Hillary claims she is being attacked.

#51
#51
MontereyVol said:
We agree that Aegis was a big loss. :)

Now, I must convince you that Clinton started the chain of events.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would like to see a little more information about Clinton's ties to it - and why it wasn't checked by Congress.

However, I would also be happy to continue the discussion of what kind of loss Aegis was. In a battle scenario, I can see the obvious losses. What are the strategic losses, in your opinion?

I still think that the loss of nuclear technology/losing sole nuclear ownership was a harder strategic hit than losing Aegis technology.... (shot across the bow :) ).
 
#52
#52
Since I cannot post links from the defense net I will probably just leave it at "I'm telling you its true!"

strategic? we could lose control of the straights of Malacca and Hormuz. If China can seal those off, we grind to a halt.

And nuclear is a MAD and Aegis is not. Aegis is like being the big bully in the schoolyard thats able to stomp on any kid around, while Nuclear just kills everyone. So in the end no one wins. With Aegis its winner take all!
 
#53
#53
MontereyVol said:
Since I cannot post links from the defense net I will probably just leave it at "I'm telling you its true!"

strategic? we could lose control of the straights of Malacca and Hormuz. If China can seal those off, we grind to a halt.

And nuclear is a MAD and Aegis is not. Aegis is like being the big bully in the schoolyard thats able to stomp on any kid around, while Nuclear just kills everyone. So in the end no one wins. With Aegis its winner take all!
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons were only MAD after the enemy got them - before that it was truly owning the "playground." I agree that now nuclear forces are nothing more than a "stabilizing" strategic force...but that wasn't the case before they had them. Of course, we're trying to upset that balance with missile defense...but that's another story.

With Aegis, we rule the sea....when they have it, we lose that advantage. I agree. It sucks for the enemy to have that technology. I am more familiar with Aegis as part of an early warning system for nuclear strikes (which makes it positive for the enemy to have - you want your enemies to have excellent early warning capability), but not so much the naval aspects. I'm not very good with the technology...but how would you refer to "military attack capability"...I assume that Aegis destroyers offer both strategic and strike advantages.
 
#54
#54
Well, we could go into the new neutron bombs that supposedly leave an army able to march in 3 days later. I understand we gave them to Israel? Could be the start of the Ezekiel Prophecy? :)

Anyway.... Aegis, is an early warning system, its basically a graphical image of a region that all nodes put their local info into like Google earth but in real time. It gives the Commanders an overall view so they react to whatever they need. Its so sensitive it has to be dialed down in some cases so you do not show birds or water ripples on a basically flat surface. So much information is coming at you that the databases feed into DSS's (Decision Support Systems) to react to threats in a prioritized order. Command can be assumed from any node that is linked to it thus eliminating the vulnerability of losing a command ship.
 
#55
#55
MontereyVol said:
Well, we could go into the new neutron bombs that supposedly leave an army able to march in 3 days later. I understand we gave them to Israel? Could be the start of the Ezekiel Prophecy? :)

Anyway.... Aegis, is an early warning system, its basically a graphical image of a region that all nodes put their local info into like Google earth but in real time. It gives the Commanders an overall view so they react to whatever they need. Its so sensitive it has to be dialed down in some cases so you do not show birds or water ripples on a basically flat surface. So much information is coming at you that the databases feed into DSS's (Decision Support Systems) to react to threats in a prioritized order. Command can be assumed from any node that is linked to it thus eliminating the vulnerability of losing a command ship.
Click to expand...

OK....so it is early warning with not just nuclear strike, but say non-nuclear cruise missile strike on our fleet, for example? I have an idea how it works - but I only have limited familiarity with it in the nuclear early warning context.

So, does the DSS also process "friendly" location/IDs in the threat identification and prioritization algorithm to remove them from the system - or is that an additional feature/element? If a ship assumes command mode, how does it handle this aspect of friendly identification? Does each ship have this processing ability, not just the command node?
 
#56
#56
MontereyVol said:
Well, we could go into the new neutron bombs that supposedly leave an army able to march in 3 days later. I understand we gave them to Israel? Could be the start of the Ezekiel Prophecy? :)
Click to expand...

You could throw a nation into complete chaos by taking out a majority of the major cities...Civil War would probably take out most of the remaining infrastructure (in the non-targeted areas). Then, you could send in conventional forces to secure the areas you actually want (say, for resources). If only one nation had nuclear weapons and had the resolve to use them, the concept of MAD wouldn't play in. That nation would have no real need to send its forces into the areas that are targeted for strike....they would be gone (for all intents and purposes). There would only be "assured destruction" .. nothing mutual about it. Also, the use of near-surface bursts would likely limit the spread of fallout into the stratosphere (and thus back around to the country that fired the weapons).

But, neutron weapons would be another alternative. The official position of the US is that it has never developed (I think it does admit to designing) a neutron bomb.
 
#57
#57
Yep, it tracks everything, whatever the ship carries is tracked, from tomahawks, CIWS, SeaSparrow etc etc. Think of it like this, if it is tracking everything from Friendly to Foes like aircraft, small boats, warships, hell even hurricanes? It isnt going to advise a nuke tipped Tomahawk to take out a squadron of jet fighters.

The DSS (like TADMUS) is only made to help aide in the decision making processes of a ships Captain. It uses identifiers that are used in all aircraft in the world to signal friend or foe (IFF). All commercial jets use the same code, US military and allies use certain codes. if no signal is recieved the aircraft or object is marked unknown by the computer and a sailor will mark it as an enemy or friend (which happens in cases of damaged airplanes unable to send a signal).

No ship assumes command mode, all are equal.

Aegis is designed more for Littoral warfare and netwarcom than as a nuclear shield or warning system. However, it is designed to fail back to that as needed.
 
#58
#58
We rely on the Aegis radar in Britain for some of our ground-based nuclear early warning capability, I think....

Of course, the ground-based systems are just a back up to our better satellite early warning systems. But, I think that the Britain-based Aegis system is a primary ground-based early warning system. Maybe I'm wrong about that...
 
#59
#59
TennTradition said:
But, neutron weapons would be another alternative. The official position of the US is that it has never developed (I think it does admit to designing) a neutron bomb.
Click to expand...

this is a weapon that scares me. With this, some madman will have no problems using it.
 
#61
#61
TennTradition said:
We rely on the Aegis radar in Britain for some of our ground-based nuclear early warning capability, I think....

Of course, the ground-based systems are just a back up to our better satellite early warning systems. But, I think that the Britain-based Aegis system is a primary ground-based early warning system. Maybe I'm wrong about that...
Click to expand...

are you sure thats not the W.H.O.P.P.E.R.?

:p
 
#63
#63
TennTradition said:
I don't think a madman would have problems using a conventional nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

One might if the nation being attacked could not return the favor. Take Bush and Iran for example, if he could Nuke it and the troops could move in after just three days, instead of 10,000 years? Instant Oil! most infrastructure is in place and all those pesky Arabs are gone.
 
#65
#65
MontereyVol said:
One might if the nation being attacked could not return the favor. Take Bush and Iran for example, if he could Nuke it and the troops could move in after just three days, instead of 10,000 years? Instant Oil! most infrastructure is in place and all those pesky Arabs are gone.
Click to expand...

I think that a madman would use any WMD he could get his hands on regardless of repercussion.

In the case of strategy (rational, not madman), there are obviously instances where someone might want to use something like a "neutron" bomb. I agree that this would be a horrible technology.

You could use a few 300 kT nuclear weapons on the major cities of a country and pretty much destroy the entire nation. I'm not sure about less-developed countries though..... I know that there were way, way, way too many nukes pointed back and forth between the US and USSR for many years (there are still too many pointed back and forth).
 
#70
#70
MontereyVol said:
I wondered if anyone was going to call me on that? Especially since Iranians being mostly Arian(sp?) :whistling:
Click to expand...

If I were going to call you on something it would be the implied massive loss of life so that we could take over oil resources - not the Arab vs. Middle-Easterner issue....but I knew you were just being "over-the-top" to be "over-the-top."
 
#71
#71
MontereyVol said:
Laugh all you want, but do you even know what Clinton has done? or are you too busy giving him credit for an economic boom he had nothing to do with?
Click to expand...

Now, that is PURELY your opinion and I would like to hear what you have to say to see just how uninformed it really is.
 
#72
#72
truefan said:
Now, that is PURELY your opinion and I would like to hear what you have to say to see just how uninformed it really is.
Click to expand...

on that same line of thinking, I'd like to see you provide some bit of proof that the current economic downturn is the fault of GW Bush.
 
#73
#73
MG1968 said:
on that same line of thinking, I'd like to see you provide some bit of proof that the current economic downturn is the fault of GW Bush.
Click to expand...
Bush is greedy, just like the lenders who caused the subprime disaster.
 
#74
#74
MG1968 said:
on that same line of thinking, I'd like to see you provide some bit of proof that the current economic downturn is the fault of GW Bush.
Click to expand...


I have never claimed the current economic downturn is the fault of W.

Am I missing something here or is it just through good old fashioned osmosis that you think I believe W is the worst president in history
 
#75
#75
truefan said:
I have never claimed the current economic downturn is the fault of W.

Am I missing something here or is it just through good old fashioned osmosis that you think I believe W is the worst president in history
Click to expand...
I have to assume you know little of the Carter years.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top