My New Millitary Policy 103 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 11 years ago

I propose that the U.S. radically change it's foreign policy in regard to the military. First we have to get Iraq relatively stable, we owe them that. Once that is done we pull all American soldiers out of all countries around the world and bring them back to the United States. We then set up two cases in which we will go to war.

1. If you attack the U.S. we level every last one of your government buildings in the hopes that the citizens of your country will take the opportunity to throw you out of power. If we are attacked a second time by any one country we then proceed to level the entire country. Every last building from grand palaces to outhouse gets flattened. We will use conventional weapons to carry out this attack so that if at any time during the bombing campaign the people of the country throw our their leaders and pay us back for any damage that has been caused to the U.S. we will be able to halt the bombing. If after this regime shift has occurred there is a third attack by this country upon the U.S. we will then level the entire country no matter what, even if it means using nuclear weapons.

Three strikes and you are out. An attack on the U.S. can be any of the following: An air strike, bombing, or any kind of violent assault carried out by any country' military on any U.S. owned and operated facility, including embassies.

Any violent attack carried out on any U.S. bus, aircraft, or vehicle of any kind by a country's military.

Any violent attack on a person or persons of the U.S. including hostage takings and assassinations.

We also will consider it an attack on the U.S. by a country if said country willingly harbors someone who commits any of the above acts.In the case of an attempted land invasion(which is suicide anyways, so not likely to happen) of the U.S. we will skip phase one and two of the bombings and go straight to leveling your entire country.

2. We will also support our allies in any defensive actions they take to one degree or another. If we are defending our allies we may or may not level your country depending on whether our allies choose to forgive you or not. If it is our ally who initiates the war we will not get involved.

We will not deploy our troops or engage in any violent conflict with any country other then in the two scenarios listed above.

To sum up. If you attack us or our allies your country will be destroyed, or atleast it's government will be. If you don't attack us, it won't be destroyed(atleast not by us).

Sounds logical to me.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Interesting idea. I like the gist of it, but I'd put a few changes in.

1 - The response for a second attack seems to include bombing innocent people's houses. That will put more people in support of the enemy government, not in support of your forces. 2 - The response for attack three includes nukes. Golden rule of nuclear weapons is never, never, never, never use them in anger. Only nuke them if they nuke you, or you have 100% assurance that missiles launched are aimed at you, and came from them. Possibly more, I'll see what other people have to say.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,402 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,121 Posts

1,330 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Although i somewhat agree with you, we cant fully stop terrorism by just defending our borders (but it will really help)

We have to go on the offensive, and purly defensive strategy wont work.

I do like the idea of telling our enemies that if you fuck with us, we will bomb you into the stone age.


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Mast3rofPuppets VIP Member

08'aIgnorance is not an excuse

50 XP

28th November 2003

0 Uploads

8,198 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

It's called being neutral. Besides I think you're greatly overestimating the military forces of your country. Do you really think the US can level every building in a country without nuclear weapons :rolleyes:? That policy is kinda moot anyway. The chances of a sovereign nation attacking the US today is non-existent. If the US will be attacked it will be by a terrorist group. Perhaps an American one (look at the London bombings).




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,402 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,121 Posts

1,330 Threads

#5 11 years ago

It is hard to fight terrorists because they don't have a "country" so to speak.

They are cowards who hide in schools and hospitals, and use innocent people as shields. In order to fight them you have to go in full force and fully knowing innocent people are going to die, there is no other way. If you go in half assed you are sure to lose


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Mast3rofPuppets VIP Member

08'aIgnorance is not an excuse

50 XP

28th November 2003

0 Uploads

8,198 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.;3513597It is hard to fight terrorists because they don't have a "country" so to speak.

They are cowards who hide in schools and hospitals, and use innocent people as shields.

Exactly, that's why Afterburners strategy wont work.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,402 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,121 Posts

1,330 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Terrorists are gaining strenght in some countries, Look at Iran and Syria, not to mention Hamas

Radical Islam is even effecting Europe, just look at the riots in France


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,014 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#8 11 years ago

Removing soldiers from other countries will not stop terrorism but it might avoid a further increase.

The rest of your policy is nuts. You want to commit genocide whenever your president decides that a nation supports terrorism?




SVD_Sniper

"Custom User Title" eh?

50 XP

23rd August 2006

0 Uploads

642 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

No country will advocate or incite (officially) an attack on US soil. Because the reprocusions would ruin the country, economically, politically and the fact that buildings---> rubble.

I think it is however a good policy. A lot of the problems the US has (in regard to combat situations/terrorism/whatever) are almost brought on itself. Of course there are exclusions fromt his, but look at the track record, 'Nam (do you capitalise it if it's not the full name?), Iraq and Afganistan. Using your policy these wouldnt have happend. Now, how many people died (US people) in those 3 conflicts compared to in 9/11 the most prolific terrorist attack ever. Many many more. Go figure.

All in all I think it would be a revolutionary imporvement on matters. Well done. Now get elected and do it if you can :p

Oh and S.T.A.L.K.E.R, that is pretty much the current policy and is it working in Iraq? The common consensus is "no". Thats just gun-ho bravado that gets people killed.

[Edit] There have been a few posts since I started writing. So I will update: Having troops occupying a country is almost guranteed to increase recruitment for terror cells. And prejudice against the occupants. That all said if a country did advocate a terror strike, then fine retaliate. But invading a country is unfair and unjust because the terrorists are a primarily a member of a religion/faith and a constituient of a country second.




Mast3rofPuppets VIP Member

08'aIgnorance is not an excuse

50 XP

28th November 2003

0 Uploads

8,198 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.;3513604Terrorists are gaining strenght in some countries, Look at Iran and Syria, not to mention Hamas

The London bombers was born (I think) and raised in England.

Radical Islam is even effecting Europe, just look at the riots in France

Give me a break, what does the riots in France has to do with radical Islam and terrorism? The cause of the riot was screwed up integration politics and other social causes. Religion had nothing to do with it.