Leader

**Dalmatian90** · 09-16-2001, 04:20 PM

Well, first the whole quote: "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and aroused in him a terrible resolve."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander, Japanese Combined Fleets.

It isn't a sign of weakness or cowardice to cry and be worried. It is a sign of anxiety...but it is an oppurtonity to steel one's self up an prepare for the years ahead. You can be worried and anxious and win; just don't panic.

No, this isn't going nuclear. Building a nuclear bomb is still a complicated enough deal that only a few nations have done it. Yeah could happen. Extremely unlikely due to the technical and financial requirements and the known response.

The following I'm copying from another forum I posted on, to give some background and my opinion on the next immediate actions:

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and aroused in him a terrible resolve."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Admiral Yamamoto was one of the finest commanders of WWII, and like German General Erwin Rommel was someone who had the respect of the U.S. Military even as we fought against them. In what I guess we could call the "Yamamoto Doctrine" the U.S. intercepted communications that included his flight plan, taking him within range of a U.S. fighter base. The decision went to President Roosevelt -- Yes, he's a legitimate target. Take him out.

That really isn't a surprising or shocking decision. Since General Ulysses S. Grant in the Civil War, fundemental U.S. Military Doctrine is to apply maximum possible force and violence to bring a situation to the quickest resolution.

One needs to only look at U.S. Airpower in World War II. We took greater American casualties to bomb in the daytime to try and be more accurate; at the same time we were willing to accept high civilian casualties, be it Hiroshima or Nagasaki (with 80,000 dead) -- or the far deadlier fire bombings of Dresden (130,000 dead) or Tokyo (200,000). It wasn't malice against those civilians, but the need to bring the war to the quickest possible conclusion. No nation has ever proven it's willingness to use extreme violence effectively in the hope to prevent more deaths in the future.

No nation either has shown it's ability to forgive and rebuild -- one needs only look at the Marshal Plan. The aid we gave Europe after the war undoubtly played a large role in the heart-warming solidarity Europe showed to us this week. Le Monde, Paris' leading newspaper, led with an editorial, "Today we are all American, we are all New Yorker, as surely as John Kennedy in 1963 was a Berliner."

It is not malice against a people, but if they lay between us and the goal of eradicating the people and organizations that threaten our security we will go through them now and help them in our wake. It helps no one to prolong a conflict unneccesarily.

Soviet dead and missing in Afghanistan amounted to almost 15,000 troops, a modest percent of the 642,000 Soviets who served during the ten-year war. Far more telling were the 469,685 other casualties, fully 73 percent of the overall force, who were wounded or incapacitated by serious illness. Some 415,932 troops fell victim to disease, of which 115,308 suffered from infectious hepatitis and 31,080 from typhoid fever. Beyond the sheer magnitude of these numbers is what these figures say about Soviet military hygiene and the conditions surrounding troop life. These numbers are unheard of in modern armies and modern medicine and their social impact among the returnees and the Soviet population was staggering http://www.bdg.minsk.by/cegi/N2/Afg/Waraf.htm

You're looking at (average) combat deaths of 1,500 soldiers a year for the Soviets.

The U.S. had 58,000 combat deaths in Vietnam, per year average of about four times the Soviet losses to combat in Afghanistan.

Yes, in some ways Afghanistan was the Soviet's "Vietnam," but in many ways it wasn't. The muhjadeen got Stinger missles -- the NVA had radar guided SAM and Soviet Aircraft.

Afghanistan's Taliban experience is predominantly in fighting not only a fairly demoralized force, but an incredibly sickly, understaffed, and undersupported one in the Soviet forces. That's not what the Americans will bring to bear on them.

Tactically, the muhajadeen forces took advantage of the Soviet's inability to effectively operate their helicopters a night to stage their fights and movements. Most U.S. forces are fully night and all-weather operational, indeed it could be argued we now prefer to fight at night because our night vision and infrared systems give our technology the advantage in the darkness.

From a military strategy standpoint, the countries are gulfs apart. There is no dense vegetation to hide in; the country is not skinny with politically "off limits" territory around it.

Specifically in Afghanistan, we're looking at a relatively small group (The Taliban) that numbers 60,000. They must go, as surely as the Nazi regimine had to go. There are some parrallels -- the Taliban this spring decreed Hindus must wear a badge, just as the Nazis made Jews wear the Star of David. Some not so parrallel -- the Nazis stole art due to greed or appreciation; the Taliban has been destroying statutes and potraits as "idolatry"

Since the Soviet operations in Afghanistan several things have changed. The Iranian Government was held back by extreme U.N. negotiations in 98/99 from invading to fight the Taliban, so there is no support there. The U.S. for the last couple years has been holding joint military exercises with Turkey and the Central Asian Republics (formerly part of the USSR) north of Afghanistan. These include air-mobile (helicopter) exercises! And one of the exercises included Russian participation. China has never supported terrorism (they know it could backfire on their government), and borders only a small part of Afghanistan -- more over, they border the small area of Afghanistan not held by the Taliban so they're safe from seeing military action directly on their borders. Pakistan has been as strong of an U.S. ally as there has been in the region -- not great, but then again one of the friendlier nations. Bottom line: unlike the Soviet occupation, the country is now surrounded by hostile nations to the Taliban.

Further, unlike the time of the Soviet Occupation the middle third of this primarily agarian nation has suffered from severe drought. You don't have the capability of the land to support the guerilla warfare to the extent they did against the Soviets.

I give the above in background of statements like this: Instead, the Afghan Foreign Ministry announced that Taliban guerrillas — known as “mujahedeen” — could move against any neighbors who support a U.S. military strike. “If a neighboring country allows its soil or its air to be used in an attack against Afghanistan ... in that case the possibility cannot be ruled out that we attack that country,” the ministry said in a statement. “We’ll be forced to send our mujahedeen into their territory. ... They will be responsible for the consequences.”

That my friends, is serious detachment from reality.

I wonder too if Monday's assisnation of the leader of the Northern Alliance, the largest anti-Taliban faction in Afghanistan was a pre-emptive move thinking their might be a limited repercussion from this...the timing is just too suspicious. Not all muhajadeen are Taliban; indeed many are not only not radical Islamic some are secular.

What do I expect? A major ground engagement that uses U.S. led multi-national forces in a pincer movement targeted specifically at the Taliban. Iran and China will keep their borders solidly closed, even if they don't directly particpate. The Afghanistan Northern Alliance and other more secular muhajadeen factions will be reinforced to take Kabul. Another pincer will come out of the north from the Central Asian Republics consisting of forces from the CARs, Turkey, and possibly even Russian troops in support of American airborne/air-mobile. From the south and east of Pakistan, expect a multi-national effort to seal the border, and a large American ground force to move north from the coast of Pakistan supported by European forces. There isn't much of value to bomb in Afghanistan -- it requires troops on the ground to hunt down and neutralize Taliban and other extremist groups.

Letting the Northern Alliance take the major city & capital of Kabul will help reduce Afghan resistance there; further in the wake of the Military advances humanitarian aid must follow -- as Europe after WWII, get the starving people fed. That more than anything will knock the support out from under the Taliban now and in the future.

Unlike international political considerations in Korea and Vietnam; and unlike domestic polictical considerations in the minor conflicts of the 80s/90s (including Desert Shield/Storm) there is nothing to constrain American military action from carrying out the doctrine of maximum appropriate force.

That, frankly, is probably only the first major campaign. We may see smaller actions in places like the Sudan to take out other terrorist bases; I suspect you'll see Libya, Iran, and Syria clamp down on their supported terrorist forces severely...certainly not risk hosting them. North Korea and Cuba *will* drop their supporting actions like a hot potatoe -- it's not their war at all even if they've provided aid or shelter in the past.

Iraq, Iraq...that remains a wild card where I don't know what will happen. Seceratary of State Powell's comments today of Saddam being the biggest terrorist in the World don't forbode well though. Saddam puts out a press release today saying force failed in Desert Storm, yup, we stopped too soon back then with force.

Well, I've babbled on long enough on my thoughts...

Matt

**MFD19** · 09-16-2001, 04:59 PM

I understand your concerns as they are legitmate. However, we must also think of the message we send to all terrorists if we do not retaliate. Will we be looked at as a large country with no back bone? I believe we need to make sound thought out decisions as to the way we react to this. Nonetheless, we do need to react, swiftley, and with great force. Terrorist attacks are a daily event in the middle east and we have done well at keeping our noses out of other country's business for the most part. But now they have stepped onto our soil. It is time to let them (the terrorists and their supporters) know that this type of action will not be tolerated any longer.

**Michelle Latham** · 09-16-2001, 06:23 PM

Wow! That makes a lot of sense. But what about China and Russia? From what I see they both don't support military actions. Will they fight us if we attack the East???????

**Rescue101** · 09-16-2001, 06:59 PM

In a word No!Both have too much to lose for interfereing.T.C.

**Dalmatian90** · 09-16-2001, 07:52 PM

Russia would actively support military action if asked...they have an axe to grind with the Taliban. Plus an extremist government in Afghanistan will tend to destablize the islamic Central Aisan Republics between Afghanistan and Russia. Honestly suspect if asked the Russians would allow us a narrow flight corridor so we could strike Afghan targets from Thule, Greenland (it's not that far going over the northpole...)

Similiarly China will at worst remain neutral. They have nothing to gain from having an extremist government on their western border, one that might stir internal troubles in that area.

No problems foreseeable from either on Afghanistan if we focus on the Taliban. They may not take as active of a role if we start talking about Syria/Iraq area.

**trumpeter75** · 09-16-2001, 10:27 PM

It's perfectly normal to be anxious and worried, especially after a tragedy such as we've suffered. It's part of the helaing process, it will pass.

I'm not to concerned about nukes, myself. What does give me pause is the situation between Pakistan and India. Both are now nuclear powers, albeit with short-range weapons. We've got to tread VERY carefully in our dealings with thses two countries in the next few months; they've historically gone to war for seemingly trivial things.

I think Russia could become involved militarily, in several ways. 1. Overflights and troop staging. 2. High-level military conferences in which they discuss their experiences in Afghanistan. 3. Direct military involvement. I think any or all of the three could be in the cards.

What we need to remember, I think is that any military action initiated by the U.S. will be a multi-national affair involving several European powers. Almost a given is British involvement, and I'm starting to think Germany might do more than just allow basing and overflights. Neither China nor Russia wants to rock the boat too much by opposing a NATO members' coalition...they both rely too much on foreign trade and hard currency. At the worst, they'll stay neutral and do nothing.

I really don't think we really have anything to worry about except the idea that the American people will lose interest and their support of our troops will suffer. Public opinion will be VERY important, and the government needs to show that they are taking effective action.

**truckie_ladderco_147** · 09-16-2001, 11:14 PM

More than likely Russia and China will just yell and shake their fists at us if they dont agree.Face it we need each other.Like the guy before me said they need trade and so do we so we will just wage political "war"with words with them.
No need to worry Michelle,I have been here too.I was a Gulf War vet and I heard how we were going to have our ***'es handed to us by Sadaam.Well we didnt because we had competent military and government officals backing us up.So look out Taliban and to Dalmation90's earlier post.I believe the Taliban screwed up royally! By killing the leader of the rebels they have made them throw in with us.Last news report 30,000 troops from them are on the way south.Pakis are working with them going after Bin Laden.Looks to be bad news for the Taliban.But only time will tell.

**FFWALT** · 09-16-2001, 11:14 PM

Theoretically, due to the destabilization of the former USSR there are some unacountted for nuclear weapons out there and rougue states or movements may have them in their possession. Will they be used? That I seriously doubt will happen. The reason being, 90% of the world condemned these attacks and back us, this includes all of NATO who considered it an attack on all of NATO. Of the remaining 10% of the world, only a small part support these acts and the other part wants to remain neutral. If nuclear weapons were to be used it would affect the entire world and then it would be one country against the world. Not good odds. Another thing to keep in mind is that this is not going to be a Desert Storm type of war. We are not fighting nations, we are fighting movements within these nations. It will take time to track these people down and kill them, one cell at a time. If the country harbors and protects these people then you may have some larger actions but primarily it will be small and limited strikes. The more civilians that die with the terrorist the less support we will have. This will not be fast and it will not be easy. Just my thoughts.

**akfireman** · 09-17-2001, 12:21 AM

Michelle, I too understand your worry, i too am a desert storm vet, and i too am "tucked away up here in alaska". I think that you should listen to what the others here have said and keep an eye on the news and what you can find on the news channels on the internet. All is not lost and just like when Chris died, you will get through this, but it will take time. yes i knew Chris too and am saddened when any fireman dies (ask chief Bobo about me), let alone hundreds of them at once. We will as a nation and as a wonderfull group of the most dedicated people in the world get through this. Keep your chin up, head held high and lets just wait and see what the future holds. I ask that everyone keep praying our brothers and sisters are still alive and that they will be rescued soon.

Andy

**toneloc177** · 09-17-2001, 12:24 AM

Who really knows what the morning will bring us.

Nukes? I don't think anyone can say for sure. I sure as hell wouldn't want any dropped anywhere, . . . but remember what happened to the Japanese when they took on Pearl Harbor's MILITARY OUTPOST, against MILITARY TARGETS!!! This attack was on a NON-MILITARY OUTPOST i.e. "OFFICE BUILDING", during supposed peace time, against CIVILIANS!!!!!!! Hello?!?!?!?!?!

How strong are your feelings about nuclear weapons now? Solid?

It's anyones quess as to what is going to happen, and up to the rest of the world to see how far and long this thing goes.

Bottom line, be safe, and pray.

**DaFAO** · 09-17-2001, 12:39 AM

Dalmation brings up some very good points. I always knew Matt was an intelligent fire service member, but his political thought process is well constructed as well...If I could add just a couple things....

The Central Asian Republics (three former Russian states which formed the underbelly of the former Soviet Union) may not as stable as many think. The Taliban has been trying to spread nothward into the CAR, and their is at current a bloody civil war in progress in Kyrgestan, I think... The democratic governments are under heavy fire from Taliban insureance, and several Taliban strongholds exist in southern areas of these states...Also, Tajikistan has refused requests for help from the United States...They are a weak country, this is true...But their location is strategic, and they do posses 'loose' nuclear weaponry in several areas of the country, which the Defense Department feels may be in the hands of rogue cell hands...

Also, with regards to China...They have recently (like, within the last couple months) signed an agreement with the Taliban, to share technology and other resources...I too would seriously doubt China would take sides against the US (especially given their precarious situation with the WTO), but it is something we need to consider.

Nuclear war? Nope....Mutually asured destruction theory says so...But I would also echo sentiment that this isn't a clean cut problem. We're not fighting a clear enemy like Iraq or Japan..The enemy is not a state, or even a religion. It is many cells with an apparent axe to grind. We're not after Afghanistan, or Muslims. We're after a small cell of extremists who purportrated this. I would respectfully caution people to not succomb to the anxiety of the situation. Islam does not condone violence. The world didn't go around beating up white males when McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building. In the same respect, we can not go around beating up every Muslim or Arab we see...Our response whould be swift, harsh and leave no doubt. But, it must be controlled.

Continued prayers for those affected by the tragedy....

**larrycook** · 09-17-2001, 06:54 PM

Let me throw some more thoughts in here. As mentioned before, there are several nuclear weapons out in the world and we do not know who has control of them. I wish that i could see the future but i can't. I beleive that there will be more strikes against us before we can get this solved. You must remember that we have this group of terrorist out there who does not care if they live are die. They want to see heaven. I want to see heaven too. But not the way they are doing it. They are extremist and will do anything to acheive their goal. I am not too worried about the nukes, but i am worried about the terrorist cells in this country. I hate to say it but now may be the time to stop letting people come to our nation. at least until we can wipe out the cells on our soil.
I know that American is made up of many different nationalties, but we must tighten up our securety. I hope that we do not get complacent again. I read that two maintance men and a pilot busted a securety check in Phoenix. They went thru the checkpoint and then told airport personal about it. This was on Saturday. The airport said that they should not have tried to breach sercrutiy.
You can see how good security was 4 days after they were supposed to have beefed it up. The airport did not learn anything from Tuesday. We have got to wake up. and also have yall received any notices about terrorist may try to steal fire equipment and ems equipment and try to bomb military bases. we received notices yesterday and plan on keeping one person at the station when there is an alarm.
I pray that no more emergency personel will nver get killed at disasters like Tuesday.

I know that God has taken all of the emergency peseronel into heaven and his arms.

God Bless The USA
Larry

**mongofire_99** · 09-17-2001, 11:29 PM

Michelle Latham

But what about China and Russia?

They'll support us.

Look back ten years ago, bin laden was our allie.

Ten years before that sadam was our allie.

Ten years before that, Iran...

The economic problems we could cause them not withstanding, if Russia and China don't stand with us now, they know that it will be them next. History shows that every country that coddles to terrorist faces the wrath of those same terrorist.

For example, France wouldn't let us fly over to bomb Libia after PA103 because they didn't want to **** off the terrorist. In the following years, they got hit several times by terrorist.

As far as nukes, I don't think it will happen as that is a big political decision, nukes are no longer tactical weapons in my view. One must really be stupid to think they could get away with it. But then again, you can never underestimate the actions of stupid people.

If it does though, most likely it will be a dirty nuke, which is simply some radioactive material spread by an explosion, or a few suitcase/tactical size bombs that make a big mess, but aren't comparable to the city busters which we would have every right to retaliate with. We have the nukes to wipe the taliban out and move their refugees into taliban houses in just a few days - neutron nukes leave very little fallout and do little structural damage.

Dalmation90

Great post

**Michelle Latham** · 09-17-2001, 11:49 PM

We have terrorist cells here in America???????? And they are going to steal fire trucks and EMS rigs??? What on earth are they planning to do? They aren't going to kill firefighters now are they??

Leader

Announcement

Is America going to be nuked now??

Is America going to be nuked now??

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Upper 300x250

Taboola

Leader