DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Laugh it up folks! Now do you have a VIABLE and COST EFFECTIVE solution to the problems associated with Arctic defense? You misunderstand...I'm for the things...just not exclusively. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 You misunderstand...I'm for the things...just not exclusively. I am not suggesting they be the single line of defense dude. I am suggesting they be the front line. The expendable production that does not endanger our civilian or military population. Quote
Remiel Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Laugh it up folks! Now do you have a VIABLE and COST EFFECTIVE solution to the problems associated with Arctic defense? There are plenty of methods of doing things which could be called "viable" and "cost effective" while at the same time being foolhardy or morally bankrupt. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 There are plenty of methods of doing things which could be called "viable" and "cost effective" while at the same time being foolhardy or morally bankrupt. Okay. So what do you think we should do? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 I am not suggesting they be the single line of defense dude. I am suggesting they be the front line. The expendable production that does not endanger our civilian or military population. But that's the problem....it would do just that. Hell, if all you want is area denial.....use mines dispensed as cluster munitions from the air. Oh.....wait.....Canada banned mines...right? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 But that's the problem....it would do just that. Hell, if all you want is area denial.....use mines dispensed as cluster munitions from the air. Oh.....wait.....Canada banned mines...right? Yeah we did, and for good reason. There are lots of folks who are not fond of cluster weapons either. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Yeah we did, and for good reason. There are lots of folks who are not fond of cluster weapons either. That would change pretty fast if The Hun are at your doorstep. Don't worry, you can buy 'em from us, just like you buy missiles and bombs! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Yeah we did, and for good reason. There are lots of folks who are not fond of cluster weapons either. Mines are terribly effective when it comes to defending a position. Cluster weapon is also a misleading term. Not all cluster weapons deploy mines. ( ) Generally, the fellow on the receiving end is not fond of cluster bombs. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 That would change pretty fast if The Hun are at your doorstep.Don't worry, you can buy 'em from us, just like you buy missiles and bombs! Yeah no doubt about that. Another flaw in our system. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 ....Generally, the fellow on the receiving end is not fond of cluster bombs. They sure as hell aren't....cluster munitions are the cat's pajamas when it comes to deployment, saturation, and force multiplication. When the bomblets disperse over an area it's toe poppin' time for sure. Disclaimer: I used to manufacture CBU's for God and Country. Salute! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 They sure as hell aren't....cluster munitions are the cat's pajamas when it comes to deployment, saturation, and force multiplication. When the bomblets disperse over an area it's toe poppin' time for sure. Disclaimer: I used to manufacture CBU's for God and Country. Salute! They are effective that is for sure. Isn't there a cruise missile deployment system as well? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 They are effective that is for sure. Isn't there a cruise missile deployment system as well? A cluster / cannister dispenser can be fitted to nearly any delivery system, even artillery. We even have sub-munitions with millimeter wave technology to discern target profiles and required kill mechanism (fuzing) Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 BC-2004...what do you think of tactical non-nuclear EMP weapons? Too easy to counter or a future threat? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 BC-2004...what do you think of tactical non-nuclear EMP weapons? Too easy to counter or a future threat? To easy to counter.... design for EMP "hardening" went mainstream in the 1980's, so any decent weapons system can withstand the pulse(s). It turns out the "dumb" weapons are inherently EMP proof as well. Digital signals processing has come a long way as well, with multiple survivable modes. War is hell! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 I guess there is still some work being done in the EMP area, though. I saw a video somewhere of a munition deployed much like a cluster weapon except it parachutes over the battlefield while an extra strong EMP is generated and directed by the reflective chute directly downward. Perhaps the pulse is strong enough to defeat hardening...dunno. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 I guess there is still some work being done in the EMP area, though. I saw a video somewhere of a munition deployed much like a cluster weapon except it parachutes over the battlefield while an extra strong EMP is generated and directed by the reflective chute directly downward. Perhaps the pulse is strong enough to defeat hardening...dunno. I think their might be some sucess with "EMP" focused within a certain spectrum. The classic RF pulse won't get the job done with any reliable, military value. If we think of EMP as a crude jamming signal with gain saturation, we can just design around it. A longer pulse width would also be more effective, but that takes oodles of power. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 I think their might be some sucess with "EMP" focused within a certain spectrum. The classic RF pulse won't get the job done with any reliable, military value. If we think of EMP as a crude jamming signal with gain saturation, we can just design around it. A longer pulse width would also be more effective, but that takes oodles of power. An 'exotic' weapon at best, then. Terrorists might like it for civilian use, I suppose. Fry L.A.'s power grid, for example. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 An 'exotic' weapon at best, then. Terrorists might like it for civilian use, I suppose. Fry L.A.'s power grid, for example. Good example....but it is far easier to fry L.A.'s power grid with so called "Blackout Bombs", as were used during the Kosovo bombing campaign and GWI. Basically, long conducting filaments are dispensed from the air onto power plants and step down substations. ZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP! The power plants and substation in my area have been "hardened" for attack from the ground with tall, thick fences of draped metal screens and mesh. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Good example....but it is far easier to fry L.A.'s power grid with so called "Blackout Bombs", as were used during the Kosovo bombing campaign and GWI. Basically, long conducting filaments are dispensed from the air onto power plants and step down substations. ZZZZZZAAAAAPPPPP! The power plants and substation in my area have been "hardened" for attack from the ground with tall, thick fences of draped metal screens and mesh. I used to do stuff like that only in the cable industry...except the culprit to be stopped was microwaves. Various 'head-end' rooms had to be covered in lead sheeting and mesh screen before the gyproc went up. Telus (BC Tel back then) had a bunch of microwave towers that shamelessly polluted the spectrum with their energy. The microwaves would bounce all over the place re: cement buildings forcing the use of massive mesh screens of the right size/frequency to try and cover the huge satellite dishes used back in those days (80s...cough cough). Didn't work that well...might as well wrap the dish in lead and mesh, too...lol. In the end, we ended up actually moving the dishes to another site naturally shielded by cliffs from these towers. A real pain in the rear...but much better cable TV reception 4 the masses. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 I used to do stuff like that only in the cable industry...except the culprit to be stopped was microwaves. Various 'head-end' rooms had to be covered in lead sheeting and mesh screen before the gyproc went up.... We actually have a "cable guy" who's sole job is to ride around in a truck to detect and repair RF breachs from cable heads, lines, ungrounded demarcation blocks, and unterminated splitters. If he doesn't do this, the FCC will fine them for each violation. Microwaves are a lot tougher critter! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Similar rules here. Luckily, this part of BC went in using fibre-optics for many of the main trunks which weren't nearly as problematic as copper lines. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Wild Bill Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 As a techie who works with vintage guitar amps, I can't resist pointing out that vacuum tube technology is immune to EMP! This was a real concern in the 70's, before computers. The USSR was still mostly vacuum tube based in its equipment and thus was much less vulnerable to the effect than the USA. I guess if the balloon ever goes up it will knock us back to the old ways, live gigs, vinyl and no download piracy! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Remiel Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Okay. So what do you think we should do? Well, if we want to defend the Arctic, no matter what way you cut it, we are going to need more assets up there. You want automatons, I would much rather prefer we build real bases. Besides, real bases with real people provide one thing that robots do not: a population living in the area, which could be important in a legal battle. Obviously there are costs involved, but they should be paid for, in time, by the benefits of having the Northwest Passage open. Of course, if the Northwest Passage does not in fact open, Arctic defence will become rather less pressing an issue. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Posted August 4, 2009 Well, if we want to defend the Arctic, no matter what way you cut it, we are going to need more assets up there. You want automatons, I would much rather prefer we build real bases. Besides, real bases with real people provide one thing that robots do not: a population living in the area, which could be important in a legal battle. Obviously there are costs involved, but they should be paid for, in time, by the benefits of having the Northwest Passage open. Of course, if the Northwest Passage does not in fact open, Arctic defence will become rather less pressing an issue. My first choice was in fact a major buildup of forces in the north. I have since come to the conclusion that there are less costly and more efficient ways of getting the job done ASAP. Quote
Army Guy Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 While automated military equipment are becoming the norm on the battlefield, in all 3 elements ground, air, and water they will never replace totally the human element in war. Yes the targets and objectives will change somewhat but you will never escape from the ulitmate objective of war, killing and devasting more of the enemy, while limiting the damage they do to you...Man will never get over his urge to kill his fellowman.... If we all think it's going to be machine again'st machine and combat cas will be kept to a minimum then we've lost all the leasons leaned in all past conflicts... Wars start when a nation believes it can defeat another quickly while keeping the costs down...and finish when one side losses the will to fight, normally when it no longer can take anymore damage or suffer anymore death....No.... automated machine will do nothing more than prolong any future conflict. Some have talked about Costs, automated equipment are very expensive to developed, maintain, and produce....when compared to the cost of say a human life, it is much cheaper to give a soldier a 1200.00 rifle, some boots, a bag full of rations, a blanket , roll of shit paper....a good slap on the ass, piont him towards the bad guys and yell go get him.....I know it sounds cold, but that is what nations do...now and in the future....the cheapest wpn system available is the human....and while they are cheap, bury enough of them and the nation will demand it all stop...thats they way it has been since man first picked up a club and beat his neibour with....and that will be the way in the future....No need to program them, maintain them, just feed them, with food and ammo, and occasionally a roll of TP and there good to go.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.