by Dreamtwister » Sat 13 May 2006, 12:37:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('benzoil', 'I') can only hope that they think June because of the carrier arrival and not for any other reason. This is what I get for my first bout of optimism in years.
Wasn't the Selective Service board ordered to report to the President by June 15, 2006?
I smell another false-flag op brewing.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Dreamtwister
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
-
by Dreamtwister » Sat 13 May 2006, 15:06:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duke3522', 'N')ow comes the big question. Say one of our enemies uses these new cruise missiles to sink two of our super carriers. What would be the response of the current administration? Would they just step up the conventional weapons, or are 10K dead US sailors enough reason to nuke somebody?
Bush: "Those eevil doerz dun killt our soljurs! I'm asking for the nation's patience while I draft yur sons and daughters to getz our revenge! Whatz that Jenna? No, you and yur sister wont have to go..."
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Dreamtwister
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
-
by duke3522 » Sat 13 May 2006, 18:56:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duke3522', 'G')reetings All,
I believe that the aircraft carrier is as obsolete as the battleship was in 1939. If this new generation of cruise missiles are anywhere close to being as good as advertised, then no US carrier battle group is safe near any enemy shoreline.
You believe advertising?
Remember the so-called "gps jammers"; they used GPS guided bombs to destroy them.
I can, in all honesty, think of only one source of greater false advertisement than used car salesmen.
Dudes in suits hawking weapon systems.
Whether its the guy at the gun show lieing about the accuracy of a rifle, the guy selling a light armored personel carrier, or the guy selling an EM warfare rig; it ain't true till its been in battle and performed as expected. Most of the time, its the "as expected" that just doesn't quite live up to the hype.
So let me know when they sink an opponent's carrier with one of these magic bullets. Till then, its fantasy.
Seams to me that in 1941 many thought the same way about US battleships and Japan’s Long Lance torpedo.
If you were the Russians or the Chinese what would you have your weapons development team working on for the past 40 years? A cheap, simple way to defeat the US super carriers of course.
As for believing hype, aren’t you buying the story of the suits representing the US military industrial complex that our super carriers are invincible?
Duke of Indiana
<b>I'd rather get my brains blown out in the wild than wait in terror at the slaughterhouse</b>.
Craig Volk, Northern Exposure, A-Hunting We Will Go, 1991
by rwwff » Sat 13 May 2006, 20:39:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duke3522', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duke3522', 'G')reetings All,
I believe that the aircraft carrier is as obsolete as the battleship was in 1939. If this new generation of cruise missiles are anywhere close to being as good as advertised, then no US carrier battle group is safe near any enemy shoreline.
You believe advertising?
Remember the so-called "gps jammers"; they used GPS guided bombs to destroy them.
I can, in all honesty, think of only one source of greater false advertisement than used car salesmen.
Dudes in suits hawking weapon systems.
Whether its the guy at the gun show lieing about the accuracy of a rifle, the guy selling a light armored personel carrier, or the guy selling an EM warfare rig; it ain't true till its been in battle and performed as expected. Most of the time, its the "as expected" that just doesn't quite live up to the hype.
So let me know when they sink an opponent's carrier with one of these magic bullets. Till then, its fantasy.
Seams to me that in 1941 many thought the same way about US battleships and Japan’s Long Lance torpedo.
If you were the Russians or the Chinese what would you have your weapons development team working on for the past 40 years? A cheap, simple way to defeat the US super carriers of course.
As for believing hype, aren’t you buying the story of the suits representing the US military industrial complex that our super carriers are invincible?
Duke of Indiana
No, they were using stupid words like "invicible" an "unsinkable". I'm using words like "show me". I don't discount the probability that they could work, on the other hand, I don't base thoughts and decisions on unproven hucksterisms.
As to the Russians and Chinese, your missing something. If a Russian or Chinese general is attacking a US carrier, he's using nukes. At that point, there is no reason not to. We'll be using nukes to. They're the ones that people don't think much of; they are tactical, and they're on things like tomahawks and such, and we all have them. So the Russians and Chinese have no need for such a magic bullet. On the other hand, they, like us, have a big interest in being able to quickly dispose of all the naval assets of any smaller country that one might have a conflict with. This is most easily done with very powerful torpedos and cruise missles launched from submarine and aviation assets. Conventional is fine, and they don't have to be incredibly sophisticated in order to work and dispose of the oppositions navy/coast guard. These could no more be expected to get close to a US carrier than we could expect a Harpoon to get close to a Russian carrier; won't happen, no sense pretending otherwise.
If you are suggesting that Russia or China would sell military technology of your proposed degree of sophistication, I think we are living in different worlds. Its one thing to sell Iran a few sets of cruise missles that can sink your typical Arab or SE Asian nuisance fleet; its entirely another matter to give them something that could easily be turned around and used to destroy one your own multibillion dollar assets. Cost/Benefit analysis just won't let you go there. And neither the Russians, nor the Chinese are nut jobs.
Finally:
We aren't going to be fighting Russia. Ever. They have plenty of oil, and they have the defense structure to keep it theirs. As it should be.
We aren't going to be fighting China, Ever. Our countries economies are so wedded at the hip that we might as well come out and admit that we're allies. Its like the nutbars that suggest China would give up the huge economic engine of Taiwan, and trade it for a burned out chunk of rock fit only for a garbage dump just to stick a PRC flag on the mountaintop. PLA folks are way smarter than that. PRC central committee folks are way smarter than that.
by Dreamtwister » Sun 14 May 2006, 05:49:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I')f a Russian or Chinese general is attacking a US carrier, he's using nukes.
Why is that?
The points everyone seem to be missing are that:
a) The "sunburn" can deliver a non-nuclear payload that's a credible threat to surface assets and
b) The "sunburn"
IS NOT cutting edge of Soviet cruise missle tech
A single non-nuclear sunburn missle can sink virtually any US surface assets. Used in conjunction with silkworms/exocets/whatever else the Iranians have, even a truck-launched sunburn represents a serious threat.
This is what nobody seems to grasp. Anyone equipped with SS-N-22 cruise missles can mount a credible threat to surface forces without delving into nuclear arsenals. At this point, anyone with a flatbed truck and a couple million dollars can aquire the necessary hardware to sink an Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('benzoil', 'I')'ll bet the Israelis do something about it before we do.
If the Israelis strike against Iran, they will have to violate Iraqi airspace to do so. Doing so would be percieved in Iran as tacit compliance by the Americans and would expose US assets to attack. That's not to say the Israelis won't act (they very well might), but such an action would carry consequences.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
by rwwff » Sun 14 May 2006, 09:00:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I')f a Russian or Chinese general is attacking a US carrier, he's using nukes.
Why is that?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('benzoil', 'I')'ll bet the Israelis do something about it before we do.
If the Israelis strike against Iran, they will have to violate Iraqi airspace to do so. Doing so would be percieved in Iran as tacit compliance by the Americans and would expose US assets to attack. That's not to say the Israelis won't act (they very well might), but such an action would carry consequences.
Why? Because its easier and more effective and there are no additional consequences to doing so. [But like I said, we ain't fighting Russia, ever].
As to Israel and Iran, I think you got it in spades. The point is to end up at war with Iran without just absolutely trampling on international law. Israel attacks Iran, Iran attacks us (or a naval asset/bait sitting in the Persian Gulf), we have right of self defense, we launch against Iran. I think one of the things that is provoking Iran so badly is the building of big base(s) in Iraq. They realize that the longer they wait, the more vulnerable they become to attack, I think they see this as a quiet version of desert shield. I think Armenawhatever may be banking on this, hopeing he can have the people riled up enough that the military might choose to follow him instead of the religious leaders. (He's way off in fantasy land there. But hey, if you're gonna bet, bet big!)
As to the tech of
sunburn, again, I'm not discounting the possibility, I'm saying, "show me". When a conventionally armed missle penetrates the defenses of an at-war, active carrier battlegroup, and sinks the carrier, then I'll be happy to conceed the point. But as it stands now, its unproven, and anyone that just plain believes it'll work as advertised is essentially believing the words of a huckster who wants your money bad.
by Eddie_lomax » Sun 14 May 2006, 17:30:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I')f a Russian or Chinese general is attacking a US carrier, he's using nukes.
Why is that?
The points everyone seem to be missing are that:
a) The "sunburn" can deliver a non-nuclear payload that's a credible threat to surface assets and
b) The "sunburn"
IS NOT cutting edge of Soviet cruise missle tech
A single non-nuclear sunburn missle can sink virtually any US surface assets. Used in conjunction with silkworms/exocets/whatever else the Iranians have, even a truck-launched sunburn represents a serious threat.
On a simular thread, a single exocet missile could sink a British carrier.
It didn't happen though, because the carriers were kept out of easy range, and they were protected by screens of frigates and fighter patrols.
Also, one exocet could sink a carrier, one exocet could also fail to even knock out a small frigate, if its picked up and the craft moves aft on then you end up with a really big ship that can take a lot of pounding. Take a look at pictures of world war 2 destroyers if you want to see just how much damage can be survived, I've seen pictures of them with the aft clear gone and still afloat from a torpedo attack.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'T')his is what nobody seems to grasp. Anyone equipped with SS-N-22 cruise missles can mount a credible threat to surface forces without delving into nuclear arsenals. At this point, anyone with a flatbed truck and a couple million dollars can aquire the necessary hardware to sink an Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
They are a serious threat though granted. But to fire won't they need to expose themselves on radar ? And any attack like this on the US would involve a "gloves off" scenario, maybe not tactical nukes, but anything else should go fine including selective invasions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('benzoil', 'I')'ll bet the Israelis do something about it before we do.
