Our Brittle Navy
-
I don't think anyone truly knows what happens when you pit state of the art machines (e.g., aircraft carriers, AI guided missiles, modern fighters, etc.) against each other in large numbers. I don't think that's happened since WW2.
Could you imagine how fast the destruction of treasure would be?
-
I'm too lazy to look up the size of the Russian and Chinese navies. AFAIK, the Chinese have one aircraft carrier - that was bought from India and is still in the process of serious refit. Do the Russians have one?
However, carriers strike me as being especially vulnerable, potentially negating their "projection of power" advantage.
Also, considering how that face of military long-distance engagement has changed in the last 20 years (drones, etc), is there really a place for a navy in today's world? Other than as a vehicle to deliver cruise missiles (submarines) and soldiers (marines), that is.
-
I'm too lazy to look up the size of the Russian and Chinese navies. AFAIK, the Chinese have one aircraft carrier - that was bought from India and is still in the process of serious refit. Do the Russians have one?
However, carriers strike me as being especially vulnerable, potentially negating their "projection of power" advantage.
Also, considering how that face of military long-distance engagement has changed in the last 20 years (drones, etc), is there really a place for a navy in today's world? Other than as a vehicle to deliver cruise missiles (submarines) and soldiers (marines), that is.
@George-K said in Our Brittle Navy:
I'm too lazy to look up the size of the Russian and Chinese navies. AFAIK, the Chinese have one aircraft carrier - that was bought from India and is still in the process of serious refit. Do the Russians have one?
However, carriers strike me as being especially vulnerable, potentially negating their "projection of power" advantage.
Also, considering how that face of military long-distance engagement has changed in the last 20 years (drones, etc), is there really a place for a navy in today's world? Other than as a vehicle to deliver cruise missiles (submarines) and soldiers (marines), that is.
They are vulnerable, but there is nothing like the ability to park an airport 20 miles off the shore of your opponent, and bomb the crap out of him for thirty days without resupply from mainland America.
-
I don't think anyone truly knows what happens when you pit state of the art machines (e.g., aircraft carriers, AI guided missiles, modern fighters, etc.) against each other in large numbers. I don't think that's happened since WW2.
Could you imagine how fast the destruction of treasure would be?
@xenon said in Our Brittle Navy:
I don't think anyone truly knows what happens when you pit state of the art machines (e.g., aircraft carriers, AI guided missiles, modern fighters, etc.) against each other in large numbers. I don't think that's happened since WW2.
We know what would happen, it would end very quickly.
Our state of the art machines so outnumber the rest of the world that the battle would end in a matter of days, maybe minutes.
After that, low-level conflict could last a long time, we have seen many examples of this in the world over the last 75 years.
Of course if China has been sneaking nuclear weapons into the USA for the last 10 years things could go the other way. But then that wouldn't be pitting state of the art machines against each other.
Unless, of course, we have been sneaking nuclear weapons into China for the last 10 years.
-
Well, Iran has an aircraft carrier, (or at least a fake US one)!!
They built a fake one to (possibly) use in their upcoming training games
-
@xenon said in Our Brittle Navy:
I don't think anyone truly knows what happens when you pit state of the art machines (e.g., aircraft carriers, AI guided missiles, modern fighters, etc.) against each other in large numbers. I don't think that's happened since WW2.
We know what would happen, it would end very quickly.
Our state of the art machines so outnumber the rest of the world that the battle would end in a matter of days, maybe minutes.
After that, low-level conflict could last a long time, we have seen many examples of this in the world over the last 75 years.
Of course if China has been sneaking nuclear weapons into the USA for the last 10 years things could go the other way. But then that wouldn't be pitting state of the art machines against each other.
Unless, of course, we have been sneaking nuclear weapons into China for the last 10 years.
@Copper said in Our Brittle Navy:
@xenon said in Our Brittle Navy:
I don't think anyone truly knows what happens when you pit state of the art machines (e.g., aircraft carriers, AI guided missiles, modern fighters, etc.) against each other in large numbers. I don't think that's happened since WW2.
We know what would happen, it would end very quickly.
Our state of the art machines so outnumber the rest of the world that the battle would end in a matter of days, maybe minutes.
After that, low-level conflict could last a long time, we have seen many examples of this in the world over the last 75 years.
Of course if China has been sneaking nuclear weapons into the USA for the last 10 years things could go the other way. But then that wouldn't be pitting state of the art machines against each other.
Unless, of course, we have been sneaking nuclear weapons into China for the last 10 years.
The first nuke would be the beginning of the end.
Read much on the Cuban Missile Crisis? We weren't just going to nuke Russia, we were going to make sure that every nation on the face of the earth that had nukes and was not a U.S. ally, would be receiving enough nukes to bomb them back to the Stone Age.
-
@Copper said in Our Brittle Navy:
@xenon said in Our Brittle Navy:
I don't think anyone truly knows what happens when you pit state of the art machines (e.g., aircraft carriers, AI guided missiles, modern fighters, etc.) against each other in large numbers. I don't think that's happened since WW2.
We know what would happen, it would end very quickly.
Our state of the art machines so outnumber the rest of the world that the battle would end in a matter of days, maybe minutes.
After that, low-level conflict could last a long time, we have seen many examples of this in the world over the last 75 years.
Of course if China has been sneaking nuclear weapons into the USA for the last 10 years things could go the other way. But then that wouldn't be pitting state of the art machines against each other.
Unless, of course, we have been sneaking nuclear weapons into China for the last 10 years.
The first nuke would be the beginning of the end.
Read much on the Cuban Missile Crisis? We weren't just going to nuke Russia, we were going to make sure that every nation on the face of the earth that had nukes and was not a U.S. ally, would be receiving enough nukes to bomb them back to the Stone Age.
@Jolly this brings up an interesting question.
Say you’re the chief executive and you learn that bombs are on their way to your country. There’s nothing you can do at this point, all major cities have been targeted and then some.
This is a hypothetical so bear with me - and I’m making it cleaner than it would be.
What do you do as the person with the finger on the trigger?
No one knows the threshold concretely for nuclear winter, but let’s say you know that the chances go up by an order of magnitude if you respond (IOW the end of major life on earth).
Do you launch? Let’s say you already know it’s over for your country one way or the other.
Now obviously a strong posture of MAD is right before the bombs launch. Is it still the right thing to do after?
(Understandable) revenge vs. ending life on earth
-
@Jolly this brings up an interesting question.
Say you’re the chief executive and you learn that bombs are on their way to your country. There’s nothing you can do at this point, all major cities have been targeted and then some.
This is a hypothetical so bear with me - and I’m making it cleaner than it would be.
What do you do as the person with the finger on the trigger?
No one knows the threshold concretely for nuclear winter, but let’s say you know that the chances go up by an order of magnitude if you respond (IOW the end of major life on earth).
Do you launch? Let’s say you already know it’s over for your country one way or the other.
Now obviously a strong posture of MAD is right before the bombs launch. Is it still the right thing to do after?
(Understandable) revenge vs. ending life on earth
@xenon said in Our Brittle Navy:
@Jolly this brings up an interesting question.
Say you’re the chief executive and you learn that bombs are on their way to your country. There’s nothing you can do at this point, all major cities have been targeted and then some.
This is a hypothetical so bear with me - and I’m making it cleaner than it would be.
What do you do as the person with the finger on the trigger?
No one knows the threshold concretely for nuclear winter, but let’s say you know that the chances go up by an order of magnitude if you respond (IOW the end of major life on earth).
Do you launch? Let’s say you already know it’s over for your country one way or the other.
Now obviously a strong posture of MAD is right before the bombs launch. Is it still the right thing to do after?
(Understandable) revenge vs. ending life on earth
You launch. And you follow JFK's example. You want to leave no enemies with nuclear capability left standing.
We came so close under Kennedy, the bombers were fueled, nukes loaded and sitting on the runways with engines running.
-
@Jolly this brings up an interesting question.
Say you’re the chief executive and you learn that bombs are on their way to your country. There’s nothing you can do at this point, all major cities have been targeted and then some.
This is a hypothetical so bear with me - and I’m making it cleaner than it would be.
What do you do as the person with the finger on the trigger?
No one knows the threshold concretely for nuclear winter, but let’s say you know that the chances go up by an order of magnitude if you respond (IOW the end of major life on earth).
Do you launch? Let’s say you already know it’s over for your country one way or the other.
Now obviously a strong posture of MAD is right before the bombs launch. Is it still the right thing to do after?
(Understandable) revenge vs. ending life on earth
@xenon @Jolly What was that famous book about a situation where a US plane gets orders to prepare to nuclear bomb USSR, and misses the "turn back" message?
I will not spoil it for those who have not read, but the US president has to make a tough decision.
I remember being interested in it, because I was interested in language, and the translators had a pretty big role to play in the book.
-
@xenon @Jolly What was that famous book about a situation where a US plane gets orders to prepare to nuclear bomb USSR, and misses the "turn back" message?
I will not spoil it for those who have not read, but the US president has to make a tough decision.
I remember being interested in it, because I was interested in language, and the translators had a pretty big role to play in the book.
@taiwan_girl It could be. I heard the scenario in Sam Harris' podcast on his conversation with William Perry. (U.S. Sec Def in the 90's and an analyst during the Cuban missile crisis). Highly active in nuclear non-proliferation now.
-
-
I found it. The book is Fail Safe.
"The title refers to the "fail-safe point" used by the Strategic Air Command (SAC) to prevent an SAC bomber from accidentally crossing into Soviet airspace and precipitating a nuclear war. In general, a fail safe ensures that, as far as possible, the machine or process will not make things worse in the event of something going wrong. The title's irony is that the nature of SAC's fail-safe protocols could make things worse, causing the event it was intended to prevent."
-
@xenon @Jolly What was that famous book about a situation where a US plane gets orders to prepare to nuclear bomb USSR, and misses the "turn back" message?
I will not spoil it for those who have not read, but the US president has to make a tough decision.
I remember being interested in it, because I was interested in language, and the translators had a pretty big role to play in the book.
-
The Soviets always thought they could survive a nuclear exchange. Don't know what the Chinese think....
-
The Soviets always thought they could survive a nuclear exchange. Don't know what the Chinese think....
@Jolly said in Our Brittle Navy:
The Soviets always thought they could survive a nuclear exchange. Don't know what the Chinese think....
Well, if you just look at population numbers, mainland China would have a greater number of survivors.
Horrible to think, but if 99% of the people are die, 1% of 1.5 billion is more than 1% of 300 million in the US.
Maybe they would have to bring back Chairman Mao's backyard steel furnaces used during the Great Leap Forward.
