ISIS strikes, any effect?

Could we scooch a wee bit closer to the topic of the thread

 

Roger that.

But Takao did correct a misunderstanding I had as regards to Mac in the Korean war. Perahps that segemt could be split into a thread on the militarry history sub forum. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who was missinformed in that regard.

Guess I'll start reproting trolling attempts before responding to them. Maybe so many threads won't get dragged off topic that way. Hard to let the garbage stand unrefuted though.

 

Correcting a error is always welcome, lets not just feed disruptions.

 

just read this .....in this type of war, there is no such thing as ''zero collateral damage''

 

There is no such thing in any war, and those who are pursuing it will lose .

 

Indeed but that's not what he said either is it? He said they aimed for "0 collateral damage" that's not the same as saying they achieved it. We aim for 0 blue on blue casualties as well. Haven't quite managed that one either but we're getting better at it and doing so primarilly by aiming for none.

 

they shouldn't even think about it..if there is a target HIT IT... ...how can you aim for 0, when it is impossible?? why try? the Brits fired on the French an Mers el Kebir, ..the Israelis bombed the Osirak plant, etc etc ,,,..you can't worry about people's feelings....
didn't they learn from Nam? we didn't hit SAMs or airfields till it was too late.....how stupid!!!

 

Bad idea. Especially in the current situation you could win a minor battle and loose a major one. It was Al Quda's and later the Taliban's indescriminant killing of civilians that destroyed much of their support. Adopt their tactics and you aid the terrorist in building support rather than destroying it.

Are you saying we shouldn't try to limit blue on blue casualties? It's the same thing. Your goal is 0, you probably won't get to it but you want to keep getting closer. Same with collateral casualties.

When the Britts fired on the French navy they were very much aware of "people's feelings". One of the main reasons was as a statement of commitment to show the US that they were serious about staying in the war. They also considered the reactions in France but made a contious decision that the threat of the French fleet and the positive impact on the US were worth it. I doubt the Israelis make a raid where they haven't considered the potential political impact any number of actors both public and private.

 

Vietnam in this thread??

 

Stump threads tend to wander a bit.