|
mlmp08 posted:You'll note that Devil Child said that since the age of the Wright Brothers, that had been true. WWI vets weren't terrified of airplanes. They were terrified of artillery, disease, and machine guns. Aircraft at that time were not really effective for anything more than scouting in force. The Spanish Civil War and World War 2 is when aircraft showed their abilities, and became one of the most devastating weapons of war we know. I don't think its fair to compare the bi-planes of World War 1 to the bomber fleets of World War 2, the firebombings of places like Hamburg and Dresden, the barrages of Stukas harassing the front lines of the French and the Soviets, the destruction of the Japanese carrier force at Midway... And aircraft only got better from there.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
I don't think it's fair either, but I was rebutting Devil Child's claim. Still, even in WWII, air power was decisive in many ways, but didn't produce the sheer number of dead and wounded that artillery and mortars did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Even right now, in Afghanistan, with all of NATOs air might, artillery is still the primary form of fire support. It's just not very sexy. Or pleasant on any level. A Top Gun style film about artillery would be so dangerous to recruitment we'd have to go back to the draft. "I feel the need. The need to spend 20 hours out here in the cold getting hazed and cutting my hands open." (high five)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Still, even in WWII, air power was decisive in many ways, but didn't produce the sheer number of dead and wounded that artillery and mortars did. Nor has it in any war since. Which was always my point. I'm not saying that airpower isn't important or decisive or critical, I'm just saying that making the claim that aircraft are the quickest and most expedient way to kill large numbers of people is factually incorrect. Even if you are talking nuclear weapons it is still faster and more efficient to use a ballistic missile, a form of artillery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Has anyone written a well sourced serious article on what the possible scenarios are in regards to the Alawite areas of Syria after the final collapse of Assad's regime?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Has anyone written a well sourced serious article on what the possible scenarios are in regards to the Alawite areas of Syria after the final collapse of Assad's regime? This is just my opinion, but in all the wars that have happened during my lifetime (and thats quite a few) I can think of few that have had a bigger question mark over whats going to happen when its "finished" than the Syrian civil war. I read all kinds of predications, like possible retributions against Alawite communities, another civil war this time not regime and everyone else but Sunni vs Alawite, straight up genocide against the Alawites, or that secular militants will duke it out with Islamists for control of the country, and Ive even heard that Assad might leave Damascus and break off part of the country and make it an Alawite enclave. Everything Ive read seems very hypothetical yet it all seems possible. I guess the only predication I havent heard is that Syria will become a thriving democracy....
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
It seems the intelligence on chemical weapons was actually pretty good and Obama's warning had the desired effect: Intelligence on Syrian troops readying chemical weapons for use prompted Obama’s warning quote:Western intelligence agencies observed Syrian units making advanced preparations for the potential use of chemical weapons, including loading trucks with ready-to-use bombs and shells, prompting President Obama last week to warn Syria against using the banned munitions, according to Western and Middle Eastern officials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:This is just my opinion, but in all the wars that have happened during my lifetime (and thats quite a few) I can think of few that have had a bigger question mark over whats going to happen when its "finished" than the Syrian civil war. I read all kinds of predications, like possible retributions against Alawite communities, another civil war this time not regime and everyone else but Sunni vs Alawite, straight up genocide against the Alawites, or that secular militants will duke it out with Islamists for control of the country, and Ive even heard that Assad might leave Damascus and break off part of the country and make it an Alawite enclave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Even right now, in Afghanistan, with all of NATOs air might, artillery is still the primary form of fire support. It's just not very sexy. Or pleasant on any level. A Top Gun style film about artillery would be so dangerous to recruitment we'd have to go back to the draft. Since 2001, if you combine all the civilian and military deaths from both sides of the Afghan war, you still see less dead than the two year long Syrian war. If anything, it's a success story on lower deaths when your enemies lack plains. It's simple science. The biological and explosive weapons which can kill thousands in the span of a day can't be used below ground without taking out your own army, it takes aerial muscle to bring about the Tokyo Firebombings, the Britain Blitz, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Agent Orange, the Zimbabwean Air Force's Congo Strikes, etc. Speaking of the Blitz, it took place over around the same length of time as the Syrian Civil War over a more advanced and populous nation, and had comparable casualties to what we're seeing in Syria from that single campaign. The access to airspace and coastline also gives certain Vladmirovitches the ability to ship weapons and supplies to certain Alawi as long as certain Alawi have the scratch to pony up, and the muscle to stick it to certain whoevers. The Rebels fighting against certain Alawi also have to defend themselves from a different direction, and have almost no ways of fighting back against aerial enemies even with anti-tank weapons. This leads to greater brutality among both sides, which culminates in even worse carnage, possible extra-border conflicts, and even possible genocide. The 21st century has thus far been genocide free, and keeping it that way is certainly worth the lives of myself, a few NATO fighters, and a few political careers if need by just as it was worth intervening in Yugoslavia and preventing another DRC a dozen years ago. edit: cheerfullydrab posted:I'm very big on ethnic politics and there's just so many many many instances of a minority being favored by a ruling power, enjoying their protected status, and then having horrible things happen to them when that power disappears. Instances where there's no bloodshed in this scenario are few and far between. In fact I'm trying to think of some off the top of my head and I can't exactly. Belgium maybe? Post-NATO Yugoslavia's the big one. It had the potential to turn Eastern Europe into Central Africa. Another good reason why we should take out the planes and Assad's extra-national trading routes. Alawi attempted, or even successful genocide is a certainty otherwise. Devil Child fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So what you are saying is that they are the Last Chancers? This made me smile, and in this thread that's all too rare <3 I think he means throwing them in human wave attacks against the gfanikf posted:Not to venture off topic too much, but I'm kind of surprised that the Imperium has a judicial system that is more complex than execute on spot. Well, the Chancers are an extremely special case, but actually the Imperial judges often place you in penal batallions where your labor or death repays your debt to the Throne - This is only if you get caught by the arbites, mind you, local enforcement agencies vary wildly. I need a  + Colossal derail aside, would a no-fly zone not -both- speed the conclusion of the war, and lessen the amount of cluster bombs and other UXO in Syria? I'm not baiting here, I'm honestly wondering if a 'zone hadn't helped just a bit, in spite of the political and geopolitical clusterfuck it may bring with it. E: Gratitous Warhammer 40K quote: "Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars." - Imperial Guard Artillery maxim (though probably lifted from somewhere else, knowing GW" Tias fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Tias posted:I need a It would have to be either a Space Marine Librarian or a Tech-Priest. Tias posted:E: Gratitous Warhammer 40K quote: I'm pretty sure it comes from Josef Stalin. He was a big, big artillery fan. Now that you mention the no-fly zone, I wonder if a no-fly zone would be a deterrent against Scud launches? It would probably be too hard to find them unless Assad is keeping them close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:It's simple science. The biological and explosive weapons which can kill thousands in the span of a day can't be used below ground without taking out your own army, it takes aerial muscle to bring about the Tokyo Firebombings, the Britain Blitz, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Agent Orange, the Zimbabwean Air Force's Congo Strikes, etc. Speaking of the Blitz, it took place over around the same length of time as the Syrian Civil War over a more advanced and populous nation, and had comparable casualties to what we're seeing in Syria from that single campaign. You're just cherrypicking specific battles where artillery wasn't viable due to range. Why do you think they were trying to build the long range V3's during the Blitz if the airbombing was already working? Planes can be shot down, shells can't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:It would have to be either a Space Marine Librarian or a Tech-Priest. I cannot find support for that particular one, not even an attribution, but he did say that artillery is "the god of war". Well, I suppose you could find and destroy a launcher after launch, if the no-fly mandate usually includes ballistic missiles (and I assume it would). Moist von Lipwig posted:You're just cherrypicking specific battles where artillery wasn't viable due to range. Why do you think they were trying to build the long range V3's during the Blitz if the airbombing was already working? Planes can be shot down, shells can't. Well, ballistic missiles can be shut down today. Later patriot systems have deliberally been developed and deployed to counter SCUDs unless I'm much mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
Tias posted:Well, I suppose you could find and destroy a launcher after launch, if the no-fly mandate usually includes ballistic missiles (and I assume it would). I'd think a no-fly zone would probably allow for them to be hit even before they launch, like if they were sitting around or in a convoy. I think it's the opinion of the thread that "no-fly zones" can be expanded to justify any type of strike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
Hey, do you guys remember that weird stuff I was posting about the German parliament deciding if German Patriots are going to Turkey? It happened. To paraphrase, yes an overwhelming majority of the Bundestag voted in favor of sending German soldiers to the Syrian border region. Now two German Patriot-batteries will be joining the effort of the Netherlands and the USA around January. Every battery includes eight mobile launchers and upwards to 400 German soldiers will be stationed alongside them to man them. The German launchers will be deployed near the city of Kahramanmaras in the south of Turkey, somewhat about 100km from the Syrian border. The German mandate has included the German soldiers already in Turkey. (Germany is helping out securing the Turkish airspace with some of its AWACS-reconnaissance aircrafts.) Update! If some German goons want to know: The German Patriot-batteries planned to be send into Turkey are deployed out of the cities Sanitz and Bad Sülze. Both cities are located in the German state ("Bundesland") of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The march order will be given just before Christmas, but the soldiers are allowed to stay with their families over the holidays. After the holidays the deployment starts immediately. Oh and our resident crazy leftist Gregor Gysi openly claimed Germany is now actively marching into the Middle East and called us an official war party in the Syrian conflict. The rest of our parliament wasn't amused. 
Libluini fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:12
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:You're just cherrypicking specific battles where artillery wasn't viable due to range. Why do you think they were trying to build the long range V3's during the Blitz if the airbombing was already working? Planes can be shot down, shells can't. My exact point was the casualties that can be inflicted because of range. Ignoring the fact that shells can be shot down, and have been for awhile, it's a lot easier for Rebs to sneak in to ground level missile launching sights and destroy them from that level than it is to destroy the sights when their enemy is in the sky and they lack an air-force. Not to mention the issue of Syrian arms acquisition, which is rendered possible by their access to the sky and sea. Even if you were right about the lack of benefits from the sky as a matter of military principle, which you aren't, how the hell can you justify how easy it is for Assad to acquire all this weaponry from these routes? Young Freud posted:I'd think a no-fly zone would probably allow for them to be hit even before they launch, like if they were sitting around or in a convoy. I think it's the opinion of the thread that "no-fly zones" can be expanded to justify any type of strike. It takes a lot of different strikes to successful implement a no-fly zone when dealing with a semi-sophisticated military armed with Russian weapons. That doesn't change the fact that: 1) It's implementation, along with a coastal embargo and an arming of the secularist, democratic Rebels, expedites the end of the conflict. 2) The expedition of the conflicts end leads to fewer casualties, and a lower desire for anti-Alawi retaliation among the people in the country. 3) Assad can indefinitely reacquire high-tech weaponry, and fire it from the sky with an open airspace and coast at his side. 4) We talked about the exact same issues before the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and it was loving stupid back then since we prevented Eastern Europe into Central Africa, which we also should've intervened in to prevent the deaths of millions. 5) We're going to have to enter anyway if a genocide attempt against the Alawi becomes an issue anyway unless we're content being total loving barbarians, and giving the world another Central Africa. 6) We've kept the 21st Century genocide free thus-far, nothing is worth abandoning that goal. edit: Libluini posted:To paraphrase, yes an overwhelming majority of the Bundestag voted in favor of sending German soldiers to the Syrian border region. Christ on a Cross, this is good news. Devil Child fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Hey, do you guys remember that weird stuff I was posting about the German parliament deciding if German Patriots are going to Turkey? How many brave boys broken at Gallipoli will it take to break this unholy alliance once again? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Christ on a Cross, this is good news. The only thing those Patriot unis will engage is ballistic missiles or long-range rockets fired from Syria into Turkey. They don't do a thing for anyone in Syria. Additionally, weapon systems that can shoot down mortars or artillery are rare, have a very short range, and are more effective against small mortars and rockets and less effective against heavier howitzers. edit: Just so we're clear, what Devil Child is arguing for is not a no-fly zone. It is a full scale bombing campaign, naval blockade, and arming of the opposition forces. edit2: oh, also, there was genocide in Darfur extending into the 21st century, so... yeah. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Hey, do you guys remember that weird stuff I was posting about the German parliament deciding if German Patriots are going to Turkey? Third time is the charm, eh Jerry? You won't fool us this time!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
I know this is I/P free zone but the I/P thread is closed and I miss being able to catch up on what's going on there. What's the least biased source to go to for information about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:I know this is I/P free zone but the I/P thread is closed and I miss being able to catch up on what's going on there. Probably the BBC. Edit: And in breaking news, noted Israeli fascist Avigdor Lieberman has just resigned from the government. Zeroisanumber fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:My exact point was the casualties that can be inflicted because of range. Ignoring the fact that shells can be shot down, and have been for awhile, it's a lot easier for Rebs to sneak in to ground level missile launching sights and destroy them from that level than it is to destroy the sights when their enemy is in the sky and they lack an air-force. If you have the technological advancements required to shoot down artillery shells, you can sure as heck shoot down airplanes. And if you're sneaking in to blow up missile launching sites, you can also sneak into an airstrip. Secondly, no one in this thread has said that airplanes are useless. They've said that they are not as effective a vehicle for widespread destruction as artillery, which is true. Thirdly, please stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:edit: Just so we're clear, what Devil Child is arguing for is not a no-fly zone. It is a full scale bombing campaign, naval blockade, and arming of the opposition forces. Obviously it takes this to enforce a no-fly zone. The difference with our firing at Syria vs. Assad's is our goal will be to minimize casualties, and we possess the technology and ability to do so as we've done in the past with Lybia and Yugoslavia. mlmp08 posted:edit2: oh, also, there was genocide in Darfur extending into the 21st century, so... yeah. What happened in Sudan, and what is still happening between North and South Sudan, is an atrocity, but the percentage of people killed doesn't put it on the same level as what happened in Rwanda. Eighty percent of Rwandan Tutsi were murdered, compared to around a twentieth of Sudanese Christians and Animists. This had nothing to do with any kindness on the part of that wretched fucker Bashir, but largely because the Christian/Animist South Sudanese finally acquired their own state where they could defend themselves. It was the courage, bravery, and luck of the South Sudanese Christians and Animists that kept the crimes in Sudan merely on the attempted genocide section of human atrocity rather than the successful. But even if Bashir did succeed in exterminating 80% of Christians and Animists, which, given North Sudan's new 100% Sunni Islam population, was likely his plan, our dicking around with Sudan was just as immoral without the partition as it was with the partition. The same goes for Syria, where a partition is significantly less likely and exponentially harder to defend borders in. edit: Muscle Tracer posted:If you have the technological advancements required to shoot down artillery shells, you can sure as heck shoot down airplanes. And if you're sneaking in to blow up missile launching sites, you can also sneak into an airstrip. But the Syrian Rebs don't have the technology to shoot down artillery shells, they barely have the technology to hide from them. It's also much harder to ship in missiles and other high tech weapons without airspace or coasts sending your government Russian weaponry indefinitely. The weapons it takes to destroy planes are also very difficult for the Rebs to get, and those same weapons are better served taking out tanks and missile sites. Spying on your enemies with aircraft is also a lot easier, especially when your enemies can't fly back. Second, artillery is always more destructive when fired from the sky as opposed to the ground, and is easier to ship in when you and only you have access to the sky. Hundreds of thousands of dead and deformed Vietnamese probably won't appreciate you telling them how the aerial assaults they withstood in the Vietnam war were nothing compared to artillery deaths, you can tell because the spirit medium will attempt to murder you after saying this. Devil Child fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Not to mention the issue of Syrian arms acquisition, which is rendered possible by their access to the sky and sea. Even if you were right about the lack of benefits from the sky as a matter of military principle, which you aren't, how the hell can you justify how easy it is for Assad to acquire all this weaponry from these routes? You are high if you think that a U.S./NATO imposed no-fly zone (one imposed without any sort of UNSC authorization, no less) is going to threaten to use force (much less actually use it) against any civilian aircraft, Russian or otherwise, that is doing nothing other than being an airliner/air cargo plane. A "no-fly zone" doesn't mean you literally get to shoot down anything that flies in the declared zone; there are ROEs (usually very restrictive), and there is no way in hell the U.S./NATO is going to risk escalation with Russia of that nature. So even if there was a no-fly zone Russia could keep flying all the supplies they want to Assad (the only leverage anyone has is if the aircraft transit through anyone else's airspace, something that has already come up with Turkey forcing those aircraft to land for inspection, so I wouldn't count on Russia making that mistake again.) Throwing up a naval blockade without UNSC authorization and without a clear declaration of wartime conditions against the state in question would be legally...questionable, and that's not even getting into the issues of U.S./NATO naval forces forcing Russian flagged vessels to stop and submit to inspection, which would be politically...interesting. And that's not even getting into the issue of Russia using warships to carry supplies...for obvious reasons I don't think that US/NATO vessels trying to force a Russian warship to stop and submit to inspection would be the best idea. mlmp08 posted:edit2: oh, also, there was genocide in Darfur extending into the 21st century, so... yeah. Also also I don't know if you can technically call what's been occurring in the Congo for the past 15 years a genocide (I would argue probably not based on the technical definition) but it sure as hell has involved a shitload of people dying because of violent conflict. So there's that. Devil Child posted:Second, artillery is always more destructive when fired from the sky as opposed to the ground STOP SAYING THIS. It isn't loving true. Not remotely, and that goes double for a situation like Syria where the air force in question isn't some massive armada of strategic bombers but rather a pitiful collection of mostly obsolete Soviet fighter bombers with some Czech trainers thrown in for fun. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
We've been doing exactly what you're describing for freaking Cuba for the last half-century, Russia hasn't done anything their since the Missile Crisis, and that was when we were in the middle of the Cold War, a conflict neither us, nor the Russians, plan on reheating, and sure as hell won't reheat with this.iyaayas01 posted:Also also I don't know if you can technically call what's been occurring in the Congo for the past 15 years a genocide (I would argue probably not based on the technical definition) but it sure as hell has involved a shitload of people dying because of violent conflict. So there's that. The Second Congo War doesn't quite fit the bill, but if you study its origins, it did come about as a result of the last successful genocide we've seen in history in Rwanda. I don't really like using "Second Congo War" to describe the conflict. I prefer "African World War," which describes the Congo infinitely better, just as the term "Mid-East World War" is looking like it'll describe the Syrian conflict better if the situation doesn't end soon and there is retaliation against the Alawi. iyaayas01 posted:STOP SAYING THIS. To say this, you'd have to ignore the Firebombing of Tokyo, the a-bombs, Dresden, the Indochina bombings and chemical sprayings, the Herat bombings, the IJNAS bombings, the Spanish, Yugoslav, and Korean Civil Wars, and Mussolini's bombings of Ethiopia, which subjugated a nation that maintained continuous independence for two millennium. Devil Child fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:We've been doing exactly what you're describing for freaking Cuba for the last half-century, Russia hasn't done anything their since the Missile Crisis, and that was when we were in the middle of the Cold War, a conflict neither us, nor the Russians, plan on reheating, and sure as hell won't reheat again. This is just flat incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
I'd like to see a citation about Cuba. (From Devil Child)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
The legality of the no fly zone as dictated by made up rules of China, the U.S., and Russia. Many other countries would have been fine with our intervention but really don't have any say when it comes to these kind of security issues, at least as far doing anything "legally" through the U.N. Anyways the issue of a no-fly zone/bombing campaign are pretty much moot considering it would require direct involvement in Syria and no one in Congress really wants to get involved. Your best chance for making a difference would have been to initially arm the rebels to put them on equal footing with the regime and hope that it could cause a sudden collapse of power and give more autonomy for the rebellious regions. Assad has way too many tanks for a bombing campaign and since he has been putting them in urban areas the potential for collateral damage is high. I still say the easiest/safest way to have done that would have been with drone supply as it gives you greater control over flash points on the front lines instead of having to wait for weapons to trickle in through smuggling routes from Turkey where they could be diverted. Arming the rebels would have also been the least inflammatory response internationally in respect to Russia should the U.S. take any action. There's not much you can do right now other than helping out with the refugee situation, but last I heard there were about 2000 international special forces stationed in Jordan "just in case".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:I don't really like using "Second Congo War" to describe the conflict. I prefer "African World War," which describes the Congo infinitely better, just as the term "Mid-East World War" is looking like it'll describe the Syrian conflict better if the situation doesn't end soon and there is retaliation against the Alawi. How is the Second Congo War a world war when it only took place on one continent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:We've been doing exactly what you're describing for freaking Cuba for the last half-century, Russia hasn't done anything their since the Missile Crisis, and that was when we were in the middle of the Cold War, a conflict neither us, nor the Russians, plan on reheating, and sure as hell won't reheat with this. What the poo poo are you talking about? Cuba is under a US economic embargo, and the Soviets agreed to not put nukes there because nobody wanted to kill everyone in the world. But the US emphatically DOES NOT have an air and naval blockade of Cuba DOES NOT stop and inspect ships and aircraft coming from Cuba that are traveling outside of US waters, and CERTAINLY WILL NEVER stop a Russian cargo ship en route to Havana for an inspection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:We've been doing exactly what you're describing for freaking Cuba for the last half-century, Russia hasn't done anything their since the Missile Crisis, and that was when we were in the middle of the Cold War, a conflict neither us, nor the Russians, plan on reheating, and sure as hell won't reheat with this. An embargo is not sanctions which are not an active blockade. An embargo is us saying "our citizens can't do business with Cuba, if we find out they are we might fine them or something." Sanctions are us (or whoever) saying, "don't perform trade of this (or any) sort with this country, if we find out you are violating it we'll fine you/seize funds/throw up trade restrictions against your country/etc." A blockade is declaring an exclusion zone around a country and saying "we are deploying armed naval warships off this country's coast. If you are intending to dock in that country you must stop your vessel and submit to inspection by our naval forces. If you fail to stop, we will use force to stop your vessel and inspect it." What we've done with Cuba for the past half century is an embargo. Since I'm pretty sure that there aren't any U.S. companies running arms to Assad, I really don't see what effect an embargo would have. Of course, if you are talking about a blockade, that might be more effective but also runs into the issues of using force to stop Russian naval vessels. And I'm not saying that this would literally be the next Cuban Missile Crisis, or that Russia is going to start WWIII over stopping some vessels, but my point is that you are high if you think that the U.S./NATO is going to take the political fallout from using the threat of force to stop a Russian ship/aircraft (and the fallout would be extensive).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:How is the Second Congo War a world war when it only took place on one continent? In addition to five million dead, I think this map illustrates things the best. iyaayas01 posted:And I'm not saying that this would literally be the next Cuban Missile Crisis, or that Russia is going to start WWIII over stopping some vessels, but my point is that you are high if you think that the U.S./NATO is going to take the political fallout from using the threat of force to stop a Russian ship/aircraft (and the fallout would be extensive). The fallout will be less extensive than the collapse of the Assad regime after a year or two more of fighting, followed by Arab retaliation and possible genocide against the Alawi, followed by Iranian, Iraqi, and Lebanese upping their involvement to back up the Alawi, followed by further Arab escalation, ending with Syria as the Mid-East's DRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Devil Child please inform the Vietnamese government of the superiority of air power over artillery so that they can hand Dien Bien Phu back to the French. Also please don't equate air superiority in a theatre with the capacity for strategic bombing on the level of the London Blitz or Dresden. Also in terms of military conflicts none of the strategic bombing in WWII clearly affected the outcome of the war beyond making it more horrible for civilians. The US also pulled out of Vietnam without victory so I'm not sure how awesome an example that is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Second, artillery is always more destructive when fired from the sky as opposed to the ground, and is easier to ship in when you and only you have access to the sky. Hundreds of thousands of dead and deformed Vietnamese probably won't appreciate you telling them how the aerial assaults they withstood in the Vietnam war were nothing compared to artillery deaths, you can tell because the spirit medium will attempt to murder you after saying this. One bomb may be more destructive than one artillery shell. However, in the time it takes a plane to drop its payload, return to base, rearm, refuel, fly back out, and drop a second payload, dozens (or hundreds, depending on distance of the airfield) of shells can be fired from an artillery emplacement. The artillery emplacement is also a less expensive, less complex piece of hardware that requires less (and less expensive) fuel, less expert mechanics and operators, less expensive ammunition, and can be refitted and stored in the field rather than expensive, static airfields. Because of these factors, many artillery pieces can be fielded and maintained for the price of an individual warplane, each of them firing many more shells and causing much more destruction over a given period than that individual warplane. For your dollar, you can buy a lot more widespread destruction with artillery than airplanes. Airplanes are useful when you need either: 1) Precision strikes on extremely small, mobile, or hardened targets, or 2) Strikes outside of the range of your artillery. But if you're in close proximity and trying to cause as much widespread destruction as possible—which is the claim that was made before you began throwing out strawmen and waxing hysterical about spirit mediums or whatever that was about—artillery is far and away going to be able to cause more cumulative widespread destruction than aircraft. e: To clarify, your argument is empirically, mathematically, strategically and historically wrong, and a discussion of which military hardware is more effective than which is hardly the place to be making pointless ad hominem attacks and working yourself up over claims that aren't being made. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:In addition to five million dead, I think this map illustrates things the best. I think "Great African War" would be the best description then, since a World War is usually defined as being fought between major powers on multiple continents and theaters (which, incidentally, would make the Seven Years War/French and Indian War the first World War).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:One bomb may be more destructive than one artillery shell. However, in the time it takes a plane to drop its payload, return to base, rearm, refuel, fly back out, and drop a second payload, dozens (or hundreds, depending on distance of the airfield) of shells can be fired from an artillery emplacement. The artillery emplacement is also a less expensive, less complex piece of hardware that requires less (and less expensive) fuel, less expert mechanics and operators, less expensive ammunition, and can be refitted and stored in the field rather than expensive, static airfields. Because of these factors, many artillery pieces can be fielded and maintained for the price of an individual warplane, each of them firing many more shells and causing much more destruction over a given period than that individual warplane. Which only works under the assumption that the enemy your fighting has an air-force that can fight back against you, which the Rebs here clearly don't have, and the payload you're dropping isn't destructive enough to take you out as well if you're on the ground, which is overwhelmingly the case in aerial strike weapons. MrNemo posted:Devil Child please inform the Vietnamese government of the superiority of air power over artillery so that they can hand Dien Bien Phu back to the French. Also please don't equate air superiority in a theatre with the capacity for strategic bombing on the level of the London Blitz or Dresden. Also in terms of military conflicts none of the strategic bombing in WWII clearly affected the outcome of the war beyond making it more horrible for civilians. The US also pulled out of Vietnam without victory so I'm not sure how awesome an example that is. Vietnam's the single best case for my argument. Half a million Vietnamese dead from Agent Orange and another half million born with birth defects on the conservative side caused not just unmitigated human suffering and ecocide, but completely entrenched an oppressive dictatorship in the nation for at least the next half century. Neighboring nations like Cambodia and Laos also suffered horrendously from the bombings and gassings, and in the case of Laos, are under the thumb of an even more repressive dictatorship with even less sign of leaving thanks to the carnage. Not to mention Cambodia, the Pol Pot's of the world need horrendous, destabilizing violence to help entrench their demented plots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Comparing Syria's air force to the full might of US heavy bombers is ridiculous. I would bet my life savings that more have been killed by Syrian artillery and mortars than by their aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Comparing Syria's air force to the full might of US heavy bombers is ridiculous. I would bet my life savings that more have been killed by Syrian artillery and mortars than by their aircraft. You'd lose a lot of money. The important thing isn't the might of the force, it's the willingness of the force to kill indiscriminately, and the ability of their enemy to fight back on equal terms, which is quite clearly the problem in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Which only works under the assumption that the enemy your fighting has an air-force that can fight back against you, which the Rebs here clearly don't have, and the payload you're dropping isn't destructive enough to take you out as well if you're on the ground, which is overwhelmingly the case in aerial strike weapons. Yes, that would be reason #1 in the post you quoted, precision strikes. However, we are discussing the capacity to cause widespread damage, not to precisely destroy emplacements. quote:Vietnam's the single best case for my argument. USA lost. Overwhelming air power did not grant them victory, which seems to be the (entirely tangential to the discussion at hand) point you're making. Even so, other examples would not support your argument. European infrastructure was not brought to its knees in WWI and again in WWII by aerial bombardment, but by artillery bombardment. The Blitz did not bring England down, as artillery bombardment did to cities across continental Europe. Devil Child posted:You'd lose a lot of money. The important thing isn't the might of the force, it's the willingness of the force to kill indiscriminately, and the ability of their enemy to fight back on equal terms, which is quite clearly the problem in Syria. Those links are not even the beginning of a substantiation of your claim. Yes, people are killed in airstrikes, this comes as a surprise to all of us! But you present no comparative data. Did you just pull the top three results from a Google search of "Syrians killed in airstrikes?" Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The Blitz did not bring England down, as artillery bombardment did to cities across continental Europe. The Blitz didn't really fail per se, when Operation Barbossa started, Luftwaffe priorities changed. Goering also decided to change tactics, instead of bombing strategic targets like Airfields and Infrastructure, they switched to de-housing and terror. Right up until that switch however, the RAF was nearly at its knees. While it certainly wouldn't have meant the capitulation of England, it would have meant the end to successful resistance by air for the RAF. Goering switched priorities right in time, giving the RAF time to breathe and rebuild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:40
|
|