Do you think Bush* might support a Scorched Earth policy?

[Deja Q]

Would a massive boycott led by the other nations, leading to our economic collapse, cause it?

What about the oil collecting nations? If they turn their backs on us, um again, is it hot potato time?

Or other frightning possibilities?

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. I think he already is.

*

[candy331]

2. I think that

whole crew has a "rule or ruin mentality".

[FloridaPat]

3. I think he'd lead it, not support it.

[DivinBreuvage]

4. PNAC statement on this very topic

"If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones will have been killed."

On edit: my mistake, this was a comment by the other fascist who led a military superpower.

Francoise

[everythingsxen]

5. The United States has maintained a Scorched Earth policy..

for years and years and years...

Since the start of the Cold War I believe. Our "official" policy re: SE is defensive rather than offensive. :eyes:

My only known use of this policy is in wargames. In the '70s during one such wargame the Soviets had taken Las Vegas and were using it as a staging ground to fortify and rally their forces before a larger push. The local commander had Vegas nuked and blunted their attack.

Of course the entire (simulated) population of Vegas was killed. It stopped an invasion though. :shrug:

We would not use Scorched Earth because of economic conditions. The corporate masters don't want that.. they want to rape the earth, not murder it.