The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.
Herald12345    6/28/2009 2:53:01 PM
Study results follows in next post.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
Herald12345    You are a truck driver    7/1/2009 10:10:12 PM
Three Gorges burst asunder will not provoke a nuclear response.

The PRC Bamdits  don't want to die over one dam . Don't exaggerate things. You have historic flooding data to show an outcome of a dam failure outcome  I supplied that, use it to make a valid damage and casualty assessment  and stop being an incompetent hystericist who uses emotion instead of his BRAINS. (SARCASM)
 
Herald
 
 
.    
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/1/2009 10:12:57 PM
Again, Herald, stop with the stupidity. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself and it's actually quite entertaining to watch you implode as people start to realize and/or openly acknowledge that you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm qualified to drive almost every wheeled and tracked vehicle in the US Army inventory. Why on Earth you think that is an insult is beyond comprehension but it you want to further demonstrate how much of a fool you are be my guest. The issue isn't knowledge of Physics or Airpower. Its knowledge of War and obviously you are SEVERELY lacking.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    KISS   7/1/2009 10:14:45 PM

Three Gorges burst asunder will not provoke a nuclear response.

The PRC Bamdits  don't want to die over one dam . Don't exaggerate things. You have historic flooding data to show an outcome of a dam failure outcome  I supplied that, use it to make a valid damage and casualty assessment  and stop being an incompetent hystericist who uses emotion instead of his BRAINS. (SARCASM)


Herald


 
 
You're an idiot.
 
-DA
 

.    


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EDIT   7/1/2009 10:26:20 PM




Three Gorges burst asunder will not provoke a nuclear response.

The PRC Bamdits  don't want to die over one dam . Don't exaggerate things. You have historic flooding data to show an outcome of a dam failure outcome  I supplied that, use it to make a valid damage and casualty assessment  and stop being an incompetent hystericist who uses emotion instead of his BRAINS. (SARCASM)

Herald


You're an idiot.

 

-DA

 
Let me put the word idiot into context. You openly acknowledge that breaking that damn could kill 1000's and would certainly cause damage to civilian property that has nothing to do with PRC vs RoC. You further acknowledge the dam represents a strategic risk that has the potential to set China back "100 Years".  Yet somehow in your mind, this isn't a trigger for world condemnation and possible PRC nuclear response?

You are out of your mind.

-DA 


.    







 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    CASE CLOSED...   7/1/2009 10:57:21 PM
...WE WONT ATTACK THAT DAM OVER TAIWAN... 


 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities #Chapter III -- Civilian objects
Article 56Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View 'COMART' -- Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

    1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the
    release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among
    the civilian population.

    2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:

    (a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

    (b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

    (c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.

    3. In all cases, the civilian population and individual civilians shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law, including the protection of the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article'. If the protection ceases and any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 is attacked, all practical precautions
    shall be taken to avoid the release of the dangerous forces.

    4. It is prohibited to make any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 the object of reprisals.

    5. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1. Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack, provided that they are not used in hostilities except for defensive actions necessary to respond to attacks against the protected works or installations and that their armament is limited to weapons capable only of repelling hostile action against the protected works or installations.

    6. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict are urged to conclude further agreements among themselves to provide additional protection for objects containing dangerous forces.

    7. In order to facilitate the identification of the objects protected by this article, the Parties to the conflict may mark them with a special sign consisting of a group of three bright orange circles placed on the same axis, as specified in Article 16Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' of Annex I to this Protocol [Article 17Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View 'CONVART' of Amended Annex]. The absence of such marking in no way relieves any Party to the conflict of its obligations under

    this Article.


    =====================================================================================================

     
    Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
    State Parties  Signature Ratification / Accession 1) Reservation / Declaration 2)
    Afghanistan 08.12.1949  26.09.1956   
    Albania 12.12.1949  27.05.1957  27.05.1957 (text)
    Algeria   20.06.1960   
    Andorra   17.09.1993   
    Angola   20.09.1984  20.09.1984 (text)
    Antigua and Barbuda   06.10.1986   
    Argentina 08.12.1949  18.09.1956   
    Armenia   07.06.1993   
    Australia 04.01.1950.  14.10.1958  14.10.1958 (text)
    Austria 12.08.1949  27.08.1953   
    Azerbaijan   01.06.1993   
    Bahamas   11.07.1975   
    Bahrain   30.11.1971   
    Bangladesh   04.04.1972  20.12.1988 (text)
    Barbados   10.09.1968  10.09.1968 (text)
    Belarus 12.12.1949  03.08.1954   
    Belgium 08.12.1949  03.09.1952   
    Belize   29.06.1984   
    Benin   14.12.1961   
    Bhutan   10.01.1991   
    Bolivia 08.12.1949  10.12.1976   
    Bosnia-Herzegovina   31.12.1992   
    Botswana   29.03.1968   
    Brazil 08.12.1949  29.06.1957   
    Brunei Darussalam   14.10.1991   
    Bulgaria 28.12.1949  22.07.1954   
    Burkina Faso   07.11.1961   
    Burundi   27.12.1971   
    Cambodia   08.12.1958   
    Cameroon   16.09.1963   
    Canada 08.12.1949  14.05.1965   
    Cape Verde   11.05.1984   
    Central African Republic   01.08.1966   
    Chad   05.08.1970   
    Chile 12.08.1949  12.10.1950   
    China 10.12.1949  28.12.1956  28.12.1956 (text)
    Colombia 12.08.1949  08.11.1961   
    Comoros   21.11.1985   
    Congo (Dem. Rep.)   24.02.1961   
    Congo   04.02.1967   
    Cook Islands   07.05.2002   
    Costa Rica   15.10.1969   
    Côte d'Ivoire   28.12.1961   
    Croatia   11.05.1992   
    Cuba 12.08.1949  15.04.1954   
    Cyprus   23.05.1962   
    Czech Republic   05.02.1993   
    Denmark 12.08.1949  27.06.1951   
    Djibouti   06.03.1978   
    Dominican Republic   22.01.1958   
    Dominica   28.09.1981   
    Ecuador 12.08.1949  11.08.1954   
    Egypt 08.12.1949  10.11.1952   
    El Salvador 08.12.1949  17.06.1953   
    Equatorial Guinea   24.07.1986   
    Eritrea   14.08.2000   
    Estonia   18.01.1993   
    Ethiopia 08.12.1949  02.10.1969   
    Fiji   09.08.1971   
    Finland 08.12.1949  22.02.1955   
    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   01.09.1993  18.10.1996. (text)
    France 08.12.1949  28.06.1951   
    Gabon   26.02.1965   
    Gambia   20.10.1966   
    Georgia   14.09.1993   
    Germany   03.09.1954  03.12.1954. (text)
    Ghana   02.08.1958   
    Greece 22.12.1949  05.06.1956   
    Grenada   13.04.1981   
    Guatemala 12.08.1949  14.05.1952   
    Guinea-Bissau   21.02.1974  21.02.1974. (text)
    Guinea   11.07.1984   
    Guyana   22.07.1968   
    Haiti   11.04.1957   
    Holy See 08.12.1949  22.02.1951   
    Honduras   31.12.1965   
    Hungary 08.12.1949  03.08.1954   
    Iceland   10.08.1965   
    India 16.12.1949  09.11.1950   
    Indonesia   30.09.1958   
    Iran (Islamic Rep.of) 08.12.1949  20.02.1957  20.02.1957 (text)
    Iraq   14.02.1956   
    Ireland 19.12.1949  27.09.1962   
    Israel 08.12.1949  06.07.1951  08.12.1949 (text)
    Italy 08.12.1949  17.12.1951   
    Jamaica   20.07.1964   
    Japan   21.04.1953   
    Jordan   29.05.1951   
    Kazakhstan   05.05.1992   
    Kenya   20.09.1966   
    Kiribati   05.01.1989   
    Korea (Dem.People's Rep.)   27.08.1957  27.08.1957. (text)
    Korea (Republic of)   16.08.1966  16.08.1966. (text)
    Kuwait   02.09.1967  02.09.1967. (text)
    Kyrgyzstan   18.09.1992   
    Lao People's Dem.Rep.   29.10.1956   
    Latvia   24.12.1991   
    Lebanon 08.12.1949  10.04.1951   
    Lesotho   20.05.1968   
    Liberia   29.03.1954   
    Libyan Arab Jamahiriya   22.05.1956   
    Liechtenstein 12.08.1949  21.09.1950   
    Lithuania   03.10.1996   
    Luxembourg 08.12.1949  01.07.1953   
    Madagascar   18.07.1963   
    Malawi   05.01.1968   
    Malaysia   24.08.1962   
    Maldives   18.06.1991   
    Mali   24.05.1965   
    Malta   22.08.1968   
    Marshall Islands   01.06.2004   
    Mauritania   30.10.1962   
    Mauritius   18.08.1970   
    Mexico 08.12.1949  29.10.1952   
    Micronesia   19.09.1995   
    Moldova (Republic of)   24.05.1993   
    Monaco 12.08.1949  05.07.1950   
    Mongolia   20.12.1958   
    Montenegro (Republic of)   02.08.2006   
    Morocco   26.07.1956   
    Mozambique   14.03.1983   
    Myanmar   25.08.1992   
    Namibia   22.08.1991   
    Nauru   27.06.2006   
    Nepal   07.02.1964   
    Netherlands 08.12.1949  03.08.1954   
    New Zealand 11.02.1950.  02.05.1959   
    Nicaragua 12.08.1949  17.12.1953   
    Nigeria   20.06.1961   
    Niger   21.04.1964   
    Norway 12.08.1949  03.08.1951   
    Oman   31.01.1974   
    Pakistan 12.08.1949  12.06.1951  12.06.1951. (text)
    Palau   25.06.1996   
    Panama   10.02.1956   
    Papua New Guinea   26.05.1976   
    Paraguay 10.12.1949  23.10.1961   
    Peru 12.08.1949  15.02.1956   
    Philippines 08.12.1949  06.10.1952   
    Poland 08.12.1949  26.11.1954   
    Portugal 11.02.1950.  14.03.1961  14.03.1961. (text)
    Qatar   15.10.1975   
    Romania 10.02.1950.  01.06.1954   
    Russian Federation 12.12.1949  10.05.1954  12.12.1949 (text)
    Rwanda   05.05.1964   
    Saint Kitts and Nevis   14.02.1986   
    Saint Lucia   18.09.1981   
    Saint Vincent Grenadines   01.04.1981   
    Samoa   23.08.1984   
    San Marino   29.08.1953   
    Sao Tome and Principe   21.05.1976   
    Saudi Arabia   18.05.1963   
    Senegal   18.05.1963   
    Serbia (Republic of)   16.10.2001   
    Seychelles   08.11.1984   
    Sierra Leone   10.06.1965   
    Singapore   27.04.1973   
    Slovakia   02.04.1993   
    Slovenia   26.03.1992   
    Solomon Islands   06.07.1981   
    Somalia   12.07.1962   
    South Africa   31.03.1952   
    Spain 08.12.1949  04.08.1952   
    Sri Lanka 08.12.1949  28.02.1959   
    Sudan   23.09.1957   
    Suriname   13.10.1976  13.10.1976. (text)
    Swaziland   28.06.1973   
    Sweden 08.12.1949  28.12.1953   
    Switzerland 12.08.1949  31.03.1950   
    Syrian Arab Republic 12.08.1949  02.11.1953   
    Tajikistan   13.01.1993   
    Tanzania (United Rep.of)   12.12.1962   
    Thailand   29.12.1954   
    Timor-Leste   08.05.2003   
    Togo   06.01.1962   
    Tonga   13.04.1978   
    Trinidad and Tobago   24.09.1963   
    Tunisia   04.05.1957   
    Turkey 12.08.1949  10.02.1954   
    Turkmenistan   10.04.1992   
    Tuvalu   19.02.1981   
    Uganda   18.05.1964   
    Ukraine 12.12.1949  03.08.1954   
    United Arab Emirates   10.05.1972   
    United Kingdom 08.12.1949  23.09.1957  23.09.1957. (text)
    United States of America 12.08.1949  02.08.1955  02.08.1955. (text)
    Uruguay 12.08.1949  05.03.1969  05.03.1969. (text)
    Uzbekistan   08.10.1993   
    Vanuatu   27.10.1982   
    Venezuela 10.02.1950.  13.02.1956   
    Viet Nam   28.06.1957  28.06.1957. (text)
    Yemen   16.07.1970  25.05.1977. (text)
    Zambia   19.10.1966   
    Zimbabwe   07.03.1983   

    1) link ">Ratification : a treaty is generally open for signature for a certain time following the conference which has adopted it. However, a signature is not binding on a State unless it has been endorsed by ratification. The time limits having elapsed, the Conventions and the Protocols are no longer open for signature. The States which have not signed them may at any time accede or, in the appropriate circumstances, succeed to them.
    Accession : instead of signing and then ratifying a treaty, a State may become party to it by the single act called accession.
    2) link ">Reservation / Declaration : unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).

    Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".

    On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".


    Niue : As evidenced by paragraph 10(1) read together with sub-paragraph 10(3)(b) of New Zealand's 1958 Geneva Conventions Act adopted in anticipation of New Zealand's accessions (2 May 1959) to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, Niue's Geneva Conventions Act 1958 (published most recently in Niue Laws 2006, vol. 2, p. 877), bearing in mind the rule as expressed in Article 29 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and following discussions with relevant authorities, the International Committee of the Red Cross considers that the 1959 New Zealand accessions cover the territory of Niue.

...END IT.


-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Summary   7/1/2009 11:13:13 PM
The United States isn't going to attack the Three Gorges Dam over Taiwan. For starters, while we do provide arms to Taiwan, the USG does not even fully recognize Taiwan as independent of China. Second, doing so would be an actual War Crime. It would immediately end any legitimacy to a US response and absolutely kill allied support more effectively than any PRC attack. That doesn't even begin to touch the very real military options that would open up for the PRC in retaliation which could include the use of WMD.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/2/2009 4:01:03 AM

Again, Herald, stop with the stupidity. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself and it's actually quite entertaining to watch you implode as people start to realize and/or openly acknowledge that you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm qualified to drive almost every wheeled and tracked vehicle in the US Army inventory. Why on Earth you think that is an insult is beyond comprehension but it you want to further demonstrate how much of a fool you are be my guest. The issue isn't knowledge of Physics or Airpower. Its knowledge of War and obviously you are SEVERELY lacking.




-DA 
So what? What does that demonstrate to me that you know anything except how to steer and check the oil?  You are more ignorant than you can possibly imagine.
 
As for KISS, treaty and idiots (like you) dictate the complex approach to solving a SIMPLE problem.
 
Figure it out, why I used a tweo staged kinetic approach to the problem yet? WP gabe you a cliuwe and I filled in the details but you Mister "Expert" are so full of yourself, uoi paid no attention to the data and the explanations for the WHYS.
 
So I will summarize. 
 
The PRC bandoits are electricity and water hobbled. They have too many people and not enough range to support without t5hose two resources. The Three Gorges power hoises and the DAM is the major achuilles heel that the PRC's sipplied us that in a single strike reduces their war potential by roughly 1/3. Got that, "expert"?
 
With it gone they are back to 1976 all over again. Not enough electricity, plagued by periodic floodimg, back to barely controlled famine conditions, and falling back on a decaying infrastructure of coal fired electric plants. Their war machine goes nowhere as they have to START OVER.
 
It would be as catastrophic for them as Aswan gone would be for Egypt.
 
But of course you can't see this because you never had any strategic, technological, or business policy training to go wiith your driving expertise. You should get some of that, you know. It will teach you about wrong energy policy, peak oil lomits that drive current grand strategy, and even WHY China is so heavuly invested in AFRICA (She is running out of raw materials of all kinds especially the types she needs for advanced technology like jet engines..^1
 
Things are not as you fantasize them to be, poster. Especially as you try to put your; limited parochial and not relevant experience to the PACRIM specifically.
 
Herald
    .
^1 Tell me do you even know why you need hypersonic cruise missiles by 2020 to take down the PRCs? 
   
 
 
   

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    One more thing, poster.    7/2/2009 4:14:05 AM
We signed the Washington and London naval treaties which contained clauses about unrestricted submarine warfare.


I am amused when amateurs  invoke TREATIES as if a scrap of paper would matter after Andersen becomes a smoking hole.in Guam. 
 
I also remind you that there are treaties to which we are signatories that prohibit ASSASSINATION in war. 
 
 
By International Law, that is a WARCRIME. Are we at war with Pakistan?
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/2/2009 5:27:50 AM
Herald,
I actually enjoy the exchanges between you and my mate Darth, they usually actually contain decent info of great interest to me, however do me one small favor, dont ever ever refer to folks in the supply/support echelons of the Armed Forces as Weenies.  I dont care how well trained our trigger pullers are or how dominant our equipment is if that is backed up by a whole dedicated support structure of competent supply and maintenance personnel that you may as well give the Grunts pointy stick!!! 
 
At this moment in time an awfull lot of our supply and maintenance guys have done their deployments as regular infantry pounding the streets of Iraq or teh mountains of Afghanistan.  My boys from 5th Battalion 10th Marine Regiment (An Arty Unit) Are right now humping the hills of afghanistan, and thats not just teh 0811 Cannon Crewmen its everyone from their Arty Mechs, their Vehicle Mechanics from Motor T, their Optics Techs, their Supply and Ordnance Officers, EVERYONE.  So to reiterate less of the "Weenie" terminology.
 
Thanks in advance
 
Arty
 
Apologies to you about that, AE, the LOGISTICS soldier today does one hell of a job, but as for that  loudmouth and incompetent: he, specifically, gets exactly what he deserves from me. As an example of the specific example not to be used as the general rule he shows that bias error left over in me from twenty years of work, when I dealt (and still do) with "experts", like him,.on a routine basis; All mouth, and no results type was/is the model..
  
Herald     
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/2/2009 10:21:12 AM

As this discussion progresses Im getting the impression (possibly incorrectly) that folks are of the opinion that our Ground Forces are "Defensless" in the face of an enemy who is able to contest the Airspace and may actually be able to get strike packages over our forces in the absence of our ability to have "Absolute Air Dominance".  I think thats quite a disservice to an entire brach of service,  you may have heard of them, they are known as the Air Defence Artillery and last I heard were equipped with some rather nice gear of their own  ;) 

Arty,
 
I can only speak for myself in regards to your post but by no means am I insinuating that Ground Forces are any less of an importance to our war fighting doctrine. I fully embrace all facets of the Military and any attemp to discredit a particular service would be unfair. If I thought the Army needed more Apaches or Abrams tanks I would say so without reservation.  Until someone can prove to me that 187 is enough to maintain complete air dominance to ease the burden on the ground forces, I will continue to argue for more. I don't believe that small scale conflicts will be our ONLY area of concern in the future, will we fight a war on the WWII scale, most likely not. If there are Generals that are in the business suggesting that price should be overcome by value to meet requirements then there has to be a degree of truth to the argument.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/2/2009 10:44:01 AM
I jump in just for a moment .
 
Striking the Chinese Dam will lead to 2 things :
-1) a medium to massive Chinese Nuclear retaliation on US soil (within hours)
-2) the loss of all possible US allies
 
Herald is out of his mind , his idea is going to get millions of Americans dead .
China is NOT affraid of a nuclear conflict with the USA gentlemen , keep that closely in mind .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/2/2009 12:20:23 PM

 


"My concerns

about the Raptor are more along the lines of sheer numbers. Clearly

superior technology is often decisive, but only to a point. When you

are out of missiles you are out of missiles. Two F-22s will be

winchester(out of ammo) before 4 F-15s, simple as that. So at some

point quantity has a quality all its own. Our national warfighting

policy places total air superiority as our first objective so that no

US ground force needs to worry about an enemy air force.
The question

is are 185 F-22s enough to obtain this prime objective. I dont know the

answer to that."


 

 

My response to your friend would be to ask a few questions, like 1) so what happens when 4 F-15s run out of ammo, 2) why would we send 4 F-15s into that battle but only 2 F-22, 3) what do we do now if there aren't enough F-15 around but we still need to shoot down more bad guys, 4) why wouldn't we do the same thing as in 3) if there aren't enough F-22 around, 5) what possible scenario in the world today is going to run out of enough F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16/F-18, and how does more F-22 change that scenario, and 6) is the cost of more F-22 solely in order to alleviate that scenario worth it (factor in the likelihood of its occurance, and not just the danger of its occurance, and also factor in the missed opportunity cost if the money could have been spent elsewhere)?

 

 Warpig,
 
Not sure where you are going with this post. He was merely making a statement on the quantatative aspect of air combat in a hypothetical scenario. It a fact that an F-15 can launch more missiles than a LO F-22. It is also a fact that SU-27 series aircraft can do the same. If basing and support is the issue at hand it makes sense to deploy the least amount of aircraft to get the job done, assuming it doesn't turn out to be a turd in combat, the F-22 does everything better than the F-15 with less aircraft. Against a numerically superior enemy the point of running out of missiles before all enemy fighters have been eliminated is the quantitative vs. qualatative advantage. In terms of cost, the F-22 is far from one dimensional and can and will be used for many other aspects besides knocking Flankers out of the sky. The aircraft is still maturing as all platforms do, adding a myriad of capabilities will only shorten an already stressed fleet. Everyone is so worried about sacrificing something to buy more but that hasn't stopped the bailouts, executive bonuses or a trillion dollar health care reform so people that don't want to work can afford health insurance. If we can find money for irresponsibility then we can build more Raptors

 

 

 

 



 



 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/2/2009 12:23:49 PM

I jump in just for a moment .

 

Striking the Chinese Dam will lead to 2 things :

-1) a medium to massive Chinese Nuclear retaliation on US soil (within hours)


-2) the loss of all possible US allies


 

Herald is out of his mind , his idea is going to get millions of Americans dead .

China is NOT affraid of a nuclear conflict with the USA gentlemen , keep that closely in mind .


 

Cheers .




Exactly what evidence supports that deranged conclusion?
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/2/2009 1:00:12 PM

I jump in just for a moment .

 

Striking the Chinese Dam will lead to 2 things :

-1) a medium to massive Chinese Nuclear retaliation on US soil (within hours)


-2) the loss of all possible US allies


 

Herald is out of his mind , his idea is going to get millions of Americans dead .

China is NOT affraid of a nuclear conflict with the USA gentlemen , keep that closely in mind .


 

Cheers .




Whilst a strike on the Three-Gorges dam is possible in a full-scale strategic conflict it is hard to imagine it being an option ont the table in anything other than total-war. The humanitarian disaster that would unfold would lead to huge ramifications - Herald is correct in the sense that China is heavily reliant on this 22GW installation for power, irrigation, water supply, but wrong (in my opinion) about the scale of effect it would have on the chinese warfighting capability, China is actually one of the few nations that has the ability to RAPIDLY add surplus generation capacity to its grid - the oft-cited "three coal fired powerstations a week" is somewhat overstating the situation but 22GW isn't actually a significant percentage of the domestic energy consumption.
 
Historically, even in the 20th century they have dealt with several natural disasters that have had death tolls in the millions. It is not to say that its effects would not be catastrophic, but the crisis would primarily be humanitarian, rather than military - for a nation that treats its entire population as a never-ending resource, it would be stirring the hornets nest.
 
Having been across China I think that we often forget the degree to which the population is disinterested in foreign policy, it is a nation that, at least at the societal level, is introspective in the extreme, most people are far more interested in emulating  newfound capitalist ambition and improving their respective domestic prospects.
 
In other words, a major infrastructural attack on a project that is both a major symbol of aspiration and achievement (somewhat like the great wall in many eyes), and an essential resource for the development of the region (hubei, and obviously Shanghai). It would turn the chinese population towards nationalism, would be regarded as a war crime without parallel. Given that China IS developing at pace, it would lead to an entire generation of 1+billion people having a hatred of the US that would exceed that seen in the muslim world.
 
Suitable only for use when the alternative is nuclear, it would be counterproductive in the extreme. I think we have to remember that the Chinese population is broadly pro-western, they are nationalistic on demand, when prompted to be so for publicity, but fundamentally admire the values and ideals of the west, just as we should (if we have any sense) admire many of the values they hold dear. When you look at the relative freedoms that people enjoy in the cities relative to 20 years ago it is to be hoped that the new, ambitious, outspoken middle class will have more impact on policy at the national level, until that point, the last thing we would ever want to do, in any conflict, would be to reverse course, accrue the combined hatred and resentment of a nation that is, at some point (40 years?), going to have technological parity with the west, believe it.
 
BW, China isn't afraid of a full scale strategic nuclear war? 
 
China has a relatively small nuclear stockpile, estimates are often conservative but it certainly doesn't have the capability that many people ignorantly assume it to.
 
In other words, it would come out far worse for China than the US by an order of magnitude (assuming no russian involvement).
 
When you look at the value of current chinese reserves of USD, you can see that china already has its own "nuclear" option, the effect of which would lead to a price crash never before seen, I think the biggest single factor in averting conflict between the US and PRC is the level of economic reliance that exists between the two countries.
 
In other words, china has the ability to virtually bankrupt the US economy, they know it, we know it, it's a far more potent potential "strike" than hitting the three-gorges.
 
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/2/2009 1:14:08 PM

^1 Tell me do you even know why you need hypersonic cruise missiles by 2020 to take down the PRCs? 


   
LOL funny. THis is why you aren't taken seriously. WHO GIVES A FERK WHY you think we need hypersonic cruise missiles. That has ZERO to do with the thread topic and ZERO to do with the unnecessary and illegal action of drowning thousands of innocent Chinese by breaking that Dam. I read what Warpig said and it sounds an awful lot like he thinks you need to get an education on the practical application on the art of war and specifically Lawfare. Several other posters mentioned that too. Instead of being humble and admitting to a mistake which is clear and undeniable, again you get indignant and start trying to stray off topic and obfuscate with silly words and bold print like SCRAMDART which obviously you don't understand.

I can admit I did not know that attacking Three Gorges was specifically illegal prior to yesterday. But because I have actual military experience, common sense and have had to use EOF as a daily tool of survival. Something about that suggestion just did not sound right. So I bounced it off a search engine, IN OTHER WORDS I DID SOME RESEARCH, and I see that it is illegal. Thats the benefit of prior experience and why you should at least listen to people with experience in subject matter where you have none.

So you have started a thread supported by esteemed organizations such as the APA, you think Somali fishermen should be blown up at 1000 meters by guided rockets fired by civilians and now you think it's cool to kill innocents because you hate the Chinese. Dude you are on a roll. Before we even get into such things as SCRAMDARTS lets just fix the basics and help you get a rudimentary knowledge of war and the very real rule sets that govern nation state warfare. There are very real and valid reasons why we choose to fight within these limits Herald and your failure to grasp this concept is why you make such egregious errors in judgement.

Rule sets limit the scope and scale of the collateral damage when civilized nations go to war so that there is something worth having after the fighting. Otherwise we could just nuke people into ashes anytime we have a dispute. Fortunately, From Bush to Obama to Hu to the Iranian Supreme Leader most nations choose to follow these rule sets more or less. Platforms like Raptors, F-35's, SCRAMDARTS, M4s and even nuclear weapons are all designed to fight within these context Herald. "The West" and to an extent the Soviets defined these rules that most choose to follow. Unfortunately some of our 4GW opponents and even some traditional potential foes are exploiting these rule sets to gain military advantage. That's why we can't continue to buy up hundreds of F-22's and other high tech weapons that were designed with Cold War era rule sets in mind beyond what's necessary and neglect the kinds of forces that can be applied to these new threats. If you don't want to take my word because of your biases then just ask AE about the conditions of our ground components specifically with regard to maint and OR. If you want to keep the debate air power centric then look at the kinds of platforms that are most in demand and support assets like tankers and helos that are to this day greatly needed and still being neglected while we are engaged in a war we haven't decisively turned in our favor after 8 years.

Humble yourself, debate and ask questions. Ditch the vitriol and nonsense. It's only making you look worse....

 

-DA 
 

 

   





 


 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy