.jpg)
FIRST STRIKE
“Civility only resonates with Civilized people, and Violence only registers with violent people”
P.I.B.
For centuries fathers have given this sage advice to their sons: “don’t ever look for a fight, but if you must; fight to win”
My dad told me: “ Don’t look for a fight, but if one is unavoidable, Hit first, hit fast, hit hard, and hit last. Win at all costs.”
Most civilized peoples and countries abhor violence and war. The vast majority of people would always prefer to live in peace. We have all been taught that war is not only something to be avoided, but it should always be the last option.
“ Peace is always preferable, but in the course of human events, sometimes conflict and even war is unavoidable”
In keeping with this desire to avoid war, yet recognizing each nation’s undeniable right to self defense a tactical dilemma exists. If war is eminent and unavoidable does a nation have to wait to be attacked in order to offer a defense? Is it necessary to suffer casualties in order to maintain the moral high ground.
With today’s advances in weapons and warfare, the one who strikes first has a decisive advantage. In years past, an Army could afford to take the first blow and then counter with their own offensive counter attack. In today’s war fighting arena, we can not afford to turn the other check. The defender, who waits, can not afford to absorb a lightening fast crippling blow that could literally neutralize an effective counter attack.
Despite our best wishes and concerted efforts to handle all situations in a political, diplomatic, or peaceful forum, it takes two to talk peace. Like it or not there are those, that would do us great harm. The genie is out of the bottle. The exclusive club of nuclear nations is soon to be joined by some new and highly volatile members.
Today, the risks and stakes are raised significantly with weapons that are capable of taking out entire cities. A determined enemy can inflict more damage in one day (possibly into the millions) than was done in any war of the past. A single war head can kill large numbers in a 3-10 mile radius. In this type of scenario, there are no do-overs, and there is no second place winner. Past wars were just as brutal and unthinkable, yet the causalities might seem minor to the effects of a Weapon of Mass destruction. (although each and every death is tragic) Here are a few statistics from previous wars. (not counting wounded and deaths out of theater)
American Revolution ( 1775-1783) 4,435 battle deaths
Civil War ( 1861-1865) 140,414 “union” and 74,524 “conf”
Gulf War (1990-1991) 147 battle deaths
War on Terror as of 2006 over 4,000
American wars Total 653,708
Even the smallest and most economically challenged countries of the world can now garner highly advanced armament as well as weapons of mass destruction (either chemical, nuclear, or conventional). Using these indiscriminate weapons can lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of casualties. In the wrong hands weapons such as these could be purposely brought to bear on non-combatants and innocent civilian populations.
So, the question remains, Is a tactical first strike capability a viable option? And, will the countries leadership be ready, willing, and able to use it if that need or opportunity should occur. Having this first strike capability and having the will and ability to use it, are two different things. Any leader or commander that would knowingly take the First Strike option off the negotiating table or the battle plan would severely weaken his position.
Israel for one, is now in a dilemma where this issue will need to be decided. I believe they have the capability, they have the resolve, and they have the internal support to utilize a first strike strategy. In their mind waiting only exasperates the problem and lessens its viability as a military option. They believe that their right to self defense usurps the demands of the United Nations and international law. Due to the small size and population of their country they cannot fight a war of attrition.
Let’s face it, the stakes are much higher today. Modern weaponry is capable of great destruction, of both military and innocent civilian targets. Especially when our opponents are less technologically advanced, they will seek out soft targets such as civilians to exact a toll on our country. In our culture we prefer to hold to our higher standards and want the world to view us as the reluctant participant in any conflict. I can assure you that our enemies will harbor no such moral dilemma.
You heard it before and it is true. “The best defense is a good offense”. The threat of a massive pre-emptive strike and its horrible aftermath has given pause to many an evil world leader. The sad and unfortunate truth is that someone starts all wars. I deplore the use of war as a political tool, however, I am a strong believer in Self Defense. (in the home, on the street, and on the battlefield)
Please don’t judge my political leaning or intent by the scope of this information. Just as you would surely use any means at your discretion to stop someone that entered your home with bad intentions. I feel that If someone has the intention to do great harm to America..all I can say is.. “Not in our house”
Please feel free to contact me at: pooritalianboy@gmail.com
P.I.B.
“Civility only resonates with Civilized people, and Violence only registers with violent people”
P.I.B.
For centuries fathers have given this sage advice to their sons: “don’t ever look for a fight, but if you must; fight to win”
My dad told me: “ Don’t look for a fight, but if one is unavoidable, Hit first, hit fast, hit hard, and hit last. Win at all costs.”
Most civilized peoples and countries abhor violence and war. The vast majority of people would always prefer to live in peace. We have all been taught that war is not only something to be avoided, but it should always be the last option.
“ Peace is always preferable, but in the course of human events, sometimes conflict and even war is unavoidable”
In keeping with this desire to avoid war, yet recognizing each nation’s undeniable right to self defense a tactical dilemma exists. If war is eminent and unavoidable does a nation have to wait to be attacked in order to offer a defense? Is it necessary to suffer casualties in order to maintain the moral high ground.
With today’s advances in weapons and warfare, the one who strikes first has a decisive advantage. In years past, an Army could afford to take the first blow and then counter with their own offensive counter attack. In today’s war fighting arena, we can not afford to turn the other check. The defender, who waits, can not afford to absorb a lightening fast crippling blow that could literally neutralize an effective counter attack.
Despite our best wishes and concerted efforts to handle all situations in a political, diplomatic, or peaceful forum, it takes two to talk peace. Like it or not there are those, that would do us great harm. The genie is out of the bottle. The exclusive club of nuclear nations is soon to be joined by some new and highly volatile members.
Today, the risks and stakes are raised significantly with weapons that are capable of taking out entire cities. A determined enemy can inflict more damage in one day (possibly into the millions) than was done in any war of the past. A single war head can kill large numbers in a 3-10 mile radius. In this type of scenario, there are no do-overs, and there is no second place winner. Past wars were just as brutal and unthinkable, yet the causalities might seem minor to the effects of a Weapon of Mass destruction. (although each and every death is tragic) Here are a few statistics from previous wars. (not counting wounded and deaths out of theater)
American Revolution ( 1775-1783) 4,435 battle deaths
Civil War ( 1861-1865) 140,414 “union” and 74,524 “conf”
Gulf War (1990-1991) 147 battle deaths
War on Terror as of 2006 over 4,000
American wars Total 653,708
Even the smallest and most economically challenged countries of the world can now garner highly advanced armament as well as weapons of mass destruction (either chemical, nuclear, or conventional). Using these indiscriminate weapons can lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of casualties. In the wrong hands weapons such as these could be purposely brought to bear on non-combatants and innocent civilian populations.
So, the question remains, Is a tactical first strike capability a viable option? And, will the countries leadership be ready, willing, and able to use it if that need or opportunity should occur. Having this first strike capability and having the will and ability to use it, are two different things. Any leader or commander that would knowingly take the First Strike option off the negotiating table or the battle plan would severely weaken his position.
Israel for one, is now in a dilemma where this issue will need to be decided. I believe they have the capability, they have the resolve, and they have the internal support to utilize a first strike strategy. In their mind waiting only exasperates the problem and lessens its viability as a military option. They believe that their right to self defense usurps the demands of the United Nations and international law. Due to the small size and population of their country they cannot fight a war of attrition.
Let’s face it, the stakes are much higher today. Modern weaponry is capable of great destruction, of both military and innocent civilian targets. Especially when our opponents are less technologically advanced, they will seek out soft targets such as civilians to exact a toll on our country. In our culture we prefer to hold to our higher standards and want the world to view us as the reluctant participant in any conflict. I can assure you that our enemies will harbor no such moral dilemma.
You heard it before and it is true. “The best defense is a good offense”. The threat of a massive pre-emptive strike and its horrible aftermath has given pause to many an evil world leader. The sad and unfortunate truth is that someone starts all wars. I deplore the use of war as a political tool, however, I am a strong believer in Self Defense. (in the home, on the street, and on the battlefield)
Please don’t judge my political leaning or intent by the scope of this information. Just as you would surely use any means at your discretion to stop someone that entered your home with bad intentions. I feel that If someone has the intention to do great harm to America..all I can say is.. “Not in our house”
Please feel free to contact me at: pooritalianboy@gmail.com
P.I.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment