|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 4:48:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The USA might be the most powerful military power on the face of the earth but not even they have the power to subjugate Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan together
Sorry, gotta disagree here.
The US certainly has the capability and ability to "subjugate Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan" all together.
The technical aspects of such "subjugation" isn't really that difficult, although certainly complex.
The question is one of political will, not technical capability.
.......well, a couple of points occur to me. Firstly Pakistan is a nuclear power, attacking that country would be awfully risky. Secondly, what do you think the rest of the world would do in the face of such naked aggression from the US? Trade embargoes at first certainly. You can say goodbye to all imported oil. Full on cyber war as well. Watch how many computerised systems would get attacked. An enormous rise in attacks on US interests abroad. Military bases in the EU being shut down.......and while you may think that the US could win against the four countries you mentioned you don't want to start a war with the EU. And the rise in terrorist activity would be enormous.
It's just possible that the US could achieve the short term objective of subjugating those four countries. Just. But the consequences would be appalling for the US.
philo,
We are still not communicating very well.
Please understand the difference between "capable of" and "being a good idea".
As I said, it's a matter of political will, not capabilities. The US has engaged in combat that stretched across the world, in days of much lower technology, with a much smaller population, and a much smaller economy, and did so quite successfully.
As for Pakistan being a nuclear power, the loss of oil supplies, cyber attacks .... yeah, so?
None of them would stop a determined US for very long, I suspect.
Even in the absence of "total will" (i.e. "total war") I suspect that most of the scenarios you mention wouldn't materialize, or end up backfiring on the instigator.
We can argue any of the scenarios, but I still think you are missing my point. The US is indeed a "sleeping giant" (ask the Japanese). We were roused just a little out of our slumber by 911. Really want to see the world shake? Wake us up (You might be interested in a theory of US culture called "the Jacksonian tradition".
I was taught to analyze a potential adversary by capabilities, not by intentions. You look at all the aspects of national power, with political will being one of those.
The only aspect that prevents the US from pretty much ruling the world is the lack of desire. The current aggressive stance is primarily because a relatively small attack on our homeland, the impact of which is dissipating each day.
But never make the mistake that the US isn't capable of much, much more. Four countries in the Middle East? Not much of a stretch. Four continents? That would stretch us a bit.
Firm
|
|
|
|
