Resolve

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Jan 9, 2005.

  1. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    How important has it been and how important is it today in being victorious in a war as opposed to the importance of superior military might? I tend to think that a nation's resolve to stand firm to the end and fight the war to win is more important than having superior technology. If what Lindberg said about the German and American armies was true, tben WW2 would be a great example of such an occurence. What do you guy's think?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Resolve means nothing, Joseph, if you aren't willing to do whatever is necessary to win, and I mean WHATEVER is necessary to win. No matter what. Even using the big one, if that's what it takes.
     
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, the best strategy is meaningless without the resolve to see it through even when things get ugly.

    I agree with using whatever is necessary. Otherwise, it would be foolish to even own the big one if you were not really willing to use it. Of course, I think you and I would disagree about what is necessary in some cases. For example, in WW2, the war you exclaim was the last correctly planned and executed war, how long did it take for America to drop the big one and what led us to that point? It would seem to me that there is a segment of this society who would like to nuke the world as the answer to all our problems. I, on the other hand, agree with FDR and others who would say that the nuclear option should be the last resort because of the overwhelming damage it causes not only our enemies, but also the innocent victims of our enemies. Can you imagine what would have happened had we decided to drop the big one on Germany in WW2?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Germany had surrendered before the A-bomb was ready.
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Correct. See, what is missing here is the big picture. Until you see what the enemy is about and why they are about what they are about, then you will never get at the root of the problem.
     
  6. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guerrilla war doctrine is to draw the adversary in close..."hold him by the belt" as General Giap said in Vietnam...in order to make his weapons as deadly to himself as to the guerrilla. Guerrilla tactics make nukes and other large weapons more of a detriment than an asset. In fact, it makes them worse than useless.

    Mao said the guerrilla is like a fish and the people are his water. He moves among the people like a fish moves in the water. Massive retaliation is an attempt to destroy the fish by vaporizing the pond. It might work but the side affect will be the loss of the moral high ground and increased anger on the other side that breeds more fish. As long as the people continue to be driven into the arms of the guerrilla by such tactics, the less your chances of winning.

    The brilliant British strategist, B. H. Liddell Hart, compares modern weapons and massive retaliation against guerrillas as like trying to use a sledgehammer to counter swarming gnats.
    See: Strategy
     

Share This Page

Loading...