Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Operational details determine the policy, you cannot threaten what you cannot do.
|
It may seem like a small quibble, but operational details do not drive overall policy. Perhaps you mean they drive the timing and execution of the military response called for by the policy. US policy is embodied in three, sometimes four, what are called "vital interests". Our military is developed and continually assessed in light of our ability to protect these vital interests. I would agree with you to the extent that our military contingency plans are always designed around our military capability as well as other factors. But the civilian component, that is, the policy is an extention of our vital interests. It's like mountain climbing: we first decide we want to get to the top of the mountain; then we plan how to do it.[/quote]
Quote:
|
Most of the 'experts" I have seen have been busy blowing smoke up the publics ass. So I am touchy with the subject, I should have specified TV experts.
|
In which case I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. There is way too much half-thought-out crap on the airwaves about this and a whole range of security issue. It's no wonder the American public is confused.
Quote:
|
The problem is of course what if Iran panics and fires? And now we are back to the problem or rational actions ours and thiers). Realistically we would ahve to surge the B-2's
|
We used to test Soviet responses all the time using that technique and they did the same to us. We used to intercept their Bears coming up on our 200- mile limit fairly often. I doubt Iran would begin to freak unless the bombers passed Gibralter. They're probably already nervous with our air ops next door in Iraq.