4 hours ago, kanisatha said:

It's inevitable to sit on your ass, pat yourself on the back, and take things for granted when you are at the top. It's nature's way of making sure there are no permanent winners or losers. It's this way with individuals, families, groups, corporations, universities, and yes countries/empires.

Heh, sounds like another great power we knew, not too long ago in fact....

Spoiler

 

5 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

Heh, sounds like another great power we knew, not too long ago in fact....

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Not just any great power. All great powers throughout history must eventually succumb to entropy (and this guy is happy then)

 

(that's Coaxmetal from Planescape: Torment for the heathens that don't recognize him)

 

The US just needs to make more manly recruitment ads, that'll solve it.

18 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

Heh, sounds like another great power we knew, not too long ago in fact....

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The one I would consider the closest comparable great power to the US is Pax Romana. Pax Britannia also comes close.

And yeah, I totally agree that (a) a new great power war is coming soon, bringing an end to the Long Peace, and (b) it will make WW2 look like a picnic by comparison. Not just robotics technology but also nanotech, biotech and genetics weapons, space warfare, cyber warfare, HE lasers and other directed-energy weapons, etc.

On 5/30/2021 at 8:42 PM, Lexx said:

https://www.axios.com/age-killer-robots-begun-8e8813d9-0fa1-4529-baf9-3358c1703bee.html

The future looks bad. Only thing we can hope for is that war will be anyhwere but here.

 

Whaaaaa? Were behind in a lot of categories. According to published specifications:

1) The Russians can soot the balls off a gnat with their SAM's.

2) The Chinese have transmedium drones with international flight capability.

3) We dont have any IRBM's at all.

4) Our helmets are total sh!t for preventing TBI's.

5) Our tanks pop like a cork of cheap sparkling wine.

I saw this on SlashDot. It seems appropriate for here:

Autonomous drone attacked soldiers in Libya all on its own

To quote Harrison Ford, I've got a bad feeling about this.

7 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

3) We dont have any IRBM's at all.

5) Our tanks pop like a cork of cheap sparkling wine.

You don't need any IRBMs if you have ICBMs, that's ultimately why the US and Soviets agreed to eliminate them. In any case, they could be (and were, the first test held by the US was literally days after leaving the INF) reinstated almost instantly, and almost certainly as nuclear too since some warheads never seem to have been actually destroyed as they were meant to be, just decommissioned. That was one of the bones of contention- frankly, breaches- of INF with the land based AEGIS anti missile stations Obama built, they used tomahawk launchers so it was trivial not just to refit them for banned conventional weapons but for banned nuclear weapons too. OK, tomahawks aren't ballistic, but there's nothing special about medium range ballistic missiles that renders making them difficult.

US tanks are 'old' and require vast amounts of maintenance and resources but are fine otherwise at doing tank stuff- unless, they're export models driven by Saudis. But even then after getting blown up by some shoeless Houthi goatherd amped up on Qat using an antiquated Malyutka or Fagot the crew usually survives the direct consequences of their incompetence thanks to good design.

Edited June 1, 20214 yr by Zoraptor

Yeah, as far as I know the US tanks hold up well when compared to others and, as Zoraptor said, when doing tank stuff.

Id love to see a side by side performance comparison between the RIM-174 Standard ERAM and the S-400 missile system.

On 6/1/2021 at 5:19 PM, Zoraptor said:

You don't need any IRBMs if you have ICBMs

Not so. They serve to separate the use of nuclear weapons at the strategic and tactical/intermediate levels. This is not important if your country possesses nukes only for its own deterrence. But if you use your nukes for extended deterrence (or you actually plan on using your nukes as 'first strike' weapons, which seems to be Russia's calculation in possessing IRBMs), then it matters, and matters greatly.

For example, if Russia were to use a nuke against NATO-member Poland, as part of its extended deterrence umbrella policy the US would retaliate with a nuke against Russia. But if the US used one of its ICBMs, launched from US soil/US SSBN, then Russia would see that as strategic escalation by the US and retaliate in kind against the US homeland resulting in a full-scale nuclear exchange. If instead the US retaliation was with an IRBM based in Europe, then that could not be perceived as strategic escalation because it is at the same level as the nuke Russia used against Poland. Same issue for the US vis-a-vis China in the Asia-Pacific region.

It is also why the US not possessing IRBMs raises serious questions about the credibility of the US's extended deterrence policy. As de Gaulle famously rhetorically asked Kennedy in 1961, when the US was trying to persuade France to not pursue an independent nuclear deterrent, "Will you sacrifice New York to avenge Paris?"

I dunno, I'm highly doubtful that any use of nukes isn't going to devolve into all out nuclear warfare. I have a hard time seeing either Russia or China caring where we nuked them from and there is only one response for that. Rational is going to go out of the window pretty quick.

Edited June 3, 20214 yr by ShadySands

 

7 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Not so. They serve to separate the use of nuclear weapons at the strategic and tactical/intermediate levels. This is not important if your country possesses nukes only for its own deterrence. But if you use your nukes for extended deterrence (or you actually plan on using your nukes as 'first strike' weapons, which seems to be Russia's calculation in possessing IRBMs), then it matters, and matters greatly.

For example, if Russia were to use a nuke against NATO-member Poland, as part of its extended deterrence umbrella policy the US would retaliate with a nuke against Russia. But if the US used one of its ICBMs, launched from US soil/US SSBN, then Russia would see that as strategic escalation by the US and retaliate in kind against the US homeland resulting in a full-scale nuclear exchange. If instead the US retaliation was with an IRBM based in Europe, then that could not be perceived as strategic escalation because it is at the same level as the nuke Russia used against Poland. Same issue for the US vis-a-vis China in the Asia-Pacific region.

It is also why the US not possessing IRBMs raises serious questions about the credibility of the US's extended deterrence policy. As de Gaulle famously rhetorically asked Kennedy in 1961, when the US was trying to persuade France to not pursue an independent nuclear deterrent, "Will you sacrifice New York to avenge Paris?"

That's not a great example since Russia doesn't need to use IRBMs to nuke Poland as Kaliningrad oblast directly borders Poland. Any scenario in which Kaliningrad no longer borders Poland is one in which things have already escalated beyond where you can apply direct logic- as is one in which Russia is using nukes for asterisks and giggles as a first strike weapon.

The broader point is that that applies generally- there's already other options for any sensible scenario.

If things have escalated so far that 'genuinely' medium range targets like Paris or London or Brussels or Vienna are being considered then using ICBMs can scarcely be an escalation, especially since at that level it isn't just about whether the US will retaliate. Otherwise, close targets- and tactical nukes on military targets, not hitting cities- make a lot more sense. And in any case INF did not apply to air/ sea means that you have a suite of medium range options available, they just aren't land based.

On the more fundamental level, there are near literally no sensible targets for mainland US based medium range missiles, so they'd be deployed to 3rd party countries. For most of those that will mean their chance of being reciprocally targeted goes up massively, not down. If you're sticking IRBMs in, say, Japan, it isn't to defend them. That'd instantly make Japan a target for China, first strike or retaliatory.

17 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

 

That's not a great example since Russia doesn't need to use IRBMs to nuke Poland as Kaliningrad oblast directly borders Poland. Any scenario in which Kaliningrad no longer borders Poland is one in which things have already escalated beyond where you can apply direct logic- as is one in which Russia is using nukes for asterisks and giggles as a first strike weapon.

The broader point is that that applies generally- there's already other options for any sensible scenario.

If things have escalated so far that 'genuinely' medium range targets like Paris or London or Brussels or Vienna are being considered then using ICBMs can scarcely be an escalation, especially since at that level it isn't just about whether the US will retaliate. Otherwise, close targets- and tactical nukes on military targets, not hitting cities- make a lot more sense. And in any case INF did not apply to air/ sea means that you have a suite of medium range options available, they just aren't land based.

On the more fundamental level, there are near literally no sensible targets for mainland US based medium range missiles, so they'd be deployed to 3rd party countries. For most of those that will mean their chance of being reciprocally targeted goes up massively, not down. If you're sticking IRBMs in, say, Japan, it isn't to defend them. That'd instantly make Japan a target for China, first strike or retaliatory.

Yes sea-based systems are certainly an option today. Thirty years ago they were more iffy because their accuracy was nowhere near as good as land-based systems. But today's sea-based missiles are just as accurate as their land-based counterparts. However, the point still is that they are intermediate (or short) ranged systems and as such considered to be fundamentally different from long-range strategic systems. This is why Russia has not been that upset about the US pursuing new intermediate range systems, but was adamentaly opposed to the US trying to declare some of its SSBN-launched D5 missiles/warheads as "sub-strategic" rather than strategic, because for Russia if it comes off one of our SSBNs then it is strategic and will automatically set off a full-scale Russian counterattack.

As for whether IRBMs stationed on foreign soil make those countries more of a target, yes that is likely so. But the counterpoint to that is exactly what I had already made in talking about France/de Gaulle. If you are a non-nuclear country counting on someone else to provide extended nuclear deterrence for you, is it really credible that they will risk their own country's cities to defend or avenge your cities? Not likely. So that's why logic dictates those extended deterrence systems ought to be located on your soil. Yes that makes you more of a target for an enemy state, but no differently than if you possessed nukes of your own. It's a strategic choice you have to make: no nukes at all; extended deterrence provided by someone else's nukes; deterrence provided by your own nukes. All three options have their pros and cons.

As for the Poland example, yes tactically there may not be a need for Russia to use nukes against Poland. But I was merely using them as an example. You can substitute any state out there that receives US extended nuclear deterrence. And furthermore, I am not speaking of the use of nukes in a tactical or battlefield situation. I am actually speaking of situations where cities are targetted, usually for political reasons rather than military reasons. So a Russian nuclear attack on a NATO city (Warsaw, or Berlin, or Prague, or Rome, it doesn't matter) will result in a US nuclear counterattack. But for this counterattack to have deterrence value, it has to be against a Russian city, and preferably Moscow itself as Poland will consider Warsaw to be equal to Moscow whether the Russians agree or not, and not just a US nuclear counterattack against a Russian military target. And only US IRBMs will have any realistic chance at being able to penetrate Russian defenses and strike Moscow. I would not place much faith in the ability of tactical aircraft carrying the B61 gravity bomb successfully penetrating Russian airspace all the way to Moscow.

Yeah... That kind of reasoning is the classic sort you see in military scenarios- the Russians won't mind their capital being nuked, because we say it's a proportional response and... we used an IRBM instead of an ICBM?

People don't work like that, and neither do countries. If you're nuking Moscow then Washington gets nuked back, at very very least, and then you have the absolutely classic cycle of escalation under way. Realistically, given that Moscow has something like 20% of Russia's population and economy a proportional response is hitting everything from New York to Richmond; and the US can cling to its belief that it acted proportionately and honourably for the 6 hours it continues to exist as a functional country (and of course in all likelihood Russia will be doing the exact same thing). That is, in fact, exactly the sort of de Gaulle situation described; but you're expecting the US to sacrifice Washington and probably the entire eastern seaboard for Warsaw instead of Paris. So, a retaliation would likely be somewhere like Smolensk, Rostov na donu, at the outside St Petes, instead, since you can claim them as quasi sensible military targets and they're far less likely to lead to a runaway escalation, and Polish wishes mean 2/3 of diddly squat. And they're also well within range of pretty much anything nuclear capable without IRBMs.

You'd have to come up with a reasonable scenario for Russia nuking Warsaw anyway, and that's probably something like NATO invading Kaliningrad with the obvious intention of keeping it. You're not going to get it in any realistic scenario in which there's not a shooting war simultaneously, and if you're invading a nuclear country then... the whole point is that you don't, because ultimately that's why you have nukes in the first place. Russia would nuke Warsaw as a last resort, and, about as definitely as you can in a hypothetical, after tactical nukes had been used extensively previous. The sort of situation in which nuking civilian targets gets considered is one in which there is already an uncontrolled escalation under way, it's just a step along the path to a full scale exchange.

As for stationing, the classic example is the ABM stations. The only thing they do for the host country is make sure that they will be the first targets of any strike. It's also not like, say, Turkey has control of the nukes based at Incirlik or Germany controls the ones at Rammstein, but if those bases cop a mushroom cloud it will certainly be the US deciding any retaliation, not Ankara or Berlin. That's ultimately the reason basing US nukes in Europe has always been unpopular with a lot of people, all it really ensures is that Europe gets targeted, without a say in any retaliation.

Sort of toss up between putting it here or the weird and interesting thread, as it's a weird and interesting incident in the military

 

https://www.aol.com/normandy-veterans-gather-mark-77th-094235642.html

Guys hugely important day today, the remembrance of D-Day, 77 years ago 

Their is a new memorial that has been opened today in France as another reminder of the important and noble sacrifice of those who never survived this battle, well done to the allies and eventual victory against the Nazi's and other forms of autocracy and dictatorship that existed at the time 

Its a good time to watch the superlative " Saving Private Ryan " again 📺

 

On 6/4/2021 at 5:44 PM, Zoraptor said:

As for stationing, the classic example is the ABM stations. The only thing they do for the host country is make sure that they will be the first targets of any strike. It's also not like, say, Turkey has control of the nukes based at Incirlik or Germany controls the ones at Rammstein, but if those bases cop a mushroom cloud it will certainly be the US deciding any retaliation, not Ankara or Berlin. That's ultimately the reason basing US nukes in Europe has always been unpopular with a lot of people, all it really ensures is that Europe gets targeted, without a say in any retaliation.

Again, this is just not true. Targeting and use of US nukes in Europe, which are officially considered NATO nukes, is under the control of the North Atlantic Council. Furthermore, the US cannot unilaterally decide on using those nukes, and must get host country permission first. So host countries do have a lot of say. And ultimately, the most important 'say' of the host countries is to agree to host those weapons in the first place. So clearly there is a rationale for it.

But we are obviously not going to agree here, so I've had my say and am done. Russia and China have invested heavily in intermediate range nuclear systems, and so they obviously see great value in those systems. I believe very strongly that the US also would gain significant value from similar systems, and am very glad to see that the DoD agrees and is moving forward on developing such systems.

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Its a good time to watch the superlative " Saving Private Ryan " again 

Overrated film.

16 hours ago, Malcador said:

Overrated film.

I agree. 'The Longest Day' and 'Big Red One' are both better.

34 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

I agree. 'The Longest Day' and 'Big Red One' are both better.

What about  'Thin Red Line ', its about the Pacific conflict with the Japanese ?

51 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

I agree. 'The Longest Day' and 'Big Red One' are both better.

Kanie you said you have interest in WW2 shows  and it seems like you really know a lot about certain military subjects. Have you also done military service or do you have another connection to the military generally?

29 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

What about  'Thin Red Line ', its about the Pacific conflict with the Japanese ?

That is much better than SPR.  Not a perfect film, or anything.

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

What about  'Thin Red Line ', its about the Pacific conflict with the Japanese ?

It sucked

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

It sucked

What didnt you enjoy about it ?