However just cos our advanced societies were created by warfare doesn't mean to say we can't create peaceful societies with advanced tech. Alexander the points you raised: 'It is in human nature to fight the "other". ' 'Some people say that over time, we can "learn" to live in peace with ourselves and other civilizations. I really doubt that because aggression is so deeply ingrained in our evolutionary makeup' I could make a case for humans being inherently pacific. The truth lies somewhere in between aggressive/pacific, I think. People can be aggresive and rape kill and pillage but consider - soldiers before they go to war have to be trained to kill. They are brutalised in order for them to be killing machines. Even then men still suffer shell shock (nowadays called post-traumatic syndrome which is a wishy-washy term). Also the enemy has to be demonised and people taught to hate. So you are not killing people you are exterminating gooks or krauts or sand niggers - all terms used in wars to describe the enemy. When America joined the First World War - the populace at first had no interest in joining the war. A massive propaganda campaign was mounted to demonise the Germans - and it succeeded. This comment from James Richmond: 'The current idea of the "nation state" will in the long term become outdated as a political structure. Already we have only one "superpower". As communication improves across the globe, nationalistic barriers will gradually be broken down.' goes nearest to answering the original question - but - and this is the biggy - what evidence do we have for the nation state becoming outdated? It's thriving at the moment. I think we can substitute the word 'empire' for 'superpower' - the only unique thing about the US is it is the first global empire. As for From: Dougster 1/07/00 15:06:41 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92697 To evil Roy Burton: The US is by no stretch of the imagination 'strapped to fight half a war' The Gulf War demonstarted no such thing - the reason for the alliance was twofold - to make it look as if it wasn't just the US marching in and doing whatever they wanted (which they did) and also - the US didn't want to have to foot all of the bill if it could get others to contribute. Which it manged to do by applying heavy pressure. Also i like that someone objected to my use of the word 'fuck' earlier and yet no-one has said anything about your use of the term 'ragheads'. This as well as being racist is ignorant. Raghead would I imagine refer to turbans - Sikhs wear turbans not muslims. From: Evil Roy Burton ® 1/07/00 16:50:21 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92707 Dougster, I should have been a little more accurate in what I said. The US has a very crediable nuclear capability, enough to ruin anyone's day. But a conventional war, especially a large scale ground war, is beyond their capability without MASSIVE callups, reserve fleet activation, conventional arms stock build-ups, logistical systems, etc. The US could barely meet the demand in troops and supplies for the Gulf war, and could not sustain a prolonged battle. With weaponry costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, you don't keep a few hundred thousand handy like we did with Mk82s. The 'raghead' comment was a cheap shot and I apologise to those offended by it. But I still can't condone people who treat women, children each other, worse than we do. From: Bruce D © 1/07/00 16:58:31 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92710 Dougster, in regards to the US Navy they would be now very hard pressed to be able to fight more than one major war at a time now, A few years ago when Regan was in Power the US Navy had a force of over 600 major warships, these days they are down to around 300 major warships, their big problem now is that that don't have the right force structure for the fleet, too many big expensive ships and not enought escorts to protect them. As an example of lack of escorts the US Navy during the late 70's and 80's built a class of ships (60 odd vessels) that all its primary role was to act as a hugh signature to an emeny's Radar so that they attracted the missiles instead of the carrier, that class of ship which the US Navy has mainly retired is the primary ship of the Royal Australian Navy the FFG's Its a big myth that the US Navy couldn't be defeated, regularly the Royal Australian Navy was able to run rings around the US Navy during the RIMPAC war games, much to the red faces of their senior officers. As to the reference to Ragheads it is a mildly racist term refering to the Arabs, also not all arabs are muslims. Bruce D From: Peter 1/07/00 17:26:01 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92714 Tut tut tut Kate, You have opened up a can of worms!!! I agreed with you until you started with: "Love of money is the root of all evil" Just take a look at people like George Soros who through money have contributed to peace throughout the world. From: Cam ® 1/07/00 18:07:11 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92721 *wakes up* What was that about a manned Mars Mission? :O) From: DV (Avatar) 1/07/00 19:34:23 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92744 the ragheads couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. My only comment about this is that the whole point of the Gulf War was (supposedly) to defend an Islamic, Arab nation. Several of our allies were also Islamic nations. From: Bruce D © 1/07/00 21:49:57 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92793 The only reason that the US was able to put together the Combine forces of Britian, France, Turkey, Saudia Arabia etc was because the Arab countries (including Iran) aggreed to it. If most of the Arab counties around the Persian Gulf were afraid that Iraq would invade them once he had finished looting Kuwait. After all he had tried to invade Iran and that became a eight year long (and very bloody) war with either country the victor. Bruce D From: neil neil 2/07/00 1:55:44 Subject: re: warfare post id: 92931 Better the devil you know than the one you don't. This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.