North Korea has announced its intention to shoot a satellite over Japan’s airspace without Japanese approval. Everyone believes this is actually a missile, not a satellite. In any case, shooting any rocket like this into the airspace of another country is an act of war. North Korean did this once before, during the Clinton administration. This did not result in open warfare. However, it could have. This is an issue that you go to war over. Let’s take a different example. The U.S. announces that we are conducting air-defense tests with our aircraft in North Korean airspace. As long as we give them plenty of notice, we can go ahead even if they say NO? We should expect our aircraft to be attacked, and justifiably so. If the U.S. and Japan have the capability and desire, we should shoot it down. That is also an act of war. I find this possibility unlikely.
President Obama has a great reluctance to confront aggression. I find it interesting that one of his first foreign policy tests could be of a system that he feels the U.S. can do without. During the election campaigning, he stated numerous times that he wants to not only cease expansion of the system, but to dismantle it altogether and stop any new research and development. President Obama must feel that this system will actually increase the likelihood of nuclear conflict. With the system in place, an enemy must build more nukes in order to be certain that at least some of them hit the targets. This logic is sound, but I disagree that it makes nuclear conflict more likely.
I don’t believe that having or not having a missile defense system will deter anyone from launching a nuclear weapon at the U.S. nor anyone else. If an effective missile shield can be built and deployed, all it will do is reduce the amount of damage that the world will have to endure if and when any are launched. This effective missile shield will require any enemy to build numerous weapons to be more certain of getting them through to the targets. I am not so fearful of countries like Russia and China. They already posses enough weapons to overwhelm any missile system that we are designing. What I am concerned about is a group of Islamic terrorists who are able to obtain a nuclear weapon with a missile. The defense shield can make them decide to obtain more than one. This will buy us time at a point where time could be the difference between a conventional war and another war involving WMD. Even a massive conventional war is much desired over a war involving nuclear weapons and/or other effective WMD. Of course, you would have to be willing to engage in that conventional war before it was to late.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Afghanistan and President Obama
President Obama is deploying an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, plus another 5,000 for training. He will be disappointed if he believes that this deployment is going to work in any way similar to the ‘surge’.
The ‘surge’ was a total of soldiers that was just under twice what is proposed today. The greatest difference is that with the ‘surge’, the U.S. could isolate each battlefield. In the desert, the fighting had to be in the cities, this is the only place the ‘insurgency’ could survive. Even inside Baghdad the U.S. could surround the neighborhood and cut off all reinforcement and supply. Afghanistan would require 20 times the manpower and even then the outcome would not be anywhere nearly as decisive.
The reason that we are in Afghanistan is because the ‘government’ at that time initiated the 9/11 attacks upon our country. The worldwide obligation to ‘kill the occupier’ of Muslim land has kicked in. The subsequent war in Iraq did not alter this.
In 2001, I saw an interview with Condoleezza Rice where she kept bringing up the problem at the Afghan/Pakistani border. The Pakistani are split with only a minority favoring working with the U.S. By our keeping quiet about our direct involvement in Pakistan, we help the weaker side keep the ‘dark’, stronger side at bay. President Obama feels that the supporters of the ideology of our enemy are actually a small minority. Overt help will reduce this much further so democratic change can then allow them to defeat the ‘evil within’. We are playing with fire. If President Obama is wrong, a suicidal enemy will be allowed a much-improved opportunity to seize nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. This is a much greater threat than what Afghanistan ever has held.
The ‘surge’ was a total of soldiers that was just under twice what is proposed today. The greatest difference is that with the ‘surge’, the U.S. could isolate each battlefield. In the desert, the fighting had to be in the cities, this is the only place the ‘insurgency’ could survive. Even inside Baghdad the U.S. could surround the neighborhood and cut off all reinforcement and supply. Afghanistan would require 20 times the manpower and even then the outcome would not be anywhere nearly as decisive.
The reason that we are in Afghanistan is because the ‘government’ at that time initiated the 9/11 attacks upon our country. The worldwide obligation to ‘kill the occupier’ of Muslim land has kicked in. The subsequent war in Iraq did not alter this.
In 2001, I saw an interview with Condoleezza Rice where she kept bringing up the problem at the Afghan/Pakistani border. The Pakistani are split with only a minority favoring working with the U.S. By our keeping quiet about our direct involvement in Pakistan, we help the weaker side keep the ‘dark’, stronger side at bay. President Obama feels that the supporters of the ideology of our enemy are actually a small minority. Overt help will reduce this much further so democratic change can then allow them to defeat the ‘evil within’. We are playing with fire. If President Obama is wrong, a suicidal enemy will be allowed a much-improved opportunity to seize nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. This is a much greater threat than what Afghanistan ever has held.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Muslim Israeli
I can only imagine what it would be like if the ethnic Germans in our country were known to be loyal to Germany over the U.S. The problems that would create! Violence would inevitably occur as a direct result.
I can see why loyal Israeli are sensitive to the lack of loyalty to Israel by Muslim Israeli. This is a classic good versus evil, on both sides. Organized violence in the form of warfare will not end without complete victory on one side or the other. Toss in weapons of mass destruction and we have the potential of world war III. Our enemies today will not 'turn the ships around' like our enemy in 1962. I fear for Israel and our allies worldwide because I believe that they will not get our best support when the knives come out.
I can see why loyal Israeli are sensitive to the lack of loyalty to Israel by Muslim Israeli. This is a classic good versus evil, on both sides. Organized violence in the form of warfare will not end without complete victory on one side or the other. Toss in weapons of mass destruction and we have the potential of world war III. Our enemies today will not 'turn the ships around' like our enemy in 1962. I fear for Israel and our allies worldwide because I believe that they will not get our best support when the knives come out.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Violence in Israel
A march in an Arab part of a city within Israel has resulted in violence. This could be expected. What I find interesting is the following: "But marchers disseminated a particularly hot-button message in Umm al-Fahm that has been setting people off: They demanded that Israeli Arabs should be loyal to the Jewish state, a stance considered insulting by many Israeli Arabs."
Loyalty to Islam is far and above ANY government, let alone an infidel, representative government as Israel. This is a large part of the reason why Arabs find the idea INSULTING. (Let us chalk up another insult) Please note that the reference about being insulted is speaking about ISRAELI Arabs. I am certain that the entire idea is even more insulting to the rest of the Arab world. Enough to justify killing and injuring others.
Loyalty to Islam is far and above ANY government, let alone an infidel, representative government as Israel. This is a large part of the reason why Arabs find the idea INSULTING. (Let us chalk up another insult) Please note that the reference about being insulted is speaking about ISRAELI Arabs. I am certain that the entire idea is even more insulting to the rest of the Arab world. Enough to justify killing and injuring others.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Islam versus Christianity
Islam was founded in 610 AD. Mohammed died in 632 AD. During the rest of that century, Islam expanded throughout the Sinai Peninsula. The next century saw the area that is today known as Israel falls to Islam. This expansion continued at a rate that was and is unprecedented in history. As was common in those days, this expansion was mainly by force of arms. The crusades began in the late 12th century. The crusades were actually a reaction to the constant warfare on the Eastern Roman empires southern flank. The dozen or so crusades covered a period of about 150 years and were ineffective in ending the defensive posture of Christianity in Europe.
Once the crusades ended, Islam resumed its assault on southern Europe. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 formally ended what was left of the old the Roman Empire. The sieges of Vienna in 1529 and battle of Vienna in 1683 are seen as the high-water mark for Islam in central Europe.
In 1804, the U.S. fought a small-scale war against the Barbary pirates. The pirates had seized some U.S. ships and were demanding Tribute. Tribute is the ‘poll tax’ that is paid by infidels living in Muslim land to Muslim authorities. By extending this concept to Muslim waters, the pirates were extending this concept. As you know, the U.S. sent our battle fleet over there, assaulted the harbors where our ships were anchored, killed all that attempted to stop us, and burned our ships.
The point that I am attempting to make here is that the sword has spread Islam, and this has not ended. Right from its inception, jihad as armed struggle was and is an important component. "Kill the occupiers" of Muslim land was and still is an important and ‘authentic’ law.
Although countless wars have been started in the name of various ‘religions’, Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity in a number of ways. One way is that the wars that Christians have begun were excuses and interpretations from the Bible. The Bible does not spell out the rules in which you can kill and/or enslave others. In fact, the Bible does just the opposite. However, the Koran does spell out organized violence. You can ‘kill occupiers’, infidels, apostates, rebels, bandits and married women who have committed adultery to name some. These are ‘authentic’ laws that have been and still are far more strictly enforced than the 10 commandments. This has been a basic issue in the constant warfare between these two religions since Islam's inception.
Once the crusades ended, Islam resumed its assault on southern Europe. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 formally ended what was left of the old the Roman Empire. The sieges of Vienna in 1529 and battle of Vienna in 1683 are seen as the high-water mark for Islam in central Europe.
In 1804, the U.S. fought a small-scale war against the Barbary pirates. The pirates had seized some U.S. ships and were demanding Tribute. Tribute is the ‘poll tax’ that is paid by infidels living in Muslim land to Muslim authorities. By extending this concept to Muslim waters, the pirates were extending this concept. As you know, the U.S. sent our battle fleet over there, assaulted the harbors where our ships were anchored, killed all that attempted to stop us, and burned our ships.
The point that I am attempting to make here is that the sword has spread Islam, and this has not ended. Right from its inception, jihad as armed struggle was and is an important component. "Kill the occupiers" of Muslim land was and still is an important and ‘authentic’ law.
Although countless wars have been started in the name of various ‘religions’, Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity in a number of ways. One way is that the wars that Christians have begun were excuses and interpretations from the Bible. The Bible does not spell out the rules in which you can kill and/or enslave others. In fact, the Bible does just the opposite. However, the Koran does spell out organized violence. You can ‘kill occupiers’, infidels, apostates, rebels, bandits and married women who have committed adultery to name some. These are ‘authentic’ laws that have been and still are far more strictly enforced than the 10 commandments. This has been a basic issue in the constant warfare between these two religions since Islam's inception.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Semi-automatic shotgun
A new weapon being tested by the military is a semi-automatic shotgun. This weapon can be fired single shot, or semi-automatic. The magazine holds 32 rounds and the shells can be armor piercing, multiple shot, or high explosive. The range is accurate to well over 100 yards, which is a quantum leap forward in accuracy. Close quarters firepower must be tremendous. I can see this as being a good weapon for today’s war.
During WWII, many U.S. soldiers in the pacific carried 12 gage shotguns for close quarter work. Most defensive combat was at night. Japanese soldiers would continue to press and fall forward even when badly hit. Many times our men would be killed or wounded after a suicide attacker fell forward and was then close enough to injure or kill our men. The 12 gage shotgun was well known to throw the attacker backward and typically disabled him enough that he was unable to do more than lay there and die.
I have stated in the past that once a suicide attack has been launched, the only way to stop it is to literally blow the attacker apart. This weapon will do just that. All we would need then would be to force our enemy to attack our army.
During WWII, many U.S. soldiers in the pacific carried 12 gage shotguns for close quarter work. Most defensive combat was at night. Japanese soldiers would continue to press and fall forward even when badly hit. Many times our men would be killed or wounded after a suicide attacker fell forward and was then close enough to injure or kill our men. The 12 gage shotgun was well known to throw the attacker backward and typically disabled him enough that he was unable to do more than lay there and die.
I have stated in the past that once a suicide attack has been launched, the only way to stop it is to literally blow the attacker apart. This weapon will do just that. All we would need then would be to force our enemy to attack our army.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Private insurance for combat injuries
President Obama wants to shift the burden of medical insurance and payment for treatment of injuries to our military personnel to private insurers. This would mean that treatment for the veteran would pay for injuries incurred in combat at least in part.
While a soldier is in the employ of the U.S. government, they are not people. They are the property of the government. And we will not be paying the full amount for treatment of any injury that they do not have the right of refusal? This is a VERY poor method of repayment. I cannot see how this will do anything but harm our ability to recruit and retain the best people to risk their very lives on our behalf.
Even if this does not come about, it does demonstrate the length that our President will go in the cutbacks in our military. President Clinton made large reductions that cut in half the number of active divisions the army had available as active units. This made our invasion of Iraq a much riskier proposition. Even though the actual invasion turned out all right, many problems might have been averted if we had twice as many units to deploy in the first place. Our military has not fully recovered from the cuts that President Clinton implemented and now we can expect draconian reductions on top of everything else. This cannot do anything but increase the risk of over extension of our military. And we thought our army was stretched already? All we need now is a REAL emergency, and our armed forces will only be able to respond inadequately. This is another step toward the large war that I fear is heading our way. This is a recipe for disaster.
While a soldier is in the employ of the U.S. government, they are not people. They are the property of the government. And we will not be paying the full amount for treatment of any injury that they do not have the right of refusal? This is a VERY poor method of repayment. I cannot see how this will do anything but harm our ability to recruit and retain the best people to risk their very lives on our behalf.
Even if this does not come about, it does demonstrate the length that our President will go in the cutbacks in our military. President Clinton made large reductions that cut in half the number of active divisions the army had available as active units. This made our invasion of Iraq a much riskier proposition. Even though the actual invasion turned out all right, many problems might have been averted if we had twice as many units to deploy in the first place. Our military has not fully recovered from the cuts that President Clinton implemented and now we can expect draconian reductions on top of everything else. This cannot do anything but increase the risk of over extension of our military. And we thought our army was stretched already? All we need now is a REAL emergency, and our armed forces will only be able to respond inadequately. This is another step toward the large war that I fear is heading our way. This is a recipe for disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
