tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post3219095092936701220..comments2024-03-18T16:37:26.577-07:00Comments on WAR TARD: Are conventional armed forces obsolete?War Tardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07695998564986230897noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-43964896650072309912014-06-05T09:28:18.573-07:002014-06-05T09:28:18.573-07:00Escalation is a good point. Escalation comes in v...Escalation is a good point. Escalation comes in varying degrees, on the horizontal (shifting geographic locations, proxy wars), vertical (shifting targets from military to civilian or WEAPONS used from conventional to WMD), and political (rhetoric, negotiations, etc.). During World War II chemical weapons existed in massive stockpiles but were not used. The allies stockpiled chemical weapons to be used ONLY if Germany were to use them and Germany did not see the feasibility to chemical weapons in a maneuver warfare environment. Even in the most DESPERATE battles the Germans did not use chemical weapons in battlefield situations. As destructive as nuclear weapons are it would be surprising how military logic can deny or justify certain weapon usage.<br /><br />Of course once point defense systems (such as missile interception systems) and radiation cleanup methods become perfected nuclear weapons will be used as regular munition rounds.<br /><br />Do not forget that most military rounds are depleted uranium rounds, radiological in nature and is used openly with no hesitation.Rambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508098928987877289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-81882746254553880312012-11-30T03:47:38.430-08:002012-11-30T03:47:38.430-08:00I think the first step in a war is to take out the...I think the first step in a war is to take out the satellites and nuclear missiles. I wont be surprised if US keeps a track of all the fixed and mobile nuclear missiles of all the other countries. The next phase would be take out all defensive mechanism and airfields. The last step would be a conventional invasion Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-56227107664814359522011-01-21T04:31:34.488-08:002011-01-21T04:31:34.488-08:00Tactical Nukes are where all the action is.
All i...Tactical Nukes are where all the action is.<br /><br />All it takes is one of them is the drunken, shaky hands of a Conscript and the fun really starts.<br /><br />Not to mention the missing Russian suitcase nukes, insane stockpiles of chemical weapons, and exploding Muslims.<br /><br />What is the point of having a guided bomb that can hit one house in a street when it costs crazy money to build, maintain, and deploy it?<br /><br />Iraq and Afghanistan have not turned into the love-in that our dumb leaders expected. Bombing the hell out of people only pisses them off!<br /><br />I suspect America has some kind of secret weapons system to neutralize an ICBM launch.<br /><br />Can't wait for that Iranian reactor to blow up after the cyber-attack on its control systems.<br /><br />China are going to troll the world!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-31888481584488498752011-01-19T10:00:58.925-08:002011-01-19T10:00:58.925-08:00The nature of globalism and asymmetric war today m...The nature of globalism and asymmetric war today makes nukes and conventional wars obsolescent. <br /><br />You might subjugate your opponent with a nuke, but what will the backlash do to your economy as you fight to defend yourself against the ever-increasing returns (blowback) of asymmetric warfare?<br /><br />You can fight a nice, polite conventional war while keeping the highlights off the evening news of your citizenry, but what keeps a moderately determined group from injecting a few truckloads of toxic heavy metals, undetected, into significant water mains of 36 of your 50 largest cities and putting one of every 10 civilians in those cities in hospice care or chelation and dialysis for life? No water, no sewage, no city, no economy, no merchant class push for foreign resource control, no support for a military budget.<br /><br />Modern urban civilization is brittle, vulnerable, and impossible to defend with modern ideas of war. It also makes our populations and cultures possible. The only thing that protects it is not having people around that you have motivated to kill you in the first place. <br /><br />So the entire idea of what a military is used for has changed. The idea that it will remain an enterprise between standing armies is fast becoming a quaint taboo as the ratio of costs in asymmetric warfare continue to rise. The enormous costs against defending against this asymmetry will mean the vulnerabilities will increasingly lie in attacking the soft underbellies of developed economies- at the civilian population and economies themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-10410087905974012872011-01-19T00:51:04.009-08:002011-01-19T00:51:04.009-08:00For one, ICBM equipped submarines are a scary thou...For one, ICBM equipped submarines are a scary thought even for a well equipped force. Unless you are actively monitoring/shadowing each sub, it could be on your front door.<br /><br />All the cool toys make bullying a lot more fun though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-8869914697186410112011-01-17T18:38:47.994-08:002011-01-17T18:38:47.994-08:00I actually think there's something to the old ...I actually think there's something to the old 'turning plowshares in to swords' style of operations where companies turned their assembly lines over to war machinery when called for... you don't waste any time building the last war's hardware and you don't build up an investment in the last war's strategy, something you point out the issues with in your eloquent post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-11724038690203630582011-01-17T17:43:30.119-08:002011-01-17T17:43:30.119-08:00I get the feeling aircraft carriers are the modern...I get the feeling aircraft carriers are the modern version of the ancient pyramid. Made to inspire a religious awe and zeal for the State, but actually useless, resource-gobbling tributes to whoever orchestrated their construction, like the most recent one, the Bush.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-63729130051200147122011-01-16T18:41:59.762-08:002011-01-16T18:41:59.762-08:00I agree with everything you said Figler. But how f...I agree with everything you said Figler. But how far into the 21st century do we get before the oil, or food or water or whatever else starts to enter scarcity. How long will the 'collaborative relationship' between the Chinese and US last? Current trends say we're looking at economic parity around 2020. One is ascending the other is in decline.<br /><br />My point here is there may be no more room anymore for proxy wars or limited engagements as the stakes get higher. And when one side begins losing the conventional war, the fear is that they must reach for the big red button.<br /><br />To Sildude: Yes, MAD held shit together in the Cold War. But as the stakes get higher and a superpower begins to suffer unacceptable attrition from say an oil shortage, MAD philosophy begins to weaken. You get strong men screaming for action, that if we don't launch we die anyway.<br /><br />The ultimate obsolescence of MAD policy is an idea I thought worth floating. But war itself is a certain kind of madness and they are no fun without conventional toys, right?War Tardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07695998564986230897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-42936613975177077982011-01-15T08:16:50.556-08:002011-01-15T08:16:50.556-08:00"When you've got nukes, why do you need t..."When you've got nukes, why do you need to spend money on stealth bombers and other expensive hardware?"<br /><br />Well... just not to have to use nukes. That's why. Russia and China both had nukes by 1969 and they fought a small scale conventional war. Massed artillery, tanks and even a fancy amphibious exercise. Well, it was on a river, but it was a nice show anyway. They both could have used the button, and, ey, Mao could get really freak sometimes, but they didn't... reason?<br /><br />Not worth the price. Both had a point to made. And the Russian made theirs much more clearly... for what they told. Same goes for any other major power currently on the business. Proxy war anybody? Even North Korea uses their shitty warheads (NK-tech? for god's sake if they ever launch one is there any guarantee it will even depart the second stage of the rocket?), basically, to run a protection racket against their southern neighbors.<br /><br />Same goes for India-Pak. They have had a couple of stand-offs already with both of them having the nuke. Do you think the rest of the people are going to let anybody use the button? Common'...<br /><br />As for the China-US scenario that's making all you war-nerdy folks wet your skivvies... sorry chaps, History says that since Nixon China and US have always preferred to collaborate and not confront.<br /><br />Your mistake is reducing every international quarrel to simple black/white term yes/no answered questions, which they are not. There are shades of grey and the basis of diplomacy and power-struggle has always been flexibility. It's when people start to lose their flexibility when you end wrapped in a World War, the kind of situation for whose solution the nukes were invented in the first place.<br /><br />Also, reducing every and any differences between powers to a nuke/no nuke scenario is what would make a nuclear war more feasible. With CVNs and tanks and Migs you give the guys in charge more options before they have to weigh if that crappy genocide around Sarajevo is worth Armageddon. Considering the level of the guys making the weighing, conventional junk is a godsend, some tree-hugging euro-commie would have induced them to nuke poor Karadzic if it had been ballot time back then.<br /><br />Besides, you are assuming a much more bigger effect against military personnel and hardware than nuclear weapons have. Armored divisions are a pretty tough target to destroy with nukes. They spread and ride vehicles prepared to withstand nuclear detonations and operate in contaminated environments. Fleets are easier targets, but it's cities, (big, static and full of combustibles), what the nukes were devised to destroy.John Figlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-111395980737563171.post-64155411755670493782011-01-15T06:28:57.647-08:002011-01-15T06:28:57.647-08:00What about MAD - mutually assured destruction? May...What about MAD - mutually assured destruction? Maybe I'm deluding myself but I like to think that there never will be any nuclear type warfare, even on a smaller scale and only against military targets, because of the grave threat of escalating the situation. There is no point in using nukes to win a battle just to lose the war by nuclear annihilation. It's a senseless decision, a lose lose situation for everyone. Unless of course you're completely insane. And I'd like to think that for all the crazy leaders we have, none of them are THAT crazy.<br /><br />However in such a scenario, wars would be a rare thing anyway and a thing only for dictators. No public is going to approve of war if there's a risk of getting annihilated over some new territory or resources. Even the risk of getting nuked once is enough to sway public opinion against the war. Hell, would anyone really support nuking another country just for some resources, even without any risk of retaliation?<br /><br />Having old style infantry and military hardware is just too convenient for our leaders. No backlash and no serious repercussions. Wars can be waged almost in secret. Invade two countries and they'll vote you for a second term. And it's useful against insurgent style warfare, where precision is required. You can't nuke a insurgents' hideout without killing a lot of civilians in the process. The future is smartbombs and laser guided missiles, not "lets kill everyone" tactics. At least I hope to god that's true.llllollllllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431848788579043997noreply@blogger.com