[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thanks Lanny, I'll take a look for that documentary, I'll let you know what I think.

I'm going to order those up and verify one of them is the documentary in question. Unfortunately I can't remember the name. It was broadcast around the aniversay of Hiroshima or Nagasaki last year, but I couldn't find the schedules of the stations that I might have seen it on to verify the title. If I come across it I will let you know. A very fascinating subject to say the least.

Your right, times have changed, if you remember the start of the war when the American's deployed the MOAB in Iraq, it was quickly forgotten about, the wrong weapon for the wrong war.

That happens all the time. The lack of vision by the military can be startling.

Unfortunately, weapons like the bunker buster are going to become more of a necessary tool since the enemy is now more elusive, and piecemeal battles may become a thing of the past as mobility and precision striking capability become more important.

I agree that they will become more necessary, but the use of nuclear bunker busters concerns me. Bunker busters have this terrible habit of not detonating. How would you feel if a nuclear tipped bunker buster did not go off. Now a nuclear weapon IS in play and its a race to see who can recover it first. Not a pretty picture.

There might be a better way to do things, but I think we are now beyond the hypothetical 12 on the clock, its unlikely that there is a diplomatic solution to the war on terror, or even a economic solution to the war on terror, and the American's aren't the only ones who should take thier share of the blame.

If there is no diplomatic solution to the war on terror, there is no solution. This is a battle of doctrine, and you cannot defeat that through a land war. The best weapon in this fight is education, plain and simple. Troops on the ground only exacerbate the situation and create more holy warriors. The way to fight this war is covertly and through economic and educational means.

However the American's have always been slow to get really angry, but when they do they have an all or nothing mentality, win at all costs screw the other guys.

Completely disagree. America has an itchy trigger finger and they love to squeeze a round off. What is ironic is that they don't believe anyone has the ability to beat them, so they keep the gun in the holster so to speak. What's interesting is that in America's 230 year history they have been either engaged in war or preparing for way 56% of that time. Doesn't seem like a slow to get angry mentality to me.

I'm presently reading a book on the intelligence community's involvement in the leadup to Iraq2. Pretty damning when you consider all the intelligence they ignored. Multiple nations gave the Americans intelligence that pointed to the 9/11 attacks (specifics) and the United States government chose to ignore those warnings.

What is very disconcerting is that in July of 2001 a bulletin was made to those bodies associated with public safety mechanism to be ready to deal with a terrorist attack. It was worded that it WOULD happen and to have contingency plans ready for such situations. It seems that the acknowledgement is now there that the government knew it was coming, they just did nothing to stop it.

But where the world has changed is it used to be that you could fight a war and eventually become friends and allies, (see Russia, France, Germany and Japan), thats become a impossible solution as war no longer involves countries, but involves race, ideology and religion, and repairing relations between those lines is impossible and takes generations and not years.

On the money. The game has changed. Can our western way of thinking adapt to the changes?

I'm still a Military Hawk in that I've defended the need for the Canadian Military to be expanded and upgraded, for the protection of the people that serve, the people that need it and the international community. The ability for Canada to participate in UN peace keeping missions has degraded to the point where we actually only have a handful of troops deployed under the UN flag, imagine hearing that in the 60's and 70's where Canadian's wore the blue beret throughout the world. The Military also needs better transport and the ability to rapidly deploy itself as oppossed to needing other nations to transport and supply our troops.

I think the Canadian military needs to retool as well. I think they need to start changing thier focus and adapt to the 21st century model. Canada is such a big country that the military could never stop an invasion force. The best way to deal with it is through a terrorist campaign. IMO the Canadian military should develop forces that are specialized in guerilla and urban warfare. They should specialize in small units that can deploy quickly and use the special skills in this type of fighting. They should have more sniper units like those in Afganistan. They should have snatch and grab teams. They should have insurgent fighting teams. IMO the Canadian military should retool to become a support body for other countries larger traditional forces. The Canadian military should fill in the gaps. I think they still need an airforce, but they should go to a light and mobile military that can react and deploy quickly. Lots of specialists and their support teams.

But thats way off topic.

Thanks, I actually enjoyed this.

Ditto.