Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
... what should be obvious to me?
|
The article cited by Torrere only goes into the immediate technical reasons. But what should have been most obvious to Uryoces is the purpose of war. Extremists think of war only until it ends. To them, the purpose of war is to win. Realists understand the purpose of war is to take a conflict back to the table - back to a peacetime condition. What happens after the war is over? Then the victor must take responsibility for cleaning up; for healing the wounds.
Rumsfeld and his administration forgot the mistake made by the George Sr administration. They too only saw the war as an isolated entity; failed to plan for 'after-war' actions. Now we have reality because Rumsfeld, et al made absolutely no plans for the end of their war. We now have hundreds dead and amputees because the leadership forgot about basic concepts of war.
The lessons of war say that the victor must live with the consequences of a nuclear weapon. That should have been so painfully obvious to Uryoces. Just another (and obvious) reason why nuclear weapons are never used in a conventional war - especially when all such wars are suppose to be wars of liberation. Nuclear weapons on the people we are suppose to be liberating? How much more obvious could it be?