Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: I have bad news for Israel/Jew haters
Zhukov    8/16/2008 1:59:12 AM
According to the updated Armed Forces of the World Database of land power (military power minus naval power) Israel with land power score of 2098 is the 4th most powerful army and air force in the world. ISRAEL has world's highest ratings in 2 of the 3 most important categories: experience 9 (no other country has that a value), and 9 for leadership .It is tied for second in for quality and quantity of military equipment 8 (only the US has a higher score). Another very impressive statistic is Israel maintains the fourth most powerful army/air force with an annual military budget which is only of a small fraction of the military budgets of top six land powers. Other than the US, Israel is topped only by China whose population is 200 times that of Israel's and is barely edged out by India whose population is very close to 200 times larger than Israel's population. It's mind boggling.It's the equivalent of a country with a population of 1.5 million having an army and air force as powerful or nearly as powerful as the US Army and Air Force. The fact that Israel's naval is not very powerful on a global scale is immaterial because Israel has no conceivable need for a navy more powerful than it currently possesses. Israel packs a land power score of 2100 in a country the size of New Jersey. There is no place in the world with such a concentration of military power. Since concentration of military assets is key to effective military action,if I were a commander of a large military force, Israel would be the last place I'd attack. For those, who dismiss Israel's victories over their Arab neighbors, Egypt's army and air force are now as powerful as those of France. It shows the insanity of those who actually believe Hezbollah defeated Israel militarily. Speaking of insanity ,the President of Iran now seems even more insane.While he continues to insanely threaten to wipe Israel out, he is provoking an apocalypse for Iran. As Anthony Cordesman wrote in his analysis of the results of an all out war between Israel and Iran, Iran would suffer up to 26 million dead and totally cease to exist as a functional entity while Israel would lose at most a 10th of it's population and definitely continue as a fully functioning nation. For the sake of the Iranian people, please have your President committed to a psychiatric hospital as soon as possible. LOL
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
The Lizard King       9/30/2008 7:25:33 AM
"Someone ought to send these results to John McCain and anyone else who seems to think that Israel needs to rely on the US to protect itself from Iran and other miscretants in the middle east!"
 
Only a fool would discount the contributions made by the US to the Jewish People/Jewish Nation.  Moreover, to disregard the grassroots contributions made by the Jewish community in America would be as egregious...
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

theBird       10/14/2008 2:54:09 PM




Standing Armies may not be great at stopping terrorists, but the same isn't true of law enforcement agencies.  Criminals also don't carry arms openly, try to blend in with the population and operate in small cells, but that hasn't stopped cops from taking them down.  Maybe we can use the same law enforcement tactics to nab the terrorists?









Law enforcement can only work in areas where the law has control.  Without that, you will have as much luck arresting Taliban terrorists in Wazirstan, or Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, as you would ticketing Russian tanks for parking violations in Georgia.  Only armies can create that control, therefore, in a world where havens for terrorists exist outside the rule of law, the military end of the Counter-Jihad is essential.

 

SGTObvious

Obviously it would be pretty hard to roll up in a squad car and slap the cuffs on most terrorists, but the military can still borrow stuff from the law enforcement playbook, like setting up rings of neighborhood informers, using forensic tools like DNA, finger prints and GSR tests to see who in the neighborhood has been visiting the bomb cache they just found and even setting up "stings" for people interested in buying illegal weapons the same way police might set up a sting for illegal drug buyers. 

 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       10/14/2008 4:59:22 PM
Obviously it would be pretty hard to roll up in a squad car and slap the cuffs on most terrorists, but the military can still borrow stuff from the law enforcement playbook, like setting up rings of neighborhood informers, using forensic tools like DNA, finger prints and GSR tests to see who in the neighborhood has been visiting the bomb cache they just found and even setting up "stings" for people interested in buying illegal weapons the same way police might set up a sting for illegal drug buyers. 



I agree, but this contradicts your prior point- that standing armies aren't good for fighting terrorists.  Now you're saying they are good, but where applicable, they can and should incorporate tactics used by police.  But you see, that's the difference between law enforcement and the military.  These are just tactics, and there are no tactics available to the police that the military cannot exploit when it needs to.  The reverse is not true.   Fighting a war does not assume the local population will support you- policework, on the other hand, does.  If the neighborhood as a whole is violently hostile to your existence, finding the few who actually planted the bombs is irrelevant. 
 
Terrorists very deliberately exploit the fact that we set up mental boundaries here.  But terrorism is a tactic, not a cause.  Terrorism is used by our enemy because they have found out that we are often much more gentle towards terrorists than traditional, uniformed combatants.
 
If we had similar reservations towards attacking aircraft, for example, if our culture assumed that all hostile aircraft should be handled in a civil manner by the FAA, then our enemies would simply adjust their tactics to compensate- they would give up on terrorism and become pilots.
 
Hence, with a fluid enemy, it behooves us to be fluid ourselves.  The military is fluid.  They can collect DNA samples or nuke a city, whatever is necessary.  Police are specialists, they can add their abilities where this is appropriate.
 
SGTObvious
 
Quote    Reply

theBird       10/15/2008 7:08:42 PM

Obviously it would be pretty hard to roll up in a squad car and slap the cuffs on most terrorists, but the military can still borrow stuff from the law enforcement playbook, like setting up rings of neighborhood informers, using forensic tools like DNA, finger prints and GSR tests to see who in the neighborhood has been visiting the bomb cache they just found and even setting up "stings" for people interested in buying illegal weapons the same way police might set up a sting for illegal drug buyers. 








I agree, but this contradicts your prior point- that standing armies aren't good for fighting terrorists.  Now you're saying they are good, but where applicable, they can and should incorporate tactics used by police.  But you see, that's the difference between law enforcement and the military.  These are just tactics, and there are no tactics available to the police that the military cannot exploit when it needs to.  The reverse is not true.   Fighting a war does not assume the local population will support you- policework, on the other hand, does.  If the neighborhood as a whole is violently hostile to your existence, finding the few who actually planted the bombs is irrelevant. 

 

Terrorists very deliberately exploit the fact that we set up mental boundaries here.  But terrorism is a tactic, not a cause.  Terrorism is used by our enemy because they have found out that we are often much more gentle towards terrorists than traditional, uniformed combatants.

 

If we had similar reservations towards attacking aircraft, for example, if our culture assumed that all hostile aircraft should be handled in a civil manner by the FAA, then our enemies would simply adjust their tactics to compensate- they would give up on terrorism and become pilots.

 

Hence, with a fluid enemy, it behooves us to be fluid ourselves.  The military is fluid.  They can collect DNA samples or nuke a city, whatever is necessary.  Police are specialists, they can add their abilities where this is appropriate.

 

SGTObvious

Indeed military formations can take on policeman's jobs, while the reverse is not true.  I should have specified them as "standing conventional armies" rather than "standing armies".

 
Quote    Reply

theBird       10/15/2008 7:30:52 PM

For any terrorist organization to truly be a threat to a particular nation, they must have the assistance of another nation. As suggested , if or when Iran developes  nuclear weapon capability they could use a terrorist proxy . This is a point that is missed when Bush is criticized for invading and removing Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the US IMHO because nations that supported  them are now occupied by US troops : Iraq and Afghanistan. I know it's debatable how much support Saddam Hussein actually provided Al Qaeda but the point is 2 of 3 actual or potential supporters are now in no position to help Al Qaeda. As for Iran, they have US troops on both their eastern and western border and are very vulnerable to a US naval attack. I doubt in the present situation Iran would be willing to provide much support to terrorists for another 9/11 type attack on US soil. So Iran is  pretty much neutralized as far as being a threat  to provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to use against the US. Of course, they still could provide such support but they would be provoking an invasion by the US which is much more possible now that there are substantial US troops on Iran's border. So the way neutralize terrorist is to cut off support they require from nations. Terrorists are very unlikely to be able , at least at present to be able to possess a nuclear device on their own. For example , Syria has been providing Hezbollah with anti aircraft missles. A Syrian general who directed this process was assassinated probably by Israel. If Israel felt threatened enough  by Hezbollah they could punish Syria to the extent necessary to stop them from providing further assistance. The  principle that to neutralize terrorists you must eliminate or neutralize those that direct the terrorists has proven successful. It was used successfully  by Israel to stop the intifada and by US forces in Iraq.

I'm not so sure that modern terrorists need a national government to support them as long as they have a few million dollars of Saudi Oil money they are good to go.  The 9/11 terrorists were indoctrinated overseas and learned English there, but they got their training in flying planes as well as planes themselves in the US.  The Madrid terrorists also got their equipment and training in Spain and on the internet.  As long as the terrorists can get their people or even their message into a country they can cause trouble.  And in the US it may not be long before they don't even need to do that; http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/index.html
Racist as they are, apparently these white supremacists feel that mutual hatred for Jewish people and the US government makes Al Qaeda their ally instead of enemy.  Right now they haven't done anything, but a few million dollars and some guidance from Bin Laden could change this.  As for Israel I might not be so worried about Iran handing a bomb over to terrorists as I would the terrorists stealing or buying a bomb or even radioactive material (for a dirty bomb) from poorly guarded installations in Russia or Pakistan.  Or they might simply attack a chemical plant in Israel. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics