High Tech vs. the Orb WAS Re: the honing of Vlad

Fri Jan 20 12:01:14 PST 2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Howard Brazee" <howard at brazee.net>
Cc: <Dragaera at dragaera.info>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: High Tech vs. the Orb WAS Re: the honing of Vlad

> Jon_Lincicum at stream.com wrote:
> >Military action, at some fundamental point, involves an infantry unit
> >stands on a given spot and says "This is mine unless you can come take it
> >away from me."
> >
> >Until this happens, the war isn't ever really won.
> >
> >An interesting thing happened in 1998 in Kosovo, when the US airforce
> >forced a surrender without any ground troops being involved. This is, to
> >my knowledge, the first and to date *only* time this has ever happened,
> >but the surrender was still essentially meaningless until the ground
> >forces moved in to occupy the country. The logistics of this ground
> >takeover was basically an unprecedented situation.
> >
> >Majikjon
> >
> >
> You don't have to hold territory in order to achieve all military
> goals.   Sometimes all you want is to persuade the other army to go
> home.    Assassination and terrorism are ways to achieve military goals.
> We didn't hold mainland Japan when the Japanese surrendered in WWII.

I'm not sure if you are insinuating that the bombing of Japan was an act of
terrorism? (That is a whole 'nother argument!) As far as assassination, that
was "legal" until the Carter administration as I recall, and that is more of
a self inflicted restraint rather than any rule of war.

-Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki intended to end the war
with Japan, or scare the Russians? Discus amongst yourselves. . . .