RE: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> "You haven't mentioned a single case where a truly
> useful tactic or weapon was banned.

> So the part of Crossbows being banned by the Pope
> implies that they weren't useful? Or are you arguing
> that the Pope didn't really ban the use of
> crossbows?

I'm arguing that the Pope didn't really ban the use of
crossbows.  If you (personally, ie: Mr. Lin) announce
that in your opinion using the frappe setting on
blenders is truly immoral, can we then say that the
frappe setting is "banned" if everyone else keeps
using that setting?  Putting out your opinion doesn't
mean much unless you are either capable of enforcing
it, or you have so much prestige that your decrees are
obeyed by a significant fraction of the population
regardless.  The Pope had neither in this case.

> The part about guns being banned in Japan implies
> that they weren't useful?

Not to the Powers That Be.  Tokugawa didn't need guns
to maintain control of the country.
 
> And the treaties currently banning the use of
> Chemical and Biological weapons isn't a ban and
> those weapons aren't useful?

Biological weapons are impossible to control and in
the day and age of air travel are almost guaranteed to
backfire.  Chemical weapons are of dubious
utility--and are prevented more by the stated doctrine
of many states to respond to chemical attack by using
their stocks of chemical and/or nuclear weapons on the
offending party.
 
> A de facto ban on the use of nuclear weapons, even
> tactically implies that they are not useful, despite
> the stockpiling by nuclear nations?

What de facto ban?  All I see is unilateral no-first
use policies and not even all nuclear powers have
those.
 
> The point of the post, is that even if you CAN do
> something, and even if it makes tactical sense
> doesn't mean that it is acceptable for policitcal,
> environmental or economic reasons.
> 
> For instance it makes perfect tactical sense to use
> a baby 100 kt warhead to wipe out a carrier group. 
> The problem is that it may lead to escalation and
> eventual MAD.

Which is, of course, why the US, French, and Russians
had plans to do exactally that should it become
necessay.
 
> It makes good strategic sense to kill all your POW's

No it doesn't.	Your enemy stops surrendering. 
Desperate men make for bad opponents.  Further you
wish to preserve your own POWs.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!