1. #2341
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    There is a larger plan behind it. Stop allowing the U.S. to be attacked with impunity. The policy is separate from the man.
    And who is heading this policy the decider that will be consistent and clear again

  2. #2342
    The failings of deterrence is covered here

    https://www.nato.int/docu/review/art...-do/index.html

    But could Galtieri and his fellow countrymen not have guessed that a proud nation like the United Kingdom would not stand idly by as part of her overseas territory was being occupied by another power? Should one not have known that remaining passive would have spelled the end for any British government? The answer: yes, in normal times Argentina may well have pondered such scenarios. However, in a crisis humans tend to think along a different kind of logic. Indeed, many studies about human behaviour demonstrate that people who fear to lose something valuable are ready to take greater risks than those who hope to make a gain. In the context of the Falklands War, this means that for the Junta, which was under siege politically, occupying the “Malvinas” was not about a gain, but rather about avoiding losing power. This made them take risks they otherwise would not have dared to take. Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.

  3. #2343
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    And who is heading this policy the decider that will be consistent and clear again
    Lol yeah, you can separate the policy from the man, but right now the policy is being implemented by Cheeto - and he can't even think strategically enough to keep a casino profitable - so we're probably fucked (as usual).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    The failings of deterrence is covered here

    https://www.nato.int/docu/review/art...-do/index.html

    But could Galtieri and his fellow countrymen not have guessed that a proud nation like the United Kingdom would not stand idly by as part of her overseas territory was being occupied by another power? Should one not have known that remaining passive would have spelled the end for any British government? The answer: yes, in normal times Argentina may well have pondered such scenarios. However, in a crisis humans tend to think along a different kind of logic. Indeed, many studies about human behaviour demonstrate that people who fear to lose something valuable are ready to take greater risks than those who hope to make a gain. In the context of the Falklands War, this means that for the Junta, which was under siege politically, occupying the “Malvinas” was not about a gain, but rather about avoiding losing power. This made them take risks they otherwise would not have dared to take. Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.
    I wonder how much fear they'll have when it's their literal life at risk when considering attacking the U.S.?
    No one is above the law!

  4. #2344
    You missed the last part I’m afraid

    Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.
    Simply pointing out that deterrence does not always work. Vietnam is another example, it was obvious that the US was far superior, yet they lost because north Vietnam were ready to make far greater sacrifices. Currently the Taliban is still not defeated and are gaining ground in Afghanistan, despite persistent droning.

  5. #2345
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    Simply pointing out that deterrence does not always work. Vietnam is another example, it was obvious that the US was far superior, yet they lost because north Vietnam were ready to make far greater sacrifices. Currently the Taliban is still not defeated and are gaining ground in Afghanistan, despite persistent droning.
    Of course it doesn't always work - no one has argued otherwise. My point is that when their lives are literally part of the equation in determining whether to attack the United States, they will certainly take it into account, because now we've actually done it, so they know we could do it again. That's the deterrence.
    No one is above the law!

  6. #2346
    @cubby your inability to keep up with the war on terror is on you at this point. Good luck with the warmongering though. It only got an entire plane shot down.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  7. #2347
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    You missed the last part I’m afraid



    Simply pointing out that deterrence does not always work. Vietnam is another example, it was obvious that the US was far superior, yet they lost because north Vietnam were ready to make far greater sacrifices. Currently the Taliban is still not defeated and are gaining ground in Afghanistan, despite persistent droning.
    The us weren't far superior if they lost.

  8. #2348
    Iranian General Sulemain killing is bigger than Osama Bin Laden's killing. First time in 40 years big missiles got fired on U.S military bases.

  9. #2349
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    The failings of deterrence is covered here
    Nice cherry picking. How about we cover another aspect as to why the Junta invaded the Falklands from the very same article you linked:

    Argentina, which contests the United Kingdom’s authority over the islands in the South Atlantic, knew only too well about the superiority of the British armed forces. However, over the course of several decades the UK had gradually been reducing its military protection for the islands. Thus, while London kept emphasising that the Falklands were British, the military Junta in Buenos Aires became convinced that such statements were mere lip service. When the Junta faced a domestic crisis that threatened its rule, it tried to generate support by stirring patriotic feelings and occupied the islands. Deterrence had failed because the United Kingdom had ignored an important factor. Striking a tough pose while at the same time reducing the means to make good on it undermines one of deterrence’s most important ingredients: credibility. The story did not end there, however. Much to Argentina’s surprise, the British Navy sailed to the South Atlantic and re-conquered the islands. General Galtieri, the Chief of Argentina’s military Junta, later admitted that he never believed that a European country would be ready to pay such a high price for a few insignificant islands so far away. Argentina, too, had miscalculated.
    Basically the Junta attacked the Falklands because they believed, as did many people around the world at the time, that the UK would not really bother defending the Falklands because of what it would cost. Thatcher proved them wrong.

    It's also worth understanding that many military experts did not think the United Kingdom had the military capability to retake the Islands.
    "Life is one long series of problems to solve. The more you solve, the better a man you become.... Tribulations spawn in life and over and over again we must stand our ground and face them."

    Retired <Dreamstate> Gehennas

  10. #2350
    Quote Originally Posted by Year2020 View Post
    Iranian General Sulemain killing is bigger than Osama Bin Laden's killing. First time in 40 years big missiles got fired on U.S military bases.
    Probably because OBL wasn't tied to any known government at the time of his death? And Al-Qaeda didn't have the missiles to shoot at bases when OBL died?

    That is probably the lamest rationalization for this assassination ever.

  11. #2351
    Quote Originally Posted by Player Eleven View Post
    The us weren't far superior if they lost.
    A victory with an war of attrition is not determined by who has the superior military but by who can keep on fighting the longest.
    Reason why you really can't win an actual war of aggression in current day because once the government falls you still have to deal with the entire army that just turned into a militia.

  12. #2352
    "Report: Trump Authorized Assassination Of Soleimani Seven Months Ago"

    Apologies if this has already been posted--I just saw it now: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/r...ven-months-ago

  13. #2353
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    You want to deter future 2016-style election hacks? Kill these men for their crimes. Openly. Loudly. Send a message

    You would fit in perfectly in North Korea...... Sorry I prefer my country not to be scumbags.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  14. #2354
    Seems like trump won on iran. we killed their top general, and all they did was shoot rockets at bases killing no americans, and in their paranoia shoot down one of their own passenger jets further ruining their credibility, that is a loss for iran, oh and trump guarantees regime change will happen in the future by getting iran to admit its not complying with the jcpoa anymore, unless he basically re writes the same agreement and puts his name on it just like he did nafta

  15. #2355
    new reporting saying that the assassination was 7 months in the works.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...tions-n1113271


    also rather large protests going on against the Iranian government for shooting down the plane.. seemingly lost the potential good will of being the victim.
    Last edited by ohtlmtlm; 2020-01-13 at 03:36 PM.

  16. #2356
    The Unstoppable Force CommunismWillWin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Russia that is very communist, da.
    Posts
    24,486
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    Seems like trump won on iran. we killed their top general, and all they did was shoot rockets at bases killing no americans, and in their paranoia shoot down one of their own passenger jets further ruining their credibility, that is a loss for iran, oh and trump guarantees regime change will happen in the future by getting iran to admit its not complying with the jcpoa anymore, unless he basically re writes the same agreement and puts his name on it just like he did nafta
    Killed by telling iran/Iraq it was for peace talks, so good job on ruining the smallest amount of trust they still had, and killing that general was only a huge win for the Iran propaganda machine and ISIS. So again, good job.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    You would fit in perfectly in North Korea...... Sorry I prefer my country not to be scumbags.
    I got the feeling Trump/Skroe would be on the side of the government in the kent state killings.


    The main difference between nevertrump conservatives and Trump is that they deem Trump to be to "uncivil".
    Last edited by CommunismWillWin; 2020-01-13 at 03:34 PM.
    Conservatism and its off-shoots are the most rotten idealogies to ever exist in human history.
    Anarcho-communism =/ Stalinism.
    FULLY AUTOMATED GAY LUXURY SPACE COMMUNISM

  17. #2357
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,192
    Quote Originally Posted by CommunismWillWin View Post
    I got the feeling Trump would be on the side of the government in the kent state killings.
    I guess I should change that to.. My country is enough of a scumbag already. no need to make it worse.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  18. #2358
    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    oh and trump guarantees regime change will happen in the future by getting iran to admit its not complying with the jcpoa anymore, unless he basically re writes the same agreement and puts his name on it just like he did nafta
    No doubt this is one of the reasons, he knows the shit he rightfully took for leaving the agreement. Gotta "fix" it in his own Trump way, i.e. fucking things up enough to a point where he can just put in place what he removed and slap his name on it.

    Seems like trump won on iran.
    This is the real issue. The need to "win" at anything and everything in any way possible.
    Often updated... ?

  19. #2359
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @cubby your inability to keep up with the war on terror is on you at this point. Good luck with the warmongering though. It only got an entire plane shot down.
    And your inability to effectively defend your position is on you. Come on back if you want to keep chatting - I have sincerely enjoyed it so far. Not sure why you're doing it this way.
    No one is above the law!

  20. #2360
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    You would fit in perfectly in North Korea...... Sorry I prefer my country not to be scumbags.
    Scumbag?... For killing people that directly attack your fellow countrymen's right to choose their own leader?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •