Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Elegiac]

Here is the problem. You are very optimistic that world problems can be solved by diplomacy.

Sadly, in the real world. There are always assholes & heartless people who will beat you & spit on you for your resources.

So the only thing left is by intimidating assholes into submission. You see this in the judicial system as well, "listen! if you break the law: We are going to fuck you up!" This is to prevent people from committing murder or steal.

Yeah, and we can see just how effective America's judicial system is at stopping crime.

[Jessicka]

Here is the problem. You are very optimistic that world problems can be solved by diplomacy.

Sadly, in the real world. There are always assholes & heartless people who will beat you & spit on you for your resources.

So the only thing left is by intimidating assholes into submission. You see this in the judicial system as well, "listen! if you break the law: We are going to fuck you up!" This is to prevent people from committing murder or steal.

I'm not optimistic about much of anything. It's you that's optimistic that you think you can intimidate and bomb nations into submission. In spite of decades of evidence to the contrary.

[Kellhound]

I'm calling it what it is.

Peace through superior firepower doesn't work, because asymmetric Guerilla warfare exists, it existed in the Napoleonic wars, it existed in Colonial America - and if you don't think the British Imperial forces which controlled 1/3 of the planet's land surface didn't have vastly superior firepower, then you're sadly mistaken.

And mutually assured destruction is not superior firepower, it's very much about being of equally apocalyptic threat. Even that threat of mutual destruction without nuclear power wasn't enough to prevent either World War One or Two either; it's just an arms race. Even here I don't see the USA with its vastly superior firepower challenging China or Russia directly, yet they are all still involved in proxy wars, which are themselves asymmetric, all over the place.

NATO didn't win the Cold War through superior firepower, and Japan had already called for peace (albeit on terms) when the US dropped the bomb, which got those terms dropped, but was itself an asymmetric threat to the Soviet Union which was at the time out of reach of that nuclear threat, and perceived to be a threat to US forces in Europe.

So again, peace through superior firepower just doesn't work. Humans are just too stubborn to accept that kind of defeat, history is full of it, and heroes are made of it when they find their way through it.

WWII was a case of war through inferior firepower.

[breadisfunny]

Nuclear weapons and liquid fuel rockets are WWII tech. In conventional warfare, technology is very important.

thermonuclear warheads are cold war era tech. there have been many advancements in the space of nuclear weapons that are much more recent.

[breadisfunny]

WWII was a case of war through inferior firepower.

no world war ii was a case of hitler opening up too many fronts at once.

[Jessicka]

WWII was a case of war through inferior firepower.

That's not how the Nazis saw it. The rest of Europe had been underfunding and underresourcing their militaries since the end of WW1 relative to the German rebuilding. They thought it would be an easy win through superior firepower.

[Elegiac]

go to prison and look at the criminals there and tell me how bad the judicial system is.

Given the high rates of recidivism?

Pretty goddamn awful.

[Kellhound]

No one fights a conventional war against America.

Because they know they would lose. That is the entire point. Unconventional warfare only works against attempts to occupy territory.

- - - Updated - - -

thermonuclear warheads are cold war era tech. there have been many advancements in the space of nuclear weapons that are much more recent.

But those are not what is in play vs North Korea.

[Jessicka]

Because they know they would lose. That is the entire point. Unconventional warfare only works against attempts to occupy territory.

And still you keep trying.

[Kellhound]

no world war ii was a case of hitler opening up too many fronts at once.

That was the cause of his defeat, but not the war itself.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how the Nazis saw it. The rest of Europe had been underfunding and underresourcing their militaries since the end of WW1 relative to the German rebuilding. They thought it would be an easy win through superior firepower.

Think about what you just said......

[Kellhound]

And still you keep trying.

That is what happens when you forget the lessons on how to win an occupation.

[Jessicka]

Think about what you just said......

I did. Maybe you missed the point. They didn't win, and Occupied Europe was far from peaceful.

- - - Updated - - -

That is what happens when you forget the lessons on how to win an occupation.

The lesson is, you don't.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...-strike-2020-1

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was furious on Wednesday following a Senate briefing on President Donald Trump's decision to order an airstrike that killed Iran's Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, bringing tensions with Iran to a boiling point.

Lee told reporters that he "walked into that briefing undecided" on whether to support a War Powers Resolution being pushed by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. The resolution would limit the Trump administration's ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

"That briefing is what changed my mind," Lee said. "I'm now going to support it."

He went on to call the briefing "probably the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, I've seen in nine years I've been here."

So again, the Trump administration continues to be incompetent and not be able to sufficiently explain their actions, even to their own party.

[Kellhound]

I did. Maybe you missed the point. They didn't win, and Occupied Europe was far from peaceful.

- - - Updated - - -



The lesson is, you don't.

No you didnt. Peace through superior firepower is a DEFENSIVE concept.

The post-WWII occupation of western Germany and Japan seems to have gone quite well.

[Jessicka]

No you didnt. Peace through superior firepower is a DEFENSIVE concept.

The post-WWII occupation of western Germany and Japan seems to have gone quite well.

They were protected by Mutually Assured Destruction. That's not superior firepower, it's the fucking apocalypse. Actual apocalypse. Not some namby pamby scorched earth WW1 type devastation.

[zealo]

Because they know they would lose. That is the entire point. Unconventional warfare only works against attempts to occupy territory.

- - - Updated - - -



But those are not what is in play vs North Korea.

North Korea supposedly has Hydrogen bombs.

The sketchy part for them as of now is delivery systems, but that's a work in progress for them.

[Kellhound]

They were protected by Mutually Assured Destruction. That's not superior firepower, it's the fucking apocalypse. Actual apocalypse. Not some namby pamby scorched earth WW1 type devastation.

Actually, MAD took some time to come into affect after WWII.

[Jessicka]

Actually, MAD took some time to come into affect after WWII.

The time between the end of the war and MAD was filled with fatigue and demilitarisation, not escalation.

[Kellhound]

North Korea supposedly has Hydrogen bombs.

The sketchy part for them as of now is delivery systems, but that's a work in progress for them.

The size of the largest NK nuclear test was about 1/2 the size of the largest fission bomb the US ever tested, so there is no actual proof they have a thermonuclear bomb, let alone a small (size wise) one.

[Slant]

So, did we ever find out any even vague details about this "imminent threat" that apparently justified this assassination? I can't see to find one, so far.

You actually expect one? Let me know and I've got some WMD to show you.

- - - Updated - - -

Just look at this very thread. Or just about every other thread in this forum - people are having totally insane outburst of panic and doom scenarios. Generation of pussies really. Slightest breeze is proclaimed to be a titanic storm in making.

It's ok, sometimes a well placed strength applied at right time is good, not WWIII.

The only ones talking about WW3 are Americans. Personally, I think it's because they like to jerk off to WW2 and want to have a repeat of that. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I'm only wrong to some extent. Bread and games. The typical American loves to watch himself some war entertainment. That is just a fact demonstrated by the need of virtually every network to show as much warfare as they possibly can at the beginning of any American war. There is profit in that. Of course, at some point, mostly when it's relatives and families you know that lose people, the typical American will do a 180° and pretend they hated war all along. Until, of course, a year later when they forgot all about the first one or, if they have better memory, are venting with rage at everyone not American, because the world is to blame for the loss of their family members...