| User | Post |
neotransotaku
Posts: 2348/4016 |
yeah, when firing from far away, you have to factor in wind, weather, and time--by having a strong navy, you can get more immediate results when firing from long range in the sea than from land. It gives less time for the people being attacked to respond. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3044/5458 |
You need mobile platforms for said guided cruise missiles. It is too hard to have them strike from mainland USA. So, the US Navy has them mounted on destroyers, etc. |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 1760/3770 |
Wasn't the majority of the Gulf War fought with long range missiles, though? The point is, there's got to be a time when technology will make naval power obsolete. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1421/2189 |
All I know about modern warfare I learned from Civ2 :\ |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3035/5458 |
Because it is the most mobile thing. You can carry planes on boats. You can fire cruise missiles. You have things beneath the surface that can launch cruise missiles. You have dedicated anti-air ships. It can travel around the world. It can carry troops to where they need to go (you need an airstrip to properly land a large contingent of troops in modern warfare). With a boat, you can launch amphibious assault. |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 1750/3770 |
How so though? I mean, we have aircraft that can fire tactical missiles from several hundred miles or more away with excellent accuracy, and yet we still have commissioned battleships capable of more or less lobbing an explosive a few miles away from shore.
That's an obvious exaggeration, but the point is as far as destroying stuff power goes, how is naval power still the most powerful force? |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3034/5458 |
Originally posted by Grey
The world IS a sphere... Why not just attack Australia at points where the islands surrounding it can't retailate fast enough to, like from Antarctica or something?
Also, I've been meaning to ask this for a while... Does naval power mean anything at all in modern warfare?
Yes, it is still the most powerful force. |
Arwon
Posts: 261/506 |
When you're an enormous island it's still considered kinda useful... |
neotransotaku
Posts: 2272/4016 |
It still means something because you still need aircraft carriers and the ability to launch troops into hostile areas. Aircraft isn't always the best way to transport goods. In short, it just depends on the situation... |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 1747/3770 |
The world IS a sphere... Why not just attack Australia at points where the islands surrounding it can't retailate fast enough to, like from Antarctica or something?
Also, I've been meaning to ask this for a while... Does naval power mean anything at all in modern warfare? |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3031/5458 |
Think of them as an aggressive buffer zone. Any attacks against a more mighty nation (Australia) could be repelled with relative ease, but they are hornet nest when it comes to soverignity. So, say China got nutty and wanted Australia, they'd have to pull some way powerful diplomacy, or fight their way to Australia. Or if the relations between that part of the world were to improve, Aussielandia could easily have an excellent repelling point against many armies. |
Arwon
Posts: 259/506 |
Originally posted by Ziffski
If it were come down to the nuts and bolts of convential warfare, and a free-for-all were to occur...I'd honestly have to say that a nation like Australia would be the best survivor. It has a fairly sizeable military, and due to the fact that it is nestled in a hornet's nest of Muslim nations, it would be quite the defenisble peace of ass.
Can you expand on this a bit further? Are you saying that Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines, Thailand etc would attack us, or that they'd form a shield against the rest of the world?
There is occasional talk of Indonesia as a military threat to Australia, but I don't buy it. As for the rest of the region... the countries are small and the region is very peaceful compared to the rest of the world. This goes double or triple for the Pacific island nations. Plus we have reasonable relations with all these countries... East Timor did a lot of damage to our relatonship with Indonesia but they're getting over it, and Malaysia's old PM was a constant critic of ours (he constantly mouthed off at everyone though), but yeah, decent relations.
People feel vulnerable, I guess, due to Australia's isolation and the foreignness of its neighbours. The "Yellow Peril" fears of the past 150 years still linger.
Also, our military isn't huge, but we are well armed. I think it's about 60 000 between the 3 branches. We have a sizable technological edge over Indonesia and the rest of the region, probably much better training and administration, and there's geographical defences as well - 3000 km of open sparsely populated country between our major cities and Asia. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3027/5458 |
Originally posted by BookReader
I seem to remember reading a book about Russian tactics that mentioned tactical nukes. Scary stuff, they recommended using them to support advancing troop columns. Those crazy Russians: "We just nuked the area in front of you. Now ignore the possiblity of extreme radiation and mop up."
I'll agree that with nukes everyone loses.
"Tactical nuclear weapons are to be used in the basic assault of city-scapes, bridges and important ports of the enemy. To maximize casualties is the point of war."
One of Kissinger's ideas.
The US doesn't support the nuclear creep. It supports the nuclear bombardment. The tactical movement of the US troops in the event of a full scale strike against a US target of interest by an extra-national government is to launch a full scale assault. If they the target is jeapordized without the ability to reclaim it, then nuclear weapons are permitted. In fact the US has a jeep mounted "tactical nuclear bazooka" that has a .25 kiloton yield (still alot of damage) up to 1 kiloton (eeeek).
Britain and most of NATO supported these ideas. The Warsaw pact had its nuclear barrage which used heavy yield convential weapons/low yield nuclear weapons to minimize damage to front line troops. China, India and Pakistan have a tottenkampf sort of idea when it comes to nuclear warfare, which frightens me.
MathOnNapkins: Only when every condition is right could it be that minimal. And the strike locations are fairly remote and difficult to get to. Like the bottom of the atlantic, etc. It would take approx. the detonation of 400 megatons in order to destroy the Earth twice (the destruction of the Earth is relative to population and fallout). The destruction of the Earth three times means the death of something like 80% of the population. To "blow up the Earth" is to kill all human and animal and plant life, leaving only bacteria. Although a starburst is just as damaging as bombing a city  |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1418/2189 |
I think I read somewhere that if you had 16 H-bombs properly placed correctly in key geologic locations, you could for all intents and purposes "blow up" the Earth. Now I imagine the meaning of this is that it would distort the outer regions beyond recognition. I would do that and detonate it from space. Then I win! |
BookReader
Posts: 208/232 |
I seem to remember reading a book about Russian tactics that mentioned tactical nukes. Scary stuff, they recommended using them to support advancing troop columns. Those crazy Russians: "We just nuked the area in front of you. Now ignore the possiblity of extreme radiation and mop up."
I'll agree that with nukes everyone loses. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3023/5458 |
Clear victory would be who would survive the Winter the longest.
There is no way that ICBMs couldn't be used. Tactical nuclear strikes have become a necessity in super-wars. |
BookReader
Posts: 205/232 |
There are too many factors to even atempt to try list them all.
You don't have to assume that we wouldn't use ICBMs, though I'd say that for any side to have a clear victory there would have to be troops used somewhere. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3018/5458 |
And my thesis is that you posed a question without accurate parametres. There would be no winners as everyone would begin firing nuclear armed ICBMs at each other. Convential warfare between relative powerhouses is impossible.
ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!
If it were come down to the nuts and bolts of convential warfare, and a free-for-all were to occur...I'd honestly have to say that a nation like Australia would be the best survivor. It has a fairly sizeable military, and due to the fact that it is nestled in a hornet's nest of Muslim nations, it would be quite the defenisble peace of ass. Much like in Risk. Europe and Russia would fall. Very quickly. And China/America would be locked in a stand-still. America striking from Japan, China striking Japan. Gradually, assuming my prior assessment of Russo-European warfare success is wrong, an alliance system would emerge and try to isolate whomever caused the war and strike them down.
Edit:: Canada would more likely side with its continental neighbour than someone an ocean away. We may have the same Queen, but we have no policy ties anymore. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 7624/12781 |
Well, actually it isn |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1414/2189 |
Originally posted by Trapster
USA would win, as the war mongers they are.
Damn skippy!  |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
