Forum: Program and politics

Are the Italians leaving NATO then. Lots of news stories about how badly NATO is going at moment. I guess if Italy leaves no one will notice.

F-16.net Sponsor

Time to update military doctrines. The war is done with S&P ratings today, not with fighter jets and that kind of stuff.
A Country downgrade should be greeted in the same way as it was an embargo. The effects are the same, draining money from a Country, draining jobs.
In the Middle Ages a Lord would send its knights to the neighboring countryside to wage war, killing peasants and burning crops.
In the 1800, an emperor would invade its neighboring countries engaging its army in open battles.
In 1940’s a Country would send its bombers to flatten the enemy’s cities and the army to take control.
Starting from the 1950’s the doctrine would be hitting the other with nuclear weapons.
Today it’s downgrading a Country.
Today a downgrade makes the same effects of those knights back in the Middle Age: unemployment, civil disorder, underdevelopment, famine.
Time for Europe to drop from JSF and stop following US politic agenda in the Middle East.

marco9 wrote:

Time to update military doctrines. The war is done with S&P ratings today, not with fighter jets and that kind of stuff.

If this is the case, then pray tell why you're on a forum whose sole reason for existence is to discuss military aircraft??

marco9 wrote:

...
Starting from the 1950’s the doctrine would be hitting the other with nuclear weapons.
...

There hasn't been a single war on the planet since 1945?

I am speaking about real war.
A nation at war is far different from what the western world saw in the last 70 years. The battlefield was far away and the enemy had no chance but to lose (still the Viet were able to do something to win locally. The US did not risk anything of their civil life/economy though - The Viet were not going to bomb anywhere in the USA).
I call this “wars” (actually it is a total war for the invaded country, a military operation for the invader, the US never declared the status “at war” since 1941), imperial wars. They are the same that the Roman legion were fighting on the border in 50AD and on… kind of military operations to keep the proper flow of slaves and goods to reach Rome, but Rome and the rest of the Empire were safe for centuries not risking anything.
The military doctrine for total war since 1950 to 1990 was total nuclear, biological, chemical annihilation.
Today all of that changed. You can put a country on its knees giving it a C with an S&P rating… An update on a screen.

The damage done to the Libyan society and economy by the bombs was minimal compared to the damage done to Greece and the EU with a couple of screen updates.

"You can put a country on its knees giving it a C with an S&P"

You make it sound like this is something other people did to Italy. Didn't Italy (and Greece and Spain and the USA) create these financial problems themselves?

marco9 wrote:

I am speaking about real war.
A nation at war is far different from what the western world saw in the last 70 years. The battlefield was far away and the enemy had no chance but to lose (still the Viet were able to do something to win locally. The US did not risk anything of their civil life/economy though - The Viet were not going to bomb anywhere in the USA).
I call this “wars” (actually it is a total war for the invaded country, a military operation for the invader, the US never declared the status “at war” since 1941), imperial wars. They are the same that the Roman legion were fighting on the border in 50AD and on… kind of military operations to keep the proper flow of slaves and goods to reach Rome, but Rome and the rest of the Empire were safe for centuries not risking anything.
The military doctrine for total war since 1950 to 1990 was total nuclear, biological, chemical annihilation.

Now you're changing the definition to "total war" from "war." That's the classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "It's not a TRUE war if it doesn't agree with my previous assertion." The facts remain, there have been shooting conflicts (OK, let's not call them wars if you like), and the actual military doctrine, the one that (unlike nuclear strike) has actually ever been used, has centered around armed forces incursions against distant foes on their home turf, with the attacks substantially prosecuted by air forces, keeping our home turf safe and far from the physical danger. Do you think the Battle of Britain was fought over Britain by Britain's choice? Or would they have preferred to keep all the action over Germany and keep British home soil uninvolved if it were possible?

Quote:

The damage done to the Libyan society and economy by the bombs was minimal compared to the damage done to Greece and the EU with a couple of screen updates.

I don't think many of the dead Libyans killed by NATO airstrikes would agree the damage was minimal. Even if, you know, they weren't unable to agree or disagree since they're dead. I think it's also fair to say the prior lives of highly-ranked Qadaffi loyalists are pretty much ruined now even if they survived. Which is really what the intent was. NATO wasn't at war with "Libyan society," they were at war with the Qadaffi regime. That the war was a wholehearted success in hitting the actual enemy, and largely avoiding collateral damage to people who were bystanders or even potential allies, is hardly a negative about it. WWII wasn't "not a destructive war" just because we didn't also wreck the Chiilean economy just for laughs while we were pounding the Axis powers into submission. If you compare the current situation for Qadaffi and his children and officers, the actual enemy in the Libyan conflict, with the current situation for the Greek and Italian regimes, or even the Greek and Italian populaces, it's clear who wase actually hit by a military force, and who are actually only having some economic troubles. It's not even close.

Just because a country is devastated by economic action in one case and military action in another does not necessarily mean that both actions should be defined as “war” actions. What if, for example, a country is utterly destroyed either by an earthquake, a tsunami, or a hurricane? Is mother nature making war on the destroyed country? Let’s hope we can discern the distinction by defining both in differential terms.

Here’s hoping Italy is able to remain committed to the F-35 program despite its current fiscal troubles.

Forum: Program and politics

Hit piece on the F-35 in the Italian Press