We are in agreement here. See my post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1264183&postcount=67 After saying eduation could do more for the betterment of mankind in the first paragraph, the second paragraph begins: "However, I agree, bombs and bullets have their place and can be very useful. I spent a few years using my education to make the HARM missile better..." Third paragraph begins: "Despite my generally thinking war is usually a very bad solution, sometimes it will happen and sometimes it is the only solution. ..." Remainder is mostly more of the same.
Were you here at sciforum when I was pushing my alternative solution to Israel's defensive needs? If not, I will try to dig them up for you or Buffalo may know where they are. I wonder what your reaction to my plan would be. I think it would save money and some Israeli lives and many Palestinian lives, possibly eventually leading to peaceful co-existence as is likely to enlists the help of the Palestinians who are not “war crazy” and just want to live with honor and security.
i dont know billy t, if your media is broadcasting the scenes from the civil war in gaza, but if they do i doubt you will stay optimistic. i was optimistic once, in the past.but if you will go and ask the rabi, he will tell you its not the arabs we are fighting, but its god, and we all should "lahzor betshuva"-return to Judaism.
In order for it to be a World War, at least two of the large nations with the large military forces (and the nukes) will have to be fighting, and on opposite sides. Who's that going to be? China, Russia, the E.U.--none of those countries are going to make the first move to overt war. The U.S.? Sure. We have developed a habit of putting idiots in the White House and pussies in Congress and on the Supreme Court, so the idiots in the White House can get away with whatever they want. But we'll have to attack a country that one of those other superpowers is sworn to defend. Duh? The only one that we're really out of step with is China, and I don't really see us attacking one of China's proteges. China would not like it if we attack North Korea--not because they give a damn about North Korea but strictly because they don't want millions of North Korean refugees streaming over the border into their territory. Because they don't want that to happen, they will keep a lid on North Korea themselves and we won't have to bother attacking it. So what else are we going to do that will draw China, the EU, Russia--or even India, a large country with nukes--into a World War? We can stomp all over Somalia and probably invade Iran without getting those big powerful countries to go to war. Perhaps we could invade one of Russia's new little petro-puppets in central Asia like Uzbekistan. That would be pathetic. We made it through the Cold War without getting into it with the USSR but now that it's over we're going to get into it with Russia? Talk about ignominious fate. What if Iran really nukes Israel? Americans have an irrational love of Israel and a not entirely irrational hatred of Iran--we still haven't forgiven them for that little matter of seizing our embassy 30 years ago. We would probably reduce the country to a glowing pile of cinders within two hours. I don't think anybody in Europe, Russia, China, or India is going to get mad at us for doing that as long as the wind doesn't blow the fallout in their direction. Geeze, would anybody miss Iran except Hezbollah and the people who early registered for the next Holocaust Denial Festival? What else is going to happen? Terrorism will continue, but terrorism doesn't kill more than a few thousand people a year. Nobody's going to start a World War over that. We'll keep invading little countries that can't fight back and claim that they're responsible for 9/11. Maybe one of those little countries will nuke an American city by shipping it in a cargo container. So we'll just pick another one at random and reduce it to a pile of glowing cinders. That's still not going to get Europe, China, India, or Russia into a World War. The Muslim tribes will keep trying to kill each other off. A few hundred thousand in Sudan, a few hundred thousand in Somalia, maybe they'll get into it in Bangla Desh or the Philippines. So far the rest of the world acts like they can't even get those countries on their TV. I saw a lady with a "Save Darfur" t-shirt and asked her what I could do to help. She said she didn't know, she just sends money to George Clooney and Angelina Jolie because at least they talk about Darfur and American TV always follow those two around because they're photogenic. Pakistan has nukes, Israel has nukes, North Korea has nukes. Those are the wild cards. North Korea is the wildest and it apparently has no delivery system. If Israel starts a war it will be in the Middle East and the U.S. is the only big country that will send troops. Pakistan isn't going to attack anybody, they just want to be the Sweden of the Middle East and make money off of everybody. If we can avoid invading an oilfield that the Russians regard as one of theirs, I don't see the conditions for a World War.
The large Iranian diaspora. And I don't think the majority of Iran's population appreciates the image Ahmadinejad's garnered for them...
Well if its going to be a conventional war, then hopefully the media will stay away. Me thinks that the current "pussy" leash of political correctness will backfire and someone will end up getting nuked.
You did not make it clear if you had read my alternative proposal for defense of Israel or not. (To refresh your memory, it had dogs in border strip about 20 meters wide without mines and an adjoining strip about 80 meters wide with mines and acoustic sensor that also reported any tunneling, plus CIWS to shoot down any of the crude, slow rockets launched into Israel border villages. Also I recommended that nation wide air trafic control be in stalled with two purposes: (1)Israeli fighters shoot down any drone and force to land any plane big enough to carry a human that is not on its flight plan. (2)back compute the launch site of any rocket launched into Israel from the radar data on it rise trajectory. (The CIWS only blows them up near or slightly after the peak altitude). Then as rapidly as possible use artillery to pound the launch site enough to be sure any living thing at near that location is "shredded." However, all of the current random shelling of Palestine is stopped. Initially this counter battery fire will not be very prompt and thus not likely to kill the "bad guys," but the mobile artillery Israel already has can also be given local radar to also "back compute" and occasionally put the "shredding return fire" on the bad guys. This mobile artillery roams near the border and is aided by camera drone airplanes to see the Bad Guys setting up. If Israel only fires artillery into Palestine when there is a clear link to specific rocket launch, soon some of the people living near where they are setting up may at least try to stop them or at best call a border post to tell where, etc. I.e. they will quickly learn that their children and homes will not be hit if they can force the bad guys to set up the launchers somewhere else. etc. In set of original posts, I gave many more implementation details but this should be enough for you to react to. I think it an outrage that sometimes a crude rocket kills an Israeli when 30 year old CIWS technology can prevent that. I am forced to conclude that some Israelis want an excuse to kill Palestinians with the current 25 to one ratio. I.e. the “war crazies” are not exclusively found on the Palestinian side of this conflict.
