Admittedly, we can't lose, unless Americans lose their will as Europeans have. But I'd really rather not have to survive a Sep. 11 scale or larger attack that was actually designed to inflict real strategic damage, rather than just scare us into surrendering. Say, simultaneous attacks devastating Saudi oil fields and a major US city...

brian:

We could lose Chicago and not lose the war.

As I said, I agree we can't lose the war. But I'd rather not lose Chicago either.

Also, to lose the war, we would have to fall a vast distance. The enemy is using suicide methods not because they are incredibly efficient, but because they really don't have any other tools to wage war with. What navy is going to lift what army for an invasion and occupation of the North American continent? Exactly. It is a matter of time and I do not think the enemy is going to acquire the necessary tools for victory before what little power he actually has is eroded away.

I would not be indifferent to losing Chicago. I have kin there.

brian:

It does provide some perspective on the hysteria though, no? That's something that can be useful, for instance when folks imagine a Nazi or Soviet victory in Europe.

As David Cohen was saying the other day, even if ultimately a pan-European Nazi regime or the USSR would/did fall, it doesn't mean that horrible things couldn't happen in the meantime.

For instance, the US and the USSR could easily have had a nuclear war, and almost did several times, a few by accident.
Nor was it inevitable that the USSR spend itself into oblivion; With a few less-paranoid rulers, Russia might have contented herself with a smaller military and dismissed "Star Wars" as a pipe dream - Which indeed, it has been to date.

The Khmer Rouge eventually fell, but not before destroying an entire society, as well as killing 25% of the entire population... Possibly more, estimates range up to 40%.

"What navy is going to lift what army for an invasion and occupation of the North American continent?"

They don't need a navy,all they need is a plane ticket.Ask the French.Or Brits.Or Australians.Or........

"I do not think the enemy is going to acquire the necessary tools for victory before what little power he actually has is eroded away."

LGF links to a report that illegal uranium mining is booming in the Congo.

"unless Americans lose their will"

Not actually inplausable,we've returned our pre-9/11 vapidity with remarkable speed.A few bombs,or worse,a few suicide bombers in the daycare centers of Manhattan,Georgetown or other bastions of the elite would cause political chaos.
Leftist self absorbtion is surpassed only by leftist viciiousness,a threat to their status symbol offspring would bring either a demand for instant surrender or ethnic cleansing and a clampdown on the country to keep them out.

"I would not be indifferent to losing Chicago. I have kin there."

A dirty bomb is more likely than an actual nuke.
We've been incredibly lucky our enemies remain so narrowly focused,a couple of nukes in major port cities would cause major,maybe fatal,economic disruption.But lucky us,they still think in terms of political results rather than overall means of achiving goals.

What would be considered victory?

Extraction of wealth from us in terms of a payoff.

Fear instilled with numerous terrorist attacks, which would prevent the US from intervening to protect income producing enterprises in foreign lands, thus enabling other countries (who cooperate with terrorist) to derive a competitive advantage.

Realization of neutral observers that the US is too afraid to defend itself and thus they need to cooperate with N. Korea, Iran, etc. in order to ingratiate themselves with the man on the "strong horse"

The above is achievable, if various leftist are the one's we are depending on to protect us. Maybe not a total victory, but sufficient.

Harry:

But other kin elsewhere--Darwin provides.

Worse things did happen because of the war, like the Khmer Rouge.

{But other kin elsewhere--Darwin provides}

oj invokes Darwinism???

What next,he'll insist that laws be obeyed?

"Fear instilled with numerous terrorist attacks, which would prevent the US from intervening ..."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Like the fear that was instilled in the US by 9/11? That kind of fear? The fear that caused our lips to go white and our tempers to glow white hot? The fear that caused us to hide under the bed instead of demolishing two regimes halfway around the world?

This can't have been written by an American-born person who grew up on cowboy and Long Ranger movies. Anyone who really understands America and Americans, would know what we'd do if we had a series of terrorist attack on the US. (Most likely, "series" means one--two at the most.)

I'd swap every Muslim that lives for one American, kin or not.

I read the other day that 60% of Americans are dissatisfied with Bush's Iraq policy. I'd guess that a least a third of them are dissatisfied that it's not more ruthless and would vote for anybody halfway respectable who promised to bring the boys home and turn the Mideast into glass.

Yes, Harry, but you're a hater. Few others would do so.

"Dirty" bombs inspire fear, but they may not be all that effective at actually killing people, or even denying people use of some area.

A small airplane stuffed with explosives and nails, exploded low over a large crowd, would be a lot easier and probably more effective.

oj: What are you talking about? How many Americans felt bad about dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many would have cared if we had sterilized the Japanese islands, rather than invading, if they refused to surrender? It's war, not tiddly-winks, as they say.

brian:

We were at war with Japan.

And ought to be at war with Islam. Bush's critical error.

And, yes, I'm a hater. There's plenty of subject matter.

Ray

I agree with the jist of what you are saying. My only point is that there are those who would be willing to appease, and hence if they are in control then appeasement will occur. (I would define that as losing).

>"Dirty" bombs inspire fear, but they may not be
>all that effective at actually killing people,
>or even denying people use of some area.

The fear can be enough, especially when previously and lovingly cultivated to a pants-peeing peak by 40+ years of Anti-Nuke Activism.

All you need to do is touch one off and hike the background radiation significantly above the previous level. The Kyle's Moms wetting themselves in NUCLEAR terror, the lawsuits, the EPA requirements to clean up the contaminated area completely no matter what the costs, the lawsuits, the secondary destruction of the cleanup (including total demolition of everything down to the bedrock and transport to a nuclear waste dump), and the lawsuits.

The dirty-bomb explosion is the least of the damage, just a catalyst to cause the target to tear itself apart. And did I mention it's another way to discredit Bush and get Kerry (did you know he Served in Vietnam?) into the White House, which is Far More Important.