Should NATO continue to be involved in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Ron Earp
- Start date
This is one of the reasons we are changing our role in Afganistan from Combat to training Afgan troops. Until the Afgan Gov change and the people change it will be a whole lot of the same thing over and over.
Dave
YouTube - Canadian Military Footage of an attack by an IED
Dave
YouTube - Canadian Military Footage of an attack by an IED
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I still see bits and pieces here in this string as if we understand or apply our cultural thinking to them. This very lack of understanding is why we got it this mess in the first place. We view death as an anomaly in life even though we know it is the eventual outcome. Over there, they see death on a daily basis, and consequently it does not carry the same meaning to them. For anyone to assert that should nukes become available to them, and used by them, that we would come down harshly (end of story) is like telling the crazy neighbor next door with the gun pointed in your window, "if you kill one of my family members you'll be sorry". It may be somewhat of a deterrent, but it won't bring anybody back to life, and he may not have anything to lose. You've got to have something to lose if you expect to be "coerced" into a direction of action or thought, and those folks have nothing to lose.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o
>Ox</o>
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o
>Ox</o>Yes, well put Terry.
We mistakenly assume all to often that our foe is a rational thinking, semi-educated foe who places some value on human life. In many cases we're dead wrong and clearly misinformed about the basic nature of our foe.
Do we really think that folks who strap explosives to their chest or fly a commercial airline into a skyscraper wouldn't light off a nuke in the same way? Of course they will - the only thing that's in question is how soon can a really powerful nuke be put into a compact and easily delivered package.
It's just plain shocking when you really think about it. I think Obama is putting these extra troops into Afghanistan because he's been exposed to some of the intel regarding terrorist plots for US shores that are already mature and in process. He's scared the crazies will a get it all together and pull off another 9/11, or even worse, a nuke 9/11 type event.
We mistakenly assume all to often that our foe is a rational thinking, semi-educated foe who places some value on human life. In many cases we're dead wrong and clearly misinformed about the basic nature of our foe.
Do we really think that folks who strap explosives to their chest or fly a commercial airline into a skyscraper wouldn't light off a nuke in the same way? Of course they will - the only thing that's in question is how soon can a really powerful nuke be put into a compact and easily delivered package.
It's just plain shocking when you really think about it. I think Obama is putting these extra troops into Afghanistan because he's been exposed to some of the intel regarding terrorist plots for US shores that are already mature and in process. He's scared the crazies will a get it all together and pull off another 9/11, or even worse, a nuke 9/11 type event.
Last edited:
Charlie Farley
Supporter
"the only thing that's in question is how soon can a really powerful nuke be put into a compact and easily delivered package ?"
Cliff,
in answer to your question, i believe the Russians perfected a suitcase bomb in the late seventies.
Anyone know anymore ?
Cliff,
in answer to your question, i believe the Russians perfected a suitcase bomb in the late seventies.
Anyone know anymore ?
Charlie Farley
Supporter
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Shiiite now I won't be able to sleep at night. I think NATO should get their arse into gear and become much more pro-active.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Maybe HBOS and RBS are Al Qaida in disguise. They didn't need a suitcase bomb to effectively destroy the markets. I see the board of one of them is threatening to resign if they don't get paid their bonuses. Oh yes ? Bring it on......
Last edited:
1. This is a tough poll given that there are two separate factors here, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The book by Greg Mortenson “Three Cups Of Tea” provides a lot of insight into the situation over there, and it’s credibility is supported by the fact that he is now an advisor to the military and his book required reading for all the commanders in Afghanistan. His interpretation is that the Taliban are primarily interested in their historic inter-tribal rivalries and are local problems not particularly involved with the rest of the world (an excellent article by Mortenson was on the MSNBC home page two or three days ago - 'Three Cups of Tea' advice for Obama - Giving- msnbc.com).
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, are the fanatics out to rid the world of the rest of us. While we might debate whether the Taliban and their poppy funding activities should be engaged, either by the U.S and/or NATO, I don’t think we/the world/NATO can ignore Al Qaeda. That means we all have some responsibility for stopping them, which includes manpower, resources and funding. The US no longer has the luxury or means of doing it all by ourselves. We all have skin in his game.
2. Nuclear devices: The argument that Al Qaeda won’t use a nuke is not realistic.
MAD doesn’t apply because a) destruction is not a deterrent to fanatics, b) Since
there is no ‘mutual – we don’t have a single opponent like the USSR – who would we ‘respond’ to? Afghanistan? Where in Afghan.? Pakistan? Waziristan? Iran? N. Korea? c) The lawyers of the world would dither forever trying to prove who was responsible, then the tree huggers wouldn’t allow a nuke response anyway.
3. Nuke Weapons Effects: A nuke has three kill mechanisms, Thermal, blast and radiation (initial and residual). Weapons can be optimized to enhance or minimize any of these – remember the neutron bomb that got politically buried years ago? A suitcase bomb would be ‘dirty – high residual’ almost by definition, given it’s crude firing mechanism. Going back to SHAPE’s ‘The NATO School” at Oberammergau among others, the blast effect of a 1KT nuke going off at ground level in London, New York or DC would be terrible (100 psi overpressure out to 340 ft, 25 psi overpressure enough to collapse a reinforced concrete house out to some 700 ft.- muffling effect of surrounding buildings balanced somewhat by fragments and debris flying from the collapsing ones – the cube rule says that if you want to double the distance for the same effect, you need 8 times the yield - going to the top of a tall building would be more like an airburst). More terrible, however, would be the fear and effect this would have on the world and it’s economy. Al Qaeda would achieve one of it’s highest goals. That looming sword deserves all the defensive measures the world, not just the US, can muster.
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, are the fanatics out to rid the world of the rest of us. While we might debate whether the Taliban and their poppy funding activities should be engaged, either by the U.S and/or NATO, I don’t think we/the world/NATO can ignore Al Qaeda. That means we all have some responsibility for stopping them, which includes manpower, resources and funding. The US no longer has the luxury or means of doing it all by ourselves. We all have skin in his game.
2. Nuclear devices: The argument that Al Qaeda won’t use a nuke is not realistic.
MAD doesn’t apply because a) destruction is not a deterrent to fanatics, b) Since
there is no ‘mutual – we don’t have a single opponent like the USSR – who would we ‘respond’ to? Afghanistan? Where in Afghan.? Pakistan? Waziristan? Iran? N. Korea? c) The lawyers of the world would dither forever trying to prove who was responsible, then the tree huggers wouldn’t allow a nuke response anyway.
3. Nuke Weapons Effects: A nuke has three kill mechanisms, Thermal, blast and radiation (initial and residual). Weapons can be optimized to enhance or minimize any of these – remember the neutron bomb that got politically buried years ago? A suitcase bomb would be ‘dirty – high residual’ almost by definition, given it’s crude firing mechanism. Going back to SHAPE’s ‘The NATO School” at Oberammergau among others, the blast effect of a 1KT nuke going off at ground level in London, New York or DC would be terrible (100 psi overpressure out to 340 ft, 25 psi overpressure enough to collapse a reinforced concrete house out to some 700 ft.- muffling effect of surrounding buildings balanced somewhat by fragments and debris flying from the collapsing ones – the cube rule says that if you want to double the distance for the same effect, you need 8 times the yield - going to the top of a tall building would be more like an airburst). More terrible, however, would be the fear and effect this would have on the world and it’s economy. Al Qaeda would achieve one of it’s highest goals. That looming sword deserves all the defensive measures the world, not just the US, can muster.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Mike,
the scenario for a 1 KT dirty/suitcase weapon is probably going to be worse in the built up areas as the overpressure (although almost instant ) at any given level will also, to a certain extent, be channelled /funnelled depending on the street layout and scenario. With high rise buildings it would be catastrophic and major collatoral damage may well occur with even only a 10psi overpressure.
It doesn't bare thinking about - nor does the retaliation scenario but by the same token - if it ever happens , I think the so called 'tree huggers' will be required to disembowel themselves before the rest of the remaining populace do it for them.
It would take about 20 blasts of about a 450KT to knock out a quarter of the population in the UK - just something you can throw into a converstion if it gets a bit boring........
the scenario for a 1 KT dirty/suitcase weapon is probably going to be worse in the built up areas as the overpressure (although almost instant ) at any given level will also, to a certain extent, be channelled /funnelled depending on the street layout and scenario. With high rise buildings it would be catastrophic and major collatoral damage may well occur with even only a 10psi overpressure.
It doesn't bare thinking about - nor does the retaliation scenario but by the same token - if it ever happens , I think the so called 'tree huggers' will be required to disembowel themselves before the rest of the remaining populace do it for them.
It would take about 20 blasts of about a 450KT to knock out a quarter of the population in the UK - just something you can throw into a converstion if it gets a bit boring........
You can't give a revolution to those who don't want it. Nothing will come from a new government handed over to the privileged (exactly who did you think was going to benefit from this?)like a birthday present. They don't have a deep enough involvement. And no revolution/change of government will ever suceed with out the participation of the middle class. If they are not uncomfortable enough they will do nothing to effect change. Plus, you cannot reason with someone who isn't afraid to die,i.e.,the fanatic. Add it all up and you'll understand why the French pulled out of Viet Nam and the Russians left Afghanistan. We ( UN countries) didn't learn anything from Korea. The successful conversions to a democratic society were the ones who WANTED a western government;they WANTED to be like the U.S.,U.K.,etc. We have to change the way we understand their cultures. It is nothing more than conceit to think the rest of the world has to think exactly like us. Our problem with the Taliban and Al Qaeda is that we are now their sworn enemy and,in fact, their exact reason for existence. Our need to monitor and restrict their capactiy for creating worldwide disaster has become a mandatory endeavor - we opened the box,we now have to try and sit on the lid.
+1. The difficulty now for NATO and the politicians is how to get out of Afghanistan in such a way that it appears we have won the war, or at least not lost it.
Howard Jones
Supporter
I fear that this is going to take a very,very long time. Maybe 40-50-60 years. I tend to think that we just keep killing the enemy in order to keep their capability below the threshold to hurt us worse that we can stand seams to be the only real way forward. At the same time we must do whatever we can to make friends in the region as difficult as that is to do. We are going to have to do this in the hope that local good will might overcome the efforts of the enemy to teach hate for the west. It really has become a war for the hearts and minds of the population. This has sort of worked in Iraq. So far....
They just might over a long time loose faith in their leaders, want to live in peace, or run out of will. Everybody gets war weary sooner or later. Especially when your opponent won't let up. The question is which role are we playing. "War weary" or "determined".
"Determined" will be painful for a long time. "Weary" (surrender) will be worse for longer I believe. The cold war comes to mind. We could have just given up and left Europe. Does anybody think that would have worked out well for the west? How about making a deal with Hitler...Togo? The US could have avoided war for another decade maybe. But I think the result would have been far worse.
The bottom line is if there was an easy answer we would just do it and be done with it. There isn't one. That's pretty clear to me.
They just might over a long time loose faith in their leaders, want to live in peace, or run out of will. Everybody gets war weary sooner or later. Especially when your opponent won't let up. The question is which role are we playing. "War weary" or "determined".
"Determined" will be painful for a long time. "Weary" (surrender) will be worse for longer I believe. The cold war comes to mind. We could have just given up and left Europe. Does anybody think that would have worked out well for the west? How about making a deal with Hitler...Togo? The US could have avoided war for another decade maybe. But I think the result would have been far worse.
The bottom line is if there was an easy answer we would just do it and be done with it. There isn't one. That's pretty clear to me.
The war in Afghanistan and Iraq is not a war of bullets. It's a war of economics, justice, opportunity, and self determination. What does all that mean? It means for civilized interaction between adults to take place (in the way we think of that in Western terms) there has to be jobs for people, a functioning judicial system, modern infrastructure (roads, utilities), security, some healthy degree of civil liberty, and raw resources (water, energy sources, food production, etc.) among other things. Developing these things in a bombed-out tribal warfare state is just about impossible, and further, is going to take decades. As soon as the US went in to Iraq and Afghanistan we should have been prepared to be there for a very long time.
To think we can drop in with military forces, win some kind of "war" and have solved the counties problems is to be pretty unaware. You have to capture the heats and minds of the population to begin the development of these components of civilized society. And, it doesn't happen with an uneducated population. Developing educational resources also takes years/decades.
It's a messy, messy business trying to "democratize" the rest of the world....
To think we can drop in with military forces, win some kind of "war" and have solved the counties problems is to be pretty unaware. You have to capture the heats and minds of the population to begin the development of these components of civilized society. And, it doesn't happen with an uneducated population. Developing educational resources also takes years/decades.
It's a messy, messy business trying to "democratize" the rest of the world....
A difficult choice indeed. History repeats itself - I recommend 'Flashman' by George McDonald Fraser as an accurate description of the Anglo-Afghan war of the 1840s. It is, of course, a novel, but considered historically accurate (Flashman is the only fictional character), and the actions of Elphy Bey (General Elphinstone) are typical of precisely what is happening now - indecision, poor direction and lack of equipment. Back then, it resulted in a massacre of the British forces, and yet here we are again doing the same thing. The problem is there is no army to fight, just fuedal war lords who have no concern for human life and would happily kill their friends as much as their enemies. Nato will simply carry on regardless, with our soldiers being picked-off in ones and twos every other day, and an increasing lack of public support at home.
There is no answer - we should have left the Taliban alone, but now the genie is out of the bottle and we (the west) are left with a no-win situation.
Al-Queda is a different question, and has as much if not more to do with Pakistan than the Afghan administration. I don't see Nato's presence doing much to help that either.
I do agree with the other posters that trying to spread democracy is misguided. At one time in our history (UK) to describe someone as a democrat was to issue an insult. You would have again thought we would have learned from our own history - the major factor that sparked the Indian Mutiny was the British trying to convert the indian population to Christianity - now we are doing the same, though this time with democracy. Anyone would think we had democracy at home!
There is no answer - we should have left the Taliban alone, but now the genie is out of the bottle and we (the west) are left with a no-win situation.
Al-Queda is a different question, and has as much if not more to do with Pakistan than the Afghan administration. I don't see Nato's presence doing much to help that either.
I do agree with the other posters that trying to spread democracy is misguided. At one time in our history (UK) to describe someone as a democrat was to issue an insult. You would have again thought we would have learned from our own history - the major factor that sparked the Indian Mutiny was the British trying to convert the indian population to Christianity - now we are doing the same, though this time with democracy. Anyone would think we had democracy at home!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Good summation Chappy, Ditto+1. Btw I love the Flashman Novels.
I think I've learnt more British history (and Empire, US and even Chinese) from good ol' Professor Flashie than any other source. I've tried to model myself on his character - coward, womaniser, happy to take credit from good or brave acts with which I had no involvement...you know the stuff. However, in my case, I realised that I was like that long before I read the books. :thumbsup:
Similar threads
