Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
Che,
Do you also believe, as Putin does, that the United States orchestrated the conflict in Georgia to benefit John McCain?
Do you care about georgia ?
- Thread starter freedom
- Start date
Che,
Do you also believe, as Putin does, that the United States orchestrated the conflict in Georgia to benefit John McCain?
Tug McGroin
Senior
This was your opening statement;
Assigned to a Carrier Air Wing during Operation Desert Storm, our highest priority was to provide security and protection to our Carrier Battle Group. We were continually briefed on intelligence information that indicated a possible attack against US or ally naval/merchant/commercial vessels. If there had actually been an attack on a British Carrier during the first Gulf War, as you suggest, I would have been fully briefed on the event.
I understand, it happens to all of us. I assume you are speaking of the Falklands War as I believe the Falkins War was fought in a universe far, far away.
Your assertion that a British Carrier was “taken out†by a $7,000 missile during the Falklands war is compelling evidence of your faint recollection of world history.
The Argentinian military NEVER “took out†or sank a British Carrier during the Falklands War. The HMS Invincible and Hermes remained in full, active commission during the Falklands War and were effective in bringing a quick 40+/- day resolution to the conflict.. The $7,000 missile you speak of is actually the $350,000 Exocet anti-ship missile.
I’d love to engage you in a conversation on how easy it would be to disable the Strategic Defense Initiative. I feel confident you wouldn’t have a clue.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
The best deterrence is if ALL nations of the world have them.
C
Cosworth
Guest
OK, so it was not a carrier. Not sure where I thought of that.
HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.
Point being that a missile destroyer could be destroyed by a very inexpensive missile. I meant to write $70,000 not $7,000. I am relatively certain examples can be purchased for quite a bit less than the $350k you quoted but I cannot find a price list of the exocet anywhere. I guess it is not like they are sold a K-mart. Regardless of if they cost $7k, $70k or $350k .... seems a pretty cheap way to take out a destroyer don't you think? I am pretty sure the destroyer cost quite a bit more and had a substantial amount of technology with which to defend it's self with.
Cost not with standing, the point is, very advanced technology has a way of being defeated by very inexpensive and some what privative technology. Should be continue to develop some sort of missile defense system, do you not think the Russians or the Chinese (or who ever else becomes the enemy de jure will develop a counter measure?
As for counter measures, here is one possibility.
Decoy issue
another set of critics
HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.
Point being that a missile destroyer could be destroyed by a very inexpensive missile. I meant to write $70,000 not $7,000. I am relatively certain examples can be purchased for quite a bit less than the $350k you quoted but I cannot find a price list of the exocet anywhere. I guess it is not like they are sold a K-mart. Regardless of if they cost $7k, $70k or $350k .... seems a pretty cheap way to take out a destroyer don't you think? I am pretty sure the destroyer cost quite a bit more and had a substantial amount of technology with which to defend it's self with.
Cost not with standing, the point is, very advanced technology has a way of being defeated by very inexpensive and some what privative technology. Should be continue to develop some sort of missile defense system, do you not think the Russians or the Chinese (or who ever else becomes the enemy de jure will develop a counter measure?
As for counter measures, here is one possibility.
Decoy issue
another set of critics
If all nations were on the same page it could work.....
Are you aware that the missile has history of not detonating?
Best countermeasure is dropping the bird carrying the missile before it gets into range.
C
Cosworth
Guest
I guessed as much. While reading about the Falklands war I read something about one of the attacks where one of the Exocets did not detonate.
I do not think that really affects my argument. I view this as playing "Whack-a-Mole". You are the guy with the Mallet and the terrorists or the guys hurling the nukes at you is the mole. The mole only has to get through once or twice to be successful. You on the other hand need to whack him every single time.
Given the different delivery methods for a nuke (Bombers, subs, ICBM, cruise) I find it difficult to believe that a hand full would not get through and ruin our day.
For every action there is a reaction. For every development, there is a counter measure that someone devises. We will spend billions upon billions of dollars for this pipe dream of a defense system that will become out dated in a heart beat when someone develops a counter measure to defeat it.
The hole idea behind MAD is that everyone is scared of each other. Assuming the theory is true, when one side becomes impervious to attack, they can become overly brave and the other sides may decide they have nothing to loose. That strikes me as far more unstable than the situation we are in now, as screwed up as that is.
I do not think that really affects my argument. I view this as playing "Whack-a-Mole". You are the guy with the Mallet and the terrorists or the guys hurling the nukes at you is the mole. The mole only has to get through once or twice to be successful. You on the other hand need to whack him every single time.
Given the different delivery methods for a nuke (Bombers, subs, ICBM, cruise) I find it difficult to believe that a hand full would not get through and ruin our day.
For every action there is a reaction. For every development, there is a counter measure that someone devises. We will spend billions upon billions of dollars for this pipe dream of a defense system that will become out dated in a heart beat when someone develops a counter measure to defeat it.
The hole idea behind MAD is that everyone is scared of each other. Assuming the theory is true, when one side becomes impervious to attack, they can become overly brave and the other sides may decide they have nothing to loose. That strikes me as far more unstable than the situation we are in now, as screwed up as that is.
The Bagfather
Senior
Just a technical point: IMHO you wouldn't wake up if you were "POOFED"
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 900
How could I spin While the Soviets were no saints and no fans of mine, they invaded Afghanistan after being provoked by numerous cross border attacks (at the behest of the U.S.) by the mujahadeen (alQaida...or what ever). In the U.S. media, the Mujas were portrayed as these victimized freedom fighters. Naturally all this can be dismissed as cold war high-jinks and understandable for the times.?
Sounds like an excuse to me. It also sounds like a fantasy that quite frankly makes no sense. Why would the Soviets in response to those "cross border attacks" go into Kabul and kill the president who was their communist ally? There are other problems with this little fantasy of yours. The main reason for the Soviets going into Afghanistan had more to do with propping up the increasingly unpopular communist government in Kabul. Not to stop cross border raids. By the way, where exactly did these raids take place and who carried them out?
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 900
Georgia didn't miscalculate anything. They were undoubtedly "advised" into doing what they did in order to measure Russian military response and capabilities, or to distract Russia while preparations for a possible attack on Iran are under way.
Russian behaviour in Chechnya? Who ever said the Russians were anything but tough as nails, ruthless fighters. The U.S. military has been victorious in conflicts against military power houses like Panama, Granada, Iraq. I wonder what the outcome would be if the U.S. ever had to fight the Russians, mano a mano?
I heard Putin say the same thing recently. Sorry if I have a hard time believing the likes of him. Obviously you do however. I nearly feel out of my chair when Bush said he "looked" into Putins soul.
That tough as "nails" approach is one of the main reasons the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. Their idea of hearts and minds was to destroy any village that they took fire from. Created a lot of holy warriors in the process.
I could say the same thing about Russia's forays into Chechnya and Georgia. Here's one known little fact about Georgia. The Russian Air Force took quite few loses in spite of the fact the Georgians having a limited air defense capability.
Since both the USA and Russia have nukes any conventional war between the two runs the huge risk of going nuclear. However since you brought it up lets look at the conventional capabilities of the two. Look at pictures of Russian tanks in Georgia; see all those boxes on them. That's appliqué armor; Russian tanks have this bad habit of going up like Bic lighters when hit. Same goes for their APC's, that's why you seen Russian soldiers riding on top of them. They don't want to get burned to death. Compare the F-22 to the best Russia has and there's no comparison. A Russian SU-27 or MIG-29 would not know an F-22's even there until an AIM-120 slammed into their aircraft.
P.S. Could you tell me what the point would be in "distracting" Russia would be for a possible attack on Iran?
