"I yearn for peace. But peace is not a one sided issue. It has to come from all sides. Until that happens, this country needs to stay strong and well prepared."
Recently read an article about how bloody a war with Iran would be. Oh no doubt, they would lose in a shooting war with us - but would we win? I mean, we won the Second World War - but at a huge price. Since then, other than the first Gulf War, this winning and losing thing has become somewhat blurred. And every year, the battlefield gets more complex and more confusing. That is why I am wondering if a war is even "winnable" any more.
Not too long ago, Vladimir Putin said the next war would fought with "ones and zeroes". Meaning - get ready for digital warfare. Taking down a nation's electrical grid for an extended period of time is as good as pin point bombing raids. Taking down a nation's defense net by the use of some type of malware, could leave a nation defenseless just long enough. The possibilities are almost endless as to the mayhem a cyber attack could unleash on a country.
If the truth be known, wars involving an exchange of nuclear weapons have not been "winnable" for decades. They might not ever be. Without a doubt, the scariest thing on the battlefield right now, is the notion by some that a nuclear exchange using hypersonic missiles, might be "winnable". It would not. Our triad of nuclear defenses would ensure a powerful counter strike should we ever be attacked with any type of nukes. At the end of a few hours, both countries would lie in ruin, poisoned for decades, maybe centuries.
Even fighting a asymmetrical war in Afghanistan has proved to be a chore. After being over there for almost two decades, we have spent over a trillion dollars, lost over 2,000 troops, and had 20,000 come home wounded. And the war still is not over. ISIS is still present.
President Trump said he could end the war in a week - but he does not feel like killing 100,000 people. No doubt he could. Carpet bomb the entire country 24 X 7 until not even bacteria survives. But is that really winning? We were suppose to liberate the locals from the war lords and Taliban - not exterminate them.
One lesson I hope we have learned very well by now is simply this - war is easy to get into, very hard to get out of. Heck, South Korea and Japan are still at odds over the treatment of Koreans by the invading Japanese from over 70 years ago. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still looked upon as a blot on our history by some. Old wounds are hard to heal. Some never do.
Someone penned an article a while back on how tired Americans are of war. We have become a "war weary" people. I know I am. I yearn for peace. But peace is not a one sided issue. It has to come from all sides. Until that happens, this country needs to stay strong and well prepared. War weary or not, if a war is "winnable" or not, we must stay prepared. That is our duty to those who will follow us.
"Our triad of nuclear defenses would ensure a powerful counter strike should we ever be attacked with any type of nukes. At the end of a few hours, both countries would lie in ruin, poisoned for decades, maybe centuries."
ReplyDeleteUnless the attacker was Little Rocket Man. Defensive capabilities (and EMPs [likely his best bet]) aside--since he's apparently better informed than he seems, he probably knows his nice little dictatorship is too tiny to survive an actual nuclear strike, while he could never devastate the US.
I'm wondering if his regime (i.e. Himself) could withstand a single, small, conventional cruise missile targeted through his bedroom window?
ReplyDelete