Buying US jets

[wyly]

Does this mean you believe all countries should have them? That the world would be a safer place it they did?

you could make an argument for and against the idea...

I think in most cases when a country has the capability to build a nuke like this they are usually quite stable politically and not prone to lash out because they know the consequences of doing it...N Korea despite some nutty leadership still understands the risks involved...

[wyly]

The English longbow completely changed the power dynamic amongst the peasants it ment they could kill knights. which is one hell of a thing for a peasant to do. It was the begining of the end for the knight. Muskets in the 1400's sucked give me a bow over that anyday. IT wasn't until the 1600's that the longbow stopped being used.

I don't dispute the bow worked great for peasants but the musket was better, the bow took many years of training before proficiency was realized, a peasant could be trained to kill with a musket in a day...the arquebus as the early versions were weren't the best but by 1420's they were deadly by 1500 they were dominated battlefields...long term use of the bow into the 1600's was more because as a peasants weapon it was inexpensive, a musket unless it was supplied by the king/general would be a very expensive weapon for a peasant to buy on his own...

[Moonbox]

from the introduction and efficient mass production of the musket early in the 15th century the age of fully armored knights was over by the end of the century...the reign of the battleship ended in one day...

The fully armored knight was more of a prestige/cultural thing than anything at the best of times. It was never really a cost-effective weapon and they could always be outwitted by competent opponents in less expensive equipment. Gunpowder took hundreds of years to eliminate armor from the battlefield and it took the repeating rifle/machine gun to get cavalry off the field. The curassiers were still wearing steel breastplates at Waterloo.

As for the battleship, its preeminence was over well before WW2 started and at least the USA and Japan knew it. Even then, you can't truly say they were made obsolete. Cruisers now fulfill many of the same roles.

hmm from my brother-in-law the naval warfare expert(25yrs of weapons systems, electrical engineer) "we know where all their ships are they know where all our ships are" there is no hiding,(submarines more questionable)...plus the latest generations of missiles once launched are fire and forget, they operate independently, they can identify their target in a crowd from altitude, dive to the deck and take evasive action on the run in, all independently, these missiles have their own eyes and ears...

What does your brother-in-law think about the Chinese and Indians building their own aircraft carriers? Seems kind of silly if they know they can be sunk by a million dollar missile right?

the US was never able to stop the scud missile attacks, the famed Patriot missile defense had at best one possible hit on the primitive Scuds...

Scud missiles were being tracked by 1980's computer equipment. My Blackberry has more processing power.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Moonbox

[Wilber]

you could make an argument for and against the idea...

I think in most cases when a country has the capability to build a nuke like this they are usually quite stable politically and not prone to lash out because they know the consequences of doing it...N Korea despite some nutty leadership still understands the risks involved...

You better pray that they do. Nuclear weapons only have value if people actually believe you will use them. Just having them isn't enough if no one thinks you might. If nukes are your only option, you are limited to either using a sledge hammer to pound a tack or doing nothing.

[DogOnPorch]

MoonBox: Scud missiles were being tracked by 1980's computer equipment. My Blackberry has more processing power.

That's for sure...the new ABMs and Lasers are a different critters altogether. The Israelis and Americans have been co-developing some pretty incredible stuff. One system is capable of hitting motar rounds and slower moving artillery shells...plus your typical Katushya. The Patriot was/is actually a SAM with modified abilities to take on targets like a SCUD. Very 1991...not 2010. New models are in the works...

Excellent posts...all of them here, MoonBox. Especially this bit...

One problem with the cruise missile is that it has to be able to actually target a carrier. It's not simply a matter of saying, "Hey, there's a carrier 400 miles off our coast, let's wax it!". They need a good way to find it and target it, and it's standard practice for any modern armed force to take out the eyes and ears of the enemy before moving big assets into the field of fire. This in itself is a defense against cruise missiles.

Can we say Elite Republican Guard?...not so elite without support or command control.

[DogOnPorch]

You better pray that they do. Nuclear weapons only have value if people actually believe you will use them. Just having them isn't enough if no one thinks you might. If nukes are your only option, you are limited to either using a sledge hammer to pound a tack or doing nothing.

Iran is in the 1950s in terms of its abilities to cause trouble with nukes. Their Safir ICBM scientific civilain rocket is the horse to watch in this regard. A SCUD on steroids. While it probably wouldn't stand a chance against future ABM systems if used as a ballistic weapon, there is always the possibility Iran or N Korea attempting to put a nuke into orbit (Read: scientific research satellite) which is another problem altogether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nex2rn82mhI

The far more likely scenario from Iran still would be terroists with a very large and dirty fusion weapon on a container ship....100kt or so would be nasty even if out at sea and not in some harbour.