[Osborn F Enready]

Critter said:
I can only hope it doesn't end up coming to this.

I say:
As the old saying goes.....
"Hope in one hand, and shit in the other. See which one fills up first."

As much as I think we all hope it won't come to that, I think it would be in our best intrest to provide for the situation should it end up coming to that. The best way to provide for the worst situations, is to brainstorm what the worst, most unlikely scenario is, and plan on it. Add reality, the horror of war, murphys law, human shortcomings, technology, and you get a deadly stew of all the lessons we have not yet seemed to learn.

The worst part is in this case, that this scenario is not unlikely, it is not that far fetched, and it is actually materializing right before us, in a logical, developmental series of progressions. We have it within our power to stop this progression, but we as a people must first RECOGNIZE the problem, before we can address the solution.

RickSP said:
"Anti-bullet" bullets? I am sceptical whether the technology is anything but science fiction. I am sceptical if it is even good science fiction.

I say:
How many people believed we would land on the moon 20 years before it happened? How many thought we would have wireless hand held phones 20 years before it happened? How many thought we would have computers as powerful as they are, in a 20" case 20 years before the first PC?

I understand your natural desire to scoff at this type of notion. I am a realist, and knowing that the bounds between reality and sci-fi are becoming blurrier are even more disturbing to people of my ilk I would bet. The point is though, ITS HERE, ITS BEING PERFECTED, and it will soon be on shelves at an army supply base near you. This makes it an unfortunate reality we MUST prepare for on all levels as a society.

I don't believe in making false predictions, and most often any predictions. However, when so much of the evidence lies before us, it is getting more difficult to create reasons, stories, or illusions and allibi's about why this can't or shouldn't happen. THE WORLD is in an arms race, and always has been. Where does the obvious end lie? How can an arms race end? The balance of power between people and their own nations, is becoming a larger and larger gap. The balance of power between nations is more divided than ever, and growing at an exponential rate.

The Iraq war will be pointed at for years, to further exemplify the need for unmanned, or remote controlled weapons of war. It is the ultimate example of how in a world of bullets, technology has played a minor part, but not much overall. Guerilla tactics can still penetrate, weaken and wreak havoc on any military that relies on human ground forces, no matter how gross the gap of technology between the two armies. As long as both rely on smokeless powder and the art of the rifle, they are still limited under the same physics. Add a new dimension, remove the human from the equation, along with all the supplies necessary to support those humans, and you have a somewhat low maintenance (compared to humans) war machine that has no emotion, no truly exploitable weaknesses other than refueling, recharging, reloading and very limited losses of human life, thereby reducing the "perceived threat" of war.

While war has always been expensive, it has been the human cost in lives that weaken peoples stomachs when considering war. The further we remove human loss from war, the more war we will have, and the less compulsion to initiate aggression. It is human nature.

RickSP said:
Let the army spend our billions of tax dollars,

I say:
That is not my opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion of how they spend the extorted money of the American People.

RickSP said:
I don't think they will change the real facts of the ground. The US army can destroy any army in the field but cannot effectively combat a dedicated and resourceful insurgency.

I say:
BS in my opinion Rick. The US armed forces can destroy any enemy it intelligently plans to combat.
The Iraq war is the exact epitome of bad planning, bad preparedness, bad theory of warfare being executed.

The men on the ground are doing a great job WITH WHAT THEY HAVE, but they are not armed, equipped or satisfactorily protected by the planners and suppliers of the wars design. They have been dropped into a hostile enviroment, underarmed, undersupplied, undermanned and with no clear logical plan of attack, as much as a policemans mentality and goals.

The Cold War was head-shededd for years, and most every piece of our arsenal was designed around that conflict, as well as our tactics have been largely geared towards uniformed, national armies. We are facing guerillas, that are resourceful though not well trained, well-equipped for their piece-meal goals. These guerillas know the land, how to survive on it, and with it, and understand how to exploit an enemies lack of that knowledge. They strike in many places, causing a large area of unrest, and perceived weakness, forcing large supply lines for our troops to maintain and many areas to supply. They appear to be regular citizens before and after the attacks, and they blend in to the enviroment at will, with no compulsion for human life around them. They exploit our compassion towards the innocent, the wounded, the helpless. They exploit our technology by attacking when it is least usable.

Even after all this, they don't need to win to claim victory. They only need to claim that they have "weakened the beast, that is the U.S. War Machine." President Bush has made this a war of ideology, and that was his biggest mistake, because any small victory against the "Machine" is a major victory to a massively overwhelmed force. It shows that the "machine" is not infallible, and that it is capable of being weakened, and eventually destroyed. I imagine how any mouse would feel that had the opprotunity of watching a fellow mouse run off an elephant.

The bad part about using a good offense as a good defense is that once the enemy figures out a way to weaken, or paralyze your offense, your defense is non-existant. That is why the philosophy is flawed in the modern theatre of war.

Layered offense and defense, with specialized purpose designed assault forces is how we have won our wars, stayed in front of the game, and led the world in the arms race for so long. We have lost our edge, and have now begun to pull out all the stops, because our purpose for our armies has changed from defense, to global offense, and the eventual progression toward one world government.

The game is changing, and the answers are harder to find everyday. I fear what inaction by the people will bring, as history has plotted the course for all to see, but so many rarley heed the stale lessons of history in hopes for progression beyond all past achievements.

Often, this blind hope loses out to histories cold lessons.