Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.
You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.
Ok, let me get this straight. Total war is not total war? Oh I get it. Not.
Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.
You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.
Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.
An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.
Now we would do sometshing similar.
Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.
The whole country gets behind the effort.
Originally posted by: Genx87
I have pondered this as well. Ever since WWII our country has tried to increase our effectiveness of conventional weapons to limit the loss of civilian life. Long gone are the days of dropping thousands of tons of napalm on a civilian population center with the intent to demoralize the population into giving up.
In Korea and Vietnam we saw the consequences of a civilian population able to continue the fight due to not being the main target of our military.
I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistence from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.
Clearly the populations of Japan and Germany were willing to give up by the time we got done with them. Both had a very fanatical following that is very close to what we see today. And there wasnt a prolonged resistence and attempts to derail the process of rebuilding the country and govt.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.
You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.
Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.
An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.
Now we would do sometshing similar.
Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.
The whole country gets behind the effort.
"The Enemy" simply isn't big enough to support such an arrangement. What are people going to do? Make stuff that's not needed, just to support a "war"?
Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.
You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.
Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.
An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.
Now we would do sometshing similar.
Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.
The whole country gets behind the effort.
Originally posted by: KevinH
Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.
You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.
Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.
An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.
Now we would do sometshing similar.
Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.
The whole country gets behind the effort.
Come back with a definition of victory in Iraq...then we'll talk.
Originally posted by: eigen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.
You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.
Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.
An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.
Now we would do sometshing similar.
Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.
The whole country gets behind the effort.
"The Enemy" simply isn't big enough to support such an arrangement. What are people going to do? Make stuff that's not needed, just to support a "war"?
Maybe instead of buying junk from walmart we can buy warbonds.So we arent fighting the war on borrowed dollars.
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: techs
total war? including nukes?Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
A total war does not require the use of nukes.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.
Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.
You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.
Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.
You are in a dream world. Look at the size of China. They have never been weak.
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.
You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.
Do you have some kind of background above Polisci 101, or are you just blowing smoke up everyones butt?
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: techs
total war? including nukes?Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: eigen
The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.
It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.
A total war does not require the use of nukes.