|
Pavel -> RE: Preemptive Strikes (5/20/2006 4:50:37 PM)
|
As a starting aside, the US Navy prior to the very late 1900's was rather tiny, and while certainly not lacking in courage, never approached the Royal Navy in size or capability. That said, it did teach the French not to screw around with us too much (the XYZ affair), and managed to embarass the English on many occasions. In the age of sail, the USN relied mostly on a few frigates for large engagements (these vessles aquitted themselves quite well), smaller, very ineffective coastal gunboats (as the war of 1812 proved rather handily), and large numbers of privateers. With forces like these, the Navy focused mostly on harassing enemy shipping (as was the case in the American Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812), and on a kind of high seas gurilla warfare, attacking warships when they were isolated, or otherwise vunderable. The American Civil War saw some use of Naval units, however, the Navy was mostly unionist, and as a result, most of the Naval actions proved rather lopsided. As historical footnotes, the battle between the CSS Virginia, and USS Monitor would be one of the earliest battles between ironclad-steam powered ships, and the first sinking of a warship by a submersiable. The Union Navy as it was, did play a key role in ensureing the Confederates were not able to secure supplies from abroad, and provideing gunboat support during operations along the coast, or major rivers. After the end of the war however, most of the Navy was disbanded or mothballed for budget reasons, and it would take several very embarassing incidents in South America, before Congress decided to build a modern, effective navy.
The American Navy, prior to the Spanish American War, as written by Pavel. Carrying on however
1. Preemptive action should only be taken when there's a clear and present threat, that will present itself in the very near future. Examples of when action should have been taken might be say Hitler in 1938 (making clear expanisionist land grabs, violateing the whole not having a military thing left over from World War One). Of course, then you fall into the problem of when a threat is big enough to worry about it, or not. It's also essential that the threat is to somthing along the lines of physical security, rather than somthing along the lines of economic issues.
2. If the threat is indeed near, dire, and incomeing, then the response must be such as to eliminate the threat in it's entirety. If the threat is not dealt with, then it just ensures continueing violence for the future. The military response should be then adjusted and applied accordingly. If this means letting loose the dogs of war, then I'd imagine it'd make more sense to do it with maximum force now, to ensure it doesn't just pop up later.
|
|
|
|
