The Military Thread

Big wars have started over small things my friend. Nations and humanity as a whole are rather reactionary. Besides were all due for something other then a game of wack the middle east.

edited 30th Apr '10 4:41:31 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Overdue actually.

Mm. North Korea's pretty much on its own. I don't see how a ROK confrontation with them would erupt into a world war. Something like the USA interfering with Russia's wars with the various states around and on the edges of it could, I suppose, but I don't see that happening. I haven't done a whole lot of research into it, but Ossetia doesn't seem to want to be part of Georgia, so.

^ China is why. They're getting the shit end of the stick on the whole deal with NK regardless of what happens.

So it's not far-fetched to think they will pull a move off of it. Stranger things have happened before in international conflicts.

In addition, if the atmosphere in Taiwan changes and they declare independence the PRC will put boots to the ground and a number of other nations (including the US) have stated they will defend Taiwan.

The age of proxy wars is almost over, the world is due for a major clash between actual powers. They probably won't start the conflict, but they will fight it.

Could you elaborate on "a massive refugee crisis on their side of the Yalu"? It would have to be pretty bad to be as bad as a confrontation with the US. Of course, nationalistic sentiment may force the government to do that anyway, huh.

The "Rogue states will screw it all up" brings back to my memory something ominous.

"European War will come out of some foolish thing in the Balkans..." Bismarck, predicting the First World War.

And Marshal Foch predicted World War Two at the end of World War One. (He only missed his prediction by ~10 months.)

It's not hard to see situations that foreshadow massive conflicts further down the road.

^^ It's a known situation that if conflict erupts in North Korea there will be a flood of anywhere from 200,000 to 2 million North Korean refugees crossing the Yalu River into China.

They wouldn't just shoot them or something? They must have a border set up already.

It was discussed in another thread that China doesn't really stand much of a chance militarily against the US wasn't it? China's navy is too weak to seriously threaten them. They'd be sunk before making landfall.

It would take agressive moves from the US to actually cause land conflict with China. And they'd be seriously hard pressed to make any headway because of Chinas vast numerical advantage.

The trouble is going to start when China does become strong. Its a country of 2 billion people. Short of the Americans or another country allied to them closely developing some kind of conventional weapon that is a total Game-Breaker, the Chinese will one day be the most powerful nation on Earth, by the same forces of production that put the US on top.

EDIT: I was worried about that Tzetze. I wouldn't like to be a North Korean picked up on the Chinese border.

edited 30th Apr '10 5:05:32 PM by GameChainsaw

As I said: Wet dreams of war nerds. The age of world wars is just plain over thanks to nuclear weapons. Unless some super reliable (!) defense system is invented that can basically kill all missiles (and airforce), the big boys are only going to fight through proxis.

This all reminds me of all this "country X vs. country Y" threads that require a huge amount of Hand Waves and Ass Pulls to make thier military scenarios even remotly plausable. War is not some statistical occurrance that could be "overdue". People don't just spontanously jump out of thier chairs and cry for blood because of some 200 year old historical grudge, and there is no resource valuable enough to justifiy a world war (with the inevitable collapse of the global market and all).

Noone is going to help NK if they start a war. Iran also doesn't have any surefire allies with firepower.

massive ninja'd

edited 30th Apr '10 5:10:08 PM by DasAuto

A fight between Israel and Iran however? Plausible. Though not probable in the immediate, those two are likely to lock horns at some point.

^^ Nuclear arms are dangerously close to the precipice of obsolescence. The US and Russia both have (though only the US has operationally used) non-nuclear anti-missile missiles.

Nuclear weapons delivery by air has been obsolete since 1962.

Tom, it only takes one bomber to get through. If nuclear bombers are obsolete, surely regular bombers are also obsolete.

You can make that argument. Bombers are defenseless without fighter escort. Stealth bombers like the B-2 are too expensive to send on nuclear (or even conventional) suicide runs.

But with fighter escort...

And if you're carrying a bomb capable of taking out a city?... yeah, worth one shot down bomber, however expensive. If that is your goal. But if you're going to get nuked to hell back, why launch a nuclear attack in the first place?

EDIT: I think Barkey or one of the other military tropers is best qualified to comment on the actual feasibility of a nuclear bomber run to China.

Further EDIT: On the other hand, unless any of them are air force.

edited 30th Apr '10 5:25:51 PM by GameChainsaw

That's why the world's most powerful powers have large militaries. Nobody is going to do a decapitory strike against Moscow or Washington with a first hit nuclear weapon to begin a war. Even in the midst of heavy combat, it's highly improbable any nuclear power will actually use their nukes, losing side or not.

A war erupting around Iran or NK can happen, and it will be bloody, but it won't spread. I mean, the Iraq war didn't spread either.

About China: The Chinese government has been pretty pragmatic in the last two decades (for the most part), and thier economy is export based. The peaceful trade with the west has made them rich and they will keep doing just that until it stops making them richer. I really can't see them risking all this because of Taiwan (which already sunk deeply into the P Ro C sphere of influence) or a few million Korean refugees (I hear they make excellent sweatshop wage-slaves).

edited 30th Apr '10 5:26:52 PM by DasAuto

I wouldn't be surprised if things get messy Russia and China tangle again. China is literally surrounded by potential enemies. The may have a massive population but the real kicker is running a massive army. The kicker will be their supply lines.

And as was mentioned right now China depends heavily on their exports and foreign business. The sudden loss of that trade would be a greater hamper to their war effort then a sudden loss of half their manufacturing plants. No money no weapons period. If I also recall correctly even Chinese military are paid.

The Chinese Navy is not really threat yet but their rapidly modernizing air force is another story.

edited 30th Apr '10 7:42:59 PM by TuefelHundenIV

^^ Nuclear arms are dangerously close to the precipice of obsolescence. The US and Russia both have (though only the US has operationally used) non-nuclear anti-missile missiles.

Not really, MIRVs exist for this reason. The most expensive part of a nuclear missile is the missile, not the warhead. For X MIRVs, you thus need between 4X and 10X interceptors to ensure that nothing gets through, assuming 100% effectiveness of interceptors.

Nuclear weapons delivery by air has been obsolete since 1962.

If by "obsolete" you mean "non-optimal", then yes, if by "obsolete" you mean "obsolete", then no.

Stealth bombers and SEAD aircraft exist to make strategic nuclear bombing practical.

Stealth bombers like the B-2 are too expensive to send on nuclear (or even conventional) suicide runs.

They're not suicide runs because they're stealth and they don't operate independently of the rest of the military. If it's come to Nuclear war, loosing some stealth bombers is by far the least of your concerns, and the priority is instead "trying to destroy as much of the opponents strategic arsenal while it is still on the ground". A B2 Spirit is worth FAR less than a city of six million.

On a national scale, I think we need to be working on defenses to cancel out Nukes. Some form of system that can be used to react to and destroy any sort of nuclear delivery system that is airborne with a response time of minutes at most.

I disagree so hard. Leaving aside that removing nuclear deterrence puts conventional warfare back on the table, you're also pissing off:

• Russia
• China
• India
• Pakistan

They aren't going to stand by and just let you deploy a system that will make their strategic defense completely obsolete but still leave THEM completely open to the slaughter if the USA ever snaps, you're going to trigger yet another protracted and expensive arms race that will lead to the rapid militarization of space.

The only way you can sign off on something like this and expect cooperation is of every nuclear power is involved, and they are all given the keys to the system.

Effectively, it would have to be a joint effort between Russia, China, USA, Britain and France. India and Pakistan sold separately. The system can can be deactivated by any one of these nuclear powers on executive authorization. Why all this? Because it does the following:

• Intercepts missiles from accidental or rogue launches.
• Intercepts the missiles from nation states we don't want in the Nuclear Club, i.e. Iran, North Korea.
• Preserves the current nuclear deterrence enjoyed by the nuclear states
• Fosters international trust, the whole project is a display of international goodwill from all parties involved.
• Prevents a costly and lengthy Cold War Mk II from forming, which neither Russia nor the United States can really afford right now.

edited 30th Apr '10 9:24:43 PM by adam_grif

^ MIRVs have one critical weakness that is being exploited by newer anti-ballistic missile systems. It's flight path. Modern missiles like the S-300 and SM-3 can conceivably intercept an ICBM containing a MIRV payload in its ascent and transit phases before the warheads are separated in the terminal phase.

Stealth bombers are stealthy to radar, but not the human eye. To stop a B-2 all it takes is a Mi G pilot with a good set of eyes and a good aim with his gun (since missile lock is unlikely). B-2s cannot outrun or outturn fighters. (at least anything built since 1947.)

SEAD can stop low level defenses but it cannot suppress an air force. If you cannot establish air supremacy over the combat theatre, one way or another your bombers are held in check.

The Indians have a no first use policy, they are not interested in shaking their nuclear saber. The Pakistanis are too blinkered on India to give a damn likewise. The Chinese and Russians are damned if we do damned if we don't anyways so let's make interceptors that can do its job reliably.

As a final footnote, Mutually Assured Destruction is called Mac Namara's Folly for a reason. It was extremely vulnerable to both Science and Technology marching on. To say nothing of the fact MAD would probably never be employed anyways due to that.

Besides eventually someone must win the arms race or else what's the point in racing?

We still need to get to work on those orbital KEW.

I want an Ion Cannon.

Laser sats seem like they would work okay. I think the Soviets tried to launch one but it was upside down and exploded, so it's perfectly fair for us to send one up.

Laser sats have 2 big advantages over orbital KEWs.

1) Their "ammo" is only limited by the power on board whether it's solar panels, a nuclear reactor or whatever.

2) Their attacks when it comes to orbital range are effectively instant. There is no defense, no warning when you are less than 1000km away. (And the inverse-cube law doesn't do that much damage to the beam compared to say 10,000 km)

Responding in this thread to keep the other one on topic.

In the current economic climate, doubling or even tripling the size of the US military would do wonders on the uber high unemployment numbers for people age 18-35.

Do you honestly think that would be good for the economy given that their wages are all drawn from taxpayer money? Not to mention that a large part of military spending consists of breaking windows.