missaprehensions
I think my post has been misunderstood. My fault. Please bear with me as I restate some of my points.
"MAD has worked for a long time." Yes it has. However, some of the other posts here are correctly stating adapt or perish. We cannot rely on the old tried and true strategies while we live in "the arena of 'improved weapon technologies.'
On the other hand, we must not become overconfident that all our improved weapon technology; small arms or strategic munition either, can guarantee our survival. We have the history records of the previous wars as examples.
The Luftwaffe was confident in their superior machines (technology) while the Brits. had technology of their own that nullified the technology that gave the Germans the smug reliance that they were superior because of what they had.
In our world today, just how rapidly is one technology outmoding the last "improved technology?"
"Pandora's box being opened a long time ago." How is that poignant to my post? "Few extreemists, willing to die for a cause." The few NAZI extreemists siezed power, and the German nation was not willing, but forced along to die for a cause! Now, what do you make of a "few" (I'll begrudge you a 'few' if you insist) -Muslim extreemists, willing to die, being able to create world havoc and force or incite the whole enormous Muslim world into Jihad?
Sir, my "Top Secret" classification has expired years ago, however, I did recieve classes on a few of our hand of aces, not all nuclear, and may I state that surely you are aware that our government has also long ago depleted and destroyed much of that supplamental weaponry -without replacing it with more "improved weapon tech.;" so that our options are fewer, in my opinion, than the public realizes.
That was the concept I had been trying to state. I am not advocating "fielding large numbers of warm bodies." The field I had in mind is our amber waves of grain and purple mountain's majesty.
Sure the younger members here will thrill at the latest technology, but sir, without the footsoldier on the ground, to defend our homeland, improved weapon technology may be a fatal deception for our nation.
Another post. Japanese lacking strategic lift capabilities. I'm skeptic.
They had enormous naval fleets. The largest battle ship afloat, and if it wasn't for, what I believe, was the "grace of God" we would have had a catastrophe at Midway. They certainly didn't invade at Midway, but they did manage to sneak another fleet; how many carriers? three? right up to Pearl Habour, and you know the rest. It's conjecture on my part; their plan was not for invasion, but if it was, they could have taken HI at that time.
Just so happens "grace of God" again, that the Admiral in charge broke with military strategy and decided to look good and turn around and head home with the victory they did have. Their naval forces at that point had to me what I would call a significant force to support their military.
What about today? Twentyfirst century. The "minimum opposition" was mentioned to stop invasion cold. Aren't you aware of our "less than minimum military forces?" Thanks to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, again?
I will not be so naieve to believe that just because we have not fought war on our homeland in recent times, that the enemies we face, cannot and will not bring bloodshed to our soil. Wht not? How are we different? MAD again?
If we have not a manforce of military to stave off such a strategy, then sir, we have no other choice than the Nuclear! The "improved weapons tech. that you suppose may prevent invasion may be voided by someone's secret microchip or something else. Don't forget how the Chinese for one, have spied on us or outright stollen and smuggled out our improved technology.
Sorry -Bill Clinton again.
"Isn't likely to happen soon." Are you "dead" sure?
Another post. The 9mm with better penetration. If it still cannot penetrate the existing armor, then neither 45 or 9mm is adequate, that is, against a military with adequate equipment -body armor. If I had to defend myself with a handgun against a soldier who had armor, I would prefer to shoot him in the limbs or even face with the 45.
I suppose that in future war, our soldiers may face unequipped enemies (the cost of providing armor for hundreds of millions of troops would be beyond even the Chinese.) And with wartime havoc, there might be shortages such as the German's suffered on the Eastern front. What would you rather defend your life with, against an unarmored enemy? Combat becomes personal, believe me.
The polticians sure did force the 9mm adoption and the UN certainly does insinuate itself into the running of our government. Let us not permit that to go on any more. If our military planners know that they need certain equipment, say M14s and 1911, etc., shouldn't we contact our "politicians" now, while we can; the Commander and Chief, senators, and our Representative and ensure that the best interest of our military is given -above political considerations?
The UN? They would not help with Iraq. In the event of another global war they certainly will be of no help to the USA!
Sorry my post has drifted into the Political forum, but mistakes in our military weaponry; firearms, is tied to the over riding political control that comes with the decisions that our military cannot make -given that we have civilian control of the military.