PNAC might be able to pursue world domination without a draft

[KamaAina]

tons of draft threads this week...

...but I'm afraid you're not gonna like the alternative:

they could start nuking places that aren't playing along with their megalomaniacal agenda.

Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap ... -Isaiah 17:1

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

That way they (in their minds, at least) eliminate the first two or three regimes that are unlucky enough to get in their way, and cow the rest into submission, all without sending too many Americans to slaughter </sarcasm>.

Am I completely paranoid? :tinfoilhat: And if I am, can you blame me?

[bryant69]

1. I don't think this is likely

but it is clearly possible. The army has been playing with tactical nuclear scenarios since the 50's, so who knows what they have worked out.

Check out The Atomic Cafe. Great movie on the atom bomb.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[david_vincent]

8. Yeah, somewhere I have a book

from the 50s, a scholarly study that argues for the judicious use of nuclear weapons as a strategy.
Saw The Atomic Cafe when it came out, in Toronto. Great flick.

[arcane1]

2. well, Bush DID authorize the development and testing..

of tactical field nukes, that can be carried onto the battlefield and used in smaller areas :puke:

and they are still testing the hell out of the MOAB

these days you can't be paranoid enough

[Fovea]

3. We cannot produce our own standard of living

in the middle of a global trade war and/or in the middle of a full bore assymetrical war.

Consider, let's say Russia has ~50 suitcase nukes.
If we pop N.K. or Iran, how many of those will wind up going walk about?

[oasis]

4. There would still be a need for armies of occupation.

[Wickerman]

5. yeah, we can make nukes and 2 ton bombs, but

it appears that we suck as an occupying nation. Never did seem to get that hearts and minds thing down...

[rucky]

6. Or more realistically...

they could give up on the "nation building" and just go Blitzkreig on the Middle East.

Not like we do much when we're actually occupying a nation.

[FloridaPat]

7. Bush has been working on this since he got in office.

He had a list of countries that were to be invaded - 40 of them. Then he quietly got rid of people in command of the armed services that were against using nukes as a first strike. The small bunker bombs. And he has been trying to get the testing OK - which he did with the $87 billion. No need to worry about the military numbers. No dead soldiers, so no upset familes. No civiians left to count so no war crimes indictment.
Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan - billions of dollars of military hardware dropped, thrown, whatever. They bombed a wedding in Afghanistan for 12 hours. Happy war contractors. Happy solders. Vaporized citizens.

[cliss]

9. Interesting thread, thanks Kama'Aina

I've been wondering this, myself. At the current time, the US has only a volunteer military force of about 1.4 million (help me out here). We've got about 130,000 in Iraq, and _______ others in active service around the world. That leaves a reserve force of _________.

If the US is lunatic enough to start bombing around the world to deal with the "troublemakers" like Syria and Iran, what will they do after they bomb it? They can't bomb the entire world. The rest of the world would declare war on us and WE JUST MIGHT LOSE. After all, we represent only 5% of the world's population, and we're trying to run the other 95%. Only lunatics think they can get away with it.

So to answer my own question: I believe they are crazy enough to attempt it, draft or no draft, but they have absolutely no manpower to take over 40 countries. They can blast them to Kingdom Come, but they won't be able to do anything beyond that.

[Dems Will Win]

10. They might use one bunker-buster on Saddam but I really doubt it

But even then they will still need at least 240,000 troops in Iraq (Cato Institute) and probably 15,000 to 25,000 more than they left in Afghanistan.

Nukes cannot be used because Putin has no doubt informed Bush that Russia would have to retaliate if he ever did drop one. And even if they did use one, they would still need the draft because Bush decided we need to increase the number (and that is now suddenly happening) and a huge dropoff in the re-enlistment rate is coming as deployed troops and Reservists rotate back. You always need infantry to control the ground situation and Iraq is 27 million and Afghanistan 22 million.

The original idea was also one deployment, I believe. If they start sending troops back for second year-long deployment, well...

Nuke or no nuke, PNAC or no PNAC, by 2005 and 2006, DOD will be in a true numbers squeeze. Minus a Bush defeat, the draft is a sure thing--unless Bush puts his tail between his legs and cuts and runs. He doesn't have to, he can have his no-nuke cake and eat it too--

with a DRAFT. Here's the $28 million Bush is spending to have the first Draft Lottery ready for drawing on June 15, 2005, if Dick tells Dubya to tell Tom The Hammer Delay to tell Dennis Hastert (who?) and Bill Frist that we need to activate the SSS to support the troops:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html