Nukchebi0 last edited by
I suggest you check this out:
At least one destruction (catastrophic fire) occurred from enemy fire. It wasn’t, however, from an enemy tank.
Not to enemy fire.
You did not specify to enemy fire, you said “destroyed in combat”, and there HAVE been M1-S destroyed. :roll:
However there have been ADDITIONAL M1’s (and crew members inside them) killed as a result of enemy action in just hte past couple of years.
insurgents blow up our M1’s all the time now. :x
the iranians made that new ied that can easily punch through its armor. :x
We’re fighting a new war here, people.
I’m in the navy, so yes, Bush Jr. is my boss. I’ve come to realize, however, (at least in the Navy’s case) that terrorists and insurgents are not something we are readily able to fight. Not many other country’s militaries are capable of standing toe-to-toe with us and fighting on even ground anymore, so IEDs and other such booby-traps are the sort of tactics they use.
Just like we used guerilla tactics against the British…
Without which we would NEVER have won our independence.
The difference between Terrorist and Patriot is…
Which one, in the light of history, WINS the fight agains their foe.
But I STILL want that boat if it is a desert war, otherwise I want that A-10, with a full tank of gas, a full magazine, and all the hard points under my wings bristling with weapons…
Oh, that’s exactly how it is. No arguments here; guerrilla tactics helped ensure our victory in the Revolutionary War.
Unfortunately, the tables have since turned. We may have defeated the Brits largely due to guerrilla tactics, but it was the same situation that caused our downfall in Vietnam. We were the “world power” patrolling the streets, etc., in all our glory, and the NVA were employing guerrilla tactics, laying booby-traps, and the like in order to defeat us…
It is always much easier to create chaos than it is to create order - that’s why the side going for order and control will usually lose to the side using destabilizing tactics.
Very good point there. Maybe that can be used as fuel for the anti-war effort…
My American Military History Prof. broke world powers into 3 groups Super Powers SP (Like the US today), Revisionary powers REVP(Like Italy today), and lastly Revolutionary powers REP(Like Iraq today).
He then broke it down into formulas to determine who would win in and vs mode:
SP VS REVP = SP wins
REVP VS REP = REP wins
SP VS REP = REP wins
SP VS SP = ARMAGEDDON
For me it sure made foreign policy easy when it came to deploying troops.
hat is a retarded assumtion.
First: what is the “goal”, what constituetes a “win”? To obliterate the enemy??, to win the peace?, development etc?
Secondly: A lot of non SP nations can do a lot of damage to the world if they want to, nothing “special about it”…
Thirdly: A lot of so called REV nations can togheter bring significant destabilizations to the SP (nations)… Like cutting oil production, cuting mineral export, banning foreign companies, impossing trade taxes etc etc etc.
So basically if this was the only differentiale your professor made on the subject he should be ashamed.
You make a good point, but fill in the blanks for our revolution.
US = Revolutionary power, British = SP Out come US won.
US = SP, Vietnam Revolutionary power, outcome Vietnam won.
I don’t know as we will ever know what SP VS SP would look like, but the cold war advocates seemed to all think Armageddon would have been the out come.
I think no matter what Revolutionary power will always win its freedom b/c they are at rock bottom and can only move up from there.
The only example I can’t think of at the moment would be a revisionary power at work.
There are lots of examples where revolutionary powers havent won (of course it depends on the perspective of time your using, ex 50 years or 500 years)
Finland for example became independent after 600 years of Swedish rule and like a 100 year (or some what less) Russian rule, thats 700 years to become independent, so in a time series of 200 year they where unsuccessful, if we look for staggering 1000 years they where successful, get my drift?
Tibet for example is certainly not “free” they are under a occupation that seems to last, Then we have south Sahara that is under occupation by Marocko, that is still going strong even thought Polisario is doing there best to disrupt it.
Scotland and Wales are still not free, even though Scotland might be heading that way (and really wants it).
So the reason i think itÂ´s retarded is that there is a lot of examples of when this isnÂ´t correct, its a to simplified view of conflicts in the world.
And it all boils down to what historic perspective we take, and how we define a “nation/country”.
Now that I have thought about it more your right. If they try to be revolutionary and loose they are just rebels. Take “the war of northern aggression”
Yeah, thats why i dislikes the labeling, and the “win” , “rules”, there are a couple of versions of the same “argument” floating around when it comes to social science, and i do have a bone to pick with them, because i think they are narrowing down the issues to much and try to make it to “easy” (a bit like the media news these days).
So im sorry if i came across as a bit arrogant, wasnÂ´t intended ut sometimes it happens when english isnÂ´t your first language.
Would you say that their presence in that scenario wins; furthermore, change it to a rule (not absolute) as apposed to a law (an absolute. Or do you have another scale where it would be SP "wins I before E except after C rule?
No, the issue i have with “scales” such as these is that itÂ´s inconsistent.
In real life more factors are to be considered, like who do they work with?, trade partners?, military aid?, popular support?, (if so where and why?), what is a win?.
Im more into looking at one conflict at the time and analyze it properly. Then you can use these result in one conflict to comment other ones, but it canÂ´t be used as the “truth”.
Then we get the same issues as we did with the Kosovo Bombings (wich are considered that the world community did “to much to fast”, as to opposed in the Yugoslavia war when it was considered doing “to little to late”)
The consequence is that Serbs in Kosovo has been forced to leave, Serbia was punished thought it was fighting a guerrilla campaign (which aimed at drawing NATO into the conflict, and deliberately broke a ceasefire to do so, successfully i might add)
Both sides in this conflict did some dumb shit, but hadnÂ´t the memory/“experience” of the Yugoslavia war been used to exemplify the Serbs behavior the response had nÂ´t been so harsh….
Iraq is another example when things go wrong because itÂ´s not analyzed enought before action is taken.
I think you could still use a scale system to work it out it would just need more variables. Look at football player stats I can’t tell you what makes that magic number but they seem to have a good system down for putting one player vs another.
I know that souds kinda stupic if US = 111 it has to beat Afganistan at 82.
I would think it would have to be more complex then that like when I worked in supply in the Army every thing had a “NSN” National Stock Number it broke down like this:
I made this one up b/c I couldn’t remember any without looking. 1005 = small arms less than 40mm, 01 = country code 00, 01 are made in US, 231 = transportation code it can be move by 1) land, a) truck, b) rail, 2) sea, 3) air. Lastly 1234 was the number used to ID that item so for sake of arument say its an M-16. Also NSN’s are not limited to numbers they also use letters.
you could use this system to put econonic, political probability, military size, and as many other variables as you want.
I think some mathmatician could devise a system that was 90% acurate lets say this would make it a probable answer not an absolute. When you read it, it would look like binary code.
The hardest think to input would be public opinion I think. When we went to Iraq the US was in the 80 percential about going look at in now.
What do you think about that?
DonÂ´t like it, But the best way to do this is to look at the conflict at hand and ask a couple of basic questions before starting to lob bombs;
1. Why does the “enemy” do as he does?
2. Why doesnÂ´t we like it?
3. What does neighbering countries think about it?
4. Who has public support? (in region/in world)
5. What backlashes can be expected?
6. What does the etnic mix look like?
7. What does it cost, initialy, totaly?
8. Mwhat are the most likley long term effects?
9. What is our worst case scenario, if we fuck up?
etc etc etc.
I can agree with that.
I’ll take the stealthy boat.
Ohio Class Trident equiped nuclear submarine.
Nice and stealthy.
Able to obliterate the entire world in 30 minutes or less…
how would you get to ride the bomb then before oblivion.
maybe better to take the slim pickens route. just ride the bomb……whooo-hoooo yeee-haaawwwwww
[attachment deleted by admin]
I’ll stick with surface ships…
I can tread water a while… but beign crushed at 6,000 feet underwater is not my idea of fun
“24 empty tubes and now it is Miller time” is a much better way to celebrate a successful mission.
Besides, if a nuke submarine survives the first 72 hours of nuclear war, it will probably survive the next 72 years of reconstruction.
As for the risk of death in a submarine, it seems to be pretty small. There are more airplanes sitting on the bottom of the ocean than submarines.
newpaintbrush last edited by
OK, here’s another question:Â If someone said you must fight in a war, and offered you one of 3 fighting vehicles to use, which one would you choose - a tank, a fighter jet, or a small, armed, water-craft?
I chose the tank, if only because it seems really cool to be heavily protected, while being able to dish out quite a bit of damage.Â :mrgreen:
If I had to, I would choose:
1. The medical van. Because nobody really wants to shoot the medical van.
2. The fighter jet. Puke and pass out, but whee!
3. The tank. Because if I get blown up, hopefully the munitions will ignite and my end will be quick. Also, I can pretend I didn’t hear orders. “wuzzat, the tank was too loud . . . retreat, you say?”
4. The small, armed, water-craft. Because of chemicals that can burn your skin in the water, and if you survive that, the fishies that like to eat you, and if you survive that, the dehydration and the sunburn.