Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

World Police, we can take on the world, we could win a land war in Asia, god damn it!

24 (20.9%)

Matched Force, enough power to take on any other nation one on one and win

34 (29.6%)

Force Projection, enough to have influence around the world, but no real capability for a full on war in a foreign nation

10 (8.7%)

Fulfilling Treaty Obligations, no more

22 (19.1%)

Homeland Defense, no more

16 (13.9%)

Nuclear Deterrent is enough

4 (3.5%)

We need no military power at all

5 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 115

[Taniec]

Well, I voted World Police to be a dick. I probably wasn't the only one.

Somone a few posts back made a point about biological warfare. If you have been paying attention to the [American] media over the past several years a lot of the bigger cities have disaster plans and drills for these plans in effect just in case of a biological attack. I do strongly agree that preventative research must increased for public saftey reasons. But I gurantee you right now there is some crazy ass pathogen in some nation's arsenal that wipes the floor and is more deadly than anything out there. If/when a large scale conflict breaks out in the future it might not be a bad idea to invest in a gas mask and bio-hazard suit or two.

*Puts on tin foil hat*

[Lord Shonus]

To put it simply, biological weapons are militarily useless. They're impossible to predict, extremely obvious, and pose a very real threat of backbiting. The chief use of biowar, terror, is better accomplished by suicide troops or nuclear weapons. This, more than humanitarian reasons, s why they were banned.

[Lagslayer]

Well, being paranoid means you tend not to have too little protection.

[Taniec]

To put it simply, biological weapons are militarily useless. They're impossible to predict, extremely obvious, and pose a very real threat of backbiting. The chief use of biowar, terror, is better accomplished by suicide troops or nuclear weapons. This, more than humanitarian reasons, s why they were banned.

I'd argue that bioweapons are more of a civilian threat than a military one, but I'm no expert.

[Lord Shonus]

Targeting of civilians for military purposes is still a military operation. It is the scenario I posited. Even with a perfect (long enough incubation to spread before being detected, short enough not to burn out of control)  agent, it is impossible to predict casualties. The difference between infecting a few dozen people at a convention and infecting half the planet could be something as small as a few degrees different ambient temperature, or an airline delay. It's an adequate terror weapon, but a dozen suicide bombers could reap the same effect (hell, they DID reap the same effect) for a massively smaller cost both in cash and goodwill, whereas most nations powerful enough to use them openly (or even covertly, another flaw is that the disease is traceable to a much greater degree than most weapons) have nuclear arms for their bullying.

[DJ]

If you don't have a military you can't declare bankruptcy without foreclosure.

[counting]

There is no rule book in battlefield and war. Targeting civilians are as old as war itself. Even war strategy games openly admitting this form of strategy. Destroy the will of enemy soldiers' family is a good way of destroy their army. And army supplies will be harder. It's simple as that. And only people lived in U.S for escaping WWI and WWII, make aware of this awful truth in war after 9/11.

[Lord Shonus]

That's very true. Bioweapons were not banned because of any humanitarian concern. THey were banned because they might as well have "Incredibly Stupid Weapon - Do not Use" stamped on them. A weapon that turns on it's wielder as easily as it's target is worse than useless.

[Onlyhestands]

I think having a powerful Military is important, but our current levels/spending is excessive.

[GlyphGryph]

I think having a powerful Military is important, but our current levels/spending is excessive.

Why?

[Strife26]

That's very true. Bioweapons were not banned because of any humanitarian concern. THey were banned because they might as well have "Incredibly Stupid Weapon - Do not Use" stamped on them. A weapon that turns on it's wielder as easily as it's target is worse than useless.

Not really. It's mostly the fact that they really really really fuck stuff up, to the point where you have whole companies rendered blind because of gas, as well as the fact that they're very costly to civilians and innately indiscriminate. There's a nice chapter in Red Storm Rising (Strife's favoritest book ever) about them, which is pretty scary. Scary enough that the Soviets decided not to use them.

However, your post on the US's historical drawdown tendencies and current obligations was spot on and said what I wanted to say much better than I said it.

[thobal]

That's very true. Bioweapons were not banned because of any humanitarian concern. THey were banned because they might as well have "Incredibly Stupid Weapon - Do not Use" stamped on them. A weapon that turns on it's wielder as easily as it's target is worse than useless.

Not really. It's mostly the fact that they really really really fuck stuff up, to the point where you have whole companies rendered blind because of gas, as well as the fact that they're very costly to civilians and innately indiscriminate. There's a nice chapter in Red Storm Rising (Strife's favoritest book ever) about them, which is pretty scary. Scary enough that the Soviets decided not to use them.

However, your post on the US's historical drawdown tendencies and current obligations was spot on and said what I wanted to say much better than I said it.

The discussions in RSR were all about chemical weapons.

[Strife26]

Chemical/Biological is largely an academic difference, basically the same protective measures, with similar problems with delivery for terrorists, and controlling the effect for militaries. 

[thobal]

Chemical/Biological is largely an academic difference, basically the same protective measures, with similar problems with delivery for terrorists, and controlling the effect for militaries.

Pull the other one(leg).

[Tyler6498]

I believe a strong military is the only way we can keep the peace, nothing like a world police, but something that would allow us to take down a nation and there ally without the use of nuclear warfare. Throughout history the well being of a country was usually based on who had the better army, if you had a weaker army you would usually be striked down and added to the stronger nation, which is turn would give them more people for there military. Nobody leaves anybody alone and the only way to keep people from messing you up is by having a larger protection than they have force.

Besides if we dropped our military right now to a low amount we would be endangering not only ourselves, but many other countries too. For instance, let's say your town's police were weakened down to about two or three policemen and a police car, people who have never even thought of doing shit would start doing theft and things, because they know the only thing stopping them is weakened down and this wouldn't be JUST in your town either, nearby towns might go over and start doing things and eventually you got yourself a living ghetto. (Since towns of the same country can't annex each other or force governments.

So in short, people do things if they can get away with it. (and sometimes do anyway)