|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mate, AEGIS was never intended to stop Intercontinental Missiles. It's a ship protection system against ship-ship missiles and air-ship. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
Quote:
So be it 60 or 50 km. Still, momentum doesn't matter. It's not a movie where the pilot has to see other pilot's tail to hit him.
Of course not, but each jet can fire more than one missile. In effect this is like a multi-warhead ICBM. With multiple ones launched chances to hit them all decrease considerably. Therefore not "impenetrable".
I'm willing to bet that the RS-24 is much cheaper than AEGIS, just because it is my opinion offense always cheaper than defense.
Quote:
And I don't need to explain why would it fail. Besides, a nuclear war will never happen, I think. Who would be mad enough to destroy their countries? Since firing such missiles automatically means the other side also does it.
So "impenetrable" obviously doesn't take massive nuclear holocaust into consideration, but why should it? AFAIK nothing can stop that, should we disband armies and stack nukes?
If a nuke can get in, of course a normal bomb can also get in. However I think that a normal bomb will also trigger a nuclear strike, so if anything, it is nuclear deterrence that makes them impenetrable fortresses, not anti-air defenses.
Quote:
The only bad thing is: it's immobile, can't be used in aggression. And that's why I think humanity is going in wrong direction. Because aggression is still top priority.
Hmm you know there are submarines much closer to the enemy nation than mainland which can launch ICBMs too right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:33 PM |
|
|
Ah, that AEGIS. Sorry for confusion, I was obviously thinking about Aegis Combat System all the time. (the one mounted on ships.)
Quote:
Of course not, but each jet can fire more than one missile. In effect this is like a multi-warhead ICBM. With multiple ones launched chances to hit them all decrease considerably. Therefore not "impenetrable".
It still has to pierce natural armor (they are underground..).. Normally, guided bombs do it, but if your bomber can't even get near that 100km radius of AA battery protection.. don't forget that it's 2 billion $ against a few million worth of missiles, too.
Quote:
I'm willing to bet that the RS-24 is much cheaper than AEGIS, just because it is my opinion offense always cheaper than defense.
Development of such missile is cheaper, but it's hard to judge on battlefield. If AEGIS stops 10 of such missiles per platform, it's cheaper. Hard to say, it never happened.
Offense cheaper than defense? So a battleship is cheaper than a minefield?
Quote:
If a nuke can get in, of course a normal bomb can also get in.
Really hard to say. Depends on the number of missiles of each country. A specialized anti-missile system against a massive missile attack.. well, I guess the one with better technology and more missiles would win 
Does it change the fact that missile protection is necessary?
Quote:
Hmm you know there are submarines much closer to the enemy nation than mainland which can launch ICBMs too right?
Yeah. Those are in heavy decline (my beloved Typhoon class subs, for example.. some already scrapped) but let's assume they are popular. Don't forget however that:
1. they have to get there undetected, which is easy only on "hunt for the red october"
2. they have to succed in firing without interception
3. The missiles still have to follow a ballistic trajectory and can be shot down.
4. Such subs are awfully expensive and were never mass produced, so it would not overcome a simple defense system.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:34 PM |
|
|
The most important thing to remember about war is that it hurts the vast majority of the people by destroying lives and real resources, and benefits a few politicians and the military-industrial complex - whatever else the war may do.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:35 PM |
|
|
|
Exactly. It does nothing good at all.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:37 PM |
|
|
I wouldn't say that. Most wars are indeed bad, but a few may be necessary - such as in self-defence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wouldn't say that. Most wars are indeed bad, but a few may be necessary - such as in self-defence.
Does that mean it was Iraq who declared war on US?
Quote:
Offense cheaper than defense? So a battleship is cheaper than a minefield?
How is this a comparison?Battleship and minefield both fulfill offensive and defensive roles 
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:43 PM |
|
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:45 PM |
|
|
Give me an example of war where nation declares a war to defend itself (any war by US doesn't count, WW2 might be one of the few cases but still).
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:55 PM |
|
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
Yea, but that's what they claim...
But name a "defensive war" that was not intentionally provoked
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:02 PM |
|
|
There is no such thing as defensive war, such as you can't play chess where there are only black.
A war needs an attacker and a defender to be a war.
Sorry mvass, that's a logical fail.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ah, that AEGIS. Sorry for confusion, I was obviously thinking about Aegis Combat System all the time. (the one mounted on ships.)
oh lol no wonder we were confused at each other
Quote:
It still has to pierce natural armor (they are underground..).. Normally, guided bombs do it, but if your bomber can't even get near that 100km radius of AA battery protection.. don't forget that it's 2 billion $ against a few million worth of missiles, too.
The bomber usually can, because it gets cloaked by the escorting fighters.
Quote:
Development of such missile is cheaper, but it's hard to judge on battlefield. If AEGIS stops 10 of such missiles per platform, it's cheaper. Hard to say, it never happened.
Offense cheaper than defense? So a battleship is cheaper than a minefield?
10 missiles? They can't even stop 1 multi-warhead missile with higher than 60% chance or something like that (was on TV). 10 missiles would be around 60 separate warheads, that's kinda impossible. This is because most of them will become cloaked because of the others.
Quote:
Does it change the fact that missile protection is necessary?
Yes, because IMO it is worthless. Nuclear deterrence is the factor stopping them from attacking, not the defense. Even with normal bombs, despite what some would say that would not escalate into an all-out nuclear war.
I for sure, if I was the leader, would not tolerate "normal bombs" on my country and would respond with nukes even if the target has nukes itself.
Quote:
1. they have to get there undetected, which is easy only on "hunt for the red october"
2. they have to succed in firing without interception
3. The missiles still have to follow a ballistic trajectory and can be shot down.
4. Such subs are awfully expensive and were never mass produced, so it would not overcome a simple defense system.
They aren't popular? They are one of the leading in USA nuclear deposit (I think), in France I think they are the ONLY ICBM nuclear storage of the nation.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:03 PM |
|
|
If by "defensive war" you mean a preemptive strike read the master post.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:06 PM |
|
|
Also Doomforge, you know they are researching the Railgun already and have prototypes, and want to deploy it on battleships.
Now how exactly do you plan to stop this "offense"?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:08 PM |
|
|
yeah, pre-emptive attack, let's attack them before they have a real reason to declare a war at us
Death, anti-ballistic system is still evolving, while missiles are in development long and pretty much reached the peak of their ability. Don't forget that
EDIT: railgun, yes, but not on battleships, battleships are dead. They were designed to fit the USS Zumwalt Class destroyer (or rather, the Zumwalt was created to eventually fit rail guns) and the (yet to be named) CGX project (or CGNX, depending on whether the ship will be nuclear powered or not). Battleships, despite their glory, are a swimming pile of junk, not necessary on current battlefield. I absolutely love them, but I agree that they have no place in current warfare.
Besides, it's a weapon of the future. Not developed yet because the coils are basically a piece of molten junk after a couple of shots. Once they become reality, we can talk. Right now, it's all about missiles, jets and good old tank/artillery/support attack.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:15 PM |
|
|
You only need 1 good shot in most cases, and can fire from miles away.
Can't find the vid I saw on TV 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:17 PM |
|
|
It's sick expensive to melt the cannon after just 1 shot. In such scenario, missiles are still better.
Don't worry, I know about railguns. We've discussed it on battleship forums over and over.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:18 PM |
|
|
Yes but there's some things that only a railgun can do.
I think this is off topic though. Sorry for that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:31 PM |
|
|
Right. I'm a bit loathe to go into this, and, people, we are not discussing the technicalities of warfare, but the ethics and morality of war.
I think, from today's point of view there is no "special" morality or ethics for war. Look at a normal society. There is a law, everyone has to abide to, there is a police in case someone does not. There are trials to determine blame and so on.
The ethics and morality that rule societies are true for the society of nations as well which should be the next aim.
Consequently, what we need is a police or peace force with the sole control of means for warfare (and as there are differences in nations's laws for private ownership of weapons there would be differences in the view on nations' ownerships of weapons as well.)
Naturally, the international police force overrides authority of single countries in case of a conflict. If not all countries are following international law, in case of a breach of conduct the police force should have all the rights the normal police has within a country. This includes warfare.
Police force should be independent from UN and UN security council.
Since we HAVE the UN there is no reason whatsoever for independent warfare of countries. If a country IS attacking another country, the police force obviously must react and stop the war. After that the warring parties would have to face a trial before an independent court. I'm pretty sure, that in the first Gulf War, an independent court would have given Kuwait part of the blame for provoking Iraq (and specifically Saddam) into rash action, but of course action is action.
Anyway, what we need is an international police force worth the name, with all necessary authority, working independent from all nations.
So, no special morality and ethics of war TODAY.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:32 PM |
|
|
|
I imagine UAV"s (computer drones) will be an interesting twist in military strategy in the years to come as they further develop. As long as a human being is inside an aircraft, there are going to be limits on how fast they can make them, but take the human out, and you're looking at a lot more potential.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
