13-09-2002 06:22									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I don't recall his being fired over the use of nuclear weapons.

He wasn't, neddie. Work on your reading comprehension.

quote: Had the UN commanders at Rawanda or Sebrenicia had MacArthurs balls and access to reinforcements

Yeah. That's good.

I fail to see how MaxArthur's access to reinforcements reflects positively on his skill as a commander

	13-09-2002 06:32									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Rwanda was a failure of UN bureacracy, not an argument for a UN military force.

So what could have been done at the time? Dallaire says a Canadian-sized mechanized brigade group could have stopped the violence. But the only countries capable of moving in such a force quickly right now are the US and Russia (I don't think any other nation has the long-distance airlift capacity).

	13-09-2002 06:35									#63
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I fail to see how MaxArthur's access to reinforcements reflects positively on his skill as a commander

two words: Incheon Landing.

	13-09-2002 06:35									#64
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney i can see tingkai's idea being rejected by at least 5 permanent members of the security council the other major problem is not so much finding troops, but the fact that the officers and commanders could only come from a handful of countries, plus the equipment would also have to come from those few countries, sounds like a complete non starter to me.

The ban on landmines seemed crazy when it first proposed. People thought there was no way anyone would support it.

I suspect that when the first peacekeeping operation was proposed, people said it would never get off the ground because there would be problems finding troops, officers, commanders, equipment.

	13-09-2002 06:36									#65
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed two words: Incheon Landing.

? Please explain further (not about Inchon landing, but how this relates).

	13-09-2002 06:39									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I fail to see how MaxArthur's access to reinforcements reflects positively on his skill as a commander

The Incheon Landing utilized mostly reinforcements to build a force strong enough and capable enough to surprise the North Korean Army by stabbing it right in the back of their lines.

Without access to reinforcements, MacArthur would not have been able to mount such an offensive. And under the sustained attacks of the NKVA, with Chinese support, the Pusan Perimeter would have eventually broken, resulting in a defeat for a free south korea.

	13-09-2002 06:41									#67
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yes...but how does having access to reinforcements show that he's a more skilled commander than not having reinforcements?

It's like saying that a man with both arms free is stronger than one who's been handcuffed. While it may be true because of circumstance, it tells you nothing of the innate abilities of either.

	13-09-2002 06:53									#68
	Remove this text

The bureaucratic problem could be solved by granting the UN force commander a mandate to carry out operations for a set period of time. During that time, the commander would have complete control of the force within the parameters set down by the mandate. The UN politicians could be given the power to recall the commander, but only by a general assembly vote.

A mandate system would be attractive to the bureaucrats because they would be able to essentially wash their hands of any problems.

The bureaucrats would muck things up when the UN Force is at home, but that happens in every military.

At the beginning, the UN force would need competant commanders with extensive experience in commanding large-size forces. That would mean commanders from the developed world.

In the long-run, a UN force would have to have its own training programs, staff schools, etc.

A UN force would have to be fairly low-tech. There's no way any developed country would train potential enemies in high-tech warfare. This is particularly true of the US which has a massive head start in high-tech command, control and communications.

Additional support could be obtained when needed.

A low-tech force would still be effective because most of the world's troublespots are countries with low-tech militaries.

A UN force would need infantry, APCs, artillery, armour that could be airlifted, and support units.

There would be no need for a navy since the UN force would be moved into a country next door to the trouble spot.

Fighter support would probably be required, but again it wouldn't have to be top of the line because the UN force would not be designed to take on large modern militaries.

A lot of countries would volunteer to base the UN Force would because it add money to the local economy.

	13-09-2002 06:56									#69
	Increase the size of your Attachments

planning the incheon landing was quite a feat, primarily because of the distraction of having a hot battlefront less than 60 miles from his headquarters. it's not like pusan was safe with the pusan perimeter...

ah, well. i suppose it's not really a true marker of his skills. but i still think he deserves hero status, no matter how imperfect he may be.

	13-09-2002 06:59									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai The ban on landmines seemed crazy when it first proposed. People thought there was no way anyone would support it.

apples and oranges there really..

quote: I suspect that when the first peacekeeping operation was proposed, people said it would never get off the ground because there would be problems finding troops, officers, commanders, equipment.

well the thing is, peacekeeping missions have countries loaning men, equipment etc. to the UN to get a specific job done in a certain place. a UN 'army' would mean that the UN would have these troops forever to go and do whatever the UN wants. most nations won't be very comfortable giving this much control over armed forces to the UN, especially the US (world court anyone).

	13-09-2002 07:18									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: planning the incheon landing was quite a feat, primarily because of the distraction of having a hot battlefront less than 60 miles from his headquarters. it's not like pusan was safe with the pusan perimeter...

Actually, the success at Inchon was largely due to the efforts of Navy Commander Eugene Franklin Clark. He conducted a preliminary intelligence gathering mission in the pusan harbor area, without which the inchon landing would not have been possible. I'd suggest the book The Secrets of Inchon: The Untold Story of the Most Daring Covert Mission of the Korean War for any of you truely interested in the subject. It's a fascenating read.

	13-09-2002 08:00									#72
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: no, i like macarthur and his style of "peacekeeping". if anything, i'm peeved that truman didn't regain his balls after nuking japan-- he should have let macarthur do the same to the legions of mao troops in china.

That's pretty sick. Go to war with China just because we can? Why?

	13-09-2002 08:14									#73
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd That's pretty sick. Go to war with China just because we can? Why?

you just said it, because we can.

	13-09-2002 08:16									#74
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

OK, well, I guess we don't really need cities like Honolulu, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, and Phoenix anyway

	13-09-2002 08:44									#75
	Suffering from ads?

quote: That's pretty sick. Go to war with China just because we can? Why?

no, go to war with china because they're weaker than they look, and because it would have won us korea.

of course, back then, we didn't know china was really weaker than it looked, so...

	13-09-2002 09:00									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: no, go to war with china because they're weaker than they look,

Oh, so now it's a case of the strong picking on the weak? Sorta like the schoolyard bully who takes your lunch money because he can?

quote: and because it would have won us korea.

We (meaning the US) shouldn't have been in Korea to begin with. It was none of our damn business, and 38,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for our meddling.

	13-09-2002 09:03									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

but they saved 100s of thousands of others from paying the ultimate price

Jon Miller

	13-09-2002 12:31									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: MacArthur appears to be the perfect example of the Peacekeeper commander who reacts to a situation in an appropriate manner without having to get SC approval. Regardless, the UN later endorsed his actions MacArthur wanted to bomb selected cities and stategic routes in the PR of ****ing China with nuclear weapons (a total of about 2 dozen). Truman, luckily, was not as mindbogglingly insane or megalomaniacal as good old Dugout Doug, and nixed the idea. Such men should be kept as far away from power as possible, not rewarded for their oh-so-dashing style without substance.

FYI, Truman and Eisenhower also suggested they might use nuclear weapons against China. The real fear they all had was that the USSR would directly intervene and begin using its own nukes.

The option of using Nukes in SE Asia was a campaign issue in 1964. After Goldwater lost decisived mainly because he refused to rule their use out, that option has never been seriously discussed again (except as a defensive measure).

I hope this history tells you something about the use of nuclear weapons. It was not unthinkable and insane in 1950-1. But for the Russian threat, we just may have used them.

	13-09-2002 12:49									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: ... ... ok, see, maybe you're fine with the idea that if all of korea became stalinist under kim il sung, but i'm not. without macarthur, all of korea would be a starving hellhole, part of bush's stupid "axis of evil". without him, all of korea would be bankrupt, its economy frozen. without him, i'd be stuck in a third-rate pos country.

MacArthr oversaw the stopping of the NK into SK, which was good. What he did wrong, however (and this was GROSS mistake) was to advance into NK on his own initiative, completely IGNORING numerous statement from the PRC that if he did so, they would intervene. As a result, they did, and the UN troops were driven back all the way out of NK, and the Chinese only stopped when they overstretched their supply lines.

quote: MTG, et al., I just did a quick search and found that MacArthur was given permission to attack into NK on October 6. The Chinese entered the war drove the UN force back from the Yalu, but in doing so, disguised their strength. MacArthur was unaware of their true strength when he ordered the attack North on Nov. 23.

MacArthur had ALL of the information he needed on Chinese troops strength available to him via his own intelligence sources. He simply didn't believe them. He though the Chinese were too weak to enter the war, and that if they did, the USAf would know about it and slaghter them.

quote: We (meaning the US) shouldn't have been in Korea to begin with. It was none of our damn business, and 38,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for our meddling.

As Jon said, it saved many others from dying as well. Besides, the US should bear some responsibility for the division that led to the war in the first place, for allowing the Soviets to occupy NK.

quote: Not exactly. MacArthur wanted to take the war farther than it needed to be taken, sure, but he certainly didn't act alone. It was not OUR war we were fighting, after all, it was South Koreas. Ultimately, they were the ones calling the shots, and THEY wanted to continue the war as well. MacArthur didn't argue with them, but his presence (well, the US forces presence) allowed the war to be continued for as long as it was.

The US was calling the shots in the Korean War: the South Koreans knew that they could not carry on fighting without US support, and their army wasn't exaclty top-notch anyway. Not to mention the fact that they had little air cover or navy.

	13-09-2002 15:25									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned FYI, Truman and Eisenhower also suggested they might use nuclear weapons against China. The real fear they all had was that the USSR would directly intervene and begin using its own nukes. The option of using Nukes in SE Asia was a campaign issue in 1964. After Goldwater lost decisived mainly because he refused to rule their use out, that option has never been seriously discussed again (except as a defensive measure). I hope this history tells you something about the use of nuclear weapons. It was not unthinkable and insane in 1950-1. But for the Russian threat, we just may have used them.

Wrongo, dearie. Truman

a) broadly hinted that he might to give the Chinese something to think about

b) thought about it for about thirty seconds in private before rejecting the idea. The Roosians had the bomb by this point...

MacArthur wanted to do it. If he'd had the authority, he would have done it as soon as he encountered PRC forces crossing into Korea, and he might well have started a nuclear war with Russia.

He should have known that the PRC would rise to defend NK once he'd driven far enough north to threaten its existence, he should have known that invading pell-mell as he did would leave him wide open to a counterattack in force, etc. He didn't, and the UN forces were driven all the way back to Pusan because of it.

It was the story of his military career: Don't prepare sufficiently, get wooped, blame it on someone else (while running as far away as possible), then come back later with men and equipment to replace that which you'd thrown away and plod your way to victory.

	13-09-2002 16:00									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney a UN 'army' would mean that the UN would have these troops forever to go and do whatever the UN wants. most nations won't be very comfortable giving this much control over armed forces to the UN, especially the US (world court anyone).

You're right that there would be initial opposition and concerns, but like all things, the idea could be sold. At the moment there is no political will to change things, despite Rwanda.

However, it could be argued the world community is moving slowly towards the concept of standing UN force. There have been greater use of peacekeeping and peacemaking since the end of the Cold War.

A relatively small UN Force would not be a threat to developed nations with modern armies, or nations with large armies.

The idea could be sold to third world nations as a method for preventing destabilizing conflict. The Rwanda genocide affected its neighbors, as has the conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The wars in Southeast Asia during the 70s were not confined to one country.

The biggest reason a UN force would not be a threat is because the global community rarely acts as a unified voice. If a UN force did exist, it would probably not be used very often simply because of the difficulty in reaching an agreement among so many nations.

	13-09-2002 18:04									#82
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: but they saved 100s of thousands of others from paying the ultimate price

So? That doesn't justify forcing hundreds of thousands of Americans to go to Korea against their will - ie the draft - and being directly responsible for the deaths of 38,000 of them.
I'm sorry people would have died if we weren't there. But you know what? Life's a *****, it tends to be unpleasant.

	13-09-2002 18:48									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

tingkai, yeah i'm sure 3rd world nations would support it, mostly because they wouldn't be footing the bill

it's not the fact that a UN force would be a military threat, but that it would in many people's eyes be an erosion of sovereignty, handing over direct control of their men and material to the UN for good. that and of course who will pay for it all would be the two main sticking points, and you're right, there is no political will to do this and i can't see anything changing in the regard for the foreseeable future.

	13-09-2002 18:52									#84
	Tired of ads?

Why would they be handing over men? Let UN recruit for themselves. Let UN buy equipment. Give them a budget.

If countries want a vote on the activities of said UN force, they'll kick in their fair share. If US wants to opt out, they can...but then they're out of the loop.

	13-09-2002 18:57									#85
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Not as long as the US is on the SC, it isn't out of the loop

	13-09-2002 19:02									#86
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Frogger If US wants to opt out, they can...but then they're out of the loop.

I fail to see how you can say that any of the permanent SC members are out of the loop considering the fact that they would be the ones to authorize this boondoggle.

	13-09-2002 19:05									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc boondoggle.

Cool word

	13-09-2002 19:09									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

yeah but kh, were are you going to find experienced and competent officers/commanders.

anyway even if they could get a force together from scratch, who would pay for it, what incentive would there be for western countries to contribute to a force from which they wouldn't benefit.

	13-09-2002 19:47									#89
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Dino:

That's why SC has to go...or at least the permanent placement+vetos do.

quote: even if they could get a force together from scratch, who would pay for it

We've alredy discussed this: whoever doesn't want to be laughed at

quote: what incentive would there be for western countries to contribute to a force from which they wouldn't benefit

See above. How much do we benefit from giving free food to starving Africans? Why does it happen anyway? Because deep down, beneath all the crap, beats a heart...even if it's three sizes too small.

	13-09-2002 20:01									#90
	Inflate your Upload Space

not being laughed at didn't sway the US too much over the world court. they just said "shan't", kinda like they (and probably much of the west) would to this idea.

there is a world of difference between providing food aid and giving the UN direct control over an army.