(January 19, 2017 at 1:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 19, 2017 at 1:33 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I've asked a bunch of times what you mean with some of your statements.  You said wars should go as quick as possible while affecting the lowest amount of innocent lives, but within reason.  That statement..doesn't really tell me a lot.  I think literally everyone would agree with that.  I'm asking what kinds of things should the military be allowed to do/not to do, what kind of oversight do you think is too much, etc?

No, CL, I don't think that you believe that we should "kill everyone in sight."

As I said, I don't know enough about this kind of thing to know exactly what the military should/should not be allowed to do.  

I was referring specifically to the Vietnam war, and that the way we fought it set too many unreasonable limits to the military for the sake of the politicians back home saving face. And in the end that just ended up hurting more lives, as the most innocent people among us are still suffering the consequences of how that war was fought, 4 decades later.

You won't get any argument from me regarding the Vietnam war.  It was a shitshow in every facet of the word.  I was more asking about your thoughts on warfare in general.  Sorry, I probably should've explained that a bit better.

(January 19, 2017 at 10:38 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 10:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Try to imagine the potential problems which might have resulted from one of our planes attacking a 'neutral' ship.

Of course. But imagine striking those dockyard facilities while no ships were in port. Those missiles ain't gonna walk to the battery's deployment.

It should also be noted that supplying arms to a belligerent is, under international law, itself an act of war.

So we needed another war with China, Russia or one of their allied states? 

Besides, we mined Haiphong harbor which was dangerous enough and we bombed the shit out of Haiphong and Hanoi.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-histo...d-haiphong

Quote:In the first use of B-52s against both Hanoi and Haiphong, and the first attacks against both cities since November 1968, 18 B-52s and about 100 U.S. Navy and Air Force fighter-bombers struck supply dumps near Haiphong’s harbor. Sixty fighter-bombers hit petroleum storage facilities near Hanoi, with another wave of planes striking later in the afternoon. White House spokesmen announced that the United States would bomb military targets anywhere in Vietnam in order to help the South Vietnamese defend against the communist onslaught.

(January 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(January 19, 2017 at 1:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As I said, I don't know enough about this kind of thing to know exactly what the military should/should not be allowed to do.  

I was referring specifically to the Vietnam war, and that the way we fought it set too many unreasonable limits to the military for the sake of the politicians back home saving face. And in the end that just ended up hurting more lives, as the most innocent people among us are still suffering the consequences of how that war was fought, 4 decades later.

You won't get any argument from me regarding the Vietnam war.  It was a shitshow in every facet of the word.  I was more asking about your thoughts on warfare in general.  Sorry, I probably should've explained that a bit better.

Yeah, I don't know anything really about warfare. Just repeating what my husband told me about Vietnam and that it set an example of how not to fight a war.

International law, ROE and theater/unit specific restrictions handle what the military "should and shouldn't do".  That's what might tell us, for example....that even though razing a building with some HE would handily solve the enemy combatant problem inside....we actually have to breach and clear with small arms.  In practical effect, shooters don't see civilians, they see tactical obstacles, sympathizers, and my personal favorite.... "soft cover".  "The most innocent people among us" probably doesn't have room to include warfighters. Not to say that soldiers, then and now, don't get the shitty end of a shitty stick (particularly when they aren't busily engaged in dishing out shit themselves)...but that can probably be established without resorting to absurd hyperbole. Innocence, if it was ever possessed, is lost the moment we pull a trigger. Naivety may remain, ofc, and often does. One is easily confused for the other.

People often forget there are multiple ways to serve ones country, and being in the military is just one of them.

Quote:Just repeating what my husband told me about Vietnam and that it set an example of how not to fight a war.

History, my dear, is filled with such examples!

Quote:Montgomery’s rules of war

1.  Don’t march on Moscow.

2.  Don’t go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia.

And also, to clarify, "letting the military do what needs to be done to get the job done quickly" and "the 'best' war is a swift war" were his words I was repeating, spoken specifically in the context of the Vietnam War. And with the end goal always being about getting a war over as quickly as possible while effecting the least amount of innocent lives in the long run.

Those 2 statements shouldn't be taken in a general sense isolated from their proper context.  

I don't want people thinking we're both warmongers or something, because that is the farthest thing from the truth.

It's an ill defined statement that can easily apply to anything.

Using ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsRhythm's example, razing a building over a single enemy combatant can put a "swift end" to a section of a greater conflict, thus bringing it closer to the end.

Even if the building is full of noncombatants or hostages.

Clearing it out with small arms fire is significantly slower and more risky.

For a two variable constraint in a system where you can't determine the global maximum, only a local maxima, you will see one factor dominate over another. Do you want to bias to minimal collateral damage or reduced time?

It's easy to see why a pilot would use those sorts of phrases or hold such an opinion.  Everything abut what they do is the epitome of swift.  Fast in, fast out.  One second there's a building, the next there isn't.  Ground troops otoh, have to live with the consequences of that action (is it any wonder that I hate drones, lol?), and also instinctively recognize that it could just as easily have been them (sometimes it is).  Our opinions on what might constitute the best war and how to wage it are almost invariably influenced by our MOS.  Truth be told, all warfighters are compromised, and not just in one way, in multiple ways - which is why civilian control of the military - far removed from any field of battle, is crucial.

(January 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm)Tiberius Wrote: People often forget there are multiple ways to serve ones country, and being in the military is just one of them.

I used to say this exact same thing before we joined. I'm not even kidding lol.

And I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with that statement now. All careers are important and all of them bring something to the table. But the unique/special thing about being in the military is the amount of sacrifice it takes from the members and their families. Coupled with the crappy pay to do such an important, demanding, and often dangerous job. Something I didn't understand before we joined. 

Few careers fall into the same category.