Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby cube » Mon 25 Jun 2007, 20:23:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', '.')..
Red herring. ABM was never meant to, uh, shoot down enemy freighters with smuggled tac. nukes in.
...
and that's exactly why if there was going to be nuclear war that would be the preferred delivery system. There is no effective defense against such a tactic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', '.')..
Not that they'd have to worry, given how stupidly inefficient and ineffective such an attack would be. Hollywood might lend it credence, perhaps.
...
Just because something has not been done before does not make the idea "ineffective". For example there has never been a "major" naval battle defeat due to anti-ship missiles but depending on who you talk to that's the next big thing in naval warfare that will make aircraft carriers a financial liability rather then a military asset. Every major military idea/invention is considered "stupidly inefficient" until those who come unprepared get their asses wiped whether it was the introduction of the English longbow or Blitzkrieg warfare.

Take a look at the world right now buddy. Nobody is fighting a conventional war against the USA nor has any plans to. The next major military conflict will be an unconventional war...and I'm not talking about a cheesy Hollywood flick either. 8)
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby ColossalContrarian » Mon 25 Jun 2007, 21:08:54

I’m wondering what options the UN has in regards to saving the US dollar?

I think the UN looks at the collapase of the dollar as a threat to its existence. There will probably be a one world power at some point and the UN wants to be that power so if the dollar does take a dive how could the UN position to be that one world power?

Aside from nukes please. Covered extensively already, we all know that mutually assured destruction is the answer to saving the dollar...
ColossalContrarian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby gampy » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 01:18:11

Just to stay off topic for a moment, the purpose of the ABM shield is not a defensive one.

It is part of a first strike capability. The missile shield is not designed to take out missiles from a foreign first strike, but to get any remaining missiles after the US strikes first.

Stars wars, and the newer version were always designed with that in mind. It allows the US to minimize damage from a retaliatory strike from a blasted USSR, China, or what have you.
User avatar
gampy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri 27 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Soviet Canada
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:48:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('valdemar', 'I')n either case, the fact of the matter is that ICBMs cannot be made to spoof such systems today. If you have to throw more and more of them to attain the same level of damage, then ABM is doing its job as you expend more resources on more missiles with lower probabilities of hitting their targets. By the time China is able to nuke every major city in the US (a long way off), the US will have a far improved system. And ABM interceptor missiles are piss easy to make and far cheaper. For every ICBM China makes, we can make a dozen KKVs to take those missiles out. Only the radar and fire-control system gives the major problems and those are ironed out.

So, as I had said, if any "shield" system will begin to remind remotedly something working, you will end up with thousands of nuclear warheads about 200 miles over your head at any given time.
Off coast nuclear submarines would also come handy here.
Finally, what about advanced biological weapons to support nukes?
You will never produce perfect shields.

I could suggest following: if Russians concluded that you will really have perfect shield working within few years and nothing whatsoever can be done to prevent it working, they will launch total nuclear attack now.
The same will hold true for Chineese 10 years from now on, naturally if status quo prevails 10 years more.

It is also very likely, that substantial yield EMP weapons would be detonated in upper atmosphere and antisatelitte weapons would be launched concurrently with ICBM assault.
So you should make sure, your military electronics is shielded from those, it is interesting to see, how good those shields are working in practice.
Remember that radar equipment is particularly difficult (if at all possible...) to protect, because it must keep working antenna...

In simple words it may be concluded that:
1. With a progress of shield construction your adversary will upgrade assault weapons to the level sufficient to overwhelm your shields and to deliver sufficient blow to annihilate your state, albeit your population loss will not exceed 25-50%, if your shields are actually working.
That is about as much as you will loose now in total exchange and without any working shields.
2. If your shields had failed to work as designed (and you never know, what your enemys antishield weapons can actually do and it is patentely stupid to assume not much...) than the final blow, which you will receive will leave very few, if any... survivors.
3. If few major nations, say US, Russia, China went to total war relying on shields, which actually failed to work in practice as designed, we would end up with extinction level war, leaving no survivors at all or only a tiny fraction of % of survivors.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby TheDude » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 08:29:40

I was under the impression that ABM systems have never destroyed Jack and didn't look they would anytime soon.

Good luck dealing with MIRVs. We'll need to borrow an awful lot of Chinese money to fend off Russia. Quite MAD scenario we've got going.

Image
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby Nickel » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 14:54:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'N')ATO could deploy up to 15 carrier battles groups to the coast of china that would decimate the country in a matter of days.


Fifteen SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles are all it would take to turn them into 15 listing hulks you couldn't launch a Nerf rocket from. Aircraft carriers are GREAT -- as long as nobody shoots at them. One at the waterline and a 10 degree tilt renders them billion-dollar turkey shoots. You might ask the Japanese... they actually have some experience with the vulnerabilities of carriers at the receiving end, not just the giving.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby Valdemar » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 16:08:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'a')nd that's exactly why if there was going to be nuclear war that would be the preferred delivery system. There is no effective defense against such a tactic.


Have fun nuking major C3I and political/industrial infrastructure with your nuke in a container ship. Because all you're going to do is nuke that port. The US has more than enough national detectors to find anything en route by road, and it's not like a state of war means customs agents are going to just let a Chinese freighter dock with no qualms.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust because something has not been done before does not make the idea "ineffective". For example there has never been a "major" naval battle defeat due to anti-ship missiles but depending on who you talk to that's the next big thing in naval warfare that will make aircraft carriers a financial liability rather then a military asset. Every major military idea/invention is considered "stupidly inefficient" until those who come unprepared get their asses wiped whether it was the introduction of the English longbow or Blitzkrieg warfare.

Take a look at the world right now buddy. Nobody is fighting a conventional war against the USA nor has any plans to. The next major military conflict will be an unconventional war...and I'm not talking about a cheesy Hollywood flick either. 8)


Your attack strategy is retarded because it achieves nothing, not because it's radically different. Meanwhile, the US has made 10,000 instant sunrises appear over the enemy nation who have, at best, taken out a port. Great.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')So, as I had said, if any "shield" system will begin to remind remotedly something working, you will end up with thousands of nuclear warheads about 200 miles over your head at any given time.
Off coast nuclear submarines would also come handy here.
Finally, what about advanced biological weapons to support nukes?
You will never produce perfect shields.


No one expected "perfect shields" and such an idea is folly. The idea is to cause the enemy to expend more resources to achieve the same kill factor.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') could suggest following: if Russians concluded that you will really have perfect shield working within few years and nothing whatsoever can be done to prevent it working, they will launch total nuclear attack now.
The same will hold true for Chineese 10 years from now on, naturally if status quo prevails 10 years more.


Then they should have started last year, when the system proved itself.

By your logic, the US should outright nuke Russia now, since they've had a working ABM shield for Moscow and it's surrounding area for decades. China, as I mentioned is working on such systems too. I don't see the US flinging nukes right now, do you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is also very likely, that substantial yield EMP weapons would be detonated in upper atmosphere and antisatelitte weapons would be launched concurrently with ICBM assault.
So you should make sure, your military electronics is shielded from those, it is interesting to see, how good those shields are working in practice.
Remember that radar equipment is particularly difficult (if at all possible...) to protect, because it must keep working antenna...

All military equipment has been hardened against EMP since the '40s. Only in movies do military forces fall to something so simple as an EMP. The fact that the US would be fighting in a war where they will be surrounded by these things means it's a bit hard to imagine they just forgot about it.

Incidentally, Operation Fishbowl showed the effect on radar and comms. to be highly overblown.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n simple words it may be concluded that:
1. With a progress of shield construction your adversary will upgrade assault weapons to the level sufficient to overwhelm your shields and to deliver sufficient blow to annihilate your state, albeit your population loss will not exceed 25-50%, if your shields are actually working.
That is about as much as you will loose now in total exchange and without any working shields.

Any such up-arming of the missile fleet would be easily detectable and countered by increased numbers in interceptors which are, again, cheaper and quicker to produce.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2'). If your shields had failed to work as designed (and you never know, what your enemys antishield weapons can actually do and it is patentely stupid to assume not much...) than the final blow, which you will receive will leave very few, if any... survivors.

What, pray tell, will they use to counter the ABM shield? There are no counters to it. The best some proposed was MARVs, which are steerable MIRVs, and that's it. Decoys are ridiculously easy to spot and ignore and since the interceptor mission kills the missile before it releases the MIRVs in the terminal stage, they matter not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3'). If few major nations, say US, Russia, China went to total war relying on shields, which actually failed to work in practice as designed, we would end up with extinction level war, leaving no survivors at all or only a tiny fraction of % of survivors.

The shields have been proven to work, so that issue is a non-issue. As for nuclear Armageddon: wholly overblown. Even a full scale nuclear war at the height of the Cold War in the '80s (higher megatonnage than today available) would not come anywhere near wiping out humanity. And the nuclear winter scenario is impossible as well, there are papers showing Sagan et al exaggerated their effects because of their anti-nuclear stance.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I') was under the impression that ABM systems have never destroyed Jack and didn't look they would anytime soon.

Good luck dealing with MIRVs. We'll need to borrow an awful lot of Chinese money to fend off Russia. Quite MAD scenario we've got going.


See above. ABM hits missiles before they release MIRVs, so your point is moot. Additionally, the START and SALT programmes helped reduce MIRV count to practically nothing now, hence the concern and amazement over why Russia wants to build new ICBMs to replace Topol-M with MIRV systems. There are also benefits to having a single warhead missile in some applications.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '
')
Fifteen SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles are all it would take to turn them into 15 listing hulks you couldn't launch a Nerf rocket from. Aircraft carriers are GREAT -- as long as nobody shoots at them. One at the waterline and a 10 degree tilt renders them billion-dollar turkey shoots. You might ask the Japanese... they actually have some experience with the vulnerabilities of carriers at the receiving end, not just the giving.

Too bad the Chinese won't be able to get a lock on the CVN since they won't get anywhere near it, thus making that scenario implausible. You still need to get somewhere near your target, potent as the Sunburn is. Only the Russians could even attempt to pull that off, and anyway, SM3 and Aegis have more than enough range to deal with such systems in any future war.

Maybe if the battle group sat bunched together, with their systems off-line and waving flares on deck, then the PLAN may have a chance of hurting them.

As it is, the idea that China is even a minor threat against the USN is hilarious. Russia was never a real threat given their lack of blue water navy, so China is not even worth thinking about.
"Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
-Pinbacker, Sunshine
User avatar
Valdemar
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Cambs., UK
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby Bas » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 16:55:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'S')o the world gets to continue subsidizing the American lifestyle - all under the seal of the UN.

I like it!

8)


I nearly spat out my damn beer out there Jack!

:lol:
Bas
 
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 17:03:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') could suggest following: if Russians concluded that you will really have perfect shield working within few years and nothing whatsoever can be done to prevent it working, they will launch total nuclear attack now.
The same will hold true for Chineese 10 years from now on, naturally if status quo prevails 10 years more.


Then they should have started last year, when the system proved itself.

By your logic, the US should outright nuke Russia now, since they've had a working ABM shield for Moscow and it's surrounding area for decades. China, as I mentioned is working on such systems too. I don't see the US flinging nukes right now, do you?

It was accepted in former treaty, that limited antimissile defences were acceptable.
At the moment we are talking about major shield systems allowing you first strike capability.
Such systems don't exist yet, and credible attempt to construct those will provoke your adversary to launch "preemptive nuclear attack".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll military equipment has been hardened against EMP since the '40s. Only in movies do military forces fall to something so simple as an EMP. The fact that the US would be fighting in a war where they will be surrounded by these things means it's a bit hard to imagine they just forgot about it.

EMP attack would be concerted with anitisatelite missile attack, decreasing or nullifying your shield capability.
It is not so certain, that military equipment is as resistant to EMP, as we are led to believe.
Most of installations would probably survive, but some critical parts could be destroyed.
We will only know, once EMP weapons are used.
NB. There are also non nuclear EMP weapons known as flux compressors.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n simple words it may be concluded that:
1. With a progress of shield construction your adversary will upgrade assault weapons to the level sufficient to overwhelm your shields and to deliver sufficient blow to annihilate your state, albeit your population loss will not exceed 25-50%, if your shields are actually working.
That is about as much as you will loose now in total exchange and without any working shields.


Any such up-arming of the missile fleet would be easily detectable and countered by increased numbers in interceptors which are, again, cheaper and quicker to produce.
Everything what is done quickly and cheaply is tending not to work, especially if produced in the US.
Russians are masters of this particular art.
Again, interceptor missiles will be useless against nukes launched from space, about 200 miles above your head.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2'). If your shields had failed to work as designed (and you never know, what your enemys antishield weapons can actually do and it is patentely stupid to assume not much...) than the final blow, which you will receive will leave very few, if any... survivors.

What, pray tell, will they use to counter the ABM shield? There are no counters to it. The best some proposed was MARVs, which are steerable MIRVs, and that's it. Decoys are ridiculously easy to spot and ignore and since the interceptor mission kills the missile before it releases the MIRVs in the terminal stage, they matter not.
There are counters to everything, including ABM shield. Firing nukes or thousands of bomblets with advanced biological weapons from low Earth orbit, about 200 miles above your head is example of such counter. Missiles fired from nuclear submarines are another examples. Radioelectronic warfare coupled with nuclear attack is yet another example. Variable acceleration of ICBM is yet another example (it makes it difficult to calculate trajectory for interceptor use, and even if calculated, it may still change due to additional acceleration impulse, when interceptors are already launched).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3'). If few major nations, say US, Russia, China went to total war relying on shields, which actually failed to work in practice as designed, we would end up with extinction level war, leaving no survivors at all or only a tiny fraction of % of survivors.

The shields have been proven to work, so that issue is a non-issue.
They will be only proven to work once American shield will kill Russian missiles or vice versa in full exchange event.
Claiming that they are proven now, say because Americans had managed to shot down some obsolete version of their own missile is silly really.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for nuclear Armageddon: wholly overblown. Even a full scale nuclear war at the height of the Cold War in the '80s (higher megatonnage than today available) would not come anywhere near wiping out humanity. And the nuclear winter scenario is impossible as well, there are papers showing Sagan et al exaggerated their effects because of their anti-nuclear stance.
At current levels of nuclear arsenals, say 25000 of warheads total you are correct.
However, if shields are built and total nuclear arsenals will be increased to say 500 000 warheads or so and those will additionally be cobalt encased to make them working better and longer, than failure of shield system will ensure nuclear Armagedon.

NB. I had never considered nuclear winter to be a real threat. There are other more important aspects of atomic war to worry about.
Use of nukes and biological weapons together would be for example particularly nasty trick.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oo bad the Chinese won't be able to get a lock on the CVN since they won't get anywhere near it, thus making that scenario implausible. You still need to get somewhere near your target, potent as the Sunburn is. Only the Russians could even attempt to pull that off, and anyway, SM3 and Aegis have more than enough range to deal with such systems in any future war.
Iranians may have such an opportunity to pull out this trick soon, so we will know, how it works.
What about several dosens of Sunburns fired against one carrier at the same time?
Presumably there would be an order for carrier to be refloated...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby Valdemar » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 17:30:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')It was accepted in former treaty, that limited antimissile defences were acceptable.
At the moment we are talking about major shield systems allowing you first strike capability.
Such systems don't exist yet, and credible attempt to construct those will provoke your adversary to launch "preemptive nuclear attack".


Only if they want to be annihilated also. The US has more than enough warning of any attack and there isn't a nation on Earth that could survive the US' retaliation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')EMP attack would be concerted with anitisatelite missile attack, decreasing or nullifying your shield capability.
It is not so certain, that military equipment is as resistant to EMP, as we are led to believe.
Most of installations would probably survive, but some critical parts could be destroyed.
We will only know, once EMP weapons are used.
NB. There are also non nuclear EMP weapons known as flux compressors.


The effects are readily documented, since various low to high yields bombs were detonated high over test equipment with negligible results. The use of Faraday cages and redundant radar systems and optical communications networks makes this effect even less significant.

Also, a flux compressors is not going to rival a megatonne thermonuclear weapon going off, unless you're hulking around a powerstation with you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Everything what is done quickly and cheaply is tending not to work, especially if produced in the US.
Russians are masters of this particular art.
Again, interceptor missiles will be useless against nukes launched from space, about 200 miles above your head.


Huh? The US is quite adept at making munitions en masse in quick time. The only difficult part here is the targeting and fire control systems, which are already implemented for the most part bar these EW radars planned in Europe.

And what missiles from space? Why on Earth would anyone shift nuclear missiles into space? Such a venture would invite immediate nuking of the host nation to such a system. The best you'll get is a small nuclear reactor in space, which the USSR tried and everyone fully knew about. There's a reason ballistic missiles are used, not satellites. In any case, ABM could deal with such a threat since it's still a warhead coming down on an easily predictable ballistic trajectory.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')There are counters to everything, including ABM shield. Firing nukes or thousands of bomblets with advanced biological weapons from low Earth orbit, about 200 miles above your head is example of such counter.


Those biological weapons that will burn up in the atmosphere? Not a very smart idea. Again, where are you getting this nuclear missile system in orbit idea from? No nation has this capability, nor would they want it since a satellite is the LAST place you'd want your national offensive system based on. They are ridiculously easy to disable and outright destroy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')issiles fired from nuclear submarines are another examples. Radioelectronic warfare coupled with nuclear attack is yet another example. Variable acceleration of ICBM is yet another example (it makes it difficult to calculate trajectory for interceptor use, and even if calculated, it may still change due to additional acceleration impulse, when interceptors are already launched).

SLBMs require boomers get near the US shores to launch, which will be mighty hard to do with the US SSN force and how good it is, second only to the RN's. They can also be hit by SM3 and Patriot systems before they even reach terminal phase if close enough to a launch site that is defended by such systems (very likely).

And variable speed ICBMs means altering your target CEP zone. You either go at the velocity required, or you don't hit your target. ABM systems around the world anticipate such jinking manoeuvres and employ missiles with lateral thrusters to compensate if necessary. See the "Pif-Paf system on Aster.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')They will be only proven to work once American shield will kill Russian missiles or vice versa in full exchange event.
Claiming that they are proven now, say because Americans had managed to shot down some obsolete version of their own missile is silly really.

A ballistic missile trajectory is a ballistic missile trajectory. The laws of physics are a constant here. The Russian ballistic missiles can hardly move a different way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')At current levels of nuclear arsenals, say 25000 of warheads total you are correct.
However, if shields are built and total nuclear arsenals will be increased to say 500 000 warheads or so and those will additionally be cobalt encased to make them working better and longer, than failure of shield system will ensure nuclear Armagedon.

NB. I had never considered nuclear winter to be a real threat. There are other more important aspects of atomic war to worry about.
Use of nukes and biological weapons together would be for example particularly nasty trick.

The UK conducted trials on Cobalt-60 jacketed nuclear bombs. The results were not what they expected, and so the idea of a fleet of such bombs being extinction level in power is unfounded. They would increase fallout, but this is easily done with ground burst detonations anyway. Air bursts are preferable for destroying infrastructure as only hardened targets require ground bursts.

Additionally, as a fan of bio-weaponry, being a biologist and all, I find it hard to accept that such weapons would be all that effective in an all out nuclear war. Before a war, yes, you could destroy crops and cause panic from epidemics of multi-spectrum antibiotic resistant TB with encephalitis virus inside as a payload. But when nukes are wiping out whole cities, they are less appreciable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Iranians may have such an opportunity to pull out this trick soon, so we will know, how it works.
What about several dosens of Sunburns fired against one carrier at the same time?
Presumably there would be an order for carrier to be refloated...

If you throw dozens of Sunburns, then you're guaranteed to get one at least getting through. The problem is, as with ABM, you're wasting more missiles for the same kill that would have been easier if they had no area defence system like Aegis. Secondly, the cost would mount up and China, wealthy as they are becoming, is not going to be ordering this many when they can hardly use them adequately, simply because they can't get to a good targeting point with which to use them. Get too close, and your bomber can be shot down or missile frigate sunk by hunter-killer subs. I'd be far more worried about Russia doing this, but the Russian Navy is a truly sad wreck still unlike its glory days of past.

Whether Iran tries to test the USN's patience or not is another matter. Are they really eager to rattle the cage of such a massive war machine that can dispose of their nation's conventional forces at will so efficiently? I think they'll stick with guerilla combat and funding and training others to do so too. In a one-on-one battle, Iran is sorely outmatched. But in asymmetric warfare? That's where they have a good chance, as we see in Iraq. If your enemy is big and you are small, you have better mobility. Use their weapons against them and their disadvantages.
"Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
-Pinbacker, Sunshine
User avatar
Valdemar
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Cambs., UK
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 03:06:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')It was accepted in former treaty, that limited antimissile defences were acceptable.
At the moment we are talking about major shield systems allowing you first strike capability.
Such systems don't exist yet, and credible attempt to construct those will provoke your adversary to launch "preemptive nuclear attack".


Only if they want to be annihilated also. The US has more than enough warning of any attack and there isn't a nation on Earth that could survive the US' retaliation.

IMO all out nuclear war will be *won* by those left with larger inhabitable area than adversary.
In that sense Russia would win with US and China could break even, as long as they built few thousands of missiles at least.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, a flux compressors is not going to rival a megatonne thermonuclear weapon going off, unless you're hulking around a powerstation with you.

Flux compressors are devices converting energy of few or few hundreds pounds of conventional explosives into EMP in high yield process. They dont need bulk power supply.
They are working by spedy shortcutting of solenoid along its axis by explosive charge placed inside solenoid with initial EM field induced. Because resistance dont have enough time to dissipate energy, you are getting effect of "compression" of flux and substantial spike is emitted by antenna on the end. If you use parabolic antenna your pulse can be directed.
Effective range of such pulse is measured in tens of miles (lower than high lattitude high yield nuke will deliver, but still good enough).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')uh? The US is quite adept at making munitions en masse in quick time. The only difficult part here is the targeting and fire control systems, which are already implemented for the most part bar these EW radars planned in Europe.

Rocketery does not lend itself easily for speedy shortcuts.
ABM are somewhat more complicated than cruise missiles as well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd what missiles from space? Why on Earth would anyone shift nuclear missiles into space? Such a venture would invite immediate nuking of the host nation to such a system. The best you'll get is a small nuclear reactor in space, which the USSR tried and everyone fully knew about. There's a reason ballistic missiles are used, not satellites. In any case, ABM could deal with such a threat since it's still a warhead coming down on an easily predictable ballistic trajectory.
The only reason of warheads not being placed on satelites is that ICBM are sufficient to deliver payload now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hose biological weapons that will burn up in the atmosphere? Not a very smart idea. Again, where are you getting this nuclear missile system in orbit idea from? No nation has this capability, nor would they want it since a satellite is the LAST place you'd want your national offensive system based on. They are ridiculously easy to disable and outright destroy.
Some heat shielding can surely be afforded to such biological weapons.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd variable speed ICBMs means altering your target CEP zone. You either go at the velocity required, or you don't hit your target. ABM systems around the world anticipate such jinking manoeuvres and employ missiles with lateral thrusters to compensate if necessary. See the "Pif-Paf system on Aster.
So arms race will be about "outjinking" adversary.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') ballistic missile trajectory is a ballistic missile trajectory. The laws of physics are a constant here. The Russian ballistic missiles can hardly move a different way.
What about few tiny "flaps" in addition to jinking capability?
What about "on board missile defences" which will surely be developed if necessary?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he UK conducted trials on Cobalt-60 jacketed nuclear bombs. The results were not what they expected, and so the idea of a fleet of such bombs being extinction level in power is unfounded. They would increase fallout, but this is easily done with ground burst detonations anyway. Air bursts are preferable for destroying infrastructure as only hardened targets require ground bursts.
Did they try atmospheric tests of high yield thermonuclear warheads designed for radioactive cobalt pollution ? (NB Co-60 is not used for casing but produced in situ by irradiation of other isotopes).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')dditionally, as a fan of bio-weaponry, being a biologist and all, I find it hard to accept that such weapons would be all that effective in an all out nuclear war. Before a war, yes, you could destroy crops and cause panic from epidemics of multi-spectrum antibiotic resistant TB with encephalitis virus inside as a payload. But when nukes are wiping out whole cities, they are less appreciable.
Such weapons would be used to make life of survivors more difficult.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you throw dozens of Sunburns, then you're guaranteed to get one at least getting through. The problem is, as with ABM, you're wasting more missiles for the same kill that would have been easier if they had no area defence system like Aegis. Secondly, the cost would mount up and China, wealthy as they are becoming, is not going to be ordering this many when they can hardly use them adequately, simply because they can't get to a good targeting point with which to use them. Get too close, and your bomber can be shot down or missile frigate sunk by hunter-killer subs. I'd be far more worried about Russia doing this, but the Russian Navy is a truly sad wreck still unlike its glory days of past.
What is cheaper, one carrier or 20 of SS-22 "Sunburns"?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hether Iran tries to test the USN's patience or not is another matter. Are they really eager to rattle the cage of such a massive war machine that can dispose of their nation's conventional forces at will so efficiently? I think they'll stick with guerilla combat and funding and training others to do so too. In a one-on-one battle, Iran is sorely outmatched. But in asymmetric warfare? That's where they have a good chance, as we see in Iraq. If your enemy is big and you are small, you have better mobility. Use their weapons against them and their disadvantages.
It does not make sense not to use purchased weaponery according to its design.
So we may expect, that in potential conflict US may be left with one carrier less.
I doubt that Americans are so stupid to place all 3 carriers in range...
Dont worry about further guerilla war. This one would still be waged later, but US would be left without a carrier anyway...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby cube » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 05:13:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '.')..
What is cheaper, one carrier or 20 of SS-22 "Sunburns"?
...
Do you really want to know?
"...; a Nimitz class carrier powered by two nuclear reactors and four steam turbines is 1092 feet (333 m) long and costs about $4.5 billion." - wikipedia

SS-N-22 Sunburn missile - either $1 or $2 million each. I'm getting conflicting answers from various sources.

Therefore 2250 sunburn missiles == 1 aircraft carrier

IMHO aircraft carriers are obsolete. They're only good if you can be guaranteed nobody is going to shoot at you.

Navy captains do NOT like getting their ships sunken. It looks really bad on the resume. :-D
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 05:46:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '.')..
What is cheaper, one carrier or 20 of SS-22 "Sunburns"?
...
Do you really want to know?
"...; a Nimitz class carrier powered by two nuclear reactors and four steam turbines is 1092 feet (333 m) long and costs about $4.5 billion." - wikipedia

SS-N-22 Sunburn missile - either $1 or $2 million each. I'm getting conflicting answers from various sources.

Therefore 2250 sunburn missiles == 1 aircraft carrier

IMHO aircraft carriers are obsolete. They're only good if you can be guaranteed nobody is going to shoot at you.

Navy captains do NOT like getting their ships sunken. It looks really bad on the resume. :-D

Well, that was rethoric question, and I wanted for Valdemar to work out answer himself, but now he has even easier life.
I observe, that he is very impressed with power of those carriers, but in reality they are only good to intimidate some obsolete Third World nations and perhaps Serbs on the top of that.
In any war between first world nations they are floating coffins.
No more no less.

In general I am trying to demonstrate him that swords are cheper and more efficient weapons than shields, unless you make wooden shields, which may be cheap but will not afford much of protection to you.
Entire evolution of arms and military tactic over last millenia is clearly demonstrating that, but Valdemar is apparently refusing to accept that simple observation.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby Nickel » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 11:16:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'T')oo bad the Chinese won't be able to get a lock on the CVN since they won't get anywhere near it


I believe Taiwan is "near it". This is the only plausible confrontation I can imagine for many years to come that's likely to prompt it, and undoubtedly why the Chinese have purchased the SS-N-22. Taiwan's 120 km from mainland China. Even the old models of the Sunburn have a range of about 200. Suggestions are that some have been refitted as ASMs to be launched from Su33s.

In a confrontation like this, there would obviously be Chinese ships in play, and they would be well within Sunburn range of US carriers -- even if the US were stupid enough to deploy all its groups there, which is unlikely. Keep in mind the logistics of the battle. In and around Taiwan, the US's primary air cover would be provided by its carriers. If they were knocked out by a handful of missiles designed exactly for that purpose, then that would be it. The rest of their support would be thousands of miles away. China, on the other hand, is right there. It wouldn't need carriers. The PLAN would have a free hand, and could effectively mop up the rest of the US surface ships in the area. The same thing happened to the Japanese Navy in WWII. The strategy here isn't to overrun the United States, but simply to eliminate its ability to project force beyond its own territory, which is all the carrier groups exist to do.

Let's hope it never comes to that. But imagining China has no response when the Russians have made available to them the very technology designed to be that response is ludicrous wishful thinking.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: UN/US Dollar Crash Must Be Averted

Unread postby Nickel » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 11:22:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'E')ffective range of such pulse is measured in tens of miles (lower than high lattitude high yield nuke will deliver, but still good enough).


And actually, highly effective if you don't want to knock your own forces out at the same time!
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron