Military spending vs societal benefits

Emily Lake said:

bilby said:

Emily Lake said:

bilby said:

Emily Lake said:

Politesse said:

Emily Lake said:

Politesse said:

It isn't something I invented out of whole cloth. It is what has ahppened in every military campaign in recorded history, including the specific war you are claiming would have been "won" had we escalated it further. If your views on military policy and effectiveness aren't based on reality, what good are they? If we pushed out into the Aghan countryside to blow up every single house with terrorists in it, that would be placing even more soldiers in long term postings in hostile environments with minimal oversight, exactly the conditions that are known to result in incidents like those cited.

Click to expand...

Is it your view that the only reason the Allies won WW1 and WW2 was by brutally torturing and raping Axis soldiers?

Click to expand...

No. However, torture and rape occurred on massive scales during both of those conflicts. Demonstrably and beyond any measure of reasonable doubt. This became an inevitable outcome the moment mobilization began.

Click to expand...

You keep being very non-specific about who is doing the torture and rape. "It occurred on massive scales" - perhaps... but were the tortures and rapes being committed by both sides at the same rates? I rather doubt it. I'm rather of the opinion that the Nazi's did a fuck-ton more torturing than the Allies did.

Politesse said:

"Axis" and "Allies" were terms only used in the Second World War, by the way. The principal alliances in the Great War were the Allied Powers and the Central Powers.

Click to expand...

I don't particularly care about trying to maintain two different sets of nomenclature for the two wars, when everyone clearly understand what the divisions represent. All it does is add more words for no additional meaning.

Click to expand...

Tell that to Japan.

Click to expand...

I don't know what this is supposed to mean as a response to what I said to Poli.

Are you concerned that the government of Japan is monitoring our discussion and is going to be deeply offended that I haven't made a distinction between WW1 and WW2 even though that distinction is of zero direct relevance to the discussion?

Click to expand...

Are you not aware that Japan fought in WWI on the same side as the USA?

Does that make Japan one of "the Allies"?

You said:

the Allies won WW1 and WW2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Japan won one, and lost the other.

Russia was on the same side as the eventual victors of WWI, but lost. Massively.

Your comment shows an astonishing ignorance of the wars on which you are commenting.

Click to expand...

I know that Japan was on our side in WW1. My retort to you is "Does that actually matter within the context of this discussion?" There are several other countries that were enemies in one and allies in the other. It's immaterial to the nature of the discussion.

Let's go back to my initial question, and I'll satisfy your quibble - maybe then we can get an answer rather than a trivial delving of nomenclature:

Is it your view that the only reason OUR ALLIES won WW1 and WW2 was by brutally torturing and raping OUR ENEMIES?

That was the actual meat of the question. That's what Poli has repeatedly sidestepped, and it's the core of his position. I made a comment that the US has the technology and the capability to have won in Afghanistan, but that it wouldn't have been "pretty" by which I meant t would have required a lot more aggressive targeting and very likely have necessitated more actions that would reasonably be called assassinations to accomplish. Poli, however, decided that it could only have been won by barbarically torturing, scalping, and raping civilians. Poli has taken the implied position that the only way wars can be won is if the victor outright engages in unrestrained horrors. I think Poli's position is wrong.

So how about an answer to the actual context?

Click to expand...

I didn't sidestep it, I told you as directly as I could that I had made no such claim. What more is there to discuss? Yes, hideous war crimes occurred in those wars. No, they weren't the reason we won. They didn't even help.

If you'd been paying attention to the thread at all, you'd know my actual point is that war crimes don't win wars. That's why I think your thesis -- that "going harder" on the "terrorists" would have resulted in "winning the war" in Afghanistan - is dumb as hell. We withdrew from Afghanistan in shame for the same strategic and logistical reasons that have caused us to lose every single war we've fought against similar guerilla insurgencies, as we have done many times over this past century. Putting more troops and bullets in the country not only wouldn't changed that fact, they would have made things worse by committing atrocious acts while there and driving recruitment for the actual terrorist organizations that are out there. The war almost certainly could not have been "won" at all, but attempting to scale up the violence without regard for the consequences could not possibly have changed that reality. You are operating in a fantastical imagination of the past in which the "terrorists" were an easily defined, homogenous group patiently waiting in little military bases and camps for the USMC and a few crack SEAL teams to storm and destroy with targeted strikes, and along the way somehow only kill "bad guys" without also slaughtering innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis en masse. You weren't alone, at the start of the war. Many generals and military strategists on our side believed the same thing, that a quick Blitzgrieg campaign could just sweep in and wipe out the opposition, so thoroughly that no one would ever dream of attacking the US and its allies ever again. It's just a bunch of provincial goat herders out there, right? We have the clear advantage.

By year two, they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had been dead wrong about how "easy" it would be. But you are still failing to catch up with the bus and realize the grim truth they were aware of for eighteen grueling years: No matter what we did, at some point, we were going to run out of money, troops, resolve, or all three, and consequently be forced to withdraw. And when we did, the Taliban - or some group calling itself the Taliban - would retake the country in a matter of weeks. And that's exactly what happened. Killing more people along the way might have satisfied a certain contingent of American voters back home, but it would not have obviated any of the principal advantages held by the many and various resistance movements, terrorist cells, foreign mercs, and conscripted posses found all throughout the 'Stans. Numbers and tech weren't their strong points to begin with, so reducing either could only ever prolong the conclusion of the war.

Afghanistan was another Vietnam. We were stupid. We needed to eliminate Bin Laden but that's all. Get in, get him and get out. The Taliban were like the NVA or the Viet Cong. Deal with them but keep focused on Bin Laden.

Toni said:

The level of rape, torture, beheadings, etc. is unacceptable, no matter who is doing it or to whom they are doing it or why they are doing it. After a certain level of evil, it is just evil with no better, no worse. Evil is the complete description and requires no qualifier.

Click to expand...

Look, let's rewind this a bit. I am not in any way excusing or justifying rape, torture, or beheadings. I agree with you that it's horrific.

Now let's take that sentiment in context of how we got here: I said that we *could have* won Afghanistan if we had taken a different military approach. Poli read that at immediately ASSUMED that the only possible way we could have won is through the use of barbarism. I disagree quite strongly with that sentiment.

So unless your principled approach is to roll over for the people doing the raping, torturing, and beheading and just let them take over... I rather suspect that you also disagree with Poli's position.

Politesse said:

If you'd been paying attention to the thread at all, you'd know my actual point is that war crimes don't win wars. That's why I think your thesis -- that "going harder" on the "terrorists" would have resulted in "winning the war" in Afghanistan - is dumb as hell.

Click to expand...

Do you understand that your assumption is that "going harder" can only possibly mean committing war crimes? It's a dumb fucking assumption, Poli.

Emily Lake said:

Toni said:

The level of rape, torture, beheadings, etc. is unacceptable, no matter who is doing it or to whom they are doing it or why they are doing it. After a certain level of evil, it is just evil with no better, no worse. Evil is the complete description and requires no qualifier.

Click to expand...

Look, let's rewind this a bit. I am not in any way excusing or justifying rape, torture, or beheadings. I agree with you that it's horrific.

Now let's take that sentiment in context of how we got here: I said that we *could have* won Afghanistan if we had taken a different military approach. Poli read that at immediately ASSUMED that the only possible way we could have won is through the use of barbarism. I disagree quite strongly with that sentiment.

So unless your principled approach is to roll over for the people doing the raping, torturing, and beheading and just let them take over... I rather suspect that you also disagree with Poli's position.

Click to expand...

I think you misread Politesse. He stated, quite correctly, that rape and torture are and always have been part of war.

Now, specific to Afghanistan, going off only what I was told by someone who spent 15 months there, the US soldiers were not engaging in such tactics at least where he was when he was there. In fact, there specifically was little or no contact with the locals and there were no American led military battles directed towards or in the civilian villages. He was upset about other things he saw but there were pretty stern warnings about no booze, no drugs, no touching the local women. Care packages from home could contain none of those items nor tobacco nor porn nor pork products. Their camp was fairly close to a known Taliban village.Some one or two members of his platoon were sent home for smoking pot.

Obviously this is a pretty small bit of a prolonged war. I believe at the time, there was a hope of improving the lives of Afghani people, particularly girls and women.

In order to kill other human beings , or to be able to expect young men far from their families to kill other human beings, there needs to be a lot of work to dehumanize the enemy. I have not been in the circumstances where my life was constantly in danger from enemy fire but certainly it has been the case for a number of family members, including my son. Rape is not an act of sexual need but an act of violence, just as murder and torture are, as you know.

Emily Lake said:

Politesse said:

If you'd been paying attention to the thread at all, you'd know my actual point is that war crimes don't win wars. That's why I think your thesis -- that "going harder" on the "terrorists" would have resulted in "winning the war" in Afghanistan - is dumb as hell.

Click to expand...

Do you understand that your assumption is that "going harder" can only possibly mean committing war crimes? It's a dumb fucking assumption, Poli.

Click to expand...

It's been true of every war in human history, including the one we're discussing. Why do you think Afghanistan would have been some sort of magical exception, when it already hasn't been?

I continue to feel that you have no idea what living in a country at war is like.

bilby said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Emily Lake said:

Yeah, Japan didn't really give enough credence to the size of our Navy or our willingness to just dominate the Pacific ocean the hard way.

Click to expand...

Had Japan pressed the attack home on Hawaii they would have won. And with Hawaii down we would have basically no ability to project power in the Pacific. Fleets can't operate too far from friendly ports--and we have none between the US and Hawaii. Retaking Hawaii would have been nearly impossible and we would have been basically powerless in the Pacific.

Click to expand...

The US Navy could have island hopped Northwards from Australia, rather than Westwards from Hawaii. General MacArthur had his base in Brisbane for two and a half years between 1942 and 1944.

Click to expand...

And you think Australia wouldn't have fallen??

bilby said:

One benefit of fighting a World War is that you have allies in convenient places, that you can rely on to let you use their port facilities.

Click to expand...

If your allies don't fall.

bilby said:

It wouldn't have been as easy to get materiel from CONUS to the staging point(s), but then, it's not exactly easy to get materiel from CONUS to Hawaii, much less Guam or Iwo Jima. I reckon the US Navy could have done it, handily enough. Probably would have taken longer, but then, Japan was going backwards wrt ships and materiel from 1943 onwards, while the US was outproducing the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

You're still not looking at how big a change it would have made if Hawaii had fallen. Japan would have been free to send their entire strength south--and there was nothing down there that could stand up to it. They could have pretty much ignored us--WWII tech simply didn't allow much of a strike that far out.

Why didn't the Japanese go ahead and send an invasion force with paratroopers to Hawaii then? Seems to me they made a big, big, blunder

Loren Pechtel said:

And you think Australia wouldn't have fallen??

Click to expand...

Why do you imagine it would have??

Australia is a very difficult place to invade, just for purely geographical reasons.

Japan couldn't "send their entire strength south", they were already heavily committed across South East Asia. China and Burma were both soaking up a lot of their effort. And occupying various unfriendly territories also required a significant force that was unavailable for an expeditionary force to invade Australia.

They could bomb Darwin, and even as far south as Katherine; But they couldn't bomb (much less invade) Sydney or Melbourne.

The fraction of the continent that lies west of the range or north of Brisbane is worse than useless to any invasion forces. It's difficult to traverse, and provides little food or water - all your supplies need to be brought with you, which is a logistical nightmare. And the distances are huge. There's literally nothing out there; It's like invading the Soviet Union after their "scorched earth" policy was put in place - except the earth comes pre-scorched.

And of course there would be far more Americans in Australia in this alternative history - the ones who weren't fighting from Hawaii could have joined MacArthur's forces in Queensland.

That's a very tough target for the Japanese to take on.

BH said:

Why didn't the Japanese go ahead and send an invasion force with paratroopers to Hawaii then? Seems to me they made a big, big, blunder

Click to expand...

Japan wanted recognized status as a world power, particularly after they kicked Russia's ass. But western powers would not give Japan the status Japan craved. The U.S. cut off oil and iron when Japan invaded China and Manchuria so Japan needed a base for resources, hence it's imperialist "co prosperity sphere." Japan never wanted Hawaii or even Midway. It only wanted resources, not necessarily land. That meant eliminating competing naval threats particularly from the U.S. Hence their attack on Pearl.

Politesse said:

Emily Lake said:

Politesse said:

If you'd been paying attention to the thread at all, you'd know my actual point is that war crimes don't win wars. That's why I think your thesis -- that "going harder" on the "terrorists" would have resulted in "winning the war" in Afghanistan - is dumb as hell.

Click to expand...

Do you understand that your assumption is that "going harder" can only possibly mean committing war crimes? It's a dumb fucking assumption, Poli.

Click to expand...

It's been true of every war in human history, including the one we're discussing. Why do you think Afghanistan would have been some sort of magical exception, when it already hasn't been?

Click to expand...

Is it your position that wars can only ever be won by the commission of war crimes?

Politesse said:

I continue to feel that you have no idea what living in a country at war is like.

Click to expand...

And you do? Which war-torn country have you been a resident of during combat?

Toni said:

Emily Lake said:

Toni said:

The level of rape, torture, beheadings, etc. is unacceptable, no matter who is doing it or to whom they are doing it or why they are doing it. After a certain level of evil, it is just evil with no better, no worse. Evil is the complete description and requires no qualifier.

Click to expand...

Look, let's rewind this a bit. I am not in any way excusing or justifying rape, torture, or beheadings. I agree with you that it's horrific.

Now let's take that sentiment in context of how we got here: I said that we *could have* won Afghanistan if we had taken a different military approach. Poli read that at immediately ASSUMED that the only possible way we could have won is through the use of barbarism. I disagree quite strongly with that sentiment.

So unless your principled approach is to roll over for the people doing the raping, torturing, and beheading and just let them take over... I rather suspect that you also disagree with Poli's position.

Click to expand...

I think you misread Politesse. He stated, quite correctly, that rape and torture are and always have been part of war.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that Poli's post immediately after this one by you demonstrates that I have NOT misread him.

Toni said:

Now, specific to Afghanistan, going off only what I was told by someone who spent 15 months there, the US soldiers were not engaging in such tactics at least where he was when he was there. In fact, there specifically was little or no contact with the locals and there were no American led military battles directed towards or in the civilian villages. He was upset about other things he saw but there were pretty stern warnings about no booze, no drugs, no touching the local women. Care packages from home could contain none of those items nor tobacco nor porn nor pork products. Their camp was fairly close to a known Taliban village.Some one or two members of his platoon were sent home for smoking pot.

Obviously this is a pretty small bit of a prolonged war. I believe at the time, there was a hope of improving the lives of Afghani people, particularly girls and women.

Click to expand...

That hope remained and was a cornerstone of our activities throughout the entirety of the engagement.

Toni said:

In order to kill other human beings , or to be able to expect young men far from their families to kill other human beings, there needs to be a lot of work to dehumanize the enemy. I have not been in the circumstances where my life was constantly in danger from enemy fire but certainly it has been the case for a number of family members, including my son. Rape is not an act of sexual need but an act of violence, just as murder and torture are, as you know.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I don't think dehumanization is necessary. I think dehumanization is the easy way, the way used by dictators who rely on fear and anger to motivate unethical actions. It's more challenging, but also less overall harmful, if service members genuinely believe that they are acting in defense of their way of life, and the protection of innocents, and to save people from unjust harm.

It's not a bright line, by any means... but generally speaking the aggressor in a conflict relies on dehumanization of those they seek to oppress; the defender doesn't have that need.

Emily Lake said:

Toni said:

Emily Lake said:

Toni said:

The level of rape, torture, beheadings, etc. is unacceptable, no matter who is doing it or to whom they are doing it or why they are doing it. After a certain level of evil, it is just evil with no better, no worse. Evil is the complete description and requires no qualifier.

Click to expand...

Look, let's rewind this a bit. I am not in any way excusing or justifying rape, torture, or beheadings. I agree with you that it's horrific.

Now let's take that sentiment in context of how we got here: I said that we *could have* won Afghanistan if we had taken a different military approach. Poli read that at immediately ASSUMED that the only possible way we could have won is through the use of barbarism. I disagree quite strongly with that sentiment.

So unless your principled approach is to roll over for the people doing the raping, torturing, and beheading and just let them take over... I rather suspect that you also disagree with Poli's position.

Click to expand...

I think you misread Politesse. He stated, quite correctly, that rape and torture are and always have been part of war.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that Poli's post immediately after this one by you demonstrates that I have NOT misread him.

Toni said:

Now, specific to Afghanistan, going off only what I was told by someone who spent 15 months there, the US soldiers were not engaging in such tactics at least where he was when he was there. In fact, there specifically was little or no contact with the locals and there were no American led military battles directed towards or in the civilian villages. He was upset about other things he saw but there were pretty stern warnings about no booze, no drugs, no touching the local women. Care packages from home could contain none of those items nor tobacco nor porn nor pork products. Their camp was fairly close to a known Taliban village.Some one or two members of his platoon were sent home for smoking pot.

Obviously this is a pretty small bit of a prolonged war. I believe at the time, there was a hope of improving the lives of Afghani people, particularly girls and women.

Click to expand...

That hope remained and was a cornerstone of our activities throughout the entirety of the engagement.

Toni said:

In order to kill other human beings , or to be able to expect young men far from their families to kill other human beings, there needs to be a lot of work to dehumanize the enemy. I have not been in the circumstances where my life was constantly in danger from enemy fire but certainly it has been the case for a number of family members, including my son. Rape is not an act of sexual need but an act of violence, just as murder and torture are, as you know.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I don't think dehumanization is necessary. I think dehumanization is the easy way, the way used by dictators who rely on fear and anger to motivate unethical actions. It's more challenging, but also less overall harmful, if service members genuinely believe that they are acting in defense of their way of life, and the protection of innocents, and to save people from unjust harm.

It's not a bright line, by any means... but generally speaking the aggressor in a conflict relies on dehumanization of those they seek to oppress; the defender doesn't have that need.

Click to expand...

If you think dehumanization is only used by dictators, you are naive or have not talked to a recently deployed member of the armed services in depth, as I have.

Loren Pechtel said:

bilby said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Emily Lake said:

Yeah, Japan didn't really give enough credence to the size of our Navy or our willingness to just dominate the Pacific ocean the hard way.

Click to expand...

Had Japan pressed the attack home on Hawaii they would have won. And with Hawaii down we would have basically no ability to project power in the Pacific. Fleets can't operate too far from friendly ports--and we have none between the US and Hawaii. Retaking Hawaii would have been nearly impossible and we would have been basically powerless in the Pacific.

Click to expand...

The US Navy could have island hopped Northwards from Australia, rather than Westwards from Hawaii. General MacArthur had his base in Brisbane for two and a half years between 1942 and 1944.

Click to expand...

And you think Australia wouldn't have fallen??

bilby said:

One benefit of fighting a World War is that you have allies in convenient places, that you can rely on to let you use their port facilities.

Click to expand...

If your allies don't fall.

bilby said:

It wouldn't have been as easy to get materiel from CONUS to the staging point(s), but then, it's not exactly easy to get materiel from CONUS to Hawaii, much less Guam or Iwo Jima. I reckon the US Navy could have done it, handily enough. Probably would have taken longer, but then, Japan was going backwards wrt ships and materiel from 1943 onwards, while the US was outproducing the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

You're still not looking at how big a change it would have made if Hawaii had fallen. Japan would have been free to send their entire strength south--and there was nothing down there that could stand up to it. They could have pretty much ignored us--WWII tech simply didn't allow much of a strike that far out.

Click to expand...

Are you certain? I'm not an expert... but I thought that the majority of our Pacific Theater strategy was based around aircraft carriers and submarines - and those didn't use Hawaii as a major base of operations. I thought Pearl Harbor was pretty much out of commission for the majority of our activity in the Pacific, and not used as a hub.

Toni said:

Emily Lake said:

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I don't think dehumanization is necessary. I think dehumanization is the easy way, the way used by dictators who rely on fear and anger to motivate unethical actions. It's more challenging, but also less overall harmful, if service members genuinely believe that they are acting in defense of their way of life, and the protection of innocents, and to save people from unjust harm.

It's not a bright line, by any means... but generally speaking the aggressor in a conflict relies on dehumanization of those they seek to oppress; the defender doesn't have that need.

Click to expand...

If you think dehumanization is only used by dictators, you are naive or have not talked to a recently deployed member of the armed services in depth, as I have.

Click to expand...

That would be why I said "it's not a bright line" and "generally speaking".

Emily Lake said:

Toni said:

Emily Lake said:

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I don't think dehumanization is necessary. I think dehumanization is the easy way, the way used by dictators who rely on fear and anger to motivate unethical actions. It's more challenging, but also less overall harmful, if service members genuinely believe that they are acting in defense of their way of life, and the protection of innocents, and to save people from unjust harm.

It's not a bright line, by any means... but generally speaking the aggressor in a conflict relies on dehumanization of those they seek to oppress; the defender doesn't have that need.

Click to expand...

If you think dehumanization is only used by dictators, you are naive or have not talked to a recently deployed member of the armed services in depth, as I have.

Click to expand...

That would be why I said "it's not a bright line" and "generally speaking".

Click to expand...

I’ll be more specific: We used it on our own military in Afghanistan and in the Mideast, both Army and Air Force.

Emily Lake said:

Is it your position that wars can only ever be won by the commission of war crimes?

Click to expand...

For the fifth and last time, no. War crimes do not help win wars.

Wars inevitably result in war crimes, however, and escalation of conflicts increases the likelihood of both the frequency and severity of such atrocities. If you are pushing for an escalation of social violence in a region, one consequence of executing that policy will be an intensification of all forms of violence, not just your preferred forms.

And even those aren't as nice as you're thinking. I suspect you'd have a harder time stomaching it if you were witnessing in person what a team of SEALS does to a bunch of teenagers in honest, non-"criminal" warfare. A fifteen year old with only two-thirds of a head left is not a pretty sight. You're trying to draw some line in the sand where shooting someone's guts out is perfectly acceptable but rape is an unforgiveable crime. It is, but for my money at least, so is brutally murdering some teenaged boy you don't even know, because his family made a choice he had no say in and posted him at the entrance of a safe house with a gun he barely knows how to use. You don't really think of "terrorists" as "people", so you don't mind casually discussing killing them without reservation. But they are people. And most of the people who would have died, had we attempted more surges like the one in 2009, would not have been stereotypical movie villains. Plenty if not most of them would have just been kids. I note that our overall strategic position weakened considerably during that final major surge. More surges would have had similar results.

Emily Lake said:

Politesse said:

I continue to feel that you have no idea what living in a country at war is like.

Click to expand...

And you do? what war-torn yada yada

Click to expand...

No, I haven't ever been posted in a war theater, and thank god for that. But see, I'm not hypothesizing how useful/effective it would be to kill more people in foreign wars. I'm not glib about the suffering of others, or cruel to the victims of my country's wars. Many of whom I work with every day as they try to pull their lives back together. It's a hard road.

A tank typically doesn't explode when hit by an M1 Abrams. The projectile used against enemy tanks is a depleted uranium dart that has no explosive payload whatsoever. It's destruction power is 100% kinetic energy and can slice through enemy armor packages like a samurai sword through butter. It's only about a silver dollar in circumference which is about the size of the hole it makes going in. It breaks chunks of the target off (spall) that also bounce around the turret shredding everything as well as igniting all the oxygen in it. If it's a direct hit, it will exit the other side of the target leaving a teacup saucer sized hole, but unless it impacts the ammunition storage it is difficult to tell whether or not the target was hit.

This was a problem in desert storm, we wasted ammunition firing on tanks that we'd already destroyed. I mean you could see some metal flying so you knew it was at least close or a glancing blow, but otherwise a tank you were engaged with just suddenly became dormant. It wasn't until you moved past it and saw human remains expelled from the exit hole that you knew you hit it, and you particularly didn't want to check the turret for survivors (though you could smell what happened).

And Desert Storm was probably one of the most successful campaigns of the 20th century. Coalition forces faced off against the 3rd largest army in the world in Kuwait. 96 hours later that Iraqi army was the 2nd largest army in Iraq. But it's war - barbaric, atrocious, and dehumanizing. There are no humans in war, just teams wearing the wrong jersey.

aa

Emily Lake said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You're still not looking at how big a change it would have made if Hawaii had fallen. Japan would have been free to send their entire strength south--and there was nothing down there that could stand up to it. They could have pretty much ignored us--WWII tech simply didn't allow much of a strike that far out.

Click to expand...

Are you certain? I'm not an expert... but I thought that the majority of our Pacific Theater strategy was based around aircraft carriers and submarines - and those didn't use Hawaii as a major base of operations. I thought Pearl Harbor was pretty much out of commission for the majority of our activity in the Pacific, and not used as a hub.

Click to expand...

There's a limit to how far away from a base a fleet can operate. Logistics becomes a nightmare.

Alcoholic Actuary said:

A tank typically doesn't explode when hit by an M1 Abrams. The projectile used against enemy tanks is a depleted uranium dart that has no explosive payload whatsoever. It's destruction power is 100% kinetic energy and can slice through enemy armor packages like a samurai sword through butter. It's only about a silver dollar in circumference which is about the size of the hole it makes going in. It breaks chunks of the target off (spall) that also bounce around the turret shredding everything as well as igniting all the oxygen in it. If it's a direct hit, it will exit the other side of the target leaving a teacup saucer sized hole, but unless it impacts the ammunition storage it is difficult to tell whether or not the target was hit.

Click to expand...

Or if the spall bouncing around finds some ammunition. We see an awful lot of Russian tanks going up with hits far below what an Abrams does.