The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Weapons in the War on Terror
Ein
CaliforniaRegistered User regular
CaliforniaRegistered User regular
[spoiler:2be8d91940]D&D is a scary place. Please use lube.[/spoiler:2be8d91940]
I'm in a lecture in Defense Policy at my college. The Cold War parts have been interesting, but we've just moved on from that and started touching on the finer points of the War on Terror. A couple things have been interesting me about this. The course involves a lot of discussion and debate abong the students, for which I am relatively ill-equipped, so I thought maybe I could get a discussion going here about it and intellectually arm myself.
From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all? This got asked in the class and none of us really had a good answer, and I know it's going to come up again.
I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack, and I can't seem to find any way in which these tools could be used against terrorism aside from perhaps an implied threat of possession. I can come up with scores of reasons against use - the fact that our enemy is generally unidentifyable for one, and that these weapons are generally stronger than I imagine their intended targets would deserve - something like a hand grenade on a fruit fly.
The closest thing I've been able to find in regards to use of some form of chemical weapons against terrorists is the use of white phosphorous incendiaries to flush targets out - even though white phosphorous isn't technically defined as a chemical weapon, it still bears toxic properties.
Any ideas?
I'm in a lecture in Defense Policy at my college. The Cold War parts have been interesting, but we've just moved on from that and started touching on the finer points of the War on Terror. A couple things have been interesting me about this. The course involves a lot of discussion and debate abong the students, for which I am relatively ill-equipped, so I thought maybe I could get a discussion going here about it and intellectually arm myself.
From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all? This got asked in the class and none of us really had a good answer, and I know it's going to come up again.
I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack, and I can't seem to find any way in which these tools could be used against terrorism aside from perhaps an implied threat of possession. I can come up with scores of reasons against use - the fact that our enemy is generally unidentifyable for one, and that these weapons are generally stronger than I imagine their intended targets would deserve - something like a hand grenade on a fruit fly.
The closest thing I've been able to find in regards to use of some form of chemical weapons against terrorists is the use of white phosphorous incendiaries to flush targets out - even though white phosphorous isn't technically defined as a chemical weapon, it still bears toxic properties.
Any ideas?
Ein on
0
Posts
We aren't in a war at all, in fact. This is a police action.
We are using a sledgehammer when what we need is a drillbit.
plus, do you really expect something like detente to work
against extremists hellbent on our eradication?
Well, yeah. This is basically the only conclusion I've been able to come to, because we can't openly target non-combatant targets as collateral damage without a shitstorm.
I'm more trying to figure out how the sledgehammer could still be useful, aside from the implied threat of possession.
Precisely. "War" in the war on terror doesn't mean the same thing as war in other contexts. It's a perplexing use of the term.
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
We have far greater tools in our arsenal than bombs.
Namely, influence with countries such as Saudi Arabia, and our interest in maintaining strong diplomatic ties in the region, hence our history of helping out people we might regret helping later, such as the Mujahadeen and Bin Laden.
Its all a political game, and the terrorists know this, what, exactly, do you think terrorism is? Their goal is not to bring about our destruction through force of arms, they seek to destabilize us in order to solidify their own power base in the region, using our wars of conquest as ammunition in recruitment, carving out their own little patches just like Al-Sadr and the Mahdi army in Najaf
Terrorists are far more dangerous than they used to be when we were dealing with fringe radicals like Baader-Meinhof and Action-Directe. The modern terrorist understands the importance of establishing legitimacy early on, and usually it is through the bloodiest of means. The more blood the better.
Just look at the PLO for chrissakes!
:?
anyway:
1. There is no sizable force of extreemists hellbent on our eradication
2. There is no government willing to support such actions that could achieve goals adverse to their own.
3. There are no terrorist forces that we have to be worried about that are aiming to achieve goals adverse to the goals of potential supporter nations.
4. Military actions on a large scale do not help win the war against terror.
5. The war on terror is a war for hearts and minds.
6. The first rule in "war on terror" is "dont shoot people"
7. The second rule in "war on terror" is "dont shoot people.
8. The third rule in "war on terror" is "interventionalist policies in foriegn nations create backlash among the civilian population, this backlash will typically be expressed as terrorism, because most populations do not have the power to support a popular coup" [E.G. Saudi Arabia. See Iran and the Shah for a counter-example]
We are using military urban tactics to fight insurgents, but insurgents arent armed forces that can be beat with military tactics. Military tactics just create more insurgents.
The "war against extremism" is the modern day "red scare"
I was being facetious about the "Eradication" thing : p
what he said; poking the beehive may kill a few bees but it make a lot more angry.
edit: The "war on terror" is only a war in the same way that the "war on poverty" is. Military might will not be of much help in this particular "war"
The best analogy for the War on Terror I heard was, unsurprisingly, on the Daily Show, when someone (can't remember who, but given the number of Daily Show fans around here I'm sure someone will fill it in) said that "The War on Terror is a PR war, and we're losing to a bunch of guys in caves." That's because the US has no PR strategy in the Mid-East, unless you count the messages some soldiers write on bombs before launching them. On the other hand, terrorist leaders have been using a two-fold strategy, relying on people's hatred for the US and Israel on one hand, and on a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran on the other. If you're to fight back, there are the two fronts you need to attack on.
1) As moniker said, you need to build good will in the Mid-East. Peace Corps, humanitarian programs, that sort of thing. Then you need for it to be known, without making it look like you're only doing it for bragging rights. My first guess would be to get Al Jazeera to report on your projects, but that's just me. I'm not a PR guy.
2) You need to debate their reading of the Qu'ran. That's trickier, because you can't do it directly. All you can do is help push it out in the open. Encourange televised debates between Ahmed Terrorist and some moderate, intelligent Imams. These debates will help contrast the terrorist's reading and the real Qu'ran, and undermine one of their key recruting tools. Of course, once again, you need to make sure people see it. Once again, I'd guess going with Al Jazeera for maximum coverage and credibility.
I'm just curious if there's a reason you singled that out in particular from what I said over anything else.
I said I'm trying to read up on this, which means that I'm in no way qualified to draw conclusions with this, but just from what I've seen so far... Literally 99% of what I've found from searching for weapons use as it relates to terrorism is counterterrorism, terrorism prevention, and deterrence. People trying to come up with plans of containment, that sort of thing.
What about this was incorrect?
Also, spending money to make sure stockpiles of nuclear weapons are secure. That's good too.
But the grey goo!
No, the grey goo is the nanomachines themselves. Basically, it's the end result of the objection that Nanotechnology will eat everything and keep self-replicating forever. Which is somewhat amusing.
Why do you love evil?
I don't. I love ridiculous apocalypse theories.
Crazyness in Iran?
Thank the CIA's Operation Ajax which illegally removed the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 in Iran, for British Petroleum.
Saddam? The US funded, armed, backed and did a lot of things for Saddam...at the SAME time he was killing his own people...meanwhile, the US WAS ALSO secretly selling arms to Iran.
Insurgents? Thank Rumsfeld's P2OG plan to stir up, flare up, and create chaos in Iraq...or as Bush said, "bring it on"
Taliban? Thank the US funding the Mujahadeen and later what would become the Taliban using Pakistani Intelligence(ISI) as the proxy
Hell, it's an open secret that while Osama was "declaring jihad" against
America in 1998, the CIA was secretly funding al Qaeda in Kosovo
to fight the Serbs at the same time.
Real CIA analysts will tell you most the major terrorism's impetus comes FROM Pakistan, mostly fostered and controlled by the Pakistani Intelligence...our so called "ally". Be it 9/11, the 7/11 Mumbai bombings in India or the UK Liquid Terror plot, all of it leads right back to Pakistani ISI.
It isnt just Islamic extremists who like chaos in the middle east:
anyone whose seen Syriana, got the point that it's also corporate interests and global elites who also love instability and chaos in the middle east.
The "war on terror" is just a smokescreen to push through American hegemon across the Eurasia...as outlined by former Carter foreign policy advisor Zbiginiew Brzininski who BRAGGED about artificically inciting and exploiting Islamic extremists/jihadis to fight the Soviets in 1979, the US needed a new enemy after the cold war...enter the very convenient Islamic Extremists.
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
You know, now with Al Jazeera International opening its doors it seems like the perfect opportunity to welcome arabs into a larger political discourse. That's what democracy is about, isn't it? Giving people a peaceful route to change things for the better.
Once that's established, the western politicians can start using Al Jazeera to properly get their own message across to the arab world.
If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, I think we will be seen in a better light.
Its a shortsighted and myopic history.
The main focus of U.S. involvement in chemical weapons has been development for most of the time we have had programs. We developed cures and worked on prevention and deterrence. But they are cures, prevention, and deterrence for chemicals that we designed in the first place.
And see, this is half my problem with whole aftermath of 9/11. We played right into thier fucking hands.
Seriously, our biggest mistake was announcing to the world that we were going to conduct a "War on Terror". To extract big, public vengence on the people who wronged us. To show off our gigantic military power and stomp around "eradicating terror" in order to please voters. Which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
However, now it's painfully obvious that we are failing, since this isn't a "War" that can be ended with big guns. Which gives insurgents more of a reason to fight. In which we respond by sending in bigger guns. Which, gives insurgents more of a reason to fight.
If we continue with this bullshittery, this war will NEVER, EVER end. Since the way we are approaching it FUELS it.
I don't love evil, but I do hate your good.
Political fallout.
Becoming an international pariah.
The US has many reasons not to use WMDs and none of them have anything to do with morals or 'higher ground'.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us hold our country to higher ideals than some stupid large-scale version of Diplomacy.
Judging from the responses that I've seen in the thread, there's basically no place for these weapons in anything but an all-out declared war, which makes perfect sense. They're just too broad-scale and carry too many consequences to be practical.
I'm just thinking back to when I mentioned the white phosphorous incendiaries that burn targets in addition to causing a toxic effect. While this one in particular's caught a lot of trouble for being considered a chemical weapon, it does have me thinking about alternative applications for the technologies we have developed/are developing in a military perspective. From a radiological standpoint, for example, I'm pretty sure I remember reading something about lasers being used to blind people at ranges of up to two kilometers. While these sort've assume you have a target prominently visible for use, are there any other sorts of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of radiological, chemical, or bacteriological categories without being the plague or a nuclear weapon? What I basically mean is, are less-severe alternatives viable?
Although, I imagine, they probably wouldn't do anything but fuel the terror recruitment effort.
Couldn't quite get the explosion small enough so that someone could pull the pin, throw the grenade as far as possible, turn around, run as fast as they could, and not get caught in the blast radius.
The scrubs?
Neutron Bombs will kill all the people, but leave the infrastructure intact and radiation-free. The new microwave weapons they're developing would cause people to feel as if they're on fire, but (reportedly) would most likely not cause permanent physical damage.
I don't believe even the most liberal of presidents would ever give an inch if he didn't believe he was somehow able to gain two. And to me that's one of the fundamental challenges in international politics: Making the rules and the situation on the playing field such that morals equal advantage. That rarely occurs naturally.
Especially when 'terror' is an emotion, not an entity.
and by definition, never ending wars aren't usually decided.
Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, centuries of jurisprudence, geopolitics and governmental philosophy is as nothing next to some dude who feels fully justified in kicking ass with Ryu in Street Fighter II.
Locke was such a fucking scrub. Hobbes kicked ass with his dragon punch.