Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America Should Attack Pakistan
DGreat1    12/9/2008 12:14:47 PM
America needs to seriously consider attacking Pakistan. This will allow America to install a government that is willing to disable the nuclear weapons making apparutus in Pakistan in return for economic aid packages that will ensure the long term stability and viability of Pakistan. Such an initiative would work in the best interests of Pakistan's civilian population. This type of initiative would also neutralize the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban friendly contingent of the current Pakistani government. It is important to note that their is only a short window of opportunity concerning the implementation of this initiative, as this option will be neutralized by any scenario that has Iran emerging as the second state sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. America is currently faced with a use it or lose it proposition in regards to preemptive attack options concerning Pakistan, as America will undoubtedly lose the support of Pakistan once Iran acquires its own nuclear arsenal. While it is a frightening scenario, the reality is that due to America's current obligations to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran may very well acquire a nuclear weapons making capability. In this scenario, Pakistan will be pressured by the Islamic fundamentalist influenced Arab street to distance themselves from America as a way of retaining the significant influence they enjoy as the first state sponsor of terrorism. America's strategic position in Afghanistan would be dramatically strengthened by the continuity and controlled space convergence benefits that would be facilitated by a military offensive against Pakistan. I make this assertion with the understanding that President Elect OBama will increase the numerical troop strength of U.S. forces in Afghanistan as promised. I will propose a strategy for facilitating the disablement of Irans nuclear capabilities in a future post.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
DGreat1       12/16/2008 8:48:28 AM
Stbretnco
 
Let's be clear, serving 12 years in the military instead of 20 is not a failure. I don't apologize for having academic achievements that allow me to pursue other avenues and serve my country in other ways. I have a diverse skill set.[counter terrorism, psychology of terrorism, threat analysis, nuclear strategy etc]. That is probably why I have an offer to participate in the combat tracker dog program (using dogs to track the Taliban in Afghanastan) and an offer to write policy for the Army National Guard on the table if I don't get out next month as planned. And when I was in the US Navy, as Submariner, I was rated a 4.0 soldier {out of a possible high score of 4.0] for practically my entire time there. You know, Submariner's have to learn the job of every soldier on the submarine so that they can step into that position and function competently in a crisis scenario[sonar, radio, nuclear missiles, fire control, torpedos etc] . That's close to 10 jobs.You have to maintain that knowledge while doing shift work and performing drills around the clock. You're on covert deployments for months. So to be rated with a perfect score under those conditions says that I was definitely above average to say the least as a soldier.Once again,quite a few people disagree with you about whether or not my content should be viewed [my content view ratio on various strategypage forums range from a minimal amount of views to over 7 thousand views, And one more thing, stop lying. I can post on the US Army messageboard anytime I want. I haven't been banned. I choose to post here. If you don't like the content, simply go to another thread.
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/16/2008 8:51:43 AM
Dropbear
 
You are a hard man to please.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       12/16/2008 8:56:31 AM
Soldiers? On a submarine? That statement alone shows you're fullof more cr*p than the proverbial turkey.
 
People who are legitamately writing policy for the US Military don't post their strategy ideas on O/S message boards. They also have their writings published in professional journals such as the Army Logistician magazines instead of putting their material up on self-publishing sites on the internet.
 
Your delusions of grandeur could probably make medical journals, FORMER Spc. Jones.
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/16/2008 9:19:02 AM
Stbretnco
 
I have relationships with think tanks and US Army institutions and others  regarding the submission of my work. However, I like to post working drafts and book excerpts on the internet. I am able to reach a lot of people that way. Many of them email me to exchange ideas. It works for me and that is all that is important. You don't consider Submariners soldiers? It is the nuclear deterrent that Submariners transport across the globe that keeps America safe. The fact that I have to articulate this to you speaks volumes about your intellect and ability to grasp issues of strategic importance. And that's Sergeant Jones. 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/16/2008 10:25:47 AM
 
Dropbear
 
You are a hard man to please.
 
Nope, just curious as to your ideas on a subject matter which concerns my neck of the woods.
 
I enjoy healthy intellectual discourse and await further input into how you intend to please me with your insight.
 
P.S. Wasn't aware US Naval submariners were required to learn every job on the boat. Thought that was  not the fashion in your silent service. It is, however, a condition of receiving ones' Dolphins in my navy. If it is as you say, then I must admit that one learns something new everyday.
 
Curious.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Enjoying the train wreck.   12/16/2008 11:21:45 AM
I wonder how long it will be, before DGreat1, catches on?
 
Curious.


Herald

 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/16/2008 11:33:23 AM
Dropbear
 
Submariners do have to learn every job on  the boat to get their dolphins and they must maintain this knowledge so that they can step in temporarily in a crisis scenario.A crew member could be hurt or trapped in another compartment of the submarine. Trust me, it happens. It really wouldn't make sense to take in all that information only to dump it after getting your dolphins. I didn't know you were a Navy man.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/16/2008 11:56:09 AM

Dropbear

 

Submariners do have to learn every job on  the boat to get their dolphins and they must maintain this knowledge so that they can step in temporarily in a crisis scenario.A crew member could be hurt or trapped in another compartment of the submarine. Trust me, it happens. It really wouldn't make sense to take in all that information only to dump it after getting your dolphins. I didn't know you were a Navy man.


DB, there are different tracks for officers and rates, just as in the RAN. This Ruben confuses operating system familiarity requirements of a specific submarine with OPERATING the system as an expert; or with  watch standing.the duty station.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/16/2008 12:26:06 PM
Your rate and rank is immaterial. All submariners must learn all sub systems. However, at no point did I ever suggest that each submariner was an expert in each discipline that they learn. And watchstanding plays no role in any of this. The purpose of learning the different jobs on a Submarine is not to satisfy your vain inclinations [getting dolphins, medals, awards etc]. The purpose of this cross training endeavor is to create an auxillary force that is capable of maintaining the SAFE operation of the submarine. This type of training also allows you to operate the submarine with a skeleton crew in scenarios where there  has been significant fatalities.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/16/2008 1:12:41 PM

Your rate and rank is immaterial. All submariners must learn all sub systems. However, at no point did I ever suggest that each submariner was an expert in each discipline that they learn. And watchstanding plays no role in any of this. The purpose of learning the different jobs on a Submarine is not to satisfy your vain inclinations [getting dolphins, medals, awards etc]. The purpose of this cross training endeavor is to create an auxillary force that is capable of maintaining the SAFE operation of the submarine. This type of training also allows you to operate the submarine with a skeleton crew in scenarios where there  has been significant fatalities.
That was a Herald trap and you walked into it amateur.

The rate is supposed to learn operating principles and be conversant enough to line diagram gross systems of the specific sub he serves so that he can in a pinch know what NOT to do and what not to touch in a casualty condition. In  a casualty condition he supposed to be system familiar enough so that he can execute operating procedures under orders in case the duty person is out.
 
The officer is supposed to do the same-in addition he is supposed to become EXPERT in his assigned department so that he can direct rates in peace or combat as he stands the WATCH.and become good enough uin another department so that he can sub in case the primary is a casualty.
 
With 15,000+ separate systems and hundreds of thousands of parts you break the boat system logically up among the system experts,.officers and petty officers, to detail knowledge a part of the machine and you hope that you didn't draw tyros in a key division.
 
YOU don't know what you are talking about, Braddock, Terence, or whatever your fantasy name is today poseur 5.
 
YOU are full of CRAP..
 
Herald. 


 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics