Home | About | Donate

Winning World War II in the Twenty-First Century


#1

Winning World War II in the Twenty-First Century

Michael T. Klare

If you are an American male of a certain age -- Donald Trump’s age, to be exact -- you are likely to have vivid memories of Victory at Sea, the Emmy award-winning NBC documentary series about the U.S. Navy in World War II that aired from October 1952 to May 1953.


#2

I used to carry the sign, 'Question Internal Combustion' outside new car shows, but not after questioning which EV technology (BEV, PHEV, HFCEV) has the potential to not only reduce CO2 the most, but also reduce car-dependency and traffic and offer the means to create economies that reduce transport of all kinds - trans-oceanic shipping, long-distance trucking and air travel.

The answer is PHEV (plug-in hybrid EV). The greater problem is that we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes; truck, ship and fly too much with too detrimental impact to the natural environment and societal culture. The PHEV offers households more incentives (and disincentives) to drive less whereby more trips become possible without having to drive, whereby walking, mass transit and bicycling - all more energy efficient than any EV - serve their fundamental roles in urban/suburban travel.

Households with a PHEV, especially those with 'simpler/smaller' matching rooftop PV solar arrays, gain the choice to use the electricity for driving or household appliances; also gained is the means to monitor energy consumption, more readily survive utility grid failure and complement grids at all times. In emergency, PHEVs are more portable than BEVs and can use any combustible bio-fuel including hydrogen. Some years ago, the LA Times ran an article "The 500 mpg Solution" about this perspective. The only way to achieve the high mileage was to daily drive less. Not a bad idea especially as Trump ramps up fossil fuels production to exploit our 'captive market' consumption that leads to oil wars..


#3

Military history is replete with lessons where quality of forces trumps quantity: and this is particularly true with Naval affairs (Great Britain's navy generally won out over its' opponents not because they outnumbered them, but because they were better trained & led).
The critical juncture of 'Victory at Sea,' the Battle of Midway, the US Navy was outnumbered but triumphed due to better reconnaissance, damage control procedures, and luck.
Dump has not learned from history at all.


#4

What is with these Costume Crazy, Military Service Avoiding Presidents, who aren't comfortable with the fact, that the United States has a CIVILLIAN Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces?


#5

Trump should be coaxed to read this, for the good of us all- Oh, that's right, he doesn't read!


#6

A chicken hawk and his wanna be fantasies...


#7

The problem is that Trump is not an outlier on this. We have a mentality that if a hammer doesn't work to unscrew the bolt, get a bigger hammer. And bigger and bigger. When Reagan took office he railed against Carter making the military smaller and vowed to out spend the Soviet Union on increasing the military. And the Soviet Union responded just as crazily and drove themselves to bankruptcy. While Reagan did the same for us.
It didn't matter that any war between the two would be mutually destructive even w/o a nuclear war. The Soviet Union could overrun Europe while we pounded the Soviet Union and flattened it. Neither side wins such a war. The Soviets knew it, we knew it. So all we were doing was increasing the destruction of each in an unwinnable war.
That thinking of large scale battles didn't end with the collapse of the Soviet Union nor did we learn the lessons from Nam that large scale forces cannot win when the enemy doesn't cooperate. And we still insist that a huge military with all the toys to take out big targets is the way to go. And both sides of the aisle are guilty of this thinking.
1st and foremost you will not bomb ISIS or the Taliban away, no matter how many drones and aircraft you have. We still haven't learned this lesson well. All our fancy toys can't win this war, they sting the enemy and that is all.
Iraq is doing better because we finally got ground troops to fight, take land, and hold it. And unfortunately that means people die. Innocent people die. Which they do in all wars.
This is not in support of war. We foolishly went to war and fought it badly. And that means more innocent people keep dying because the war goes on and on. Understandably americans don't want their people dying in an endless war, which means we keep killing others. It's not more military we need, it is using what we have smartly which for the most part we haven't done.
We need to make a decision win the war or get out and stop the foolish spending on shit that is useless for the kind of wars we will find ourselves. And if we stop with the foolish polices that cause these wars, we could back off on a huge portion of our military spending.


#8

And cut off the flow of billions of $$$$$ that flow into the coffers of the MIC? Silly boy.


#9

Of course. But I have only been indulging in that foolish thinking for 45 yrs now, so ONE of these days I will stop. (I wasn't knowledgable really until I was 20.).